Firearm accidents:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

According to the 2007 (latest finalized) CDC death statistics, the number of accidental deaths due to motor vehicles is over 71 times greater than the number of accidental deaths due to firearms discharge. Considering that there are over 200,000,000 privately held firearms, this would highlight that mostly all of those who keep firearms are not careless.

Any thoughts?

[ET Awful]

1. Comparing a car to a gun is like comparing a samurai sword to a socket wrench.

They only similarity is that they are both made out of metal and only one is deadly when used as intended.

That said, the whole "accident" reasoning behind firearms restrictions is ludicrous at best. I'm all in favor of safety locks, etc., but using accidents as a reason to restrict ownership is foolish.

But, comparing cars to guns is equally stupid.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. You appear...

...to subscribe to the line of thinking that "If I am not KILLING someone with a firearm, then I am not USING a firearm".

I did not mention restricting firearms due to accidents.
Thanks very much for calling me stupid. I appreciate that.

[ET Awful]

6. Didn't say that anywhere did I?

You seem to subscribe to the line of thinking that says someone who objects to the moronic comparison of cars to guns is anti-gun.

Nope, I'm just anti-moronic comparisons.

However, your post begs the question - if you are not intending to discuss restriction of firearms based on accident rates, then what exactly is your purpose in posting this foolishness?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. Seriously, dude...

...if you can't remember that in my reply I said, "YOU SEEM..." and thereby leaving open for you to explain your contrary position in a reply.

It did come across rather clearly that you are decided not anti-RKBA.

If you can get past the "moronic" and "foolish" characterizations for a moment, my point is simply that owners of firearms are decidedly careful. I frequently read posts from some control heavy folks that spotlight some kind of accidental shooting and use it as evidence for whatever implied or explicit measure of draconian control they advocate is appropriate.

Unlike some that have chosen to argue against control by proving the contrary, in this case I'm just arguing that these same control happy individuals have not proven their case and that firearm accident rates are not warranting of some new control oriented laws.

[ET Awful]

14. No, owners of firearms are NOT decidedly careful. Quit generalizing.

SOME owners of firearms are decidedly careful, others are not.

If "owners of firearms" were decidedly careful, you wouldn't have morons shooting at lights and accidentally hitting children.

The fact is that owners of firearms are like owners of anything else. Some are responsible, some are not.

[X_Digger]

16. 80,000,000 owners, 300,000,000 guns.. you do the math. n/t

[ET Awful]

17. There is no math to do. You made a sweeping generalization that

on its face is demonstrably false.

Had you prefaced it with "some" or "most", you might have a point. You simply decided to be overly broad with your statement.

Your statement was all encompassing, and because that it was false.

[X_Digger]

21. Psst.. I'm not the one who made the claim..

But if you take the number of guns (or owners) and compare to the number of fatal/non-fatal injuries, you get a vanishingly small number.

e.g...

The odds of being in a non-fatal car accident are about 1 in 140 (2007).

The odds of being in a fatal car accident are about 1 in 6,500 (2007).

If we look at unintentional firearms fatalities we get.. 613 (2007).

1 in 491,027 odds for any general member of the public (2007 pop).

1 in 122,349 odds (for any gun owner-- assuming 75,000,000 gun owners)

If we even go to non-fatal injuries: 15,698

population: 1 in 19,174
gun owner: 1 in 5,096

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. First, let me say...

...you cats look great. :) I love cats. I have a cat that pets me. :D

Anyhow, I made the generalization. It was intended to be a 'general' statement which, of their nature do not translate well to the specific.
The statement is: "In general, the average firearms owner is not careless."

Your took the generalization I made, that was not false, and tried to shoehorn it into a specific case(s) to show that it wasn't true. That doesn't wash.

Further, if you insist on holding your narrow and rather arrogant view that "firearms are designed to kill", then I would say the fact that their accident incidence is so low, is an even greater evidence of the rather common carefulness of their owners. However, the concepts of design which the engineer had in mind does not determine the use of the invention. Over the years firearms have been refined in several categories, one of which is target shooting. Having been on my college's varsity rifle team for four years, I can say for certain that some attributes developed specifically for target shooting do not at all enhance any off-range uses without significant detriments.

Finally, ask a sniper. It is his job to take lives, when required. Regardless of how much thought those who designed his rifle gave to its use as a lethal weapon, it is the sniper's decision to take the life. The rifle's designer need not contemplate the specific use that it will put to for it to be effective. The single component of any sniping system that makes the most difference in that system's lethality is sniper, himself. There is even a t-shirt that says, "My rifle is only a tool, I am the weapon."

[Riftaxe]

3. "Deadly when used as intended" That does not fly

perhaps your only intended use of a gun is to kill people, but you are in an incredible small minority of other psychopaths with similar beliefs.

Now find out how many times guns are used recreationally and cross match that with injuries, that would be true information.

[ET Awful]

5. The handguns which most people (including myself) own or plan to own are designed

for exactly that purpose. You may not like it, but that is what they are designed to do. They are not designed to tickle someone who is attacking you. They are not designed to scratch someone. They are designed to cause quick debilitating damage to other living things. That is their intent.

The vast majority of people who support gun ownership do so because they state it is for defensive purposes. You don't defend yourself by shooting someone in the toe.

Guns ARE designed to kill things. That was their intent from the first time someone mounted a steel tube to a wooden stock and loaded it with black powder and a ball of lead.

Even putting aside the killing as intent aspect .. . a gun is designed to put holes in things. A car is designed to travel from point A to point B. Thus, regardless of what you think the intent of a firearm is, it IS deadly when used for its intended purpose (to put holes in things. Putting holes in living things generally causes them to cease living if done to a large enough extent).

[Blown330]

9. Two of my handguns specifically...

...state "Target" somewhere on the barrel or receiver. They are designed and intended for accurate target shooting. Sorry, your one-hat-fits-all definition carries no water. Also, as far as that "vast majority who support gun ownership..." blurb, cite evidence or hold your tongue otherwise you are just parroting. The car analogy is apt because, as you fail to distinguish, misuse of either is a criminal offense and causes damage and injury. Once again, it is the individual that determines how it is used.

[ET Awful]

13. So you deny that your guns are, as I said, designed to put holes in things?

Interesting.

Do you deny that firearms were invented as weapons designed to kill things as well?

Of course stating that because it says "target" on it means it's not designed for killing is like saying because a car says "touring" on it, it's not designed to drive to the corner store and back.

You quite obviously didn't actually READ my post.

[ileus]

19. My SD firearms were designed to save lives.

they do it a little differently than say a defib but what can I say they're there to protect my family. Until then they're for target practice and standing guard with me.

[ET Awful]

30. The fact remains that they dont' save lives by delivering kitties and cotton candy to those from

whom you are protecting your family. They save those lives by taking other lives when used properly.

[Blown330]

26. Very nice.

Completely missing the point while shoving your head in your fourth POC at the same time. I did read your post and your absolutest point is still wrong. To you, putting holes in "things" is still killing. A target pistol that puts holes in inanimate objects kills nothing, and therefore is and of itself no more deadly than the person using it. Try to be not so narrow minded.

[ET Awful]

31. You have yet to actually disprove my point.

But thanks for trying.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

44. Maybe there's something more...

...but what you said is: "...comparing cars to guns is equally stupid."

Rather than asking that someone 'disprove your belief' perhaps you would like to actually prove it, yourself.

[Blown330]

49. Your point was disproved...

...as soon as you typed it. My target pistols, when used as they are intended to be used, will never kill anything. Unfortunately, you are not well educated in human history it appears. The knife is one of mankind's earliest "killing" tools, yet very obviously many people today carry pocket knives that do nothing more violent than opening a package. The knife, like the gun, is just a tool and how it is used is entirely dependent on the individual who wields it.

[Euromutt]

29. "Only one is deadly when used as intended"?

When used as intended, a car is a self-propelled two-ton-plus bludgeon traveling at dozens of miles an hour. The fact that over 40,000 people are killed every year in motor vehicle collisions in the United States alone should be more than sufficient evident that cars can be very deadly indeed, even "when used as intended."

[ET Awful]

32. When used as intended, a car takes a person from point a to point b.

When used as intended, a gun puts holes in things. Rather large gaping holes.

Crashing a car is NOT an intended use of the car, as you well know. In fact, it is very far from the intended use.

[Euromutt]

33. Even then, it can be deadly

It is perfectly possible for a motorist to be using the vehicle as intended, but if another driver pulls out in front of the car in a manner that the first driver is unable to react in time and T-bones the second car... well, you get the picture. Or if a darkly clad pedestrian steps out in front of the car at night, or... It may not be the fault of the driver, but his self-propelled two-ton bludgeon will still be the proximate cause of any trauma inflicted.

Conversely, it is most assuredly an intended use of a firearm, particularly a handgun, to be used to present a deterrent. If the wielder can drive an assailant to flight or surrender by threatening to put holes in him, the gun has been used as intended without actually putting holes in anything.

Another problem with your statement is that you leave undefined whose intent we're talking about here. In the case of a car's supposedly intended use, are we talking about the manufacturer's intent, the driver's intent, or what you think constitute permissible intents on their part? What is the intent of a (comparatively) high-powered muscle car, if not to be driven at high speeds? If getting a person from point A to point B were the only possible intended use of a car, we'd all be driving Honda Civics or minivans. And if a driver drives at an unsafe speed, or drives home from a bar with a BAC well over .01, is he not using the car as he intends? Of course he doesn't intend to crash into someone else, but that may all too readily be the unintended result.

And if the manufacturer of a firearm markets it as a tool for putting holes in paper targets, or waterfowl, or big game, am I using it "as intended" if I discharge at a human being? Or, as above, if I use a handgun to drive an assailant to flight without actually firing a shot, as was my intent, is it my intended purpose for the gun that matters, or somebody else's?

I can't help feeling you're trying to arbitrarily limit the options to only those that suit your argument.

[ET Awful]

37. So tell me . . . if a gun is intended for putting holes in waterfowl, is not its entire intent to

kill? Or is it intended to just scare the little buggers?

Is it now your contention that the intent of a defensive firearm is to scare away an "assailant"? I submit that very few discussions regarding the stopping power of a particular caliber or weapon, or the accuracy of such a weapon would be debated and discussed to such a great extent if that was its intent.

If you do not intend to fire a shot, does that mean you keep your gun unloaded at all times?

A gun, by its very design and from it's very origin, is designed as a weapon.

A car, by its very design and from its very origin, is designed as a mode of transportation.

A screwdriver is designed from its very origin to drive screws. If you stab someone with it, you are not using it for its intended purpose, you are using it for a task other than that for which it was designed.

You can try to argue to the contrary all you like, but the fact is that guns were designed from the first time someone thought of the idea of mounting a barrel to a wooden stock to be weapons. That is what they were designed to do.

Not so with a car. Unless you're living out Deathrace 2000, which I doubt.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. re: Deathrace 2000

A really fun movie. Don't kill the Bishop!

The designed purpose of an implement or tool does not affect how deadly it is or could be.

Get over it. Neither the tool, itself, nor its designers bear specific responsibility for misuse, carelessness or criminal activity.

[ET Awful]

42. I never said anythign about a tool or its designers having responsibility.

I described, accurately, what a tool was designed to do. If you don't use it in the manner in which it was designed, that's you, not the device.

The fact is that a car was designed to go to point b from point a. A gun was designed to make holes in point b from point al.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. re: "A gun was designed to make holes in point b"

Sounds good.

[SteveM]

47. See #22 below. nt

[Euromutt]

50. Why are you fixated on a single purpose for an entire class of items?

The purpose of a defensive firearm is to stop an attack. (I don't know why you feel the need to put "assailant" in quote marks when you've already conceded there is such a thing as a defensive firearm, by the way; if it's defensive, you're using it to defend yourself from something, presumably an assault of some sort.) If that can be accomplished by deterrence alone, so much the better, but you want to retain the option of actually inflicting incapacitating trauma, up to and including death, if need be.

Your insistence that an entire class of items, in all their myriad variations, must all have the same purpose and only that one purpose, isn't realistic, and you know it. It's an arbitrary contrivance to suit your argument. I don't buy for a second that you honestly believe that, say, the Honda S2000 and the Dodge Challenger were designed solely as means of transportation.

[Oneka]

40. Crashing

"a car is NOT an intended use of the car, as you well know. In Fact, it is very far from the intended use."

Intent is determined by the user , NOT , the item being used.

[SteveM]

46. The comparison is made by everyone here; stupid is in the eye...

Actually, with the exception of LEOs, the military, and civilians engaged in self-defense, both cars and guns are NOT deadly when used as intended. That leaves so-called "accidents" and firearms used by thugs and crims. Further, many firearms are used for hunting and target-shooting, and when used as intended are not deadly to humans.

Frequently, controller/banners use the car-gun analogy frequently, esp. concerning licensing, taxing and such. When that analogy is used, pro-2A folks will take it on, stupid or no.

[safeinOhio]

4. Apples and oranges.

How many people use cars everyday compared to how many use guns everyday?

Example, I use a car or truck everyday. I go to the range about 4 times a year and go hunting about 14 days a year. I carry about 12 days a year. I'd bet I use my guns way more than the average gun owner. For most, their guns sit in a drawer on safe almost every day of the year.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. A very good question:

"How many people use cars everyday compared to how many use guns everyday?"

More than 10,000,000 have carry permits plus I would suggest that you need to add in the number of LEOs that carry everyday. After all a badge doesn't make you immune to accidents.

You may be a somewhat more frequent "user" than *most* of 80,000,000 plus gun owners. I would suggest that there may be about 200,000,000 licensed drivers. If I divide that number by 71 (the ratio of motor vehicle accident fatalities to accidental firearms discharge fatalities) I get a bit less than 3 million which is certainly less than the number of regular daily carriers.

I will also point out that those who carry, in all likelihood, carry all day when not at home. Those who drive everyday to work are likely on the road less than 2 hours each day. (except those who drive to work in NYC, DC or LA) ;)

[billh58]

7. Wouldn't a better comparison

be the number of gun owners compared to the number of drivers? There are many more licensed drivers there there are gun owners, even though the number of guns and automobiles are relatively equal. Many gun owners keep several guns.

Another consideration would be that the average person is exposed to far more automobiles on a daily basis than they are to guns. A large percentage of guns never leave their owner's homes, whereas their cars are driven in public regularly.

And lastly, most gun owners also drive automobiles.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. good point, I think. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. A very good point.

Please see post #12.

[digonswine]

10. You cannot compare the two--

This is silly--to compare the simple numbers of guns vs. cars shows a disconnect from the ability to look at numbers and draw rational conclusions. They are two different tools used in totally different ways--different usage times, events, etc. There is no realistic way to show even a per hour usage danger at all. One could say that you could only compare the times of ACTUAL usage---the time the firearm is actually being handled. This would also be stupid. These comparisons are useless and misleading and a completely false equivalency. By the way, I am-for the most part-in favor of gun rights. These arguments do nothing whatsoever for either side.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. Yes...

...and neither is it a fair comparison to relate incidence of accidents among those who drive to work, those drive on a delivery route and those who drive tractor-trailers 500 miles/day, but insurance companies do it all the time.

[digonswine]

20. That has nothing to do with what I said-

Insurance companies doing X does not enter into it. At least they are attempting to compare risks that are in some way-if even a little-comparable. Your original statement is still nonsense.

ETA--I should not have said that about your original statement. You did not make one in the OP. You are correct in another post about anti-gunners using incidents to bolster arguments for control. BUT--speaking of cars in comparison to guns is not helpful to either side.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. About...

"...compare risks that are in some way-if even a little-comparable..."

Accidental deaths are all very unfortunate. I look at the number of drivers and cars, how often and how far they drive and the frequency of accidental deaths. I make a similar (sorry if so many folks can understand the similarity) observation on firearms owners and accidental deaths. I accept the fact that many, many gun owners keep their guns at home 99% of the time locked in a safe. There are about half as many gun owners as car owners. However, with over 10 million CCW holders and more than a million LEOs, I conclude that the average firearm user is no more careless and/or ACCIDENTALLY deadly than the average driver.

[HankyDubs]

22. so lets treat guns like cars!

Licensing requirement in all 50 states. Registration of all cars before they can be used for their intended purpose. Mandatory insurance for accidents both minor and catastrophic.

They love to make this comparison, but as usual the gungeon never thinks anything through to its logical conclusion.

[X_Digger]

23. Why should we, since they're obviously safer than cars..

Of course, I'll also remind you that..

a. No license is required to own a car, only when you take it on public roads.
b. No registration is required to own a car, only when you get tags to take it on the public roads.
c. No insurance is required, if a car doesn't drive on public roads.
d. There is no constitutional protection to possess / drive a car.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

53. Strictly speaking...

...I think if you are licensed as a dealer you don't need to title the vehicle either.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. Let's not...

...maybe when the government can treat the citizens like adults, cars can be treated as guns are.

[Remmah2]

35. Sigh

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. At least...

...you don't need a license to buy a car nor are you under any obligation to register that car unless you want to drive it on a public road. :)

[krispos42]

41. And with the acquisition of an easily-obtained license...

...we can carry our guns without limit in all 50 states, in virtually all public areas.


:evilgrin:

[beevul]

45. Except thats not what you're proposing.

"Licensing requirement in all 50 states."

To operate in public, not to own.

"Registration of all cars before they can be used for their intended purpose."

In public, not on private property.

"Mandatory insurance for accidents both minor and catastrophic."

For public use, not for private use or simple ownership.



And this is where I get to add my own to your list:

Cars are cash and carry, no backlground check or restrictions on wife beaters, violent felons, etc, so I guess you're just going to have to do away with those laws on guns...

"They love to make this comparison, but as usual the gungeon never thinks anything through to its logical conclusion."


Look whos talking.

Hahahahahaha. :rofl:

[SteveM]

48. Actually, you would run into problems...

You can own a car without a license; you just can't operate it on public thoroughfares. Further, the individual states go to great lengths to state that driving is a "privilege," and not a right; hence, presumably, the licensing of autos and not the licensing of guns (at a minimum, in your residence). Further still, various "insurance" schemes and fees would rightly seen as de facto restrictions on the Second, much as poll taxes were seen as a restriction on the right to vote. You should note that taxes, fees, melting-point laws, etc. were seen as subterfuge to prevent blacks from owning firearms in the Old South. Those laws have collapsed with the rest of Jim Crow since the mid-60s.

"...as usual the gungeon never thinks anything through." If you've been in this forum for more than a few months, you will have seen the "gun-car" analogy regularly dissected. Through and through.

[krispos42]

28. Cars get used more than guns.

That's the first problem with the argument I can find.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. For sure.

But from the statistics, do cars get used 71 times more than guns?

[drpepper67]

51. People who are anti-gun don't care.

They don't care about the number of kids killed for example. Otherwise they'd be protesting swimming pools. Because more kids die every year from drowning the the backyard pool than from being shot on purpose, accident, and suicide combined.

No, it's not the number they care about, it's the manner of their death they lament.

See, in their minds, if it weren't for those evil guns, little Johnny would be alive today.

[oneshooter]

52. Untill he died in a pool. n/t