Page 1 of 2
Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:52 pm
by joshnickmc
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...
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:15 pm
by harriss
Great post. Impeccable logic.
I also heard the report on NPR about the rise in pedestrian deaths. I might also add the question, when we go to the range to practice and maintain proficiency with a firearm do we stare at a cell phone screen while trying to aim our firearm at the target? Of course not. The same should apply to operating a motor vehicle.
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:02 pm
by featureless
There are a lot of similarities. The dissimilarity is that only one of them is in the bill of rights.
Imagine if California had created a safe car roster the disallowed sale of any new car models (or changed models) that didn't include traceable emissions after 2015. We wouldn't have any of the new safety features. They did this very thing with the hand gun roster.
In 2017, there were 37,133 killed in car accidents, 17,662 of those included alcohol (which I consider to be as criminal as murder, as do many jurisdictions). In 2017, there were 10,982 firearm homicides.
https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/gene ... ash-totals and FBI stats.
In the US, there were 276.1 million vehicles registered in 2018. Wikipedia says there are 393 million guns in the US. So 0.0064 percent of cars are used to kill someone while negligently driving drunk and 0.0028 percent of guns are used to murder someone. So cars are used almost twice as often to kill someone due to drunk driving than guns are used to murder someone.
The LA times reported there were 489 people killed in accidental shootings in 2015 (most recent year available). Based on accidental deaths, cars are at a rate of 0.013 percent vs guns at 0.00012 percent. Which boogieman should we ban?
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:13 pm
by danhue
Without going as far as banning all cars, there could be a case for banning SUVs, since they contribute more to pedestrian deaths. Their utility in most case can also be questioned. Also, how many people are killed during unnecessary errands? Maybe there should be a quota of files each person is allowed to drive every year. I’m of course not really advocating for those things, but they’re the kind of restrictions based on risk vs. utility that gun owners have to deal with.
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:59 pm
by senorgrand
1) Lowering the national speed limit to 35 would save thousands of lives each year.
2) Cars can now easily be limited from driving more than the national speed limit...this would also save lives
Neither of these things will be done because the resulting restriction in freedom would be hugely unpopular. And yet, there is no constitutional protection for how fast you can drive.
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:23 pm
by K9s
I always used a similar line when someone asks why I should have an AK. Why do they allow possession of fast cars designed to exceed the speed limit?
Cars pollute the air far more than firearms. Cars kill more people. We still have cars because... money. We still have guns because.... Constitution and money.
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:42 pm
by SubRosa
Some of us remember the national 55 speed limit. Major suckage there...
Now the same dumbass mindset is descending on firearms.
SR
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:18 pm
by K9s
SubRosa wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:42 pm
Some of us remember the national 55 speed limit. Major suckage there...
Now the same dumbass mindset is descending on firearms.
SR
55 did save gas. It also saved lives. Cruise control made it tolerable but it still felt like the car was crawling.
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:21 pm
by SubRosa
Especially in a state where corner to corner diagonal is 600 miles. Texas and Alaska prolly had deaths due to old age behind the wheel...
SR
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:31 pm
by YankeeTarheel
SubRosa wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:42 pm
Some of us remember the national 55 speed limit. Major suckage there...
Now the same dumbass mindset is descending on firearms.
SR
Initially, it was 50mph. But that was SO ridiculously slow that the cost of moving goods, services, and people exploded. 55mph was a bigger improvement than you realize--when seen from the other side. I remember riding up to college at 50mph...made for a LOOOONGGGG trip!
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:34 pm
by highdesert
featureless wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:02 pm
There are a lot of similarities. The dissimilarity is that only one of them is in the bill of rights.
Imagine if California had created a safe car roster the disallowed sale of any new car models (or changed models) that didn't include traceable emissions after 2015. We wouldn't have any of the new safety features. They did this very thing with the hand gun roster.
In 2017, there were 37,133 killed in car accidents, 17,662 of those included alcohol (which I consider to be as criminal as murder, as do many jurisdictions). In 2017, there were 10,982 firearm homicides.
https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/gene ... ash-totals and FBI stats.
In the US, there were 276.1 million vehicles registered in 2018. Wikipedia says there are 393 million guns in the US. So 0.0064 percent of cars are used to kill someone while negligently driving drunk and 0.0028 percent of guns are used to murder someone. So cars are used almost twice as often to kill someone due to drunk driving than guns are used to murder someone.
The LA times reported there were 489 people killed in accidental shootings in 2015 (most recent year available). Based on accidental deaths, cars are at a rate of 0.013 percent vs guns at 0.00012 percent. Which boogieman should we ban?
Good points featureless, I've argue this one a few times as cars are much more lethal than firearms. Someone can get a learners permit at 15 1/2 (CA) and their provisional license at 16 years,but for a handgun it's 21 years or age. Make safe storage laws the same for guns and cars, which means cars must be in a locked garage at all times when not in use or they must be disabled and not drivable (can't be hot wired) if parked in a lot, on a driveway or in the street. Owners would be responsible for crimes committed with a stolen vehicle that resulted in death or injury if it was not in a locked garage or disabled.
I'd like to see an "automobile roster", where there are realistic safety ratings. IIHS and probably NHTSA compare vehicles of the same size/class so a 5 star rating is valid if you're comparing a Toyota Corolla to a Honda Civic, but not if you're comparing a Honda Civic to a Ford 150 pick up, the 150 is most likely much safer.
Good topic Josh !
Next, let's look at residential swimming pools where children are 11 times more likely to die than in a school shooting, according to Professor Fox at Northeastern U.
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:36 pm
by K9s
Don't get me started on swimming pools!
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:39 pm
by featureless
highdesert wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:34 pm
Next, let's look at residential swimming pools where children are 11 times more likely to die than in a school shooting, according to Professor Fox at Northeastern U.
Or we could look at obesity. Turns out, you really can eat yourself to (an early) death.
In general, humans suck at risk assessment. The world is a dangerous place. When you get right down to it, lawful gun owners just aren't statistically important in that matrix of "it's gunna get me."
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:55 pm
by YankeeTarheel
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:26 pm
by highdesert
featureless wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:39 pm
Or we could look at obesity. Turns out, you really can eat yourself to (an early) death.
Or as an Austrian said, "How to commit suicide with a knife and fork."
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:46 pm
by joshnickmc
Thanks for the thoughtful responses!
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:35 pm
by SeanMoney
I feel the same way about nuclear weapons. I mean they have not accounted for as many deaths as cars but they get such a bad rap. And the man says I cant have one. I mean what is up with that?
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:59 pm
by K9s
SeanMoney wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:35 pm
I feel the same way about nuclear weapons. I mean they have not accounted for as many deaths as cars but they get such a bad rap. And the man says I cant have one. I mean what is up with that?
I think the researchers probably had some casualties (pesky radiation) and Chernobyl was bad, but actual hydrogen bombs in homes are probably safer than those dangerous "assault weapons" in your safe!
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:02 pm
by K9s
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 9:53 am
by TrueTexan
As we see the state and local governments limiting types of guns, magazine size and etc., We can look to Europe for our next limits for cars.
Speeding kills, but even though speed limiting technology has existed for motor vehicles since the early 1900s national governments have never mandated their use. However, a new ruling by the European Parliament could result in the mandatory installation of Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) in all new cars within three years.
Some cars – such as the new Ford Focus – already feature this technology, but it can be easily turned off. The proposed new rules would make sure motorists had to use ISA technology, when fitted. It is expected that the automotive industry will continue to oppose mandatory fitting and use of ISA devices and may attempt to derail the necessary additional legislation required before European Parliamentary elections in May. Negotiations between the European Parliament, member states and the European Commission will determine how the proposed regulations are implemented.
Members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection voted last week to approve a range of new vehicle safety standards including automatic detection of pedestrians and cyclists, and a new direct vision standard for lorries and buses to enable drivers to have a better view of other road users around their vehicles. MEPs also voted for the installation of ISA devices on all new cars from 2022.
Many buses and trucks already feature such technology, but private motor vehicles had so far been exempt from stricter rules for “professional” drivers.
MEPs also green lighted the requirement for motor vehicles to be fitted with aviation-style “black box” Event Data Recorders, which record critical information on the status of a motor vehicle in the moments before a collision.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... 335fdd1451
See the bumper sticker or tee shirt "They will have pry my cold dead foot off the Accelerator"
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:06 am
by CDFingers
I'm a day late, but I agree with featureless in that guns are a right and cars are not. That means if someone wants to require seat belts in cars, the counter argument is that it will cost dollars to put them in. The public agrees to pay because safety. Problem solved. If someone wants to put a seat belt on a gun, the NRA calls Russia to have them send bots out to argue against it because rights.
CDFingers
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:12 am
by dougb
Technology trends in automobile design will make the roads safer and may just eliminate private ownership-at least for the proletariat types. AI and full automation of automobiles will replace drivers, allowing them to devote full time attention to the cell phone. Uber and others are now training people to call for a car, instead of keeping one in the garage. Central garages owned by dealerships would handle maintenance and storage, dispatching cars as needed. Of course, auto builders and insurance companies would protest, but it would allow big govt to totally track movements.
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:38 am
by Wino
I've never quite comprehended gun owners fascination with comparing car deaths with gun deaths - any more than with ice picks, knives, clubs, baseball bats, belts, rope nooses, or sudden impact from great heights - the only correlation is death - nothing more. Car, gun deaths comparison is a red herring and adds nothing to the conversation IMO. Carry on.
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:02 am
by featureless
Wino wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:38 am
I've never quite comprehended gun owners fascination with comparing car deaths with gun deaths - any more than with ice picks, knives, clubs, baseball bats, belts, rope nooses, or sudden impact from great heights - the only correlation is death - nothing more. Car, gun deaths comparison is a red herring and adds nothing to the conversation IMO. Carry on.
Because gun control advocates insist it's about saving lives. Showing there are far more useful causes that would save far more lives without infringing on a constitutional right is important in showing the dishonesty of their position. The evil "assault rifle" is responsible for some small percentage of the 400 rifle deaths each year. Is it really worth insisting that millions of lawful gun owners have their constitutional rights restricted to maybe save a few of that small percentage? Would we find it acceptable to ban anal sex to stop aids or ban the internet to stop child trafficking and sex trafficking (both of which occur by criminals operating under the blanket freedom of our 1A)? If you look at gun homicide statistics, the vast majority of it is between young black men using handguns. How, in any way, does an assault weapon ban effect the change we are looking for in that population? It doesn't even touch it.
What we have is a perception problem. The thing that makes news is the "spectacular" event when some nut with an AR15 shoots a bunch of people. The media and political frenzy is disgusting. The reality is, young poor black men are shooting each other much more frequently. The next subset is men shooting their wives in the ultimate portrayal of domestic violence. But these don't make the news, just like the huge number of drunk driving deaths, swimming pool deaths or obesity-related deaths. So, the least likely threat is assigned the boogieman of ultimate evil while we ignore the other things that can be addressed through root cause to actually reduce deaths, homicide or otherwise. That is why it is important.
Re: Cars vs. Guns and arguing about utility
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:52 pm
by CDFingers
While most gun deaths happen at close range, we have to acknowledge that guns can kill from a distance. That's a big difference with all the other means of homicide. Well, poison and polonium, I suppose, could kill at a distance and at a distant time. And still murder is illegal--who knew?
Comparisons guns with something else--they're all different from guns. I think we have to talk about guns as members of a unique class of objects. Samuel Colt apparently was a disruptor.
CDFingers
