Death by bullets vs Death by vehicle

[rickyrick]

Well,
I know more folks that has had tragic life changing events due to motorcycles, a branch of motor vehicles. This is seconded by motor cars.

Excluding war, I can't recall anyone close to me that has been harmed by a firearm firing a bullet. I do know of some struck by a firearm and threatened with firearms. I also know of people assaulted in the same manner with cars and various other non-firearm implements. But what is the commonality here? The individual intent on harming someone or behaving negligently.

Cars are more dangerous and not a specified constitutional right. In fact, many governments in this country describe driving as a privilege granted to you if you meet criteria and pay the appropriate taxes.

But cars are not guns. Cars are not listed as a specific right.

Funny thing is, people carry guns for protection then drive in a dangerous fashion and will most likely lead to their demise, at least a higher probability than the bad guy.

 

[45_auto]

I'm not sure what the real intent is except to highlight the fact that you own a race car, big whoop.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't own a racecar or a Glock 18 or a .50BMG.
Those were just examples to point out to you the fallacy of your statements about cars being heavily regulated.

So I guess I'll retract my statement about cars being heavily regulated

Looks like it worked. Good job, it's actually pretty unusual for someone to see the light!

 

[Skans]

It's possible to compare any two objects, no matter how dissimilar, and identify ways in which they are alike. But drawing meaningful or useful conclusions from such a comparison is another matter entirely.

I think it's quite fair to compare guns to cars from the perspective of the media dramatizing the deaths associated with both. There were well over 35,000 traffic deaths in 2013. How many of them got national attention? On average, the media would have to take the time to report on almost 100 deaths every day 365 days a year. But, they don't because traffic related deaths (and injuries) are far too common and most adults drive cars. People love their cars; they generally like driving and they don't want to hear know-it-alls espousing that cars be confiscated, banned, restricted to 30mph and heavily regulated.

The amount of attention the media gives deaths caused with guns is insane compared to their reporting on car deaths. I'd like to hear Joe Scarborough or Bob Schieffer spout off about banning cars that go more than 30mph and see how that is received by the car-driving public! Jimmy Carter mandated 55mph and I believe that, more than anything, cost him his presidency.

 

[zukiphile]

But, they don't because traffic related deaths (and injuries) are far too common and most adults drive cars.

That's very much on the mark.

70 years ago airplane crashes were pretty frequent. My grandfather was on an airplane that went down in the middle of nowhere in Egypt. That it was common meant that it was not a big story. Now when an airplane goes down it fills the news cycle until the next tragedy.

It is a weird facet of public consciousness that as events become more rare they are more likely to merit news coverage, and the more news coverage something gets the more frequent people imagine it is.

 

[rickyrick]

Bingo.

The news stories are selected to fit someone's agenda. I've lived in a few countries working, and the television and news here treats Americans as if they are all people that can not handle reality. So the message is created for you.

If it's covered on networks, it's for a reason and carefully selected and edited. Most with deceptive headlines.

Are cars a bigger cause of death... Absolutely, what makes the news? Emissions and guns. Emissions regulations are a huge source of tax revenue.
Guns are an untapped source of revenue, therefore the desire to regulate them.

 

[45_auto]

The news stories are selected to fit someone's agenda.

There are very few (if any) news outlets in the US any more. The "agenda" is profit which means viewers which means entertainment.

An event is usually considered more newsworthy if there is something unusual about it; a commonplace event is less likely to be seen as newsworthy, even if the consequences of both events have objectively similar outcomes. The result is that rarer events more often appear as news stories, while more common events appear less often, thus distorting the perceptions of news consumers of what constitutes "normal" rates of occurrence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_(journalism)

It's human nature to be more interested in the more unusual and macabre events, which means more viewers/readers of the medium which carries those events, which means more money.

Heart disease and cancer EACH kill about 20 times as many people (about 600,000 each) every year as car accidents. Even a 24 hour news channel couldn't keep up reporting on each individual death and very few people would care anyway.

Man bites dog is a leading story, dog bites man nobody cares.

You'll never hear about the airplanes that don't crash or the cars and buses that don't wreck.

 

[rickyrick]

There is profit in accepting payment to run certain stories. Even entertainment is designed to craft public opinion.

There's a push for gun control right now, so every negative gun story possible will be ran.

A mass shooter is news and tragic, no matter how rare they are in the big scheme of things.

Cars cause more deaths, just as the OP said. But in the US, the car is universal. The car can't be divided into owners and non-owners really. I know not everyone owns a car, but it is accepted item for all to own. I'm seeing a larger amount of drivers engaging in risky behavior... For no gain.
Gun ownership can be divided into to groups, Americans love groups to discriminate against

 

[carguychris]

You'll never hear about the airplanes that don't crash...

Actually, being an aviation enthusiast, there's a lot of very similar grousing among pilots about news over-reporting of airplane and helicopter crashes. If someone crashes a car with only minor injuries, no news organization in a town over 4,000 population is going to cover it unless the victim is otherwise famous, but if an an AIRPLANE crashes with only minor injuries, it always seems to lead on the 5 o'clock news.

 

[45_auto]

There's a push for gun control right now, so every negative gun story possible will be ran.

If every possible negative gun story is being run, how come we never see anything about black on black or white on white shootings? Is it because people don't use guns on their own race or because the media does not see people killing their own race as a negative?

for 2010-13, his data showed that about 92 percent of blacks who were murdered were killed by other blacks, while the statistic for whites killed by whites was 81.5 percent.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2015/may/21/updated-look-statistics-black-black-murders/

 

[rickyrick]

Good question. Most routine crimes are not reported. But if bubba shoots himself on accident in a fishing boat... It will get reported, because it paints a picture that they want. They desire the gun owners stereotype to be the bungling Bafoon that endangers the public and sells his guns to criminals.

The everyday gang violence will not get reported, we don't want property values going down and reduced tax revenue.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

If every possible negative gun story is being run, how come we never see anything about black on black or white on white shootings?

Are you kidding? We see plenty of such stories. They just aren't racial stories.

Is it because people don't use guns on their own race or because the media does not see people killing their own race as a negative?

Neither. The issue here is that it isn't a racial story story when everyone involved is the same race. On top of that, there are only certain racial stories that make the news. There are no giant protests and burning down of towns when a black cop shoots a white person, right? So no big new story there. The shooting will be on the local news and that will be the end of it...and the public largely won't care.

------

People keep blaming the media for having an agenda, and they do, but they always have. Don't kid yourselves into believing that the media was unbiased in the past or didn't have an agenda. Headlines have always been critical to sales. Feel good puppy dog stories have never been the listener, viewer, reader gathering stories that blood, guts, and controversial stories have been. That isn't the fault of the media, but of the interests of the public. The media won't exist without income and the income comes from sponsors/advertisers and sponsors/advertisers aren't going to want to pay for media that doesn't result in product placement that isn't to enough of the public.

 

[Skans]

Headlines have always been critical to sales.

And, we can legitimately expect that and compensate our own thinking for that! But, twisting stories to promote a political agenda, against the grain of financial motives - that suggests something more sinister working behind the scenes. By "sinister" I mean people or groups with huge amounts of money pushing their individual brand of gun control using deceit, lies, misleading statistics, fake "hunters against assault weapons" testimonials, etc. It's difficult, if not impossible to determine who is funding these money-losing media campaigns, so it is difficult if not impossible to take similar action against them.

On the other hand, the NRA, a formidable organization, doesn't hide behind nebulous companies, organizations and fake "grass roots" agendas. All you have to do is read their magazine American Rifleman, attend their conventions, listen to their speakers and look up the members of their Board to see what they are all about. They are what they are and don't hide behind main stream media or even attempt to manipulate the media by claiming not to have any bias. Anyone can purchase a life membership in the NRA which entitles them to vote on directors and attend NRA events. Come one, come all - pay your dues at the door. You can't claim they aren't transparent.

 

[rickyrick]

There we have gotten to the bottom of it.

Some news is just news. But some news is specifically presented to push an agenda. Headlines are paid for, or encouraged by their parent company(s).

The press is a powerful tool, even more powerful in headlines today. The majority mentality can be crafted in a few short news cycles.

People trust the media, and they'll go out and by a 60,000$ hybrid vehicle because the media made them think it was the right thing to do. Or buy a big truck because it's manly.
Or we can be duped into going to war. Works quite well and is profitable.

As someone posted earlier, news is about profits; but not about the networks profits, the profits of those pulling the strings.

 

[cecILL]

"The Media has a strong influence on the weak-minded."