Guns Kill More People Than Motor Vehicles in 12 States & DC

[drew89]

To bad those safeties hadn't protected the three two year olds we've heard about who were killed or injured by guns in the past month, eh?

So punish the parents. They are to blame.

 

[I Eat Pie]

We should ban all human beings. They're racist against mother earth and are not progressive enough!

 

[DuneSoldier]

To bad those safeties hadn't protected the three two year olds we've heard about who were killed or injured by guns in the past month, eh?

And they are run over by a car the seatbelt was kind of useless to wasn't it?

If you pull the trigger on a loaded gun it is supposed to fire. That is what they are designed to do.

 

[stamperben]

And they are run over by a car the seatbelt was kind of useless to wasn't it?

If you pull the trigger on a loaded gun it is supposed to fire. That is what they are designed to do.

I'll agree that a negligent driver can kill a child, just as a negligent gun owner can cause death. And from the stats in the OP it seems there are more negligent gun owners in those states than there are drivers.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Let's ban everything except pillows. Even some forms of food are dangerous, so let's ban hamburger and pizza, and yes we'll ban cars and guns, and especially politicians. That ought to fix things.

 

[I Eat Pie]

Regulate everything, and then regulate the people who regulate everything, and make sure you regulate me too so I won't go out of control and start regulating too much.

Oh and tax the rich. We don't know what we're gonna do with the money yet, but tax them anyways!

 

[drew89]

I'll agree that a negligent driver can kill a child, just as a negligent gun owner can cause death. And from the stats in the OP it seems there are more negligent gun owners in those states than there are drivers.

The flip side of that is that negligent drivers kill more people than guns in 38 states.

 

[stamperben]

The flip side of that is that negligent drivers kill more people than guns in 38 states.

But according to the chart I posted that number is changing.

 

[drew89]

But according to the chart I posted that number is changing.

Does the chart account for guns used in self defense or suicide?

Anyway, I still don't get the point of this thread. Even if guns are more dangerous than cars... so what?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Let's ban everything except pillows. Even some forms of food are dangerous, so let's ban hamburger and pizza, and yes we'll ban cars and guns, and especially politicians. That ought to fix things.

I'm sorry but you have to ban pillows as they have been used to murder people and as silencers for guns to commit murder also.

 

[KWCrazy]

I propose that we ban all bad things.

It's simple, concise and doesn't take 25,000 pages. If it's bad, it's illegal.

There. Utopia accomplished.

 

[MagicSabbath]

How does a gun kill someone without some form of human intervention.

I know, I know. It's perfectly logical to blame and anthropomorphize an inanimate object.

Exactly!
Those who are adamantly anti-gun never used a firearm in their life.

Instead they demonize what they know nothing about, rescinding human responsibility while at the same time demanding human intervention to disarm a nation.

Anti-gun proponents say they're not out to disarm a nation. They lie.
Because there are gun control laws in place now and the anti-gun community want more.

If they were rational they'd be anti-crime. Not anti-self defense.

When the Supreme Court forewarns fans of the nanny state that there is no law that makes law enforcement have to protect them, it becomes clear that the 2nd amendment exists to insure we the people have an inalienable right and obligation to protect ourselves.

Nanny state fans are the first to whine for 9-11 and police to help them in the face of a mortal threat. They don't believe police don't have to save them. They imagine law enforcement will always come to the rescue. They're wrong! But they don't believe or accept that. Instead they feel secure in demanding law enforce disarming regular citizens, because nanny state fans simply don't trust civilians to be armed. That's a direct reflection of their subconscious informing them that it is they who can't be trusted with a firearm.

We don't need more gun control.
We need crime control.

Watch what happens in countries disarmed by their corrupt government, the officials of which have armed security watching their backs, while disarming the working class.

Criminals don't obey laws.
That's news to the anti-gun nanny fan crowd too.

 

[HorsieJuice]

You can wear a seat belt while still operating the car. What comparable safety measure would you employ regarding guns?

Guns could be manufactured with a system to alert the user as to whether or not there's a round in the chamber (e.g. a simple mechanical system that changes an indicator from red to green). They're not.

They could be manufactured with an additional safety that could, say, require the handgrip to be squeezed before allowing the trigger to be pulled. (think of it like a child safety lock) They're not.

You can get fancy with things like fingerprint or other biometric scanners, but those two are basic mechanical features that would be more reliable and would help prevent accidents. Smart people at the manufacturers could figure out all sorts of safety features if they wanted to. But they don't.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure, if they can afford them. If citizens cannot be trusted with a weapon, then neither should the government. Grenades and bazookas are already legal if you have a Class 3 license.

I'm just going to file this in the unreasonable drawer and give you the benefit of the doubt that you are only joking.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Exactly!
Those who are adamantly anti-gun never used a firearm in their life.

Instead they demonize what they know nothing about, rescinding human responsibility while at the same time demanding human intervention to disarm a nation.

Anti-gun proponents say they're not out to disarm a nation. They lie.
Because there are gun control laws in place now and the anti-gun community want more.

If they were rational they'd be anti-crime. Not anti-self defense.

When the Supreme Court forewarns fans of the nanny state that there is no law that makes law enforcement have to protect them, it becomes clear that the 2nd amendment exists to insure we the people have an inalienable right and obligation to protect ourselves.

Nanny state fans are the first to whine for 9-11 and police to help them in the face of a mortal threat. They don't believe police don't have to save them. They imagine law enforcement will always come to the rescue. They're wrong! But they don't believe or accept that. Instead they feel secure in demanding law enforce disarming regular citizens, because nanny state fans simply don't trust civilians to be armed. That's a direct reflection of their subconscious informing them that it is they who can't be trusted with a firearm.

We don't need more gun control.
We need crime control.

Watch what happens in countries disarmed by their corrupt government, the officials of which have armed security watching their backs, while disarming the working class.

Criminals don't obey laws.
That's news to the anti-gun nanny fan crowd too.

Watch what happens indeed...

The Daily Show: John Oliver Investigates Gun Control in Australia - Part 1 - YouTube

 

[MagicSabbath]

2nd amendment! Inalienable right!
Fascinating that it's not an American asking the questions.

Mr.Rigby is a tragic example of what happens in a disarmed country.

 

[DuneSoldier]

Guns could be manufactured with a system to alert the user as to whether or not there's a round in the chamber (e.g. a simple mechanical system that changes an indicator from red to green). They're not.

They could be manufactured with an additional safety that could, say, require the handgrip to be squeezed before allowing the trigger to be pulled. (think of it like a child safety lock) They're not.

You can get fancy with things like fingerprint or other biometric scanners, but those two are basic mechanical features that would be more reliable and would help prevent accidents. Smart people at the manufacturers could figure out all sorts of safety features if they wanted to. But they don't.

The first is called a loaded chamber indicator. All new Rugers and Sig pistols have them.

The second is a grip safety. All 1911 clones and Springfield XDs have them.

Manufacturer's are thinking these up and putting them in. But many consumers don't want them.

 

[MachZer0]

Does the chart account for guns used in self defense or suicide?

Anyway, I still don't get the point of this thread. Even if guns are more dangerous than cars... so what?

It likely also includes criminals killed by police and who knows, those with and agenda may even be including those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan

 

[MachZer0]

I propose that we ban all bad things.

It's simple, concise and doesn't take 25,000 pages. If it's bad, it's illegal.

There. Utopia accomplished.

There goes the Democrat Party

 

[Urieltenken]

Guns could be manufactured with a system to alert the user as to whether or not there's a round in the chamber (e.g. a simple mechanical system that changes an indicator from red to green). They're not.

They are:

They could be manufactured with an additional safety that could, say, require the handgrip to be squeezed before allowing the trigger to be pulled. (think of it like a child safety lock) They're not.

They are:

You can get fancy with things like fingerprint or other biometric scanners, but those two are basic mechanical features that would be more reliable and would help prevent accidents. Smart people at the manufacturers could figure out all sorts of safety features if they wanted to. But they don't.

There are quite a few safety features incorporated into many firearms. If you push the front of a 1911 into something, it won't fire, nor will a firearm with a half-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] safety in the half-cocked position.