Car analogy with pictures.

[rrneck]

So what's the difference?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[meegbear]

2. One has a gun and the other has a car and both can kill you

[Warpy]

3. Sure

Any guy who is nuts enough to think he needs a sidearm to go to a grocery store is much more likely to snap than somebody on the road going about his business in a completely ordinary manner.

Cars have many purposes. A gun has only one.

[rrneck]

7. That didn't take long.

You have made any number of assumptions that surround your evaluation of his sanity. You are assuming that his trip to and from the store will be through safe areas. You are assuming that the store itself is in a safe place. You are assuming that he won't have to go to a really unsafe place after he leaves the store. You are assuming he doesn't have a restraining order against a stalker that has threatened him. You are assuming that he's not a plainclothes police officer... You get the point.

[Warpy]

20. Wrong, I'm assuming none of these things, you are.

Notice, for instance, most people who go to markets in horrendously bad areas do so unarmed with no problem and do so for many years. This is not a dangerous activity.

No, what we're looking at are probabilities. There is a greater probability of a car being used for its intended purpose than there is of someone who insists on ostentatiously toting a gun everywhere being completely stable with unclouded reasoning. Thinking a trip to the store is more dangerous than it actually is is an example of clouded reasoning.

Gun enthusiasts are wrong on this one and your analogy was a silly one. You are making second amendment enemies when you wear that gun for intimidation and the whole country knows it.

[rrneck]

25. Most people?

What about the ones who get assaulted? Or are you asserting that everyone that goes to a store in a dangerous neighborhood will return safely?

He's a pretty average looking fella. You seem to be making a whole host of assumptions not only about his current location in the image, but his route to and from that location in addition to any other stop he may have to make. Not to mention his occupation. Can you describe any characteristics about the guy in the image, other than the gun, that would lead you to believe he is a danger to anyone or that he is trying to intimidate anyone?

Whatever assumptions either one of us may have are worthless. It seems to me that the only assumption that matters is his. Unless you or I are willing or able to rescue him if he gets assaulted. You up for it?

And that's not me in the image. I don't carry a weapon.

[Callisto32]

30. Wow...just wow.

"No, what we're looking at are probabilities. There is a greater probability of a car being used for its intended purpose than there is of someone who insists on ostentatiously toting a gun everywhere being completely stable with unclouded reasoning. Thinking a trip to the store is more dangerous than it actually is is an example of clouded reasoning."

Especially: "There is a greater probability of a car being used for its intended purpose than there is of someone who insists on ostentatiously toting a gun everywhere being completely stable with unclouded reasoning."

You say that In a VERY authoritative way. It reminds of when a judge used the word "clearly" or "obviously" in a written opinion. Got Data? NO? Didn't think so.

"Gun enthusiasts are wrong on this one and your analogy was a silly one. You are making second amendment enemies when you wear that gun for intimidation and the whole country knows it."

Here is an example of what we call "ethnocentric thinking." MY (sub)culture thinks this way, ergo, it must be correct. It's nothing but a variation on argumentum ad populum. Except it isn't even as arguably valid because it relies on a smaller sample. Throwing in a little ad hominem abusive...bonus points.

Sign up for a basic logic class and try again later.

[gorfle]

40. Probably untrue.

Notice, for instance, most people who go to markets in horrendously bad areas do so unarmed with no problem and do so for many years. This is not a dangerous activity.

But this is not your call to make. If I feel it is prudent to carry a firearm somewhere, and I am legally able to do so, then that is my call to make.

No, what we're looking at are probabilities. There is a greater probability of a car being used for its intended purpose than there is of someone who insists on ostentatiously toting a gun everywhere being completely stable with unclouded reasoning. Thinking a trip to the store is more dangerous than it actually is is an example of clouded reasoning.

This is probably untrue. The biggest determinator as to whether or not someone is going to commit a crime with a firearm is whether or not they have a prior criminal background. Over 90% of firearm homicides are committed by people with extensive prior criminal histories, including, on average, 4 felonies. Such people are not legally allowed to posses firearms.

So if you see a person openly carrying a firearm in public, you can be pretty sure that that person is legally able to carry it, as it's unlikely that a past criminal, who cannot legally possess a firearm, would be carrying one around openly in public. Since that person is unlikely to have a past criminal history, they are extremely unlikely to commit a crime with their openly-carried firearm.

Gun enthusiasts are wrong on this one and your analogy was a silly one. You are making second amendment enemies when you wear that gun for intimidation and the whole country knows it

Personally, I agree with you. I am not a fan of open carry - provided the citizens have the legal option of concealed carry. In places where concealed carry is outlawed, people who wish to be armed often have no choice but open carry.

I am not a fan of open carry because I feel the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. Concealed carry is far preferable, and should be allowed everywhere.

[Remmah2]

13. Cars have many purposes. A gun has only one.

Is that why cops carry firearms?

Is that why firearms are used in olympic sports?

[rrneck]

21. It could be argued

that a gun has two purposes:

Offense and defense.

[Glassunion]

23. Just like a car.

You can drive offensively or defensively.

[rrneck]

26. True that. nt

[Remmah2]

36. My wife thinks cars serve one purpose.

Collecting parking tickets. :)

[Glassunion]

38. Well duh!

What the hell else are those wiper blade thingys for?

[Callisto32]

31. I agree with one purpose thing actually.

A gun does have on purpose. To throw a hunk of mass at high speed through the expansion of gas in a pressure vessel.

The problem with this argument is not that it is facially false, but that it ignores the human actor. While a gun has one purpose, humans have many motivations and goals. Since a firearm does nothing on its own, the purpose of the gun becomes irrelevant and we have to focus upon the intention of the operator. This is not something that those opposed to the ownership and use of firearms are willing to accept, because it does not allow them to demonize an item and requires that they admit that people are independent actors that need to take responsibility for their actions. It's this kind of thinking that leads to statements like "the gun went off..."

I had a gun "go off" once, you know what did it? Me. I had a negligent discharge. That is how I describe it to people. Unfortunately "Uh, wasn't me" has overshadowed "my bad" as an expression in our current society....

[rrneck]

32. The gun didn't fall from the sky.

Any firearm is just an inanimate object that is dependent on the actions of a human to function. But it was also designed by a human, and its design has intentionality as well. In the case of the overwhelming number of firearms in existence, the intent of its function is to injure people and other critters.

For us to obviate the design objectives of firearms, we, as a species, would need to become much less truculent so that all the social activities surrounding firearms would be understood as sports in themselves rather than training in effectively injuring each other. From what I've seen at shooting ranges, retail advertising and in the media, we ain't there yet.

[Callisto32]

43. There is nothing wrong with being trained and highly effective in defensive violence.

The import is not that we have tools that are designed to hurt other living things, it is intent of the individual.

The problem is not with being ready, able, and willing to do violence to another it is with being ready, able and willing to INITIATE that violence.

THAT is the mindset the vast majority of people need to get away from.

[rrneck]

44. Well said and so agreed. nt

[shedevil69taz]

14. I am sorry but you are wrong

why does one need to be nuts to carry a firearm when outside their home?

It't also not only GUYS that have permits to carry a firearm on them I know several women who do and carry everywhere its legal for them to do so.

It is possible for anyone who has in their posession either a car or firearm to misuse that item. Infact I will be so bold as to claim that cars get used in an illegal manner far more than guns do.

Also guns have many more purposes than just one.

[maxsolomon]

24. more purposes than firing projectiles?

it has many SECONDARY purposes to which the primary purpose, the firing of projectiles, can be applied.

[gorfle]

39. Actually, Warpy...

Any guy who is nuts enough to think he needs a sidearm to go to a grocery store is much more likely to snap than somebody on the road going about his business in a completely ordinary manner.

Actually, Warpy, the largest determinator in whether or not someone is going to use a firearm to commit a crime is whether or not they have a past criminal history:

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20

Over 90% of the people who commit homicide with firearms have extensive past criminal histories, with on average 4 felonies.

The idea that average, law-abiding firearm owners just "snap" and kill people is a myth - it hardly ever happens.

[YOY]

4. I'm pro-2nd and this is really a BAD comparison.

n.t.

[rrneck]

8. Could be. How so? nt

[maxsolomon]

5. wow, you're right

open carry is EXACTLY LIKE driving down the road.

he has no excuse for the plastic bag, though.

[rrneck]

15. Actually, they're very different. nt

[maxsolomon]

16. so, your OP is intended ironically?

the gungeon blows

[rrneck]

18. No.

I was looking for responses to two sets of images representing a common (and tiresome) analogy regarding guns and cars.

And yes, sometimes the gungeon does blow. Most of the responses so far have been interesting but predictable.

[Euromutt]

6. I'm reminded of an old joke about an American and a Russian discussing communism

The American says "All right, so you guys have communism, in which everything is essentially communal property, to be divided equally among the citizens, so if you have two houses and I have none, you have to give me one of your houses."
"That's right," says the Russian.
"And if you have two cars and I have none, you have to give me one of your cars."
"Indeed."
"And if you have two shirts and I have none, you have to give me one of your shirts."
"Nyet. Out of the question."
"Well, why not?"
"Because I have two shirts."

Similarly, I suspect the answer to your question "what's the difference?" is "I have a car."

[thereismore]

10. I don't get the joke. WTF? nt

[X_Digger]

12. Because he actually has two shirts..

.. he's willing to follow the precept of share and share alike when it comes to things he doesn't have two of.

:)

[rrneck]

22. It's no longer academic to the Russian

when they're talking about shirts. I wonder how much less academic it will be for people the next time they drive down a two lane highway and think about the possibility that there are a lot more nuts with cars than nuts with guns.

I wonder how many car collisions are suicides that are never reported as such?

[rrneck]

19. Yep.

The issues surrounding RKBA have less interest for me than the symbolic power of a firearm. What do these things mean to people? Why do they react the way they do? Why is this such a thorny issue? It seems simple to me, and yet people get so torqued up about it.

People are more comfortable with cars than guns for all the usual reasons. They are more ubiquitous, there are more social norms and practices surrounding them, they're just more familiar.

[DeSwiss]

9. If I'm paying attention while I drive.....

...the maximum speed of that piece of crap car would allow me to at least have a chance to avoid it hitting me. Or the other car could hit me and still the other driver could be the only one that ends up dead. And even if I didn't avoid the car, we both stand a chance of injury or death. And at most, it could probably happen just that once.

On the other hand, I can't outrun a bullet. And that nutjob above could shoot multiple times killing multiple people -- and then reload and do it some more.

- Lousy analogy. Try again.

[rrneck]

11. If, if, if.

What if the guy can't shoot straight. Do you really pay that much attention when you drive? Have you never been distracted? It only takes a fraction of a turn of the steering wheel to change lanes at the last moment. In fact, when two cars pass on a road, they are closer together than that shooter might be. Even moderate rates of speed a head on collision can leave you seriously injured, and most people survive handgun wounds even though they are seriously injured as well.

I think the difference, in your case, is that you are more attentive when you drive than when you are among people - much like the rest of us.

[rrneck]

17. Is this better?

[mvccd1000]

27. I think what the gun control advocates are TRYING to say...

... is that no one who drives a car is going to just "snap" and make a bad decision that will result in death or injury, but any person carrying a gun is very likely to do exactly that.

This has something to do with the magical properties of the car, because it has "more than one purpose," and thereby prevents the operator from making any poor decisions.

The gun, on the other hand, with its sole purpose, is able to overcome the otherwise benign intentions of its carrier, causing any such carrier to live on the edge of a suicidal massacre (or something like that).

Ironic, when one considers that legal gun owners (i.e., non-prohibited possessors; people who are not already criminals, etc, etc, etc) have a much lower incidence of criminal behavior than the general public, and particularly lower than the general driving public.


Never let facts get in the way of a good emotional argument, though.

[Glassunion]

28. You didn't know about the magical properties?

You know how some cars can detect if you are drifting off to sleep and give you a warning?

Also they can tell when you are about to snap. The car will then play soothing music and soften the suspension. It's called the Yani effect.

[shadowrider]

29. I wondered why my radio switched from country to "easy listening"

Yesterday when a guy cut me off. (All I did was shrug and go about my bidness, even though the pistol is in the drivers side door). I suppose anti's are disappointed I didn't just go on a rampage blasting away at anything and anyone.

[rrneck]

34. Uh - Oh

I just got a sweet deal on a classic car:



The guy that sold it to me was kinda jumpy. Said the car's name was Christine...

[shadowrider]

46. - Snort -

[rrneck]

35. That might depend

on your history with the vehicle.



Tell me about your relationship with your mother...

[rrneck]

33. I found it interesting

that one poster immediately questioned the sanity of the guy in in the OP, and it apparently never occurred to her that that guy probably drove to the store.

There are significant differences in the two sets of images albeit on a functional level, they are pretty much the same. It is possible to use technology that significantly increases personal power for good or ill or to no purpose at all. One of the significant differences is in the amount of trust one may have in the laws and customs surrounding the use of that technology.

The only thing separating two oncoming cars on a highway is a line painted on the road and the understanding that an oncoming car won't cross it. Supporting that separation are tons of laws and customs that make people's behavior generally predictable.

The analogy only works if we assume the guy in the image will kill himself after shooting others. Traffic laws work for the most part because when two cars slam into each other the occupants have a more or less equal chance of injury. The power relationship is more or less equal. If somebody with a gun wants to take you out and survive the encounter, the power relationships are entirely different.

[mvccd1000]

37. Interesting line of thought...

... and one of the first times the thought has popped into my head, "If EVERYBODY was armed...." :)

Take the windshield wiper out of the lower portion of the car pictures, though, and assume you're walking or bicycling down the street. Now the equation is much more like the "armed vs. unarmed" equation. Most people still won't do more than make sure they can get out of the way if the car crosses the line.

[rrneck]

42. Sure.

Disparity of force is everywhere. Society is little more than an attempt to maintain a parity of force.

The only meaningful difference in the two sets of images is how they are interpreted partly because everyone is always armed one way or another.

[Euromutt]

45. That does seem to follow from the statements made thus far

Of course, that does leave the question how every year, something in the order of 45,000 people are killed in motor vehicle accidents, practically all of which are the result of driver error.

[proteus_lives]

41. Spot-on!

:applause: