We need to ban "sports cars"...

[spin]

for example:



http://image.automotive.com/f/auto_shows/coverage/sema/9469201/112_2006_sema_132z+2007_ford_mustang_GT_convertible_by_Stitchcraft_interiors_inc+front_view.jpg





Powerful cars like these have absolutely no purpose but to go fast and break the speed limit, endangering every other motorist on the highway. These cars could never be used to drive to work or to go to the store to pick up milk.

We can begin by eliminating any car that has a hood scoop, a rear airfoil, magnesium wheels or racing stripes.

By doing this we can reduce the number of accidents that occur on our nations highways significantly!

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. And don't base it at all on the engine - base it all on what LOOKS like it goes fast.

Those are the ones that scare me the most - the ones that LOOK fast.

So a Mustang GT engine in a Nash Rambler is just fine.

But a lawnmower engine in a Mustang/Corvette/Ferrari/etc. shell - that should be banned.



Facts be damned! Emotions are all that count!

[MercutioATC]

16. Exactly!!

My car will toast most "sports cars", but because it's a 4-door sedan, it's a "hunting rifle", not an "assault weapon".

[Tim01]

2. Nobody needs a car that will go that fast. Ban them.

[Fovea]

3. I'm cool with that.

We kill a 9-11 worth of Americans on the road roughly every month in the US.

But instead of getting rid of the trim, just reduce the number of horsepower.
Kinda like an automatic weapons ban.

[MercutioATC]

7. We already have that.

Automatic weapons have been heavily restricted by federal law since 1934.

...the equivalent of banning fast cars, but allowing professionals to race.

[Fovea]

47. My point exactly

[imdjh]

4. Isn't there some kind of law of physics about that?

That anyone who would pay as much as that Mustang costs is so incredibly stupid that he's going to do himself in before he can reproduce?

[tridim]

5. Can I have one if I install machine guns in the front grille??

[baldguy]

6. If they're designed specifically to kill those they pass by, sure.

If they're regulated for safety, inspected & licensed, insured & the operators trained and licensed - I don't think so. We don't live in Mad Max's post-Apocalyptic Australia.

typical RW propaganda FAIL.

[MercutioATC]

9. They're designed to break the law and endanger people's lives.

My car goes 0-60 in a little over 6 seconds and tops out at just over 165mph.

At that speed, there is NO safety device that will save your life...or the lives of others around you.

[baldguy]

17. They are designed for safety.

They may be capable of high performance, but they are tightly REGULATED and POLICED constantly so that they may be operated safely in the public space. Of course there are some extremists - people who want no regulations at all, no speed limits, no licensing, no safety regs, but they're dismissed by serious people.

FAIL again

[MercutioATC]

22. My car is NOT safe at 165mph. No car is.

...and nobody is talking about "no regulations"...just no silly regulations.

We already have regulations on "race cars" and "assault rifles"...based on actual performance. To ban a gun based on its looks is as silly as banning a car because it looks fast.

[baldguy]

28. "Nobody" is talking about no regulations?

I can show you 50 posts from this board today advocating exactly that. That's the baseline position for the wacky right supported by the NRA and the GOP. Out in the world they pump up the morlocks with even more extreme views - like "Obama will take your boomstick away" or comparing him to Hitler for example.

The simple fact is we DO ban cars - those with features which have been deemed by statute to be unsafe, like overly tinted windows or racing slicks. You might be of the opinion that these bans are silly, but THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE. The primary debate is weather to have any regs on firearms & their owners at all. And we DO require licensing for ALL vehicle operators & registration for ALL vehicles. The only reason the same isn't done for firearms is because the lunatic fringe has an inordinate amount of influence & money - bolstered by the GOP.

[MercutioATC]

30. Kindly link to any post advocating lifting the Federal Firearms Act of 1934.

It's the law that heavily restricts private ownership of the assault rifles that many mistakenly think are the same as "assault weapons".

Neither the NRA nor the GOP have, to the best of my knowledge, suggested repealing this law.


The "assault weapons" that some people want to ban are mechanically the same as most hunting rifles. The AWB didn't ban firearms based on real issues, it banned them because they looked scary. That is equivalent to banning certain cars based not on actual safety issues, but whether or not they have racing stripes or spoilers.

Nobody is suggesting that automatic weapons cease to be regulated...just as nobody is advocating eliminating the restrictions that make F1 cars non-street-legal.

...but banning firearms that just look "scary" without having any real difference from other guns is like banning red Hondas with racing stripes just because they look fast.

[kudzu22]

103. Exactly. Looks are deceiving

To follow the sports car analogy, if we already banned high-performance cars (Ferrari and the like), then the AWB was the equivalent of banning sports-car lookalikes. It would ban any car with a Ferrari-like body, even if it had a Ford Escort chassis and engine. It looks fast, so it must be fast. If we point out the idiocy of this policy, they retort with "Well, it can be readily converted into a sports car".

Sure, if you replace the engine with a $90,000 one.

Same logic for semi-auto rifles. They can be converted to full-auto if you have a $30,000 auto-sear. But they look scary as is and thus must be banned.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. Calling BULLSHIT right there.

Show me 50 posts in DU advocating removal of all gun regulations posted today. You can't do it today or any day. In addition we don't BAN cars with overly tinted windows or racing slicks. Those cars are ticketed and told to fix the problem. They aren't towed to a lot to be destroyed immediately. You don't have to register a vehicle nor do you have to have a license to operate one, provided of course you drive it on private property (I believe MI may have outlawed this though).

David

[aikoaiko]

64. Prove it: "I can show you 50 posts from this board today advocating exactly that."

This post shows you to be a poster who is willing to exaggerate beyond reality to make a political point.

[yay]

96. Alright please do.

I'll expect 50 or more.

[aikoaiko]

100. was this meant for post #28?

:shrug:

[gorfle]

74. This is untrue.

The simple fact is we DO ban cars - those with features which have been deemed by statute to be unsafe, like overly tinted windows or racing slicks.

But these bans only apply to vehicles driven on public roads, not on private property. On private property, your vehicle can have whatever tinting or wheels you like.

And we DO require licensing for ALL vehicle operators & registration for ALL vehicles.

This is untrue. We only require licensing for vehicles and operators operating vehicles on public roads. Vehicles operated on private property do not require licensing, registration, or any other regulation.

The only reason the same isn't done for firearms is because the lunatic fringe has an inordinate amount of influence & money - bolstered by the GOP.

The firearm lobby does have a lot of influence and money, but it's not all GOP influence and money and we aren't all lunatics.

[umccoyw]

66. some extremeists

so what your saying is that since there are laws in place you can still get a fast car. your right they shouldnt ban fast cars in reality because laws arent going to stop people from speeding. people who follow the law will will go to speed limit (OR close to it) and not be reckless. but again you have criminals who for this argument say robbed a bank and got into there fast car to outrun police do you think they are going to go the speed limit or stop for stop signs or at red lights? they are not and they are going to put everyones life in jeapordy that is on the road

[Pullo]

11. My AR-15 was specifically designed to kill groundhogs.....

so why all the fuss?

[rl6214]

24. But there are 42,000 auto related deaths each year

Surely a good portion of those have to be sports cars.

[SheilaT]

43. I believe that SUVs

account for a disproportionate share of such deaths. Don't know how "sports cars" stack up.

[Statistical]

84. but SUV don't look "scary fast" like sports cars do.

See how much banning by looks makes sense.

[gorfle]

72. Did you know...

If they're regulated for safety, inspected & licensed, insured & the operators trained and licensed - I don't think so. We don't live in Mad Max's post-Apocalyptic Australia.

Did you know that just like firearms, cars driven only on private property do not require any regulation for safety, inspections, licensing, insurance, or operator training and licensing?

Only if you want to operate them on public roads do those things apply. Just like you need a CCW permit to carry a firearm in public.

[rwenos]

8. You Might Just as Well Outlaw Sex

Look, I drive a 1994 Ford Escort. But I've been a guy my whole life, and folks . . . GUYS LOVE CARS.

And if you think that it's un-Victorian or something to drive a sexy car, what do you make of the Tesla? Costs $110k, goes 0-60 in 4 point something, and its ELECTRIC.

Hell, even a Prius goes 100 mph. I know that because Al Gore, Jr., was arrested for DUI while driving a Prius over 100 mph -- at least according to the LA Times.

This is just blue-nosed prudishness. What's next? Bikinis? Evening gowns? Having fun?

[corruptmewithpower]

10. When the hood is relatively long the car becomes a phallus substitute

which will, likely as not. bury itself in some innocent, young, inexperienced little car,thereby ruining it for the rest of it's miles.

[Ken Burch]

14. As I've never said, but now wish I had:

"The longer the hood, the shorter the ornament".

[MercutioATC]

15. You "phallic symbol" people have issues...

Guns? Phallic symbols.

Cars? Phallic symbols.


Vegetarians must have some REAL issues...they insist on putting those orange "phallic symbols" in their mouths and claiming that it's good for their eyesight...

[Ken Burch]

12. I've always wondered...what "sports" are they used in?

They aren't even used in "motor sports", assuming those are actually sports instead of just pastimes(and I'm not judging people who like auto racing here, fine, whatever, but as I see it, sports involve teams of humans competing against each other physically, not somebody riding around in a car in circles for a couple of hours.)

[imdjh]

19. Exactly, and doesn't it crack you up when they refer to a race car driver as an "athlete"?

Anytime you can drink and smoke like some of the race car drivers, you're probably not an athlete. And before anyone jumps on this, no, baseball and golf are not sports, they are games of skill.

[yay]

38. It depends on the type of driving.

Stuff like drag racing and nascar are not sports.

Stuff like formula 1, motocross, ect. takes a lot of skill and I would consider them sports.

[jeepnstein]

67. Drag Racing?

Have you ever tried it? It's a balance between reaction times, hand-foot-eye coordination, and sheer insanity. The skill set required to get one down the track quickly is very much focused on fine motor skills and quick reaction. The car or bike is trying it's best to kill you the entire trip. At the top levels the drivers have quite a nutrition and training regimen.

[SheilaT]

13. There was a time when drivers of sports

cars paid the same insurance rates, even though they tended to get into accidents more often than drivers of some other kinds of cars. Back in the 1960's the auto insurance folks started charging insurance rates that reflected the relative group risks of drivers by age, gender and type of car driven. The young males driving very fast, high horse power sports vehicles declined precipitously.

Unfortunately, large SUV's, which get into rollover accidents at rates far beyond their proportional numbers of vehicles, and which tend to maim and kill occupants of other vehicles at unconscionable levels, do not pay proportionately higher insurance rates.

My information comes from the reading several years ago of a book about SUVs, called High and Mighty. It's quite interesting.

[X_Digger]

20. One of the auto industry's responses was..

..to under-report the horsepower of a car- to intentionally 'de-tune' the engine for testing to fudge the numbers. I seem to recall that they also only used the cylinder to calculate cubic inches, nevermind that many heads had a significant volume (not sure about that last one, but I know there were some other 'tricks' besides fudging the horsepower.)

[SheilaT]

42. Interesting.

Thank you for that added information. I read High and Mighty long enough ago to have forgotten many details.

[X_Digger]

18. And no gas tanks > 5g!

Can't have those things going very far without a fill-up.

[Taitertots]

21. No one needs a "death machine"

Sports cars were designed to do one thing, break traffic laws.

Obviously with traffic accidents killing far more people than guns it should be obvious that the regulations are not enough. If 15,000 gun deaths is too many, than 40,000 car accident deaths are unacceptable.

No one needs a vehicle designed to break traffic laws.

[MercutioATC]

23. Great. 35hp motors and speed limiters.

Would that do it for you?


How about stereos that don't go louder that 65 decibels (the average conversation level). Nobody NEEDS to listen to something at a volume that might cause hearing damage...

Or restaurants that only allowed you to order a certain caloric intake with a certain number of grams of fat? Nobody NEEDS to eat what they want.

Maybe a 1-drink-per-day limit on alcohol sales? Any more than that could be harmful.

Thank god I don't live in the nanny state that you propose.

[Taitertots]

34. Tell that to the gun control crowd

They want to limit gun rights because some people somewhere might get hurt.

Then when you apply that standard to the much more dangerous things they enjoy, they get all pissy.

[MercutioATC]

36. Sorry, it's hard to tell what's sarcasm in this thread.

We seem to agree.

[primavera]

41. If 100,000+ people/year = "some people somewhere," I guess that's true

You're pretty lean on compassion if you can so cavalierly dismiss that many dead, wounded, and disabled of your fellow citizens.

[umccoyw]

71. compassion

answer this for me, if someone broke into your home and pointed a gun at you what would you do, would you say that, "its ok its not your fault your doing this, no one has shown you compassion, please take all my stuff there is no need for guns" what do you think would happen in that case. Yes it is sad people die every day. Yes it would be nice if no one was shot and killed, And you know what if everyone just followed the law there would only be a very instances when someone would get hurt or killed with a firearm in an accident. But thats not realistic and a law abiding citizen has a right to live and so do criminals but if a choice HAS TO BE MADE then i choose to save myself or an innocent person v.s. having my life taking away by a criminal

[primavera]

76. I hear you

And I do respect your point. Personally, I believe - and freely admit that I could always be wrong - that there are other ways of addressing the life-threatening situation you describe. I have three obnoxiously barky dogs, a creaky old house, and an alarm system, in the combination of which I place a fair amount of trust that, if someone were to break into my house, I would have enough advance warning to be able to slip out my bedroom window and avoid the armed confrontation you describe. I also firmly believe that, if I had a gun and attempted to use it on an intruder, my chances of surviving the encounter would be reduced rather than improved. I would be totally flustered, would probably forget to even release the safety catch, would be blundering about in the dark, and would have about as much chance of hitting anything as George Bush has of saying anything truthful. Meanwhile, the intruder would almost certainly be better prepared mentally and physically, would have more experience dealing with armed encounters and would have long before had the presence of mind to ready his weapon, and would probably be waiting calmly in a corner for me to come stand silhouetted in the doorway. Yeah, that's gonna go over well. I'm pretty much 100% positive that having a gun and attempting to use it on an intruder would just about guarantee that I would be leaving the house in the coroner's wagon beneath a sheet. Nope, my one and only chance in the situation you describe is to make a break for it if I can and, if I can't, to do my best to talk my way out of it.

[umccoyw]

78. at least you admit

that would be the case for you and i appreciate that. BUT there are plenty of people who if they have a gun for self defense they would learn how to shoot it to be prepared. they offer class's as ranges that prepare for such encounters. only you can choose whats best for you when it comes to protection but your choice and opinions shouldnt hinder other law abiding citizens choices. you have the right not to have a firearm just like i have a right to carry one. i was in the military and have been trained to use it safely and properly and i have never had a negligent discharge or accident because i know what means to shoot it and what it can do. theres 3 pretty standard safety rules. 1 never point a weapon at anything you dont intend to shoot. 2 keep the weapon on safe until your ready to fire. 3 keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you ready to shoot. and the 4th unofficial one is know your target and what lies beyond. in other words take into account the safety of others around and dont shoot unless you know your not going to hit anybody else.

[primavera]

79. Sure

If everyone who owned a gun was willing to undergo the kind of rigorous training one receives in the military on responsible gun usage, I suspect gun accidents would drop to virtually nothing and I would drop most of my objections to them in private hands. The problem is that most gun owners don't possess that level of training, nor do they seem to have much enthusiasm for going to the trouble of obtaining it. I also don't think it's as easy to get that kind of training as you suggest. Sure, you can take an hour long gun safety course at a range in which they teach you the rules. The hard part is being able to remember those rules and apply them in a crisis situation when you're totally pumped on adrenaline and have the cerebral function of a cauliflower. For that level of mastery, I think it takes rather more than just attending a lecture or spending a few hours shooting up paper targets at a range.

[umccoyw]

82. your right

thats why it is important to go to the range as much as possible to practice so in a worst case scenario you dont have to think you just act APPROPRIATELY. I Myself when i go shooting with friends or if i just see people at the range i watch to make sure they are being safe and if not i call them out on it and teach them the proper way. Who knows maybe if there were state sponsored voluntary programs to learn this stuff there would be less accidents. But for the most part accidents dont make up the large numbers of deaths or injuries its criminals. But yes it is important to have someone to each you what to do and how to be safe and you must practice a lot but it becomes more difficult when you tax ammunition and talk about serializing rounds which would drastically increase the cost of going to the range and hence causing less practice and subsequently leading to more possible accidents. And i also dont feel its fair to tax a constitutional right therby infringing on a persons right who cant afford it.

[primavera]

25. I'll go along with that

Except it's 30,000 gun deaths a year, not 15,000. Regardless, I think there is an argument that a vehicle whose distinguishing capabilities cannot be utilized except in violation of existing traffic laws is riding on thin ice in terms of its essential function. I don't really know though how many sports cars are involved in accidents. Frankly, all of the accidents I've been involved in or witnessed seemed to involve SUVs, which seem to instill in their drivers that disregard for their surroundings that one observes in tank drivers. If it were the case that sports cars figured prominently in a disproportionate number of vehicular accidents and fatalities and restricting them would in fact save lives, my heart wouldn't bleed very much for enthusiasts being deprived of the thrill of aggressive driving as a trade off for those saved lives.

[Furyataurus]

26. Still

all vehicles should be banned for the children!!!!! Everyone should go back to horseback riding and using a cart to haul goods.

[primavera]

27. Why, what would that accomplish?

Did you have a point or were you just raving? If the former, please explain; if the latter, please pardon me for interrupting, pray go right on ahead.

[Taitertots]

33. Only if you count suicide

Those people wanted to die and I support anyone's right to suicide.

Ban SUVs too. No one needs a vehicle that puts everyone else on the road in increased risk.

They don't need to be a disproportionate number of accidents. They need to be banned because they only exist to break traffic laws and endanger the community. If 15,000 people murdered by guns is too much, the thousands killed by cars must be equally too much.

We need to limit everyone to vehicles no bigger than hoverounds. One live tragically lost to "danger carts" is too many.

[primavera]

40. Sorry, too absolutist for me

A vehicle that puts others at risk is on thin ice, but I still want to look at costs versus benefits. If someone genuinely needs a SUV to get around where they live, that's one thing, and the greater good of them being able to go about their business in the location where they live may more than offset the increased risk that they pose to other motorists. Then again, maybe they put others at risk because they derive some cheap hormonal thrill out of it, in which case, I suggest they buy themselves a video game and leave the SUV in the garage.

See, this is why the gun proponent's "ban cars" strawman analogy is so feeble. No one believes that any object which creates a hazard should automatically be banned, only that one should assess whether the costs of the thing outweigh the benefits.

[Taitertots]

49. There is no benefit to race cars

No one wants to take your cars. We just need strict limits on speed, horsepower, and structure. All cars need BAC testers to start, we can no longer do nothing while thousands of people are murdered by drunk drivers.

No one wants to ban all cars. It is obvious that race cars don't belong on the street. They have no benefit compared to normal cars. They are designed to do nothing except break the law. They have no place in civilized society.

More people are dieing in car crashes than getting murdered by guns by a far margin. There are millions of traffic accidents every year. The hazard is very clear.


Gun proponents use the car analogy because it makes clear the folly of the gun control argument. No one believes every object which creates a hazard should be banned. Gun control proponents just overweight the costs and deny any benefits. Same with the alcohol, tobacco, and unhealthy foods argument. Anyone is far more likely to die as a direct result of any one of those and they offer no benefits.

[primavera]

53. But all of those are reckless and irresponsible behaviors as well

You sure you want to compare gun owners to alcoholics, drug addicts, and aggressive drivers? Personally, I'm apt to agree with you, but it surprises me to hear a gun proponent embrace the comparison.

But I agree that, in some respects, gun use is comparable to alcoholism and cigarette smoking, in that, they, like guns, serve no essential purpose unattainable through other less hazardous occupations, they are responsible for countless deaths each year, and therefore, arguably, have no place in a civilized society. Personally - and I say this as one who smokes - I wish to God the government had banned tobacco, as it is extraordinarily dangerous, serves no purpose, and, once addicted to it, it is unbelievably difficult to give up. Had it had been an illegal substance, I would not be a smoker today and I would be profoundly grateful. So your attempt to "make clear the folly of the gun control argument" only reinforces the validity of the gun control argument as far as I can see.

However, even though I think there's a solid argument in favor of banning tobacco, I can at least appreciate the flip side of the argument that people have a right to make decisions for themselves and, if they want to kill themselves with tobacco, that's their choice. And I can go along with that reasoning - as long as the choice results in no harm to anyone other than themselves. What marginal "right" people have to do such incredibly stupid things as smoke is, as far as I'm concerned, entirely contingent upon them exercising that right in such a way as to prevent any harm coming to others who are not as monumentally fucking stupid as they are. With that in mind, I do not smoke indoors; I do not smoke around others unless they too are smokers and have made the same bad choice I made; if I am walking down the street with a cigarette and see someone approaching, I will cross the street so as to not expose them to second hand smoke. If I cause no harm to anyone else, that is the one thing that makes my destructive and dangerous behavior at least semi-tolerable.

And, in that respect, gun owners find themselves upon even less defensible ground than that occupied by alcoholics and drug addicts: the alcoholic and the cigarette smoker mostly harm themselves; the gun owner mostly harms others. Guns pose hazards not only to the gun owner, but to everyone around the gun owner, and while I will at least half-heartedly support your right to behave irresponsibly with a gun and carelessly shoot yourself, I do have a serious problem with you believing that your right to a gun justifies your child finding the gun you hid and using it to shoot his best friend, or with you opening fire on a perceived threat who turns out to not be a threat at all, or, in firing upon a perceived threat, you miss and hit someone other than the person you intended to hit. Your right to own a gun does not give you license to harm others.

[Taitertots]

56. So you are in favor of banning alcohol, tobacco, and race cars

Drunks kill just as many people as get murdered by guns. They cause far more none fatal accidents. Alcohol is as much a threat to the public as to users.
Cars when used properly kill 40,000 per year. Less people are killed on purpose with guns than die as accidents with cars.


You are being intellectually dishonest if you wish to portray guns as having no benefits. Guns pose hazards as well as benefits. Personal protection, hunting, and sport shooting. These hazards are clearly dwarfed by other legal hazards and dwarfed by the potential benefits.


I think alcohol, tobacco, fast cars, and guns should remain legal. Life is risky and we have reached acceptable levels for alcohol, tobacco, cars, and guns. You can't pretend that we can legislate danger out of existence.

[primavera]

69. Regulating isn't the same as banning

If your primary interest in guns is sport shooting, then you should have no problem agreeing to keep your gun(s) locked up in a gun safe at the shooting range where you do sport shooting, should you? If shooting at a range is what you need a gun for, then requiring that the guns be kept there would be no imposition at all. Yet maybe that would keep one of the less emotionally stable shooters at the range from getting liquored up one evening and doing something stupid with his gun.

I agree that life is risky and we can't legislate away risk altogether, but that doesn't prevent us from attempting to pass laws to protect people from those risks to the extent possible. And if 30,000 gun deaths a year is an acceptable level to you when the other countries of the developed world have per capita gun death rates that are less than a tenth of what ours is, I'd have to say you're setting your sights pretty low for that to be acceptable. I think we can definitely do better.

[Taitertots]

88. Sounds like a terrible imposition

That is an unreasonable request on many levels. My primary reason is a combination of sport shooting, hunting, and self defense. The majority of people who own guns don't regularly sport shoot or hunt. So what is to stop anyone who wants to commit crimes from just taking the guns home? How can anyone exercise their constitutionally protected right to have a gun in their home for self defense? It is egregious and capricious.


If you want to talk about risk management you can't count the 15,000 people who killed themselves. They pose no risk to you. Only the 15,000 people who didn't want to die should be counted. Which I believe is a number that could be better adjusted by poverty control, mental health care, and efficient penal system. The clear lack of correlation between gun control and crime rates demonstrates this clearly.


You can't pretend that guns don't have any benefits. Those benefits far exceed the minimal risk posed by guns. Risks far lower than any risk you willingly accept on a daily basis. How can you be so concerned about a liquored up person with a gun but still drive. You are more likely to be in a traffic accident by several orders of magnitude. You are 4 times more likely to die in a traffic accident than get murdered by a gun. There are 40 times more car accident deaths than gun accident deaths. There are several million car accidents every year.

[primavera]

89. I can't?

"You can't pretend that guns don't have any benefits."

Says who? You? Strange, I thought people were free to form their own beliefs. Did I miss a memo somewhere?

[Taitertots]

90. You can believe what you what

If being willfully ignorant is what you are going for then by all means.

[primavera]

92. Mighty white of you

How very insulting. I think this conversation has come to an end, don't you? Good-bye.

[yay]

94. How do you know he isn't black?

Or part of any other ethnic group? Are only white people allowed to call people ignorant? Sounds to me you have more "race" issues than he does.

But good job pulling the "race card"

[spin]

61. "The gun owner mostly harms others"...

There are an estimated 80 MILLION firearm owners in the United States.

In 1995, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms estimated that the number of firearms available in the US was 223 million.<10> About 25% of the adults in the United States personally own a gun, the vast majority of them men.<11> About half of the adult U.S. population lived in households with guns.<12> Less than half of gun owners say that the primary reason they own a gun is for self-protection against crime, reflecting a popularity of hunting and sport-shooting among gun owners. As hunting and sport-shooting tends to favor rural areas, naturally the bulk of gun owners generally live in rural areas and small towns.<11> This attribute associates with low involvement in criminal violence, and therefore most guns are in the hands of people who are unlikely to misuse them and who tend to not have criminal records.<11>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

If your statement was true the number of people injured, killed or murdered in the United States would be astronomical.

Firearms are misused by criminals and occasionally people without a criminal record or those who have severe mental problems. Also tragic accidents do occur and people who commit suicide often chose firearms as the most efficient way to end their lives.

However, statistics just don't back up your statement that the gun owner mostly harms others. Gun owners may own weapons for self defense or for the sport of shooting or hunting. One hell of a lot of paper targets and tin cans get punctured every year. Hunters harvest game. Many guns merely are part of a collection.

As for children and guns:

# In 2001, 72 children ages 14 and under died from unintentional firearm-related injuries. Children ages 10 to 14 accounted for 54 percent of these deaths.

# In 2002, more than 800 children ages 14 and under were treated in hospital emergency rooms for unintentional firearm-related injuries; 35 percent of these injuries were severe enough to require hospitalization.
http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?folder_id=540&content_item_id=1131

Every single one of these incidents was tragic and should have been prevented by proper gun storage. I'm not happy with even one child dying or being injured by firearms, but the problem can be reduced by educating the parents to properly secure rather then hide firearms.

Do you really think that most people are not knowledgeable enough to see the fault of your argument? The overwhelming majority of firearm owners are responsible and safe and endanger no one.

You seem to argue that alcoholics are superior to gun owners and yet:

In 2006, 1,794 children age 14 and younger were killed in motor vehicle crashes. Of those 1,794 fatalities, 306 (17%) occurred in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Children riding in vehicles with drivers who had a BAC level of .08 or higher accounted for half (153) of these deaths.
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

Basically you have an interesting argument, don't ruin it by exaggerating the danger of gun owners.

If the government would have banned tobacco, you might have benefited, but cigarettes would still be available. We banned marijuana and yet it merely provides a profitable enterprise for the illegal drug trade. We also banned alcohol and I grew up in what had been a speak easy during prohibition.

[primavera]

65. Okay, this one's a little more involved, but let me take a stab at it

First of all, I'll stand corrected on the harm of alcohol consumption. I'm surprised and a little depressed to learn that drunk driving still accounts for so many deaths in this country. I had suspected that, after so many years of concerted effort to criminalize drunk driving and educate the public as to its dangers, those figures would be smaller than that. In an aside, I'm suddenly curious to know how those numbers have changed, if at all, over time, as that would speak to the credibility of my hypothesis that greater regulation and public education has the potential to reduce mortalities. According to the website you cited, approximately 16,000 people die in drunk driving accidents each year. If, 50 years ago, the per capita rate (don't forget, you have to adjust for the smaller population 50 years ago) for drunk driving fatalities was exactly the same as it is today, that would seriously undermine my confidence in the potential of regulation and education to impact the problem. If, 50 years ago, the per capita mortality rate was twice what is is today, well, while it would be nice if it had been reduced even more, I nonetheless imagine that the hundreds of thousands of people who are still alive as a result would probably consider it to have been a worthwhile effort. But I digress.

Okay, so drunk driving causes 16,000 deaths a year, which is almost exactly the same number of people who die from guns each year if you take out the suicides. Very good, I retract what I said, private gun ownership accounts for no more deaths than drunk driving. Congratulations. Do you want a medal? You're still responsible for a huge number of deaths. We all agree that drunk driving is a tragically costly public safety hazard, which is why it's illegal and we prosecute offenders to the limits of our ability. Are you sure you want to let it stand with guns being no worse than drunk drivers? That doesn't seem like a thing to be terribly proud of.

Which brings me to my next point: what purpose is being served by all of this death? Gun proponents assert that there are benefits to gun ownership which justify continuing private ownership of them. The benefits I've heard are primarily 1) sport shooting, 2) hunting, and 3) self defense. Okay, so let's look at these.

Sport shooting. I have no problem with recreation and entertainment, as long as no one gets hurt. If no one ever died from guns, I'd say great, there's no problem here, guns are an entirely appropriate form of recreation. But that's not the case. 30,000 people are being killed by guns every year, that's a far cry from no one getting hurt. Is the recreational value of firing a gun really worth all of those deaths? Are you really willing to tell the families of gun victims that the thrill you get from shooting a gun is more important than their family member? Of course not, no one but a sociopath would argue that. So, really, if push came to shove and you had to choose between recreational shooting and saving those victims' lives, it'd be a no brainer, right? Gun owners would be turning in their guns faster than the state could collect them, right? In other words, the benefit of sport shooting is not so great that it outweighs the value of the 30,000 people who die every year from them.

How about hunting? Do you have to hunt to survive? Well, since I and billions of other people on the planet who don't hunt seem to nonetheless keep from starving, I'm gonna have to conclude that hunting isn't essential for survival either. In other words, it's recreational and, like sport shooting, its benefits are not great enough to outweigh the value of those who die from guns.

Self defense. Frankly, I think this is the strongest argument the pro-gun community has, as there are instances in which having a gun can literally make the difference between life and death. On an individual level, I have unqualified sympathy for people who feel the need for a gun to protect themselves. At a macro policy level, I have to look at the numbers and ask, were more people saved by guns than were killed by guns, and my belief (which may be mistaken, but then again, you might just as well be mistaken) is that a great many more people die from guns than are saved by them. I know, I know, everyone's got a story about how someone's life was saved because they had a gun, and that's great, but that's anecdotal - it can be completely true, but it still doesn't address the question of whether guns save more or less lives than they take. Gun control proponents have just as many anecdotes about innocent people of their acquaintance being killed or maimed by guns. We've had this discussion before and it's a conversation which neither side can really win, as there's too little reliable data on how many lives may have been saved and no way to know how many of those "saved" might have survived an encounter with an assailant equally well had they not had a gun and simply run away instead or whatever. As a result, I'm tempted to liken this to faith - you believe what you believe and there's not much anyone can say to change your mind.

So we have some benefits to guns, but so far nothing conclusively worth dying for, nothing unattainable through other means. You need recreation, you can read a book, take up gardening, collect stamps, go hiking, whatever. You need food, you can get it at the grocery store. You need self defense, maybe a taser or pepper spray or running away or any one of an assortment of options might serve your purpose equally well. This is why I take offense at the pro-gun community's perennial effort to equate vehicle deaths with gun deaths. For a great many people, a car - and only a car - can perform the essential function they need. Without cars, many people would not be able to get themselves to their jobs, they would not be able to drive their children to school, would not be able to shop for groceries for their families, etc. Without cars, our entire economy and modern way of life would cease to function. That's not just some recreational pleasure we're talking about. I simply do not believe that the purposes guns serve rise to anything anywhere close to that level of impact, and that conviction is bolstered by the vast majority of the world's population do not own guns and have not regressed to cave dwellers as a result.

But even cars should be and are fair game for regulation. We require seatbelts, we impose fuel consumption and emission limits, we require vehicle safety tests, and we require people who operate vehicles to prove their competence to do so safely and responsibly. And if there are areas in which the safety of cars can be improved, by all means, let's talk about them. If we can build a car that is safer, gets better gas mileage, puts out fewer emissions, and still performs the essential purpose required of it, why wouldn't we want to adopt those improvements? How sympathetic will you be if we can produce a car that saves lives, fuel, and the ozone, and some Americans don't want to drive it because it can't reach a top speed no one is legally allowed to drive at anyway? Just how fucking selfish would you have to be to place your personal adrenaline thrills ahead of the value of all of those lives that might be saved?

Yet, from the gun community, we hear no proposals to address the public safety hazards caused by guns, no program to advance safety education, no willingness to accept trigger locks (or to devise a viable alternative), no willingness to mandate the use of gun safes, no willingness to accept limitations on the transfer of firearms, no willingness to accept constraints upon the kinds of guns and ammo you can use, in short, no willingness to accept any sort of responsibility whatsoever. All one ever hears from the gun community is "Guns are safe, trust us." And year after year, people keep dying and proving them wrong.

[gorfle]

80. The purpose of firearms.

Which brings me to my next point: what purpose is being served by all of this death? Gun proponents assert that there are benefits to gun ownership which justify continuing private ownership of them. The benefits I've heard are primarily 1) sport shooting, 2) hunting, and 3) self defense. Okay, so let's look at these.

Before we look at those legitimate reasons for owning a firearm, we need to agree on one important thing here: These reasons, while completely legitimate, are not the primary reason for firearm ownership, nor are they the reason our founders enumerated this right in our Constitution. The primary reason for firearm ownership is as a deterrent to tyranny. Our founders specifically intended a decentralized military system made up of armed citizens so as to counter a powerful central military force capable of enforcing a tyranny by force of arms. The second amendment is not about sport shooting, hunting, or self-defense.

Sport shooting. I have no problem with recreation and entertainment, as long as no one gets hurt. If no one ever died from guns, I'd say great, there's no problem here, guns are an entirely appropriate form of recreation. But that's not the case. 30,000 people are being killed by guns every year, that's a far cry from no one getting hurt. Is the recreational value of firing a gun really worth all of those deaths? Are you really willing to tell the families of gun victims that the thrill you get from shooting a gun is more important than their family member? Of course not, no one but a sociopath would argue that. So, really, if push came to shove and you had to choose between recreational shooting and saving those victims' lives, it'd be a no brainer, right? Gun owners would be turning in their guns faster than the state could collect them, right? In other words, the benefit of sport shooting is not so great that it outweighs the value of the 30,000 people who die every year from them.

According to the American Boating Association, there were 685 fatalities and 3673 injuries from boating accidents in 2007. ( http://www.americanboating.org/boating_fatality.asp ). In 2008 there were 62 skydiving fatalities and the trend is ever-increasing ( http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/ ). Some 4000 people drown annually while swimming ( http://www.poolalarms.com/pool_drowning_statistics.htm ).

Clearly there are many recreational activities where people get hurt and die.


How about hunting? Do you have to hunt to survive? Well, since I and billions of other people on the planet who don't hunt seem to nonetheless keep from starving, I'm gonna have to conclude that hunting isn't essential for survival either. In other words, it's recreational and, like sport shooting, its benefits are not great enough to outweigh the value of those who die from guns.

The only reason people like you are not starving is because other people are providing the food for you. While I don't have a problem with people who make this choice, you should not penalize those who don't choose to make that choice.

But even cars should be and are fair game for regulation. We require seatbelts, we impose fuel consumption and emission limits, we require vehicle safety tests, and we require people who operate vehicles to prove their competence to do so safely and responsibly.

You do realize, though, that all of this applies only to cars operated on public roads, right? Cars operated on private property require none of those things. Just like firearms.

Yet, from the gun community, we hear no proposals to address the public safety hazards caused by guns, no program to advance safety education, no willingness to accept trigger locks (or to devise a viable alternative), no willingness to mandate the use of gun safes, no willingness to accept limitations on the transfer of firearms, no willingness to accept constraints upon the kinds of guns and ammo you can use, in short, no willingness to accept any sort of responsibility whatsoever. All one ever hears from the gun community is "Guns are safe, trust us." And year after year, people keep dying and proving them wrong.


This is not true in several respects.

Firstly, the NRA is a strong proponent of firearm training. It has one of the best child-education programs around - the Eddie Eagle program. It also has adult training programs of course. Trigger locks are now available for free from most manufacturers, and in fact many, if not most modern handguns are now equipped with an internal lock. No one wants to mandate the use of gun safes, because 1) unless you spend several thousand dollars they are not much more effective than the locked door on your house and 2) they can impede swift access to a firearm in an emergency.

But the bottom line is this: The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally protected freedom that is necessary to a free state. This freedom will be abused, and there is nothing that can be done about it. Guns are not safe. But they are necessary, and the ills that come with them must be endured as the price of the liberty they insure.

[primavera]

83. I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree on that one

I have heard the purpose you describe and I know that it's a belief deeply held by many Americans. For me, though, it just doesn't ring true. Do we really imagine that George Bush paused to consider private gun ownership when he decided to implement illegal wiretapping, kidnapping, torture, murder, secret detention, shredding the constitution, racking up the biggest deficit in history and devastating the US economy? I seriously doubt it. There are more effective ways of controlling populations, through media and economic measures, rigging elections, official secrecy, and so forth. There's no need for a government in this day and age to suppress uprisings through force of arms - they've already managed to brainwash us into being good, complaint little sheep without ever having to fire a shot. If private gun ownership were such an effective deterrent to tyranny, how do we explain the last eight years? We embraced every form of tyranny there is and did it with a smile and a wave of the flag and where were the gun owners to defend us from that outcome? Smiling and waving flags with the rest of the sheeple, I'm afraid.

[gorfle]

86. On tyranny.

I have heard the purpose you describe and I know that it's a belief deeply held by many Americans. For me, though, it just doesn't ring true. Do we really imagine that George Bush paused to consider private gun ownership when he decided to implement illegal wiretapping, kidnapping, torture, murder, secret detention, shredding the constitution, racking up the biggest deficit in history and devastating the US economy? I seriously doubt it. There are more effective ways of controlling populations, through media and economic measures, rigging elections, official secrecy, and so forth. There's no need for a government in this day and age to suppress uprisings through force of arms - they've already managed to brainwash us into being good, complaint little sheep without ever having to fire a shot.

I don't doubt it for an instant. There is a reason why regimes like the ex-Bush regime resort to covert methods of tyranny and extensive use of nationalistic propaganda to secure their ends. No doubt, apathy is a far, far greater problem than lack of armament to fight a tyranny. This does not mean that lack of armament is not also a problem.

If private gun ownership were such an effective deterrent to tyranny, how do we explain the last eight years? We embraced every form of tyranny there is and did it with a smile and a wave of the flag and where were the gun owners to defend us from that outcome? Smiling and waving flags with the rest of the sheeple, I'm afraid.

No one can say what event will spark a revolution. Obviously, in spite of the last 8 years, the people either believed in the direction we were going or they believed in the system, and, in the end, the system worked and we have a president who is not taking us in a better direction.

As I said before, apathy is a far more serious problem than lack of armament. This does not mean that lack of armament is not a problem. For all our apathy over as bad as things were for the last 8 years, where would we be if things got even worse to actually inspire rebellion, and we were defenseless to act?

Do you not think apathy was a problem in our founders' day, also? Yet they still had the foresight to see that an armed citizenry at least has the means to resist oppression.

[kudzu22]

105. Is Bush still in power?

No, and you know why? Because if he decided not to get his constitution-shredding butt out of town on January 20, then 80 million gun owners would have something to say about it. If there weren't 80 million gun owners, who's to stop him from declaring himself president for life?

[umccoyw]

87. quick point on your self defence argument

You said you have to ask if guns saved more people then killed. First do you count that if i shot and killed someone to save my life does that count as 1 save or 1 save and 1 kill? Also you cant really put a number on lives saved because lets say you have a serial killer and one of his/her potential victims shoots and kill the sociopath how can you put a number on the lives saved because you dont know how many more people could of been killed by that person. and lastly i have an extreme example and by no means i am saying that this should happen. Imagine if you will the government passed a law that everyone over the age of 18 had to take firearms class's and was required to carry a firearm with them at all times and failure to do so would be a crime. Now lets imagine for a second you have a crazed gunman running around trying to kill or shoot people. how long do you think it would take for the criminal to be shot and killed?

[Taitertots]

91. Not exactly correct

The gun community has been the only voice for gun safety. Trigger locks, gun safes, gun mechanical safety systems, and safety classes, all being voluntarily adopted in large scale. With the NRA leading these efforts. The NRA supports NICS, the NFA system, and many other reasonable gun laws. The NRA gave me free trigger locks for all my guns. I suggest you educate yourself on the NRA and the gun community, before making ignorant and unsupported claims.


I have heard the estimates for using guns in crime prevention anywhere from 500,000 to 2,000,000 per year. Pepper spray and tazers are no substitute for a gun concerning personal safety. No more than a segway is a substitute for a car.

You have an unreasonable standard for guns. No one would have to be hurt or killed for you to accept them. You can't apply that standard to anything. Let alone apply that standard to cars, alcohol, and tobacco. As many people die from falling injuries as gun murders. Forcing everyone to wear a helmet all day might save more lives than the AWB 1994 did.


People lived for milenia before cars. A car is at best a convenience item. You can walk to work, the grocery store, and take mass transit anywhere else. You would be healthier. The environment would be dramatically better. It would save 40,000 lives each year.

[spin]

93. Interesting reply...my response...

First on alcohol, I found a web site that estimates alcohol could cause 100,000 deaths a year. This includes diseases of the circulatory system and the respiratory system. It also mentions that:

45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.
60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.
http://www.come-over.to/FAS/alcdeath.htm

According to a National Institutes of Health Fact sheet on Alcohol Related Traffic Deaths:

Thirty Years Ago
• In the mid 1970s, alcohol was a factor in over 60%
of traffic fatalities. Traffic crashes were the leading
cause of alcohol-related deaths and two-thirds of
traffic deaths among persons aged 16 to 20 involved
alcohol.
•
At that time, preventive measures consisted
primarily of efforts to reduce harm from alcohol by
identifying and treating middle-aged individuals
convicted of driving under the influence with
established or advanced cases of alcoholism
.
Today
• Since the early 1980s, alcohol-related traffic deaths
per population have been cut in half with the greatest
proportional declines among persons 16-20 years
old.
• Reductions in driving after drinking saved more than
150,000 lives between 1982 and 2001 — more than
the combined total saved by increases in seat belt
use, airbags, and motorcycle and bicycle helmets.
• Today alcohol is involved in 40% of traffic deaths.
Among persons aged 16 to 20, the percentage is 36
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:puAxdkeLBbwJ:www.nih.gov/about/researchresultsforthepublic/AlcoholRelatedTrafficDeaths.pdf+year+by+deaths+alcohol&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

So it does look like education and regulation has made a difference in traffic accidents and alcohol.

And no, I don't require a medal for pointing out the death rates were similar. Thanks anyway.


Sports shooting

You say, So, really, if push came to shove and you had to choose between recreational shooting and saving those victims' lives, it'd be a no brainer, right? Gun owners would be turning in their guns faster than the state could collect them, right? In other words, the benefit of sport shooting is not so great that it outweighs the value of the 30,000 people who die every year from them.

Perhaps if sport shooting were the only use for firearms, then I might agree. I could point out that while I have known a number of shooters who went target shooting, skeet shooting and enjoyed competing in shooting events such as Cowboy Action Shooting and IPSC. None of these shooters ever misused their firearms to injure another person.

(I knew two people through the years who did misuse firearms. One was a co-worker in his twenties who committed suicide. Those who knew him well, said he had a major drug problem. The other was a alcoholic who shot and killed his wife while watching a Monday Night Football Game and drinking. He waited for the end of the game before he called the police and turned himself in. I point this out merely to be fair. Obviously not all people who own firearms are responsible, but the overwhelming majority are.)

Hunting:

Perhaps where you live, hunting is more of a sport than a means of survival. Where I live, in one of the poorest rural counties in Florida, hunting is very common. Many of the people here hunt not for just for sport but because it enables them to use what little income they have to buy other essential items. Deer and hog are plentiful and the meat they provide are of a higher quality than the cheaper beef in the grocery store. To stop hunting by banning firearms would cause many people here to suffer a decrease in their standard of living, poor as it is.

Self defense:

We agree that self defense is a strong argument for gun ownership. It is very hard to determine just how many times firearms are used to protect an innocent victim as many defensive uses never make it into statistics. My daughters use of her revolver to stop an intruder is a case in point. No shots were fired and no injuries occurred. The police responded and a report was filed. The intruder was never caught. End of story.

One study showed:

There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually.

Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Gun control groups disagree with these numbers. But using the lowest number of 108,000 it should be obvious that firearms do deter crimes. A cost benefit analysis would be difficult as who can say how many of these incidents would potentially have resulted in death or serious injury. If the 108,000 figure is correct than 16,000 lives saved sound high. If however there were two million defensive uses of firearms then 16,000 might be reasonable.

But a cost benefit analysis is a great thing to study in a nice living room, but it doesn't matter much if an intruder intent on killing or robing you breaks down your door. He will not be impressed with statistics and they will not protect you.

One way to reduce the number of homicides caused by firearms would be to enforce the laws we have on the books. Many murders are caused by drug gangs fighting over turf. Sometimes the cops look at this as just one bad guy killing another, but many innocent lives are lost in the crossfire.

We also need a better background check system and a method of flagging those with severe mental health problems so that they can not legally purchase firearms. The NICS system should also be expanded and become a requirement for private firearm sales.

I favor a requirement for a firearms training course requirement. On the successful completion of the course, a card similar to a SCUBA certification card would be issued. To purchase a firearm or buy ammo, the buyer would have to show it.

Addressing the root problems of violence in our society is also important. Education, the availability of rewarding jobs and racism as well as the legalization of some drugs should be a priority.

[primavera]

95. A lot to think about

Thanks for the data on drunk driving, the downward trend in drunk driving is very heartening.

Thank you as well for the info on DGUs. It sounds like it's not just gun control advocates who have difficulty with these figures; the very authors of these studies are producing figures that range all over the map. Which is not to say that their findings are invalid, only that I'm sure that the results they've gotten can vary hugely depending upon the author's definitions and methodologies. I promise, I will take the time to go look more into those studies and see whether I ca figure them out. But it's not going to be this week: I've gone back to school for a second graduate degree and I'm now two weeks out from finals and entering crunch mode. So, for the next two weeks, the only thing I have any business reading is torts, contracts, property, and civil procedure. But you raise some valid points and I will come back to this and read up on it more as soon as I can afford the time.

One thing I really want to stress before I get back to studying though is that I do not for a minute believe that all gun owners are irresponsible. I'm sure most gun owners are responsible. The obstacle I encounter is that I can think of no practical way to know by just looking at someone who will be responsible and who will leave their loaded gun out for their kid to find, or whatever. The very instant we can come up with a way to ensure that guns remain in the hands of people who take them seriously and handle them respectfully, man, I'll be the first to support the right of those people to have them. The problem is those who can't be trusted with guns, and judging from the number of gun deaths each year, there's more than just a few of them, and how can you know which ones are which?

I know gun advocates believe that the bulk of the problem lies in the hands of criminal and the mentally ill. No argument, those are people who should definitely not have guns. What I think is left out of that though is that no one is born a criminal - everyone has to start sometime. And, until they commit a criminal act, they're "normal" and therefore entitled to have a gun. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, but it always seems like, whenever people are being interviewed after some massacre or murder, they invariably say: "Yeah, I just don't get it, he always seemed like such a nice guy, a little quiet perhaps, but you'd never think of him as someone who could do commit this horrible crime." I think a lot of gun tragedies are perpetrated by people like that, who have serious instabilities and emotional problems, but those problems don't conveniently manifest themselves in obvious ways that anyone and everyone can immediately recognize. Once they commit the crime, great, everyone now knows it and everyone can breath easy that the problem is limited to criminals and crazy people. But yesterday, we all thought that person was normal and we defended his right to obtain the gun(s) he used to commit the crime; and now that we know, it's too late. Again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the vast majority of gun fatalities are attributable to repeat criminal offenders with rap sheets a mile long and all we need to do is make sure those people with criminal records don't obtain guns and everyone will live happily ever after. I'm just skeptical that it's that clear cut. And if preventing the obviously criminal and/or insane from obtaining guns - while certainly an excellent place to start - fails to remedy the problem of gun violence, then what do we do? But I guess that's getting ahead of myself. First let's do what we can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane and, if that works, great, and, if it doesn't, well, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

And on that note, I will thank you again for a refreshingly civil and stimulating conversation, wish you a very pleasant week, and go back to studying. Have a good one!

[spin]

97. Just a quick reply as we have a tornado watch and a severe thunderstorm warning...

and it's starting to get nasty outside with lots of lightning.

For a review of a policy that holds some real potential to reduce gun violence visit:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/md/Public-Affairs/press_releases/press08/BaltimoreExilePartnersAnnounceSignificantProgressAgainstViolentRepeatOffenders.html

Usually the mass murderers wave red flags. But then too, a lot of people who are not truly dangerous can appear psycho. Very difficult for the average person to determine the threat potential of an individual. If we are not careful we could end up in a society as portrayed in the film Minority Report.

But people who have a domestic restraining order issued against them can be required in some states to turn over their firearms. A person who displayed unusual and violent behavior could be required to do the same while being evaluated.

I also enjoyed our conversation and wish you the best of luck with as you study for your degree.

Have a good week.

[spin]

50. So if the hazards of firearms outweigh the benefits...

then why not be honest and argue that all firearms should be banned.

The argument that some firearms should be banned merely because they resemble true military weapons or have certain features is asinine.


By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban


Are the anti-gun proponents afraid to argue that all semi-auto weapons are so dangerous that they should be banned?

If I was anti-gun I could easily make a good argument for my position. I wouldn't have to make false statements such as assault weapons can't be used for hunting or sport and are only good for murdering people. And I wouldn't have invent labels such as "cop killer bullets", "plastic guns", "vest busters" and "Saturday night specials" to confuse those with little firearm knowledge to gain their support. Nor would I attempt to ban hunting rifles by calling them "Sniper Rifles".

Let's cut through all the bullshit and have a honest debate using facts and correct terminology.

[primavera]

51. Gee, spin, I didn't realize that you were amenable to that possibility!

Sure, I'd be happy to get rid of all firearms if I thought I could! :-)

Actually, though, my post wasn't really addressing the assault weapon ban which was the topic of your thread, I was mostly challenging the flawed logic of the perennial gun proponent car analogy which I frankly find offensive to my intelligence.

As for the topic at hand, to be honest, I personally will admit that I don't feel particularly strongly about assault weapons. I guess I think the primary benefit of the ban is to at least begin to raise in the minds of more Americans the notion that people don't need every conceivable weapon under the sun. Personally, I think you're right that handguns pose a greater hazard to public safety than do assault-style weapons, but at present, too many Americans are addicted to to their handguns for banning them to be a viable initiative. In the meantime, you gotta start somewhere, there's relatively broad support for an assault weapons ban, and, since I don't think people need any guns, I certainly don't think they need to have assault weapons, so, from my point of view, there's no downside to going after them.

[yay]

52. Actually

Before the 1994 ban, assault weapons were not all that popular. Once the ban went into effect the reaction was "oh shit I won't be able to get anymore" and they have exploded into popularity since then. "BRD" is very common and any more there is little support for another AWB.

[spin]

57. But my point is that the incremental approach...

to gun control is basically dishonest.

You state, "In the meantime, you gotta start somewhere, there's relatively broad support for an assault weapons ban, and, since I don't think people need any guns, I certainly don't think they need to have assault weapons, so, from my point of view, there's no downside to going after them."

Many of those who purpose another "assault weapons" ban do so by making statements that are blatantly false such as an "assault weapon" is useless for hunting. True, this sounds very logical to someone who has no knowledge of firearms and believes that they are fully automatic weapons or understands that they are semi-auto but believes that hunters go into the woods with 30 round "clips" to hunt deer. With the media bias, this view supports the gun control crowd's position. However, people hate being lied to and more and more people are waking up to the fact that they have been mislead.



While some will say that the end justifies the means, I have never agreed. If you have a valid argument it should stand on its' own merit.

As to the comparison between banning sporty looking cars and assault weapons, I feel that the argument is fair while humorous. (I suspect that you find the logic flawed because it ridicules the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.)

I own a vehicle with a 140 mph speedometer that gets 20 mpg. It would be a very fair argument that I have no reason to own a vehicle that can go that fast and is so inefficient. (I have no idea if it will actually go 140 mph, but based on the tachometer readings, it might be possible. I have hit 100 mph on rare occasions and the engine wasn't anywhere near redlining. O.K. I have a lead foot.)

So let's assume that I was a member of a group that wanted to ban vehicles that can exceed the speed limit. I could argue that it was important to install a governor on all vehicles that would prevent them from going over the speed limit or to limit engine size and power to accomplish the same goal.

But to say that we should ban racing stripes, air foils or mag wheels on cars would be ridiculous. Just as eliminating a bayonet mount, a grenade launcher or a pistol grip on a semi-auto rifle would accomplish nothing. Or to say that we should ban any weapons that look like true military assault rifles merely because they are black and evil looking is asinine.

A large number of people in the United States know little or nothing about firearms and have obtained what little knowledge they have from movies and the news. But another large group of people are familiar with firearms and can instantly separate the bullshit from the truth.

So I feel that if you really want to advance your agenda, you need to be straight forward and honest. Guns do kill innocent people. People with extreme mental problems do access firearms and find places to commit mass murders. Criminals and drug gangs do use these weapons to intimidate and murder.

We will never invent a law that will eliminate the criminal use of firearms or totally prohibit the dangerously insane people from snapping. We also we never be able to eliminate firearms from our society. (Maybe if you could invent a spell and use a magic wand, you could speak the words and wave the wand and all firearms would disappear. This only happens in Harry Potter style movies.)

But if the gun control advocates and the pro gun groups work together, I believe we can jointly come up with ideas that will help make our nation a safer place to live. It's not rocket science, but it does involve enforcing the existing laws and also improving them to eliminate criminals and those who have severe mental problems from legally obtaining firearms. I believe our focus should be on draconian punishment for any criminal caught carrying an illegal weapon with absolutely no plea bargains. I also feel that a coordinated effort by local, state and federal agencies should be undertaken against criminal drug gangs. At the same time some drugs should be legalized to take a percentage of the profit out of drug dealing. Social programs, equality and education also need to be addressed as to a great extent they are the root causes of our problem.

If both the gun control advocates and the pro-gun groups work together rather that playing games like two football teams in the Super bowl, we can make real progress into reducing our violence problem. It's not easy and it's not cheap but it is possible. I would like a return to the 60's where I grew up. Hunters, target shooters and collectors were the majority of the people who owned firearms.

As for handguns my position is colored by the fact that years ago my 17 year old daughter successfully prevented a potential rapist from entering our house by pointing a large caliber revolver at him. No shots were fired. No one was hurt. All's well that ends well. (There was a burglar alarm sounding and a 60 lb black Lab in the house.)

I voted for Obama because I felt he represented real change. We need a new approach to our problems in this country. The old tired and lame bickering between political parties has to end or we will end up as a footnote in history.

[primavera]

59. Once again, I agree with more of what you say than you might guess

And such a thoughtful post really deserves an equally thoughtful response. Unfortunately, my wife has promised to kill me if I don't get the taxes finished this evening. Can I get back to you later?

[spin]

60. Sure, good luck on your taxes. (n/t)

[jeepnstein]

68. "my wife has promised to kill me"

Hide your gun.

[primavera]

70. See, yet another excellent reason to not have a gun! :-) n/t

[jeepnstein]

81. She doesn't need one...

You've got to sleep some time.

[primavera]

63. Fair enough

I'll concede that there's a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty about going after assault weapons when one's real concern is about gun violence that owes its roots more to handguns than to assault weapons. Having spent most of my adult life living and working in the DC policy community, I'm perhaps a bit too accustomed to tactical approaches to policy considerations that fudge the edges of honesty, and you're right, that's not the ideal way to go about things. At the same time, being scrupulous sometimes feels a bit like bringing a knife to a gun fight. There is so much dishonesty and misleading, manipulated, and downright fabricated disinformation out there on this subject, much of it put out by places like the NRA, it sometimes feels like attempting to take the moral high road in a street fight where the opponent doesn't fight fair is tantamount to a capitulation before the contest has even begun. At that point, it almost seems like a form of moral cowardice to draw back and decline the challenge on the grounds that one doesn't wish to get one's dainty hands dirty. Lastly, there are an awful lot of dead people out there thanks to irresponsible gun use. If I weigh my personal feelings of integrity against that many victims... I dunno, sometimes it seems selfish to prize my ability to sleep well at night knowing that I'm morally superior above that vast mountain of bullet-riddled corpses and the spouses and parents and children of all those victims. All that said, you're quite right that I'm getting dangerously close to an ends justify the means attitude and, truly, that has got to be just about the slipperiest slope there is. Point taken and thanks for the admonition.

Just to clear up a misunderstanding, I agree with you that the sports car analogy has some merit with respect to addressing form over content. To be honest, I don't really know that much about assault weapons, but, as far as I can tell, their capabilities are not terribly unique. They're semi-automatic, but then, aren't most pistols? They can handle high capacity magazines, but then, can't most pistols? Plainly their ability to discharge a great many rounds in a short period of time exceeds that of a hunting rifle, but they don't seem to be appreciably more hazardous than say, a Glock fitted with an expanded magazine. I think they receive attention because, on an emotional level, they evoke images people associate with military conflicts, and many people find those images unsettling. Again, I don't know that much about assault weapons and I'm not about to champion their cause, but, in the interests of intellectual honesty, I'll grant that going after a category of weapon based upon its cosmetic appearance as opposed to its capabilities is somewhat akin to going after sports car spoilers or racing stripes: the focus needs to be on the substance, not the form.

My objection to your analogy had more to do with what I perceive to be the intellectual dishonesty of the pro-gun community in habitually seeking to compare traffic accidents to guns deaths, which I most definitely do not consider to be an analogous situation. But I will discuss that in my response to your other post. Meet you over there...

[umccoyw]

73. all of the accidents youve been involved in?

Now if youve been involved in a lot of car accidents you need to change your driving habits. Either you need not be so agressive or you need to be more defensive and know whats going on around you. Or who knows you may be the type of person that has the mentality "well i stopped at my four way stop sign and even though i see that other car is going to run the sign im going to keep going because its my turn."

[primavera]

85. ... or witnessed

Actually, I've only been in two accidents myself and both were the fault of the other driver and in both cases, it was a SUV that was blasting along utterly indifferent to their surroundings. But my wife got nailed by a SUV, same story. I have friends who have been in accidents, most often caused by SUVs, I've seen accidents by the side of the road, more often than not involving a SUV, and so on. Not an empirical study by any stretch, just my anecdotal personal experience, but I do recall having read articles about formal studies which did find that SUVs were far more likely to be involved in accidents than were other classes of vehicles.

[spin]

62. I like the term "death machine"...

sounds much more dangerous than "sports car". The Brady group would embrace that term if they wanted to ban racy looking cars.

[katandmoon]

29. Typical stupidass gunworshiper post

[MercutioATC]

31. Typical stupidass anti-gun post.

...complete with knee-jerk headline and no elaboration.

[rrneck]

54. Harumph Harumph nt

[Tim01]

104. Laughing. But not "with" you.

[Howzit]

32. Don't forget, extreme capacity gas tanks allow

"suspects" to drive further while trying to evade police chase vehicles - these should be banned, as should cars with good gas mileage for the same reason.

Cars with unusually small gas tanks should also be banned because they can be refilled more quickly...

Now, which cars are the preferred vehicle for doing drive-by shootings?

[NewMoonTherian]

46. That's an oversimplification.

You can't ban high-fuel-economy cars. Instead, we have to develop a mileage-to-tank-capacity formula to ensure that, regardless of the gas mileage, the vehicle can't travel more than 75 miles per fillup(75 seems exorbitantly high to me, but we'll have to make some concessions to the car-nuts to get this thing passed).

[Howzit]

35. Most cars used before, during or after the commission of crime have automatic transmissions

in the US and therefore should be banned. On top of that, automatics make it too easy for even novice drivers to accelerate quickly to unsafe speeds.

[Howzit]

37. Stick shift trasmissions should also be banned because people who drive for fun

prefer them to automatics...

[Rabrrrrrr]

48. Actually, there should be no transmissions - first gear is enough.

When the US constitution was written, the forefathers had no idea that man might one day travel faster than a horse.

Therefore, there's no reason to expect that they would have granted anyone the right to do so. Since they did not include in the Constitution any right to a speed greater than that of a horse - the then existing highest level of technology - it is only right to assume that by "freedom of travel" they implied a speed limit of no more than a horse.

[krispos42]

44. Not to mention...

...that automatic shifters allow the driver to operate the vehicle while using a cell phone, drinking, eating, or, in the case of gang members, performing a drive-by shooting.


Ban autos! Only stick shifts!


And the stick shift should have to be held in gear to drive them! One hand on the wheel, one on the shifter, every moment you drive. Car controls should not be ergonomic; that only encourages driving!



The shifter is the thing that goes up, just to clarify.

[benEzra]

39. Here's what "OMG Assault Weaponz!!" rhetoric looks like when applied to cars...

Wrote it in 2006, after pro-gun Dems turned the Senate blue, and the repubs at the Brady Campaign claimed that was a "mandate" to outlaw non-automatic civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out. Most of the rhetoric is straight from the gun-control lobby, but applied to comparable features of cars instead of rifles.

Legal disclaimer: Yes, this is sarcasm.

:D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x131622

Brady Campaign to Stop Car Violence: Election Is Mandate for Race Car Ban

The Republican-led Brady Campaign to Stop Car Violence announced today that the results of last week's election, which gave control of the Senate and House to Democrats, show that the public is demanding a ban on race cars.

"Race cars have no legitimate transportation purpose," said Republican Paul Helmke, head of the Brady Campaign. "You don't need a Ford Focus to tow a boat. It would pull the boat to smithereens." He added, "We're not trying to take anybody's cars, we just want to get deadly race cars like the Ford Focus and Honda Civic off the streets."

In an appearance with Senator Dianne Feinstein (DLC-CA), activists explained why banning race cars is so important. "Unlike conventional cars, race cars don't have to be steered, but merely pointed in the general direction of where you want to go," explained Tom Diaz of the Vehicle Policy Center (VPC). "And the rear wings on these cars enable them to slide sideways around corners."

"I'm tired of 13-year-olds running down 8-year-olds with NASCAR stockers," said a spokesperson for the Democratic Leadership Council, which has made the race-car ban its top legislative priority since the early 1990's. "We need to get these deadly race cars off the streets. They are the transportation of choice for bank robbers and drunk drivers."

"Race cars like the Honda Civic are truly vehicles of mass destruction whose only purpose is to outrun as many police cars as possible without having to refuel," added John Rosenthal, head of the Massachusetts-based Stop Car Violence. "Many of these cars are designed to go 350 mph."

Helmke also noted that if someone snapped and went on a road rage incident, driving a Civic would make them much more dangerous than if they were driving a more conventional vehicle like a Chevrolet Suburban. "This is just common sense car control. Our bill doesn't affect responsible car owners. We're not trying to take away anybody's Hummer H2; our bill specifically targets race cars like the Mazda 3."

Incoming senate Democrat Jim Webb, an opponent of the ban who recently defeated Allen Macacawitz in the Virginia senate race, objected to the proposed ban. "Banning sport compact cars is stupid, doesn't help address drunk driving, and is guaranteed to piss off car owners. Congress has bigger fish to fry, like figuring out what to do with Iraq, helping people who don't have health insurance, and stopping the flood of jobs going overseas."

Feinstein dismissed Webb's concerns as right-wing gibberish. "Everybody knows that the #1 threat to this country is people driving race cars on the highway," she said. "Al Qaida wants to buy Honda Civics with wings so they can destroy our freedom. They hate us for our freedom. Oh, wait, that was George's line."

President George W. Bush, a supporter of the Race Car Ban, said he'd sign the ban if it gets to his desk. "I don't think its a good thing in our society for people to have these cars," said the President, reading from a Teleprompter. "It's just Unammerican. They should drive pickup trucks instead. Only terrorists and illegals would want to drive Civics." He added that no civilian car needs a rear wing. "You know, wings are for flying, and, uh, cars aren't supposed to fly."

The Race Car Ban of 2006 bans all compact cars with two or more of the following racing features:

Four valves per cylinder
Aerodynamic spoiler or wing that protrudes conspicuously above the trunk lid or rear deck
Air dam
Hood scoop
Chrome exhaust tip
Levitation lights
Afterburner


The Race Car Ban would also ban the following race cars by name:

Honda Civic (all models)
Subaru Impreza WRX
Mitsubushi Lancer (all models)
Honda S2000
Volvo S40
Mazda 3 and Protoge
Toyota Corolla
Scion (all models)
Saturn Ion
Bentley Speed 8
NHRA Top Fuel dragster
Caterpillar D9
Boeing 737
Airbus A380


In order to reassure car owners, the bill's sponsors included a long list of non-race cars that are not affected by the legislation:

BMW 3-series
Cadillac CTS-V
Cadillac Escalade
Chevrolet Suburban and Tahoe
Ford Edsel
Ford Model T
Ford Mustang (without wing and spoiler)
Ford F-150
Hummer (all models)
Jeep Cherokee
John Deere Tractor
Kenworth T2000
Sopwith Camel


The bill also makes it a felony to own a car manufactured after Sept. 14th, 1994, that has a fuel capacity of more than ten U.S. gallons of fuel.

[Hoopla Phil]

45. LOL, I liked that. Well done.

[spin]

58. That post was a classic! (n/t)

[guardian]

75. Great post. n/t

[jeepnstein]

77. Apples and oranges.

Arms are specifically protected in the Bill of Rights.

Of course, this one does have the "pursuit of happiness" written all over it...

[jeepnstein]

98. Pic included this time...

[yay]

99. Not as rare...

But I like my Porsche's for some reason :p

[jeepnstein]

101. It's all good!

[347convert]

102. I disagree

Do guns also kill people?

Using your logic I think we should also ban women ages 16 to 30 somethings from driving, Because statistically they are the worst, regardless of what they are driving. I don't think its sports cars either.

Don't ban High performance cars, just take away privileges from low performance drivers.