Why the Guns vs. Cars argument is flawed.

[zeke]

So skull. If someone comes in your house, puts a gun on you and threatens to kill you, I guess you would say that is not a violent act? Unless he actually does it. Is that correct?

And are you saying that if someone were to do the above and you ended up getting to a knife and killing the intruder, that you would need to go to jail for causing the violent death of someone that only "threatened" you with violence?

Because you don't seem to think that anything less than the actual shooting, knifing or beating is violent?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So skull. If someone comes in your house, puts a gun on you and threatens to kill you, I guess you would say that is not a violent act? Unless he actually does it. Is that correct?

And are you saying that if someone were to do the above and you ended up getting to a knife and killing the intruder, that you would need to go to jail for causing the violent death of someone that only "threatened" you with violence?

Because you don't seem to think that anything less than the actual shooting, knifing or beating is violent?

As far as I am concerned anyone breaking into my house has the intent to harm me or my wife because he or they would have ignored my alarm and my dogs.

So they have already committed a violent act in my book.

Me racking a shotgun in reaction to their violent act of breaking in is not in itself violence.

That's what you people don't seem to understand. I don't walk around with a shotgun and point it at everyone I don't like or who are doing nothing that concerns me.

When and if I ever point a weapon at someone it will be as a response to an act.

As of yet I have never had to once point a weapon at another person and I hope with all my heart that I never have to but I am not so naive to think that we live in a world where we are 100% safe.

 

[Dubya]

So skull. If someone comes in your house, puts a gun on you and threatens to kill you, I guess you would say that is not a violent act? Unless he actually does it. Is that correct?

And are you saying that if someone were to do the above and you ended up getting to a knife and killing the intruder, that you would need to go to jail for causing the violent death of someone that only "threatened" you with violence?

Because you don't seem to think that anything less than the actual shooting, knifing or beating is violent?

As far as I am concerned anyone breaking into my house has the intent to harm me or my wife because he or they would have ignored my alarm and my dogs.

So they have already committed a violent act in my book.

Me racking a shotgun in reaction to their violent act of breaking in is not in itself violence.

That's what you people don't seem to understand. I don't walk around with a shotgun and point it an everyone I don't like or who are doing nothing that concerns me.

When and if I ever point a weapon at someone it will be as a response to an act.

As of yet I have never had to once point a weapon at another person and I hope with all my heart that I never have to but I am not so naive to think that we live in a world where we are 100% safe.

Violent crime is defined as an act that has the potential for violence, according to the practice of the law. Threatening is considered an act of violence by the law and a Judge. A violent crime doesn't have to include a violent act. A burglar who is just trying to steal has that crime included in violent crime stats. Purse snatching and pocket picking are also included. Now the FBI stats only include more violent types of crime or crimes with more potential for violence, but I'm fairly sure they also include car jacking and burglary. The cut off point on these reports is arbitrary, but the practice of the law is to treat any crime with the potential of violence to be a violent crime.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Self defense is not a violent crime.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Violent crime is defined as an act that has the potential for violence, according to the practice of the law. .

So you agree that speeding and drunk driving and running a red light are violent crimes?

 

[Dubya]

[

Violent crime is defined as an act that has the potential for violence, according to the practice of the law. .

So you agree that speeding and drunk driving and running a red light are violent crimes?

They are traffic violations, but if someone is injured while doing those things the person will be charged with a violent crime.

I explained in detail that the definition referred to reports of violent crime and all reports don't use the same standard. There is no crime called violent crime in the law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Self defense is not a violent crime.

no it's not, but an investigation decides whether a potential crime was committed in self defense

 

[hazlnut]

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.

I actually like the analogy.

If every gun were registered to one person, and when that person sold the gun, he files a transfer of ownership so that we know who owns each and every gun.

Stolen guns will be treated like stolen cars.

Anyone caught with an unregistered gun goes to jail.

 

[Dubya]

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.

I actually like the analogy.

If every gun were registered to one person, and when that person sold the gun, he files a transfer of ownership so that we know who owns each and every gun.

Stolen guns will be treated like stolen cars.

Anyone caught with an unregistered gun goes to jail.

That makes two of us who want universal registration, but I want it checked or renewed each year to make sure the person still has the gun and I want all rifled firearms ballistics tested periodically and kept in an FBI data base to discourage somebody using that gun in a crime. Once the unregistered firearms are removed, I think homicide by gun rate will go way down.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I actually like the analogy.
If every gun were registered to one person, and when that person sold the gun, he files a transfer of ownership so that we know who owns each and every gun.
Stolen guns will be treated like stolen cars.
Anyone caught with an unregistered gun goes to jail.

Yeah - there's no constitutional issues with that at all.

 

[RDD_1210]

I actually like the analogy.
If every gun were registered to one person, and when that person sold the gun, he files a transfer of ownership so that we know who owns each and every gun.
Stolen guns will be treated like stolen cars.
Anyone caught with an unregistered gun goes to jail.

Yeah - there's no constitutional issues with that at all.

Why don't you give an example of what makes the suggestion unconstitutional.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Self defense is not a violent crime.

no it's not, but an investigation decides whether a potential crime was committed in self defense

And your point is what exactly?

I can certainly argue that I was in fear for my life or my wife's life if someone broke into my home in spite of the alarm sounding and in spite of my dogs barking.

If I can make them leave by racking a shotgun and telling them I will shoot I have committed no crime.

If they don't leave then I have a legitimate right to shoot in self defense.

Only you would not want people to have the choice to defend themselves because somehow in that lump of oatmeal you call a brain you believe it to be selfish.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

I actually like the analogy.

If every gun were registered to one person, and when that person sold the gun, he files a transfer of ownership so that we know who owns each and every gun.

Stolen guns will be treated like stolen cars.

Anyone caught with an unregistered gun goes to jail.

All one has to do is report that a gun was stolen. There is no need to know who owns what gun until then.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Self defense is not a violent crime.

no it's not, but an investigation decides whether a potential crime was committed in self defense

And your point is what exactly?

I can certainly argue that I was in fear for my life or my wife's life if someone broke into my home in spite of the alarm sounding and in spite of my dogs barking.

If I can make them leave by racking a shotgun and telling them I will shoot I have committed no crime.

If they don't leave then I have a legitimate right to shoot in self defense.

Only you would not want people to have the choice to defend themselves because somehow in that lump of oatmeal you call a brain you believe it to be selfish.

and when authorities show up they will investigate your story

 

[OKTexas]

Cars have an intended and useful purpose in society that doesn't center around violence. The same can not be said for guns.

Funny, the same can be said about the police, but they carry a gun.

 

[OKTexas]

Cars have an intended and useful purpose in society that doesn't center around violence. The same can not be said for guns.

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.

Yep, a guy used one to kill his grilfriend with one this week in Houston.

 

[Skull Pilot]

no it's not, but an investigation decides whether a potential crime was committed in self defense

And your point is what exactly?

I can certainly argue that I was in fear for my life or my wife's life if someone broke into my home in spite of the alarm sounding and in spite of my dogs barking.

If I can make them leave by racking a shotgun and telling them I will shoot I have committed no crime.

If they don't leave then I have a legitimate right to shoot in self defense.

Only you would not want people to have the choice to defend themselves because somehow in that lump of oatmeal you call a brain you believe it to be selfish.

and when authorities show up they will investigate your story

So?

 

[RDD_1210]

Cars have an intended and useful purpose in society that doesn't center around violence. The same can not be said for guns.

Funny, the same can be said about the police, but they carry a gun.

Actually the same can not be said. Apples and oranges. Fail.