Guns currently kill about 30,000 Americans annually -- almost as many as cars. Photograph by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images
Bloomberg
The results of the safety revolution [for cars] can be measured in mortality rates. In 1958, there were 35,331 motor vehicle deaths in the U.S. After a half century of improvements in auto and road safety, that number declined to 32,367 in 2011 even as the population increased by three-fourths. Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles in 1958 were 5.32; by 2011, they had plummeted to 1.1. "Aspirational" brands such as Volvo, Mercedes and BMW now market cars based on their safety ratings.
The results of the safety revolution [for cars] can be measured in mortality rates. In 1958, there were 35,331 motor vehicle deaths in the U.S. After a half century of improvements in auto and road safety, that number declined to 32,367 in 2011 even as the population increased by three-fourths. Fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles in 1958 were 5.32; by 2011, they had plummeted to 1.1. "Aspirational" brands such as Volvo, Mercedes and BMW now market cars based on their safety ratings.
The gun industry, aided by an ideology-infused gun culture, has resisted even attempting similar gains. Guns currently kill about 30,000 Americans annually -- almost as many as cars -- and injure another 70,000. It's unclear if gun-safety measures could achieve similarly dramatic results as auto-safety initiatives, or with similarly minimal inconvenience. But certainly they could achieve much -- if they were tried. Laws designed to keep guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, drug addicts and others have been thwarted, along with efforts to keep guns away from children. Technological fixes -- such as smart guns using fingerprint scanners -- get little encouragement from the NRA and its backers.
The safety comparison here is flawed. A gun that is "safe" is not a gun at all. There is no smart technology that works at present, and coming up with something in the near future is as likely as hydrogen fusion. And much of gun control aims at burdening responsible owners while doing nothing to keep criminals from getting guns, whereas owning a car is still widely legal.
ReplyDeleteAs you know I don't really like the gun/car comparison. But, there are some points of interest. I think the way cars and car drivers are controlled would work well for guns and gun owners. It would be a terrible inconvenience for you, but it would prevent some of the really unfit and irresponsible guys from doing their thing.
DeleteIt would be more than an inconvenience, and it wouldn't work. But hey, punishing the good guys is always a way to win them over to your side, right?
DeleteYeah, just like the seat belt law is a punishment of the good guys.
DeleteA seatbelt doesn't affect the functioning of the car, nor does it prevent anyone from driving.
Delete"A gun that is "safe" is not a gun at all."
ReplyDeleteBreathless thinking
Car safety improvements are as they relate to accidents. If we look at accidental death by firearm, we see that the gun industry has done far better than the car industry over the decades.
ReplyDelete"Technological fixes -- such as smart guns using fingerprint scanners -- get little encouragement from the NRA and its backers."
ReplyDeleteThe reason this doesn't get backing from the NRA is that the "smart gun" technology is being pushed by legislation and not by the market. Legislation was passed requiring this technology before it was even developed. Then of course, an exemption for the police and military are legislated in, which gives the perception that a civilians life has a different worth than police or military.
After all, if the technology isn't reliable enough for the police or military, why should regular folk be required to use it?
And why is this author not criticizing the police for not supporting these “technology fixes”? Because the police (like the NRA) are against safety, right?
DeleteNo, because the police probably favor technological changes.
DeleteConsidering the incredible changes we've all witnessed in cell phones, GPS devices and computer technology, only short-sighted and biased gun-rights fanatics would oppose these things.
Mikeb, the technology that the article is demanding simply doesn't exist. That isn't a problem in your point of view, though.
DeleteNo they don't. And if police do want "smart guns" how come the legislators keep writing police exemptions into their laws. Is it because they hate cops and won't give then what they want?
DeleteIn order to protect what you think is your god-given right, you'd even revert back to "the Wright brothers will never get that thing off the ground."
DeleteWere the Wright brothers forced to make a flying machine by legislation? Good ideas happen naturally.
DeleteMikeb, post an article describing the technology that currently exists that you want installed on guns.
DeleteSafety features like seat belts were legislative driven, not driven by market demand. It's called leadership; leading people to do the right thing and save lives.
ReplyDeleteExplain to the class how a gun can be made "safe" while still remaining effective.
DeleteIncorrect. Seat belts, air bags, ABS, were all market creations. It was only after most every new car had them when the government mandated it for the rest.
DeleteIf you want to look to a non-gun example where government is trying to force technology on the market, look at carbon sequestering.
Unsafe at any speed, Ralph Nader, read it, you are incorrect.
DeleteThe Corvair wasn't legislated away. It was a market response- which is to my point. If you "there aught to be a law" types had your way, the world would be without the wonderful Porsche 911 because Ralph Nader once wrote a book about a Chevy.
DeleteObviously you did not read it. Thank you for proving that.
ReplyDeleteA new poll has come out that smart gun technology has a long way to go before being potentially acceptable to prospective gun owners, mainly due to reliability concerns. And interestingly, the Violence Policy Center doesn't seem to be wild about the idea either.
ReplyDelete"Ironically, the gun prohibition lobby is not keen on “smart guns” either, but for an unusual reason. Anti-gunners fear that “smart guns” might be viewed as some kind of substitute for common sense gun safety; a subject that firearms owners are far more cognizant of in practical terms than someone like Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center.
Back in January, Sugarmann was concerned that the misconception could lead more people to purchase firearms; a revealing glimpse at the real fear for gun-grabbers: increased gun ownership, albeit couched in a concern about increased “gun violence.”
"If a smart gun did exist what would its effect be, taking into consideration the nature of gun violence in this country?" Sugarmann told the New York Daily News. "Would you place families at risk or people at risk by giving this impression that this is a safe gun? You know, people who wouldn't normally buy a gun, would they buy one now?"
http://www.examiner.com/article/majority-say-smart-guns-a-dumb-idea-nssf-survey-suggests