But these are faulty analogies in that they assume that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they are necessarily alike in some other respect.
So, guns kill 31,224 people and Traffic fatalities from all causes amount to 44,128 people during 2007 according to WISQARS. Doesn't that mean that motor vehicles are more lethal than guns?
I should point out that firearms were used in 12,632 homicides while cars were used in 30 homicides during 2007. Firearms were used in 17,352 suicides and cars were used in 131 suicides during 2007. according to WISQARS. So, when people intend to kill, their method of choice between these two is the firearm, not the gun. That demonstrates that the firearm is the more lethal choice of the two.
There are a multitude of problems with this comment. The first being that motor vehicles were not created to kill. They are a mode of transportation for people and goods. That means their usefulness derives from something other than lethality (which is where this sort of argument always fails). Sometimes people do die in car accidents. But, the number of people dying in car accidents has decreased because of various laws making cars safer and making people safer drivers.
And one has to ask how many miles are driven each year without accident?
Outside of personal protection and hunting, both involving killing or wounding, guns have no other legal uses other than target practice, skeet shooting and so forth. I suppose you could use a gun as a hammer, but that would not be what the gun was designed for. I think using a hammer to kill would be more effective (as one gun defender suggested) than using a gun as a hammer. However, there is that trouble with the reloading the hammer to shoot at a crowd. Moreover, why don’t the people comparing automobiles to guns ever suggest liability insurance be mandated for gun owners, that we have to take a gun proficiency test, and register our guns like we do our cars?
It’s because people only use the analogies when it suits their defense of guns. If they actually thought it through, they would see the analogy is a poor one.
Why can’t gun advocates admit that guns were created to kill? Isn’t that the point of a gun, to kill or wound an intruder or take down your dinner, deer, rabbit, quail or other game animal? That is the primary function of a gun. Unless, you are suggesting eating road kill on a regular basis.
It's is true that cars do kill people but how many people use their cars to intentionally commit murder?
Cars are usually involved in accidents.
Guns are usually used to intentional harm or kill as well as being involved in accidental shootings.
But the place where the car gun analogy really fails is that cars are highly regulated: registration,safety features, and so on. There's even the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) which is supposed to “Save lives, prevent injuries, reduce vehicle-related crashes” through writing and enforcing safety, theft-resistance, and fuel economy standards for motor vehicles. Not to mention it exercises more control over vehicle manufactures and importers than does BATF.
The gun lobby doesn't work on making guns safer. There's no license, no registration, no requirement for training to purchase firearms. The firearms industry is exempt from product liability suits, vehicle manufacturers are not.
And there's an interesting parallel to be made if you are going to make this analogy. If we put children in car seats when they're in cars, then why can't we have some type of law that prevents children from gaining access to weapons, or more preferably, makes gun owners more responsible. If you have a gun, you own it, and some child accesses it, you're responsible.
Quite simply: Guns are made to kill people. Cars are not. Guns are designed to be weapons, vehicles are designed for transportation. That is why this analogy, and ones like it, fail.
Even more importantly,if you are going to make this argument, then you open yourself up to the fact that guns need to be highly regulated, not left unregulated as they are now. Especially when other, less lethal items (e.g.,Tedd Bears), are highly regulated. Does that make sense?
See also:
Risk Factor
The Logical Fallacies: False Analogy
Red Herring Fallacy
You guys would flip out if guns were treated the same way as cars. None of those regulations apply if I want to keep a car in my garage. I know people have told you how all those rules only apply to driving on public roads (they do every time), why not address this important argument? Though driving is considered a privilege, in practice it has been “shall-issue”- you pass the test, you get a driver’s license. And you have to do quite a lot to lose it, and usually then it is just a suspension. Imagine if CCW were “shall issue” in all 50 states with full reciprocity? You’d really be OK with that if it came with some liability insurance? I doubt that. And if you don’t want to carry it in public, but just want to have it at home and transport it unloaded in a locked container to the shooting range- then anything goes. Remember I can have an 8000hp drag racer, or an open wheel race car, and I am not bound by any government regulation so long as I trailer it to the track. It is not just a public vs. private land issue either. People have “trail only” jeeps for tooling around BLM land. So go ahead, propose that we treat guns like cars.
ReplyDeleteLaci: “Guns are designed to be weapons, vehicles are designed for transportation. That is why this analogy, and ones like it, fail.”
So you think Samurai Swords should be regulated just like guns then? It is designed as a weapon specifically to kill human beings. Right now, I can order one on the internet and have it shipped to my house- no questions asked.
Your law-firm link has some blatant contradictions:
The data regarding accidental shootings indicates a promising trend and a lot of the credit belongs to those who have forced the industry to accept liability for its products.
Then they say:
Instead the firearms industry has been left to regulate itself. But with this insulated group that has meant no regulation at all.
And they cite:
Since 1930, the annual number of firearm accidents has been cut by more than half, even though the U.S. population has doubled and the number of privately owned firearms has quadrupled.1
Of course we know firearms manufactures are subject to negligent liability just like anyone else (see the Kahr suit), but that doesn’t seem to stop you guys from perpetuating this “immunity” nonsense, even after the victory. Unbelievable. I think it is fair to call Monsees Miller Mayer Presley & Amick an unethical law firm based on this.
PS, did the CA DOJ ever get back to you? Did you or Dog Gone follow up with a phone call as promised?
These documents were never issued and as such are properly described as BUMPF.
ReplyDeleteI strongly suggest that you use it about as much as you try using the car-gun analogy.
BUt,from your response, this appears to have gone over your head,TS.
Your samurai sword argument is what is called a red herring, TS.Samurai swords are not as lethal as a firearm.
How many mass stabbings can you cite?
For the most part, firearms manufacturers are indeed exempt from liability, or held to a far lower standard than other industries.
Seriously,TS.
Per WISQARS, there were 1,981 homicides by stabbings during the same period.
ReplyDeleteThat is well under the 12,983 figure for firearms homicide.
So,once again into the land of the red herring for you, TS!
TS, which law school did you attend?
ReplyDeleteFor that matter,what is the highest level of education that you have attained?
The first is the more important of the two since I am curious as to what your legal experience is to try to lecture me.
I'm guessing not very high, but then again, you are most likely the product of the US educational system.
It seems there are safety standards for race cars:
ReplyDeleteRacer's lives depend on their safety equipment and safety systems that are built into their cars. EGR's extensive experience in roll cage design and racecar construction provides a uniquely experienced eye for determining the quality of a race car's safety features. EGR is one of only 25 certified NASA safety inspectors in northern California who can perform annual race car inspections and issue race car logbooks.
http://evilgeniusracing.com/racecarsafety.html
While you may indeed be enough of an idiot to drive an unsafe race car, TS, I would be surprised if you didn't have some form of safety features on your vehicle and wear protective clothing.
BTW, I take it that you have some form of registration for each of your vehicles including the off road ones as well, TS.
ReplyDeleteWhile MikeB says that you aren't dishonest, that may be true; hwever, a cursory review of your comment about car regulations demonstrates that you are somewhat disingenuous.
BTW, The National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) has more than 140 tracks in North America. The minimum requirements are usually:
A valid driver license
Valid vehicle registration and insurance
DOT-approved street legal tires
Seat belts
Muffler
Laci: “Per WISQARS, there were 1,981 homicides by stabbings during the same period.
ReplyDeleteThat is well under the 12,983 figure for firearms homicide.”
Ah, so it *is* about total number of deaths? But you just said, the difference is in its design? If it is about total deaths, where are the cries of:
“There is too much alcohol in the country!”
“It is too damn easy to get a beer!”
“We need better screening so that irresponsible people are not given driver’s license.”
“We should make a law that all cars on the road be equipped with breathalyzer interlocks. We are about prevention- so what if the law-abiding are inconvenienced.”
“Of course high school kids are going to ignore the law and drink anyway- that is why we need to target the adults who buy the drinks.”
Laci: “While you may indeed be enough of an idiot to drive an unsafe race car, TS, I would be surprised if you didn't have some form of safety features on your vehicle and wear protective clothing.”
If you are going to claim that I can’t lecture you, than you can stop right now with this topic. I race NASA. NASA sets their own safety standards for competing in their events WITHOUT government intervention. They are not bound by pedestrian safety, airbag laws (it is a good idea to disable airbags when using a 5-point harness), emission laws (but they don’t allow open exhausts for noise control), etc. You can see how government standards can clash with some of these. I knew you were going to go down this path by ignoring the crux of my argument. The government does not make OWNING any car illegal (as you try to do with guns). If I wanted to rent the whole track myself (rather than share it with NASA), my car would not be subject to a NASA tech inspection. If I owned the track, or just wanted to drive it on my own private land, I wouldn’t be subject to anyone’s safety standards (that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea). And you better believe that if there were people like you trying to ban me from owning my car, I’d be fighting even harder than I do for my guns. But strangely, nobody bugs me about it.
Going back to guns- there are shooting ranges that also set their own rules. They ban certain ammo, they ban certain guns, they set their own safety rules- and that is totally fine.
Laci: “These documents were never issued and as such are properly described as BUMPF.”
But you admit that it was written by the DOJ and the posting is unaltered? Is that your admission? Did they actually get back to you?
Laci: “While MikeB says that you aren't dishonest, that may be true; hwever, a cursory review of your comment about car regulations demonstrates that you are somewhat disingenuous.”
ReplyDeleteYou are being disingenuous by departing from your idea that the government can prevent you from owning cars that don’t meet highway standards. Of course sanctioned race organizations set their own rules. And you know what, shooting competitions also set their own rules- complete with lots and lots of safety regulations.
NO, you want to play with numbers--I gave you number.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that firearms are weapons which are used effectively to kill large amounts.
TS, you are prone to bullshitting around with all sorts of logical fallacies.
Your race car federation sets standards which you have to follow. Society makes laws that people have to follow or pay the penalties.
If you are going to play with your cars, you follow those minimal standard and regulations.
Does Dale Earnhardt mean anything to you?
Again, you are fucking around with me about the DoJ documents, TS, they were never issued and are best called shit blotter. End of story.
Is that in language that you can understand, or do you want to keep fucking around with me?
You can fuck around on your own to your hearts content, but I'm getting a bit tired of playing with you, TS.
TS, the documents you quoted at best were never issued, making them null and void. At worst, or fake, which is what a signature on a draft document suggests to me. Until this is authenticated, it stands as nothing. It does not support your argument.
ReplyDeleteCome up with something else.
TS, as for you car, vroom vroom!
ReplyDeletewho cares?
Back on topic please.
You are being disingenuous by departing from your idea that the government can prevent you from owning cars that don’t meet highway standards. Of course sanctioned race organizations set their own rules. And you know what, shooting competitions also set their own rules- complete with lots and lots of safety regulations.
ReplyDeleteHey, TS, you're the one who brought that crap up--not me.
Now, it turns out there are regulations from someone other than the government and you want to back out of it. It's like your bullshit unisssued documents that mean fuck all.
You have regulations, and you have government registration--stop trying to bullshit your way out if it.
Anyway, the issue is that guns are weapons and car are transportation.
Do I have to dumb that down any further for you, TS?
Laci: “Now, it turns out there are regulations from someone other than the government and you want to back out of it.”
ReplyDeleteI am not backing out of anything? Are you backing out of implying that the government can tell me I can’t own certain cars? Because they can’t. And what do you mean by “turns out”? Obviously I know about auto-sport regulations, but the state rules don’t apply.
Laci: “Your race car federation sets standards which you have to follow.”
NASA can’t tell me what I can and can’t have in my garage. Get it? Only if I want to run with them do I have to follow their rules. I am not against all regulation (certainly safety regulations). NASA sets some pretty good rules, and for the most part no one complains about them. Why? Because the people who set the rules are also car enthusiasts who want to promote the sport while most importantly looking out for the safety of the drivers. If the rules were set by people who hate auto sports and are anti-car in general, we’d have a lot of stupid rules to complain about.
Same goes for guns. I should be allowed to own a BMG, but that doesn’t mean the facilities shouldn’t set rules governing their discharge. I can’t expect to shoot it in an indoor pistol range. A lot of outdoor ranges are not equipped to handle them either so they have “no .50BMG” rules. I have no problem with this. That is the equivalent of NASA or NHRA rules.
Dog gone: “At worst, or fake, which is what a signature on a draft document suggests to me.”
Which you have zero confirmation of. If you want to admit that the DOJ tried to confiscate 1500 guns but it was leaked and thwarted by pro-gun grass roots, I am cool with that. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t real.
Hey, you have a title for your car?
ReplyDeleteThe autosport thing is different from the gun thing--how many times do I have to make that clear to you. Any analogy between the two fails. That's the point of this post.
In terms a dumbshit can understand:
Guns are weapons
Cars are transportation
They are two different items.
Or do I have to really dumb it down further for you?
No, you shouldn't be able to own any weapon or vehicle you want--or I want to own a fully kitted out WAH-64. After all, it does say something about well-regulated militia--and I think this counts!
TS, I understand there is a draft document from NASA that says that you have to comply with their safety regulations or else you cannot race your car. It was never issued as well.
Your point?
Yeah, dickhead, I can lecture you about hot rod racing the way you tell me about the law. How does it feel?
Although, I do know that vehicles need government titles/registration--even if you keep them in your garage to jack off in.
Whether a particular "sanctioning" body does or does not require certain items on certain vehicles in order to race is not the only thing that applies here.
ReplyDeleteAutomobiles, manufactured in this country at least, are required, by law, to meet a certain set of standards in order to be used on public streets and roads.
The regulations covering what is a "safe" car fill volumes of the legal code. What is a safe gun? not so much.
I hate the comparison game. How about this for a solution?
ReplyDeleteGuns are bad, cars are good. See how simple that is?
That works too, MikeB.
ReplyDeleteOK, to try to recap this for simple minds--this post is about the false analogy, a type of logical fallacy.
ReplyDeleteThat says because two things share one characteristic, they share others.
Cars are not guns--they have vastly different characteristics.
When people talk about treating guns like cars, they are referring to the ones used as vehicles on public roadways--not hot rods, hot wheels, not matchbox, not slot cars, not soap box racers, etctera.
Got that?
That is another fallacy called the red herring. TS is very good a using red herring. And he keeps using them, even when it has been pointed out that they are red herrings.
And for vehicle law--I AM in a position to lecture you, TS--whereas, as far as I know, you have no legal experience.
And it shows.
BTW, this is a list of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
ReplyDeleteBTW, Vehicles such as race cars, dirt bikes, or all-terrain vehicles that are not primarily manufactured for on-road use do not qualify as motor vehicles and are therefore not regulated by NHTSA. Instead, such vehicles may be regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). So, there is federal regulation for those vehicles.
I would add the federal compact on driver's licencing which allows for people who have had their licences revoked in one state to not be able to get another licence, or even a "non-resident" permit, in another state.
Not to mention that licences require some form of certification and testing, which CCW permits don't.
SO, TS, the King of the Red Herring, misses the point of this post and misses that he is out of luck when he tries to say cars aren't regulated.
"Automobiles, manufactured in this country at least, are required, by law, to meet a certain set of standards in order to be used on public streets and roads."-Demoscummie
ReplyDelete"NASA can’t tell me what I can and can’t have in my garage. Get it? Only if I want to run with them do I have to follow their rules."--TS
D, are you REALLY that stupid, or are you just trying to fool folks?
Tennessee Budd, you might want to reread Democommie's comment a few times until you can understand it.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I hear that In 2000, 75.9% of Tennessee residents age 25 and older were high school graduates; 19.6% had obtained a bachelor's degree or higher. Tennessee's high school graduation rate for 2002 was 57%, which ranked it 48th in the nation.
A new study shows slightly more than half of Tennessee adults - 53 percent - struggle with even the most basic reading skills. The study, conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), shows the nation at large is only marginally better off, with 50 percent of those surveyed failing to meet basic levels of literacy. a survey conducted in 2003 by the Comptroller's Office of Research found that 53 percent of all adults in the state occupy the bottom two rungs of a five-level literacy ladder.
That may be the reason why you didn't understand Democommie, Tennessee Budd.
Come back when you have achieved functional literacy.
"NASA can’t tell me what I can and can’t have in my garage. Get it? Only if I want to run with them do I have to follow their rules."--TS
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming you don't mean the space station people. And in fact, the government CAN tell you what you can and can't have in your garage - like you can't legally have the JADO assisted vehicle in the legendary Darwin Award stories.
You can't go anywhere with certain vehicles, including having them insured and meeting safety standards.
The car / gun analogy is stupid; it doesn't fly, drive, or fire.
you can't legally have the JADO assisted vehicle in the legendary Darwin Award stories.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure about that Dog Gone. TS plays with guns and race cars, I wouldn't put it past him to want something incredibly dim--just 'cos!
The guvment can't tell him what to do.
And this bozo claims he believes in the Second Amendment--I'd love to see him enrolled in an actual militia unit.
I look forward to TS's being awarded the Darwin Award sometime in the future.
Perhaps it's changed since my time in the USAF, but I believe the correct term is JATO (Jet Assisted Take-Off).
ReplyDeleteWhether TS needs to obey NASA (or NASCAR) rules when a vehicle is in his garage is immaterial to whether he has to obey their rules or the state's rules when he want to drive it or even transport it to another location, using a properly built, maintained and documented vehicle.
If gunzloonz only bought gunz and stuck them in their houses, properly secured, this discussion would not be taking place.
Democommie, you are correct; I had meant JATO. As to the legality of having one, attached to a vehicle or not, I recall an episode of Mythbusters (I'm a geek) where they tried to GET a JATO unit from the air force to replicate the Darwin awards, and could not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MythBusters_pilot_episodes#Pilot_1_.E2.80.93_.22Jet_Assisted_Chevy.2C_Pop_Rocks_and_Soda.22) Their efforts to do so were part of the episode, and contributed to their debunking that not-so-urban myth.
ReplyDeleteSo when TS claims he can have any kind of vehicle in his garage he wants, he is in error. If he wants to alter a commercially manufactured vehicle with a military rocket, someone in authority will almost certainly come knocking on his door to explain to him the error of his ways - as well they should.
I find the premise that we need more citizens carrying more guns in a country where our crime rate, including violent crime, has been decreasing steadily for some time, to be ludicrous. The exception to the decline in crime, including violent crime, has been hate crimes against people targeted as members of certain illegal immigrants and /or ethnic/racial groups, and people targeted as LGBT, or presumed LGBT. That pretty much tends to suggest the sole crime increase is by those who hold views consistent with the further right wing (and most of the current crop of 2012 GOP Presidential contenders).
I don't wish to have the U.S. be an armed societ. To be an armed society is inherently UNcivil and uncivilized, the opposite of a law abiding society where crime is dealt with by law enforcement, not individual citizens acting as law enforcement, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner by using their firearms.
THAT is where the analogy between guns and cars fails most critically.
This was one of the dumbest things I ever read, and it only got dumber in the comments. Laci is clearly an uneducated idiot with zero logical ability. But hey, we're all entitled to our opinions, right? Just as long as you don't try to impose them on everyone else.
ReplyDeleteOh, after approval, huh? So never.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about?
Delete