Death by bullets vs Death by vehicle

C

colbad

New member
This might get censored, but is anyone else offended by the dead silence on this in the media opposed to what would have been if a gun was involved?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A drunk driver kills a bunch of innocent people watching a parade and we see next to nothing on the news. Where is the outrage? Where are the protests? Where is Obama and a call for new laws and regulations to protect innocent lives. Don't lives matter?

What state issued this drunk driver a licenses without a background check for mental health? What kind of dealer would sell her a vehicle without a thorough background check? Should not a license be required to purchase a car? Did she really need a vehicle that went so fast. Why would a manufacture make such a dangerous device that could go so fast and kill so many people ....by the thousands every year!

Should not all car manufactures be required to have an ignition system linked to a breathalyzer? Why could a person just walk into a liquor store and buy as much booze as they want when we know how many deaths are alcohol related? Lives matter....remember? Should not the car dealer, state DMV, liquor store, liquor manufacture and car manufactures be held responsible? Are they not all dealers in death?

Oh silly me, "lives only matter" and these concerns are only advocated when they suit Obama's agenda to do away with our second amendment rights and disarm America. And that's my two cent rant for the day.:rolleyes:
 
A drunk driver kills a bunch of innocent people watching a parade and we see next to nothing on the news. Where is the outrage? Where are the protests? Where is Obama and a call for new laws and regulations to protect innocent lives. Don't lives matter?
Click to expand...
I would say it would make the news if it was done deliberty and the car was used as a weapon.

What state issued this drunk driver a licenses without a background check for mental health?
Click to expand...
Do you not have to have background checks to get a driving licence, where you live age etc.
 
Just a comment....this is a bit of satire (gun rhetoric normally used by media) based upon the actual events recently in OK.
 
Yes, this thread will get locked.

The car vs bullet argument is an old one that the anti-gun crowd has grown weary of hearing.

All cars are supposed to be registered, insured and licensed. That is goal for guns.
 
It true, but their arguments are for the good of the public, and have the strength of virtue behind them.

You can't really compare guns to objects that are not guns and keep any credibility.

I took a young man out shooting one day, taught him all about how to do it safely. He was a relative of mine. His mother got upset and forbid him from ever shooting again.
About a year later he was allowed to ride to school with an SUV full of teens. They were in a bad accident and my young relative was in a coma for months and is disabled for life... What on earth does this have to do with shooting?!?? Absolutely nothing. Upset me greatly but not even in the same category.
 
rickyrick said:
All cars are supposed to be registered, insured and licensed. That is goal for guns.
Click to expand...
Additionally, as I've pointed out in prior threads, cars are probably THE most heavily regulated consumer product apart from turbine-powered aircraft.

Arguing that guns should be treated like cars, while at the same time arguing that guns deserve legal product-liability protections such as the PLCAA and should be exempt from government regulations for their function, comes off as inconsistent to the point of near incoherence.
rickyrick said:
You can't really compare guns to objects that are not guns and keep any credibility.
Click to expand...
The crux is that cars (and aircraft, boats, chainsaws, bleach, swimming pools, etc.) are inherently dangerous, yet also have utility value that arguably outweighs the danger. With guns, the fact that they are dangerous is their utility value. This makes them philosophically different from most other common objects that exist outside a military setting.

Even knives are different, as most types have utility as tools that offsets their danger as weapons.
 
Ok, let's treat car ownership like we do gun ownership, turn the tables on it.

Unlawful user of marijuana or other controlled substance?
Former felon?
Adjudicated mentally deficient?
Domestic violence arrest in your past?
Under 18 or 21?

You can't own a car, let alone drive one. Don't even sit behind the wheel of a car, that's possession. Live with someone who owns a car? That's constructive possession.
 
I wouldn't make the comparison because I feel it makes pawns of those who were killed and injured. I urge all to find another example to demonstrate the insanity of the antigun arguments.
 
Do you not have to have background checks to get a driving licence, where you live age etc.
Click to expand...

Yes. In many states, if one has been adjudicated an incompetent he cannot possess a DL. Some sorts of offenses will also result in a revocation of your DL for some time.
 
Also in some States physicians have a legal obligation to report conditions which might impair one's cognitive, sensor or motor ability to drive, or medical conditions such as seizure disorders.

Driving is heavily regulated.
 
The crux is that cars (and aircraft, boats, chainsaws, bleach, swimming pools, etc.) are inherently dangerous, yet also have utility value that arguably outweighs the danger. With guns, the fact that they are dangerous is their main utility value. This makes them philosophically different from most other common objects that exist outside a military setting.
Click to expand...

Made a slight correction. Guns do have more than one utility value.
 
I think that's the point. Cars and driving are very heavily regulated. Yet that does not prevent countless lives lost every year due to irresponsible driving. And it does not lead to any calls for more regulation of cars or even confiscation and banning of cars. I think the argument/analogy has some useful logic and purpose.
 
Last edited:
Cars are heavily regulated and taxed, taxed on a yearly basis.

A car does not have a primary purpose of causing injury or death.

A firearm does have a primary purpose of causing injury and death.

I grow tired of seeing comparisons of guns to items that are not guns.

The inherent ability of a gun to be used as a weapon is the exact reason that it's a constitutional right.

So if you want your firearms heavily regulated and taxed, go ahead and keep comparing them to cars and other no related objects.
 
Respectfully, the fact that you are weary of hearing an argument or comparison does not make it meaningless or illogical.

Again, you're missing the point. The fact that such heavy regulation and taxation does little to decrease the danger of cars in the hands of irresponsible people is a prime example of why regulating and taxing guns will not decrease their danger in the hands of idiots and criminals. It has validity.
 
There is no point to miss. You can make this silly comparison about anything that's regulated heavily... Most of the time those heavy regulations actually work.
Most are a perceived improvement and a real gain in tax revenue.

It's dangerous to our cause to make such comparisons. It plays into their hands.

Don't make excuses, stick to the reasons that owning a gun is a right.
 
jmhyer said:
Cars and driving are very heavily regulated. Yet that does not prevent countless lives lost every year due to irresponsible driving. And it does not lead to any calls for more regulation of cars or even confiscation and banning of cars.
Click to expand...
jmhyer said:
The fact that such heavy regulation... does little to decrease the danger of cars in the hands of irresponsible people...
Click to expand...
Have you been paying attention to the fact that cars have recently sprouted side curtain airbags, child safety seat anchors, tire pressure monitoring systems, lane departure warning systems, and backup cameras, and that ABS, traction control, and stability control are gradually becoming standard features on virtually everything? Some of these have been the result of government mandates, while the others have arguably been largely prompted by threats of MORE government mandates and product liability suits.

Yes, some stupid people still manage to kill themselves and others with irresponsible driving, but these technologies are making it harder and harder. Statistics show that these features DO save lives, as the highway death rate (the lives lost per passenger mile traveled, rather than the sheer number of lives lost) has been dropping for decades. This is one of the reasons why anti-gun forces love pointing out that the number of annual gun deaths is threatening to overtake vehicle-related deaths – the latter number is going down faster than the former.

This is why I don't think it's prudent to make this comparison. It's not sensible to proclaim that the government should stay away from regulating guns at all costs, and then justify this argument by comparing guns to a product that is regulated extremely heavily, and is arguably the epitome of high-tech government-mandated solutions being successful at saving lives! :rolleyes:

Also, there HAVE been calls for confiscation or banning of cars, although like gun control, advocates have learned that it's very politically unpopular to say so outright, so they hide their views behind code phrases and incrementalism. Witness recent moves to selectively ban or heavily tax private vehicle movements in crowded urban downtown areas, and support for "traffic calming" (a happy-sounding code phrase for a roadway design philosophy that basically advocates deliberately increasing traffic congestion to discourage people from driving).

Wow, I haven't even talked about graduated drivers' license programs for young drivers being instituted in most states, or the increasing use of turbochargers, gasoline direct injection, and diesel DEF systems to meet government emissions and fuel economy mandates! Or calls for technology that senses and automatically shuts off the car if a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, or high-tech systems to disable to driver's mobile phone to prevent texting or using social media while driving!

I hope my point is made. If you want "smart guns" mandates, licensing requirements, and the repeal of the PLCAA, go ahead and keep making this comparison. :rolleyes:
 
Rick nailed it.

Years ago, Al Gore suggested that since you get a driver's license, you should get a license to get a gun.

I wrote the NY Times that any law abiding citizen can get a license to drive a car with minimum hassle. Thus, was Al suggesting that any law abiding citizen be able to get a license to buy a gun and carry it. That would change the lay of the land back then before the shall issue laws.

A Times person said they were going to print my letter. However, they never did - wonder why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top