|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,789 Year: 4,046/9,624 Month: 917/974 Week: 244/286 Day: 5/46 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Just to correct some erroneous information posted above, on average approximately 90 people are killed in motor vehicle related accidents each day in the US. I used the international figures from this website since I don't know where Dr Adequate lives.Love your enemies!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I live in Nevada, where gun fatalities outnumber car fatalities. I don't know if that means we have twitchy trigger fingers or just that we're careful drivers. I do know that I can get to work without a gun.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Just make the guns safer. Someone tried that, remember? We discussed it on this thread. They got death threats from gun nuts. So did the gun shows they wanted to exhibit at, so they couldn't sell them. It seems that a gun that's safer to use isn't at all safe to sell.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Did you ? The global figures from the website say:
Each year nearly 400,000 people under 25 die on the world's roads, on average over 1,000 a day.
You said Message 3516:
You and I both know that over 3000 people are going to die in car accidents today.
A bit of a difference there. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given. Edited by PaulK, : minor tidyups
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
quote: Did you ? The global figures from the website say:
Each year nearly 400,000 people under 25 die on the world's roads, on average over 1,000 a day.
Well I'm over 25; I don't know about Dr Adequate, but I assumed he was too. That's why I used the general figures that make no reference to age (first bullet):
quote: Of course it doesn't matter. The point is that it is more dangerous to go out to supper on Saturday night than it is to skip supper on Saturday night. People still go out to supper. And society's response isn't to shout at people daring to risk life and limb for good steak, but instead to make cars safer, intersections safer, improve driver education, etc. The same approach, if taken with guns, would be much more effective than throwing statistics at a single mother trying to convince her not to buy a gun she feels she desperately needs to protect her children and herself.Love your enemies!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Aside from the specific problems with that analogy there is one very basic difference that is being ignored. The purpose of owning and using a car is very different from the purpose of owning a gun. Buying a gun to protect your life and your families lives has - on average - the opposite effect. The car does what it is meant to do but the gun does not. A better analogy might be skipping vaccinations to protect your child's health. Due to scaremongering there are people who believe that is a good idea, but it isn't. Are you really saying that we should try to make things safer for those who mistakenly refuse to vaccinate instead of countering the misinformation and encouraging vaccination ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikechell Inactive Member |
Are you really saying that we should try to make things safer for those who mistakenly refuse to vaccinate instead of countering the misinformation and encouraging vaccination ? Good analogy. No, making guns "safer" is ... unproductive. Making firearm education more available, even requiring it is a better option. Let's counter the misinformation and encourage gun ownership.evidence over faith ... observation over theory
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The primary reason that guns tend to harm the people they are bought to protect more often than protect them is because the safety measures required are never seriously discussed.
How safe do you think cars would be if there were only two sides to a debate about automobile usage: One side saying automobiles are necessary to get around and the other side saying it's stupid to own them because they end up killing people? When both sides are locked into a nonsense position that nothing should be done except precisely what they want done, then it is very difficult to see how anything will ever be done.
Aside from the specific problems with that analogy there is one very basic difference that is being ignored. The purpose of owning and using a car is very different from the purpose of owning a gun. Buying a gun to protect your life and your families lives has - on average - the opposite effect. The car does what it is meant to do but the gun does not. No. I am saying there is a cost-benefit associated with going out for supper vs. not going out for supper and a cost-benefit associated with owning a gun vs. not owning a gun. Your chance of dying is greater if you get in your car and go out for supper instead of staying home and not eating a meal that night. Much like your chance of dying is greater if you buy a gun instead of hope no one tries to break into your house and kill you. The 'purpose' of each thing has no relevancy whatsoever.
A better analogy might be skipping vaccinations to protect your child's health. Due to scaremongering there are people who believe that is a good idea, but it isn't. Are you really saying that we should try to make things safer for those who mistakenly refuse to vaccinate instead of countering the misinformation and encouraging vaccination ? My analogy was to show that statistical probabilities don't rule people's decision-making-processes. If they did, no one would drive for supper on Saturday night and no one would own a gun.Love your enemies!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Good analogy. No, making guns "safer" is ... unproductive. Making firearm education more available, even requiring it is a better option. Let's counter the misinformation and encourage gun ownership. You're down-right certifiable. Let the record show that my position on this issue has no relationship to this nonsense.Love your enemies!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That may or may not be true. But if, say, the equivalent of a driving test were introduced before you were permitted to own a gun, who do you think would scream loudest against it?
quote: Except you don't seem to consider the benefits that people seek in going out for supper - or offer any benefits other than "protection" in the case of the gun.
quote: I think you will find that very people go out for supper with the sole intention of finding sufficient nourishment to survive.
quote: You can't do a cost-benefit analysis without considering the benefits that are actually being sought. So purpose is very relevant. The benefits of owning a gun for protection are more likely to be achieved by not owning a gun. The desired benefits of going out for supper are rather less likely to be achieved by staying in. Thus there is no analogy.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
PaulK writes: You can't do a cost-benefit analysis without considering the benefits that are actually being sought. So purpose is very relevant. The benefits of owning a gun for protection are more likely to be achieved by not owning a gun. The desired benefits of going out for supper are rather less likely to be achieved by staying in. Thus there is no analogy. Here's a Bloom County cartoon I like about the absurdity of following concerns to their ultimate end:
Every activity of life carries with it some risk to oneself and/or those around you. I agree that there's no analogy, but for a different reason. The key factor is the incredible irony of purchasing a gun for protection that in reality places you in greater danger. The analogous irony for a vehicle would be purchasing a car for transportation that always takes you in a direction opposite to the one you're going. Among recent participants, with the possible exception of MikeChell I think we all agree that the nation should make the same commitment to gun safety that's been made to car safety. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikechell Inactive Member |
Among recent participants, with the possible exception of MikeChell I think we all agree that the nation should make the same commitment to gun safety that's been made to car safety.
That's funny! But your comment shows that people will read what they WANT to, not the whole text. In my last comment, I said ...
Making firearm education more available, even requiring it, is a better option. I have no problem with improving safety classes, education and licensing for gun ownership.I do take issue with people who assume my wife or I (who are both well trained and capable with our weapons) are less safe because we have them. I can GUARANTEE you that our names will never show up in the statistics of accidental discharge deaths or injuries. We can stop making the gun/car analogy, so let's talk about how safe Motorcycles are. Why not outlaw motorcycles and make everyone drive a car, which encases you and makes you oh so much safer? evidence over faith ... observation over theory
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22493 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
mikechell writes: Among recent participants, with the possible exception of MikeChell I think we all agree that the nation should make the same commitment to gun safety that's been made to car safety.
That's funny! But your comment shows that people will read what they WANT to,... Sorry I wasn't clear enough, but I wasn't saying that we should make the same commitment to firearm education that we do to driver education. Personally I think driver education today is inadequate in this country and hasn't made much contribution to the reduction in vehicle fatality rates. Firearm education doesn't seem adequate, either. What I meant was that the same commitment to car safety that resulted in seat belts and air bags and impact absorbing structures should be made to gun safety. I think we should make guns safer. The reason I excepted you from the list of people who think we should make a commitment to gun safety is because in your Message 3532 you said, "No, making guns 'safer' is ... unproductive." --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8552 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Why not outlaw motorcycles and make everyone drive a car, which encases you and makes you oh so much safer? Having had two very dear friends die in separate motorcycle accidents I would agree with this. Except... the majority of all motorcycle deaths are caused by careless car drivers not watching what they're about to run over, so it might be better to outlaw cars instead.
Stats here Which means, since we see they are not being used safely even with mandated training and licensing, if we outlaw cars a lot of motorcyclists get to live. By the same token, since we see they are not being used safely, if we outlaw guns a lot of babies get to live. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
It's also a reality that people replace their cars every few years but their guns can last a lifetime. The millions of unsafe guns already on the streets would take generations to work their way out of the system.
A lot of the safety features on cars aren't plainly apparent to consumers. But people still buy cars with safety features because it's just a reality that that's how cars are made.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024