Page 2 of 2
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:01 pm
by Dobe
joshnickmc wrote:NPR ran this story about pedestrian deaths today:
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/28/70648138 ... -year-high
I've been thinking a lot lately the arguments I've seen for banning guns after Las Vegas, Parkland, and Christchurch. Something I've been struck by is that almost every problem folks claim to have with guns is one that applies directly to cars. They're dangerous. You should be trained to use one, etc. But even the most ardent environmentally minded friends I have can't envision a world without cars of some kind. They certainly all own cars, even if they don't drive very often.
I've started thinking that the difference between cars, which folks don't want to ban, and guns, which many do, is a matter of daily utility. Cars offer more utility to more people more often than guns do. Cars make life easier. They make jobs easier. They make kids easier. Of course, they also have made us obese and have contributed in a big way to the global warming pickle we find ourselves in. Roads have also covered countless square miles of wilderness. Guns have done none of these things, but most people don't use guns as a tool day in and day out. So it's easier to ban them even though the better bet for a happy, healthy, safe society, if you're in to banning things, would be to get rid of cars.
No question here, just a line of reasoning I've been playing with...
Guns are the focal point in an effort to avoid the social problems.
It’s much easier to blame an inanimate object than addressing problems in Chicago for example.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:16 pm
by TrueTexan
We need to quit blaming inanimate objects for people’s deaths and just put the blame where it should be, on people. People kill People.
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:51 pm
by max129
Samuel Colt apparently was a disruptor.
+1
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:23 pm
by shinzen
Although I see why the comparison is made, I'm not a huge fan of this line of reasoning.
1) It makes it seem like, to a casual observer, that we're insensitive to the issue of homicides and suicides and are trying to deflect it rather than trying to be part of the solution.
2) It opens up the anti's to going down the path of licensing, safety features, and registration, as the very next thing out of their mouths will be how we've managed to reduce drunk driving with enforcement and tougher laws, reduce accidental deaths and negligent deaths by requiring seat belts, forced auto makers to improve safety designs, etc ad nauseum.
Logically, yes, there is more that could be done that would have a greater impact by focusing on many other things. (Heart disease, obesity, pools, cars, etc) By instead addressing the issues that are presented to us with going after the root causes of the issue, and having actual solutions that will make a measurable difference, we are not allowing them to control the conversation into an emotional vs logical debate. We're showing them how to solve the problem they've presented rather than deflecting it.
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:44 pm
by senorgrand
Shin make good points. However, I think this is a perfectly viable second attack line on the "why do you need?" argument. Although my first choice to counter that is "where in the constitution does it say rights are granted once needs can be proven?" I mean, I'm still not sure anyone NEEDS freedom of religion or freedom to marry. But it's not up to the individual to prove she NEEDS a right...it's the responsibility of the government to make the argument that rights demand restrictions.
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:55 pm
by featureless
Good points, shin. In California, we're already there, though. So why not hit them with some honesty?