Why the Guns vs. Cars argument is flawed.

[zeke]

Let me see if I got this correct.

If a criminal walks up to you, catches you unaware and robs you at gun point, that robbery is not a "violent" act? Is that correct?

Is the implied threat of shooting you not considered violent? What is it then? If I threaten to beat someones ass and they pull a gun on me, who would be considered more violent?

Wait, it's only violence if a criminal does it. Is that why they give criminals who rob places using a gun (even if they don't shoot anybody) more penalties for having the gun in the commision of a crime?

You all walk whatever fine line makes you feel good. But I know if I pull my gun for self defense, even if I don't shoot anyone, it was a violent act. And I don't have a problem calling it exactly that. That is why I have guns. To meet violence with violence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Of course cars kill more people yearly. Every single day, a couple hundred MILLION people in America activate and engage in the use of a car. Every day.

If 200,000,000 people per day ACTIVELY took up and used a gun, for its intended use, every single day, there would be just as many, if not more, deaths.

Today...in an hour or so....tens of millions of people will activate a car for its intended use, and use it. How many MILLIONS of people will activate a gun for it's intended use today? Far fewer. There will be a few dozen shootings today between gang members. Somewhere in America there will be a handful of police shootings. I wont count hunting, because thats a sport, just as we wouldnt count NASCAR with car statistics because thats a sport.

So, today, I'd say 150,000,000 people will activate and use a car for it's intended purpose.

And today, I'd say at most 200 people will activate and use a gun for it's intended purpose (and thats a high estimate).

Over the course of 365 days, with that cycle repeating daily, OF COURSE more people will die from cars than guns. Its a bad argument statistically, because the use of a car is so astronomically higher daily than the use of guns.

The correct stat would read: For every 10 times a gun or car is activated for it's intended use (outside of sports like hunting/racing), how many times is a person hurt? When a gun gets activated, it is to kill people (good or bad). When a car is activated, millions of times daily, people die...but not that often. With guns, someone usually dies or is severely hurt.

Its a flawed argument. If 150,000,000 people today pulled out a gun and used it for it's intended purpose, would more people die than will be killed on the roadways by cars? Yes.

If you're so unhappy with American culture and laws, maybe you should spend your time and effort finding another country more to your liking?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Let me see if I got this correct.

If a criminal walks up to you, catches you unaware and robs you at gun point, that robbery is not a "violent" act? Is that correct?

Is the implied threat of shooting you not considered violent? What is it then? If I threaten to beat someones ass and they pull a gun on me, who would be considered more violent?

Wait, it's only violence if a criminal does it. Is that why they give criminals who rob places using a gun (even if they don't shoot anybody) more penalties for having the gun in the commision of a crime?

You all walk whatever fine line makes you feel good. But I know if I pull my gun for self defense, even if I don't shoot anyone, it was a violent act. And I don't have a problem calling it exactly that. That is why I have guns. To meet violence with violence.

Projection of felonious force w/ a gun is criminal violence.

Cessation of felonious force, though hopefully swift and violent for the offender, is not criminal violence.

 

[midcan5]

Last I checked there are lots of laws and regulations concerning cars, why is the same idea wrong in the case of guns? Of course according to Wayne LaPierre criminals break laws, so following his logic we should abandon all law, for criminals even use cars illegally. No sense having laws criminals don't abide by.

'Dangerous Gun Myths'

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/dangerous-gun-myths.html

 

[zeke]

Let me see if I got this correct.

If a criminal walks up to you, catches you unaware and robs you at gun point, that robbery is not a "violent" act? Is that correct?

Is the implied threat of shooting you not considered violent? What is it then? If I threaten to beat someones ass and they pull a gun on me, who would be considered more violent?

Wait, it's only violence if a criminal does it. Is that why they give criminals who rob places using a gun (even if they don't shoot anybody) more penalties for having the gun in the commision of a crime?

You all walk whatever fine line makes you feel good. But I know if I pull my gun for self defense, even if I don't shoot anyone, it was a violent act. And I don't have a problem calling it exactly that. That is why I have guns. To meet violence with violence.

Projection of felonious force w/ a gun is criminal violence.

Cessation of felonious force, though hopefully swift and violent for the offender, is not criminal violence.

Unless you shoot someone who you thought was a criminal. Untill you found out you were wrong. Like the guy who shot the kid with the wrong GPS address. Was that shooter committing criminal violence? Or just plain ole "violent"?

 

[RDD_1210]

Have you ever driven?

ever seen someone get hit by a car or a pile up?

Cars are built for the kill and have been used to kill and murder.

LOL, care are built to kill?

You didn't really just say that did you?

LOL, I've yet to see a car in any showroom or in any commercial being advertised as a "built to kill". LOL, fuck you people make this too easy.

what part of a 3000 pound objecting hitting a 150 pound person is over your math level?

Which part of intended purpose was too difficult for you to comprehend?

Let me make it simple for you. Cars are built to transport people and things. Cars can also kill people, but that is not the reason that they are built.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Last I checked there are lots of laws and regulations concerning cars, why is the same idea wrong in the case of guns? Of course according to Wayne LaPierre criminals break laws, so following his logic we should abandon all law, for criminals even use cars illegally. No sense having laws criminals don't abide by.

'Dangerous Gun Myths'

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/dangerous-gun-myths.html

good lord

There or 1000's of gun laws

and, again, again cubed

driving is a privileged

owning arms, not just guns, is a right.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Fukfukfukfuk. I shoot you and kill you, even in self defense, and you think that shooting you wasn't a violent act? The cause of action may have been self defense, but the chosen method of defense was violent.

wtf is wrong with you people. Guns are intended to be used in a violent way.
If you talk someone out of robbing or killing you, that would classify as non violent.

Maybe you need to look up the definition of "violence".

Strange.. The last two times I had to pull my weapon I didn't have to fire it. But immediately there after I was no longer in danger.

No violence on my part. Just the very real threat of greater violence than what the other person was willing to accept.

Maybe you should rethink your life and wonder why others can live very long lives and never have the need to pull a weapon. Why is it, you have to do it the last two times and others never have to? Why is there a difference between two people livng in the same country?

Luck.

You have just as much chance of being the victim of a crime as anyone else only when your luck runs out you will be at the mercy of a criminal.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Right, you'd think that fact would be obvious. Skull Pilot can't seem to grasp it unfortunately.

A gun does not "center" around violence.

What does it center around? How does it achieve its purpose. Laughter and tickling?

Threat.
A threat is not violence.

 

[RDD_1210]

no... not at all... you're posts simply indicate that you're a dumb fuck, regardless of political persuasion...

Which post in particular?

ah crap... I was operating under the mistaken wrong-headed assumption that you're the one who put up the OP...

my apologies, RDD...

No problem. Thanks!

 

[Two Thumbs]

LOL, care are built to kill?

You didn't really just say that did you?

LOL, I've yet to see a car in any showroom or in any commercial being advertised as a "built to kill". LOL, fuck you people make this too easy.

what part of a 3000 pound objecting hitting a 150 pound person is over your math level?

Which part of intended purpose was too difficult for you to comprehend?

Let me make it simple for you. Cars are built to transport people and things. Cars can also kill people, but that is not the reason that they are built.

and guns were designed to protect people.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Last I checked there are lots of laws and regulations concerning cars, why is the same idea wrong in the case of guns? Of course according to Wayne LaPierre criminals break laws, so following his logic we should abandon all law, for criminals even use cars illegally. No sense having laws criminals don't abide by.

'Dangerous Gun Myths'

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/dangerous-gun-myths.html

Actually there very strict regulations regarding concealed carry permits.

For example If I ever get charged (not convicted) with drunk driving I will forever lose my carry permit but I will still be able to drive a car.

 

[RDD_1210]

A gun does not "center" around violence.

What does it center around? How does it achieve its purpose. Laughter and tickling?

Threat.
A threat is not violence.

And what makes that threat effective.....you're almost there. Come on I know you can do it.

 

[RDD_1210]

what part of a 3000 pound objecting hitting a 150 pound person is over your math level?

Which part of intended purpose was too difficult for you to comprehend?

Let me make it simple for you. Cars are built to transport people and things. Cars can also kill people, but that is not the reason that they are built.

and guns were designed to protect people.

Through violence. Listen you can play semantics games all day long. Guns are only effective because they use violence to achieve their result. Even just the threat of violence is still using a basis of violence as their intended purpose.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Which part of intended purpose was too difficult for you to comprehend?

Let me make it simple for you. Cars are built to transport people and things. Cars can also kill people, but that is not the reason that they are built.

and guns were designed to protect people.

Through violence. Listen you can play semantics games all day long. Guns are only effective because they use violence to achieve their result. Even just the threat of violence is still using a basis of violence as their intended purpose.

vi·o·lence (v-lns) KEY

NOUN: Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing

violence - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education

 

[zeke]

This is one of those trick questions that gun nutters like. Kinda like they can't figure out what an "assault weapon" is. I see them asking all the time; is this an assault weapon is that an assault weapon.

Why is it that true blue gun nutters can't adimt the truth about the guns they love? What is wrong with admitting that you have guns to behave in a violent manner if need be? Whether you pull it and don't shoot or pull it and shoot, you met violence with violence. Nothing wrong with that IMO.

But call it what it is.

It's like the 30000+ deaths by gun each year. Gun nutters can't come out and say that those deaths are a cost of allowing pretty much unrestricted access to guns by most anybody. You gun nutters want to act like you live in a vacumn. That there is no longer cause and effect. Weird..

 

[Skull Pilot]

What does it center around? How does it achieve its purpose. Laughter and tickling?

Threat.
A threat is not violence.

And what makes that threat effective.....you're almost there. Come on I know you can do it.

A threat of violence is not violence.

If I threaten to kill you is it murder?

Of course not. Even you must be able to see that.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It's like the 30000+ deaths by gun each year. Gun nutters can't come out and say that those deaths are a cost of allowing You gun nutters want to act like you live in a vacumn. That there is no longer cause and effect. Weird..

We do not allow "pretty much unrestricted access to guns by most anybody".

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's like the 30000+ deaths by gun each year. Gun nutters can't come out and say that those deaths are a cost of allowing You gun nutters want to act like you live in a vacumn. That there is no longer cause and effect. Weird..

We do not allow "pretty much unrestricted access to guns by most anybody".

Anyone who has actually bought a gun knows this.

 

[zeke]

what part of a 3000 pound objecting hitting a 150 pound person is over your math level?

Which part of intended purpose was too difficult for you to comprehend?

Let me make it simple for you. Cars are built to transport people and things. Cars can also kill people, but that is not the reason that they are built.

and guns were designed to protect people.[/QUOTE]



Yes they were. By meeting violence with violence. But cars are not built to intentionally be used for violence. No one pulls their gun on somebody without having violence on their mind.