Ever notice how a debate about gun laws usually elicits a guns to cars comparison?
It usually goes something like this. A completely rational and logical person asks a member of the Gun Cult why we shouldn't alter our existing gun laws. After wiping away the spittle and mouth foam from their shirts, this same rational and logical person is given a long and very adolescent diatribe about the American Revolution, totalitarian governments, and tough history coming.
Mixed in with his wacky, ideological nonsense is the inevitable and childish comment about how there should be more car laws or changes to automobile technology because, after all, cars are death machines and kill far more people.
Well, guess what? We ARE doing that.
The chances of a driver dying in a crash in a late-model car or light truck fell by more than a third over three years, and nine car models had zero deaths per million registered vehicles, according to a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Among the improvements credited for declining death rates is the widespread adoption of electronic stability control, which has dramatically lessened the risk of rollover crashes. SUVs had some of the highest rates a decade ago due to their propensity to roll over.
Side air bags and structural changes to vehicles are also helping. Automakers are engineering vehicles with stronger occupant compartments that hold up better in front, side and rollover crashes, allowing the seatbelts and air bags to do their jobs well, said Russ Rader, an institute spokesman. Improved technologies were responsible for saving 7,700 driver lives in 2012 when compared to how cars were made in 1985, the institute said.
So, how about some improvements to gun technology then, eh? Since we like to compare cars and guns, why not use the same method that has been effective here? I would think we could come up with all sorts of techno add ons that would prevent, say, yet another child picking up their parent's gun and shooting themselves or others with it.
What do you say, Gun Cult?
5 comments:
As usual, reality does not survive contact with M's mind. You've completely mischaracterized the guns to cars analogy.
You could of course ask about how you made this mistake, but you will just deny that you made a mistake at all.
Yes, Mark has the guns to cars analogy wrong. This is the real one:
We regulate and license cars and drivers in order to prevent just any bozo from getting on the road and becoming a menace to himself and the public at large. Yet the Gun Cult insists that any loony tune should be able to get a gun on demand without any kind of proof that they're mentally or physically competent to own a device whose sole purpose is to kill people.
We require safety features in cars that have, as Mark noted, drastically reduced fatalities on our roads. As technology has improved, we have incorporated that technology into cars to make them safer.
The designs of most guns have not changed in a century. Many guns do not even have safeties. They can -- and do, every day -- go off if dropped or jostled.
Many accidental shootings occur because most firearms have no visible indicator that there is a round in the chamber, leading many to erroneously believe that a weapon is not loaded when they've removed the magazine (this is how most people kill themselves when cleaning their guns).
There many simple design changes that would enhance the reliability of firearms (i.e., reduce the chances of accidental death), but the Gun Cult opposes making those changes because they only form of "reliability" they understand is how quickly they whip their gun out and start blasting away, even before they're sure exactly what it is they're shooting at.
Until the 1970s even the NRA believed that the "well-regulated militia" language in the Second Amendment meant exactly what it says. Making sure that guns are as safe as possible and that gun owners are competent and do not present a danger to the rest of society is clearly the intent of the language.
When the Constitution was written do you think the Founding Fathers intended the right to bear arms to be extended to Tory sympathizers who would use them to start a revolt against the newly formed United States?
Similarly, the lax gun laws in the United States make it ridiculously easy for Islamic terrorists to repeat the Charlie Hebdo massacre in every American town. So far, mostly angst-y teenagers and crazy old men are taking advantage of the gaping holes in the gun laws, but mass killings are now almost a daily event here.
Are we just lucky, or has the threat from Islamic terrorists been purposely overblown by conservatives and the industrial-security complex for partisan and economic gain?
Then N comes along and proves that he knows absolutely nothing about guns, but isn't afraid to airily expound like an expert.
We regulate and license cars and drivers in order to prevent just any bozo from getting on the road and becoming a menace to himself and the public at large.
Anyone can get a drivers license - you have one. It does not prevent all sorts of bad driving including incidents that result in death. It does not prevent drunk driving. It doesn't prevent people from driving WITHOUT a license - just a fine (or jail time) if they are caught doing so.
Many guns do not even have safeties.
Really - list 5. On the other hand, what is the first rule of handling a gun (hint: it isn't check the safety or an external indicator for a round in the chamber)?
Until the 1970s even the NRA believed that the "well-regulated militia" language in the Second Amendment meant exactly what it says
No, but the change can be traced to the difference between the 1934 NFA and the 1968 GCA. I'm sure you can't explain that difference, and so instead you'll just revel in your ignorance.
If you are afraid of armed Islamic terrorists then you must need someone to change your underwear and wipe your ass on a daily basis.
3000 people were killed because people like you were sure that someone else would provide for their security and you had no responsibility for that yourself.
Boxcutters mother fucker, boxcutters.
We've went over the cars and guns things many, many time bozo.
You want to regulate guns JUST like cars?
That would be awesome.
Among the improvements credited for declining death rates is the widespread adoption of electronic stability control
Making the car do what the driver wants the car to do more likely....
=
Making the gun shoot more reliably and more accurately.
Yeah, I'm all for that.
Automakers are engineering vehicles with stronger occupant compartments that hold up better in front, side and rollover crashes
Making cars more reliable and better engineered to prevent failure...
=
Making guns more reliable and better engineered to prevent failure.
Yep, all for that too.
Post a Comment