Guns are bad, cars are not?

[nibor]

So... I suggest that we 'control' guns like we 'control' cars.
What do you think?

Hell yes........................install rear view mirrors on guns so that women can put make up on while shooting..................

 

[M14 Shooter]

If X kills, then we should ban Y and Z

There's nothing in what I said that can lead you to that conclusion.

Clearly we should lump everything that kills into this argument.

You dont think so?
If not, then you must agree that the 'because guns kill X number of people per year they shoud be banned' argument isnlt sound.

 

[Bern80]

Vehicles are primarily for transportation.

Guns are primarily for shooting people.

Wrong guns are for shooting, period. If you really want to start breaking things down into what their mechanically designed to do fine. A car is designed to transport a purpose via an engine and wheels. All a gun is is an instrument for activating and guiding a projectile. A gun without ammunition is completely useless. Ammunition is designed with a wide variety of uses in mind, especially where shot guns are concerned.

Ive never driven a gun anywhere, just because there is a higher death rate associated with vehicles, doesnt make it a valid argument.

So you've never shot a car at anything I would imagine. See what asanine argument that was?

If you could buy a car, and its main use was to kill, then yeah sure, ban cars.

Again this argument fallS flat because it is not the purpose of a gun to kill. The purpose of a gun (or car) is determined by the user.

Cars on the other hand, are sightly more versatile, and our society accepts the negative risks invloved in their use.

True, but under what logical basis?

Whats yer point?, why not lump every other thing that kills people into your argument.

exactley the point. Why are guns so special?

 

[Diuretic]

Remind us again how we should ban private ownership of weapons because of the cost of lives but cars are an economic requirement?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_bi_ge/traffic_crashes_costs

So which is worse?

Who made such a stupid claim? Let me at 'em

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, the argument is the same as for any dangerous item, be it a nuclear bomb or cyanide. If we control drugs, hand grenades, howitzers in front yards, or dangerous poisons, we should control guns as well. Too many fools in this world to allow any dangerous item a free place in a stable society.

Cars are DANGEROUS WEAPONS as well and we let 15 year olds drive them.

 

[Shogun]

stoking the cinders a bit..


Introducing the world's smallest gun that fires deadly 300mph bullets - but is just TWO inches long

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=526655&in_page_id=1770

 

[manifold]

My opposition to banning firearms is pretty simple. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend one's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness from anyone that would threaten it, including a tyrannical government. I just don't see any reason to follow naive Second Amendment haters down various ratholes and tangents like 'what about cars?' Who gives a flyin !bleep!?

The biggest mistake the NRA ever made was allowing what is appropriate for use in hunting to ever enter the discussion. That doesn't matter either.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If X kills, then we should ban Y and Z

Clearly we should lump everything that kills into this argument.

If Y and Z kill in greater numbers and are available to more people in a faster easier manner then you may have a point.

A 15 year old can drive a car, a 16 year old can have a license to drive with no supervision. All they have to do is take an eye test pass a simple rules test and drive the car a little.

Lets do the same for guns shall we? All I need do is take an eye test, pass a simple test on rules for using a gun and fire a couple rounds down range.

Further lets check which, a GUN or a CAR, are protected specifically as a right to own by our Constitution, shall we?

Of course it is a strange comparison but only because people think death by car is fine.

If the argument is guns kill then the same is true of cars, in greater numbers than guns, even though there are a similar number of each in the hands of American citizens. Further Cars kill every where, any time, they cost more in lost revenue then crime committed by guns as well. They are MUCH easier to get and you don't have to hide them at all.

Anti gun nuts have no point when they claim the number of people killed each year is a reason to ban guns. They prove that every time they pronounce that those killed every year by cars are "acceptable".

The fact is the death rate in this country due to firearms in miniscule. DO the damn math. And again if the number dead by gun is THE reason to ban them, THEN we are back to the fact cars kill more people, are easier to get and have almost no restrictions on ownership.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lets do the same for guns shall we? All I need do is take an eye test, pass a simple test on rules for using a gun and fire a couple rounds down range.

I have offered the idea of treating guns as we do cars.
I haven't had any takers.

 

[Gunny]

No, the argument is the same as for any dangerous item, be it a nuclear bomb or cyanide. If we control drugs, hand grenades, howitzers in front yards, or dangerous poisons, we should control guns as well. Too many fools in this world to allow any dangerous item a free place in a stable society.

And WHO exactly does the deciding? You? I'll take my chances against an armed perp rather than live with THAT.

 

[rayboyusmc]

I believe in the right to own guns, but the analogy with cars is not a valid argument in my opinion.

How many people are killed by medical errors in hospitals? We should close all hospitals? (The answer is approximately 195,000 a year)

Remember, there are just as many gun nuts are there are anti-gun nuts. It's too bad these folks make all the noise and nuttiness.

The anti-gun loons dont care about the "costs" of anything.

They just like the idea of a disarmed populace, dependent on the government for protection.

IMHO, this stems from their not having the intellectual, emotional or physical capacity to protect themselves and an overwhelming, fear-based need to impose those weaknesses on those of us that do.

Seems a little far to the right for me and more name calling than relying on any data..

The armed folks in the middle who are more moderate need to probably shoot all the extremists on both sides.

I will admit, however, that the M-14 was one hell of a good rifle. We fired the match condition ones at Quantico on the range. They could hit so nicely in the bulleyes at 600 yards.

 

[Bern80]

I believe in the right to own guns, but the analogy with cars is not a valid argument in my opinion.

How many people are killed by medical errors in hospitals? We should close all hospitals? (The answer is approximately 195,000 a year.

This is exacltey the point we're trying to make. It is a perfectly acceptable analogy. There are all kinds of things that cause death. From cars, to guns, to cholesterol. 2 of them cause far more deaths per capita than the other, yet there no fringe groups trying to heavily regulate them or downright ban them. Where are the Sara Brady's and Rosie O'Donnellls for those things. THE argument for controlling guns or even banning them is that they cause death, period. Yet no one is willing to apply that same ire to things that cause far more death. Again, why are guns different than cars, or cholesterol? We aren't asking for hospitals, cars, cigarettes, cholesterol, trans fats, etc. to be banned or severly restricted. We're asking why guns are so different that people think they have to be?

 

[Diuretic]

This is exacltey the point we're trying to make. It is a perfectly acceptable analogy. There are all kinds of things that cause death. From cars, to guns, to cholesterol. 2 of them cause far more deaths per capita than the other, yet there no fringe groups trying to heavily regulate them or downright ban them. Where are the Sara Brady's and Rosie O'Donnellls for those things. THE argument for controlling guns or even banning them is that they cause death, period. Yet no one is willing to apply that same ire to things that cause far more death. Again, why are guns different than cars, or cholesterol? We aren't asking for hospitals, cars, cigarettes, cholesterol, trans fats, etc. to be banned or severly restricted. We're asking why guns are so different that people think they have to be?

Lumping gun control in with total banning of guns is a bit disingenous. I'm strongly in favour of gun control (in my country) and strongly opposed to banning guns. I'm strongly in favour of making cars as safe as possible and making drivers more skilful and therefore safer and in strong traffic law enforcement in order to make our roads as safe as possible. I'm strongly opposed to banning cars.

I am in favour of risk management of these things.

 

[Gunny]

Lumping gun control in with total banning of guns is a bit disingenous. I'm strongly in favour of gun control (in my country) and strongly opposed to banning guns. I'm strongly in favour of making cars as safe as possible and making drivers more skilful and therefore safer and in strong traffic law enforcement in order to make our roads as safe as possible. I'm strongly opposed to banning cars.

I am in favour of risk management of these things.

As was already pointed out, guns ARE controlled. Any US citizen who owns a handgun must go through a BATF background check, and in some places I've lived, local and national police agency checks.

Disarming law-abiding citizens by taking away their right to own firearms because criminals commit crimes with them DIRECTLY correlates to taking all driving privileges away from everyone because some drivers get drunk and commit crimes in their vehicles.

I don't understand the completely illogical thinking of those who want to disarm law abiding citizens, nor do I understand why in this nation the mentality is that the 90% should suffer for the sins of the 10%.

Put the 10% in jail and hold THEM, not the tool(s) they employ accountable for their actions.

 

[Canis]

Remind us again how we should ban private ownership of weapons because of the cost of lives but cars are an economic requirement?


So which is worse?

I'm sorry GySgt, but there was so much I wanted to say on this subject. I narrowed it down as much as possible. I wanted to touch on the fact that our Founders felt that bullets were equal to votes and that the 2nd Amendment was vital to protecting our sovereignty. In the event that our government became unresponsive to the electorate, then we are entitled to take our government back through violence. This was very real to our Founders because that is exactly what they did. Anyway... here's my take.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It’s unfortunate that liberal and conservative ideologies have butchered our understanding of the 2nd Amendment. Gun controllers will interpret this as being a narrow, states’-right reading, in which they’ll insist that the amendment gives states the right to establish professional state militias like the modern National Guard. With this view, no ordinary citizen is covered. However, gun lovers will read the amendment in a broad, individual-rights way. They’ll argue for that the amendment confers rights to the individual for self-protection, hunting, and for sport. Unfortunately, neither reading do justice to what the Founders intended.

What we need to understand is that we cannot impose modern definitions onto an eighteenth century text. The Founder’s militia was miles away from our modern paid and professional volunteers of the modern National Guard. The Founder’s militia was made of a wide band of adult free male citizenry, much like the modern Swiss militia. Also, when the amendment announces the right of “the people,” our Founder’s were referring to the collective rights of citizens. Surely, our Founder’s knew how to say “persons” when they meant individuals. In fact, “militia” and “people” were different ways of saying the same thing. What the Founder’s envisioned with the amendment was to establish the republican ideal that those who vote should serve in the military; and those who served should vote.

There was a profound skepticism about a permanent, hierarchical standing army that wouldn't be American. They feared having an army with filled with aliens, convicts, and mercenaries that didn’t represent the electorate and who might pursue their own agendas. The amendment’s root idea was not so much guns per say, but the necessary link between democracy and the military. A sound republic should rely on its own armed citizens – a “militia” of “the people.”

As opposed to the states’-rights (liberal) and individual-rights (conservative) readings, some historians and Constitutional lawyers refer to this as the republican reading.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe in the right to own guns, but the analogy with cars is not a valid argument in my opinion.

How many people are killed by medical errors in hospitals? We should close all hospitals? (The answer is approximately 195,000 a year)

What you;re REALLY arguing here is that the argument that guns should be banned because of the number of deaths involving them is invalid.

Seems a little far to the right for me and more name calling than relying on any data...

Its an opinion. I dont need to back it up.

I will admit, however, that the M-14 was one hell of a good rifle. We fired the match condition ones at Quantico on the range. They could hit so nicely in the bulleyes at 600 yards.

Its a rifleman's rifle, as opposed to the M16 series, which are an infantryman's rifle.

 

[Diuretic]

*bang*

Sorry it was getting quiet....

 

[rayboyusmc]

What you;re REALLY arguing here is that the argument that guns should be banned because of the number of deaths involving them is invalid.

Where did you get that from my post? I said I believe in gun ownership.

I just think your analogy is very weak. Sort of like the maggies drawers of logic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where did you get that from my post? I said I believe in gun ownership.

I think you may have misuderstood what I said.

 

[BrianH]

No, the argument is the same as for any dangerous item, be it a nuclear bomb or cyanide. If we control drugs, hand grenades, howitzers in front yards, or dangerous poisons, we should control guns as well. Too many fools in this world to allow any dangerous item a free place in a stable society.

The only problem being is that we don't control drugs....they come in illegally anyway. Those who argue to legalize pot and then the government could regulate it we would end all the problems. Could you imagine if guns were illegal??? LOL. The demand would go through the roof.