There is a lot more wrong with this article once you get past the inane headline.
Saturday is Gun Appreciation Day, an occasion to feel good about a consumer product that is guaranteed to play a role in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans this year.
That’s not hyperbole. Roughly 30,000 people have been killed annually by guns in this country since 1979, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2010, the latest year for which statistics are available, the body count was 31,672.
That places guns in unique company as a legal, over-the-counter product that, in the hands of some users, will kill people. Not may kill people, like a defective baby stroller or vehicle. Will kill people.
Exempting motor vehicles from the “unique company”? Since he’s using 2010 statistics, let’s stick with that year. There were 32,885 traffic fatalities in 2010. Per the author’s logic, doesn’t this make cars an over the counter product that will kill people?
Of the 31,672 gun fatalities in 2010, 19,392 were suicides. Blaming the implement used to facilitate these tragedies all but completely ignores the real problem and the fact that it’s more than likely those people would have found an alternative method had a gun not been available.
Twenty paragraphs into an article about the politics of gun control, the author offers this:
It’s not my intent to delve into the politics of gun control. What fascinates me is the reluctance among some to acknowledge that guns are inherently dangerous, just as cigarettes and alcohol are.
Who are these “some”? Long time gun owners do nothing but acknowledge that guns are dangerous, which is why we’re careful with them. Again, note the absence of motor vehicles from the list of inherently dangerous items used frequently by Americans.
It’s the logical inconsistency that I’m taking to task here. If the goal is to put severe restrictions on, or do away with, things that are, as the author says “guaranteed to play a role in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans” each year then let’s put it all on the table for purposes of discussion.
do we really want to go there? cars = drivers licenses, car registration, car insurance, tests, etc….so not sure you want to bring it all to the table…
Of course I don’t want to go there. Obviously, I don’t want to ban automobiles. As I stated in the post, I was merely taking his premise (guaranteed to be involved in tens of thousands of deaths annually) and pointing out the logical inconsistency of excluding cars from his list. He keeps referring to alcohol and tobacco but conveniently leaves cars out of the conversation.
Cars are not specifically addressed in the constitution. You may argue and I would agree that the use of motor vehicles is a natural right (9th amendment, yo!) like that of self defense (and therefore arms) but if you do you would have to agree that any restriction is an infringement and thus unconstitutional.
There is no comparison to be made between a car and a firearm. A car is a piece of heavy machinery which will, by definition, be used in close proximity to others in a manner in which misuse, or equipment malfuntion, can and will lead to death or injury to others. You are not required to have your car subject to any regulations simply by owning it, only when operating it in public, where its use poses a danger to others.
It is already illegal to ‘operate’ a firearm in public. The “we regulate cars so we can regulate guns the same way” argument is invalid for that reason alone. The car sitting in your garage is not subject to any regulations, only when it is in use on the road. The unused firearm is treated the same way. Its use in public is already heavily regulated, and far more severely than a car.
Exactly–with all the required licensing, registrations, insurance and tests, cars still kill more people than guns.
I wonder if David Lazarus, or anyone he loves, smokes cigarettes.
Ladders. More people are killed every year falling off ladders than are killed by guns in the US. What we really need is ladder control, way before we need gun control! Makes perfect sense, using their logic.
What we need to do is ban highly dangerous assault buildings. No one “needs” a building more than two stories tall, and if we prevent just one death from someone jumping out of a high window it will be worth it.
“In 2010, the latest year for which statistics are available, the (gun)body count was 31,672.”
“Since he’s using 2010 statistics, let’s stick with that year. There were 32,885 traffic fatalities in 2010. ”
In other words, a product specifically designed to kill things is involved in fewer deaths annually than one that isn’t. Sounds to me like proof that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are safe, responsible people.
Well, privately owned guns are almost unknown in Japan, yet somehow, with about half the population of the US, 33000 Japanese manage to commit suicide in a given year. They use tall building and bridges, trains, sharp objects, and poisons. I guess if Japanese had more access to guns, they’d use them also.
Really, its almost like these reporters just want to fill white space with something, no matter how poorly thought out. Maybe there is an office pool of who can write the most inane article and get it published.
I’ve always been amazed at the double standard people have with respect to alcohol vs. guns. Alcohol is associated with about 70,000 deaths per year, more than twice the number from firearms; even more if you remove the suicides committed with firearms.
People who want to ban guns are always shocked when I suggest that, by their logic, more lives would be saved by banning alcohol. They always respond that guns are made for killing people as if that’s relevent. It basically comes down to they like drinking alcohol, but not shooting guns.
Guns are power tools just like chain saws, pneumatic nailers, electric drills, et cetera. They are designed to propel small bits of metal accurately over great distance. It so happens that they are extremely useful in enabling a weak and relatively powerless human to harvest large game animals. They’re also the best tools available to enable a small woman to defend herself against a much larger and more physically powerful man.
Cars, alcohol, power tools, all can be abused and used to cause harm. Those who fear guns or have a political agenda against them never address the positive good that they enable, nor do they seem to have learned from the last “great experiment” on banning a particular class of thing, prohibition. For that matter, need we mention our oh so successful war on drugs?
“Of the 31,672 gun fatalities in 2010, 19,392 were suicides. Blaming the implement used to facilitate these tragedies all but completely ignores the real problem and the fact that it’s more than likely those people would have found an alternative method had a gun not been available.” Nobody needs to use that argument when these types include suicides to inflate the number of “gun deaths”. The only response needed to the ‘firearm suicide’ argument is this: It is not the role of government to ban posession of items that people might use to kill themselves with. That type of thing is only done when people are being put in either jail or the asylum, and any government that seeks to do the same to the citizenry at large is illegitimate. Any attempt to justify gun control by citing suicides needs to be dealt with in this manner.
Lost in the sauce is the fact that a gun is not really designed to kill.
Most will never kill. So if they are designed to kill, it’s a poor design. Manufacturing a ticking time bomb would be far more effective.
No, a gun is designed to give a credible option to kill. Big difference. When it is used most successfully it succeeds by sheer deterrence, and no one is hurt.
Since the most desirable, optimal outcome of gun use results in no deaths, it is clearly not “designed to kill”.
Could ou imagine the outcry if we regulated cars the way we regulate guns?