Statistics don't work that way. It's not an even distribution. For instance, I am not around gun violence at all, but I've seen and been involved in several serious car accidents. I live and work in areas nearly devoid of gun crime. My odds of being shot are vastly less than being injured or killed by an auto.
A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S
51–60 of 155 posts
Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S
#52From the article: > By contrast, safety features on firearms—such as smartguns unlocked by an owner’s thumbprint or a radio-frequency encryption—are opposed by the National Rifle Association, whose allies in Congress also block funding for the sort of public-health research that might show, in even clearer detail, the cost of America’s love affair with guns. Can someone explain the NRA to me? At this point they come…
There was a documentary on them just a few days ago. I didn't watch it, but heard the producers talking on the radio. In the 60s NRA was basically a sports/ gun safety organization. At some point they pivoted to be a gun rights organization. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections... Politicians fear them, because they have money and get out the vote power. There is some thought that the NRA cost…
Didn't see the Frontline episode, but the NRA's history is quite interesting. The organization was quasi-governmental in that it administered the government's civilian marksmanship program (this was a war preparation thing) and it ran shooting tournaments and did other educational programs. It's interesting to read about the gun control debates of the 60s (leading to the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968) because people at the time thought that the debates were very heated but, compared to today, the NRA's position was pretty moderate. The organization was supportive of certain elements of the '68 act, including banning mail-order guns (one of which killed JFK) and Saturday Evening Specials.
After '68 there was a huge split in the organization between hardline types who wanted to focus on politics and lobbying and traditionalists who wanted to focus on shooting sports. At one point the NRA was even going to move from the DC area to Colorado and essentially give up politics altogether. In 1977, the political types took over the organization and purged the organization of sportsmen types.
Interestingly, the new head of the NRA was a former chief of the US Border Patrol who had shot and killed someone when he was a teenager. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlon_Carter
The organization grew exponentially in membership, budget and political influence. Interestingly, they went through a few cycles of purging people who were even more hardline than their leadership.
Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accepting the premise that it's a good thing that the population at large can own guns, their argument is that they're thinking a few steps ahead: If smartguns become popular, the government can then outlaw non-smartguns without too many people caring (they can still own and fire guns). Then the smart-stuff is leveraged to "enhance" security - transferring ownership, for an example, could be made subject to a governm…
Is the "keep the government in line" thing really a reason that anybody actually believes anymore? Like, if things got so bad that the government was "turning on its own people" with weaponry, somebody really thinks some guys with guns from Wal-Mart are going to be what stops them?
Armed peasantry have been beating western armies since WW2, and are pulling away in terms of effectiveness.
So, yes, I believe it. Because I'm seeing it happen.
Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Accepting the premise that it's a good thing that the population at large can own guns, their argument is that they're thinking a few steps ahead: If smartguns become popular, the government can then outlaw non-smartguns without too many people caring (they can still own and fire guns). Then the smart-stuff is leveraged to "enhance" security - transferring ownership, for an example, could be made subject to a governm…
Is the "keep the government in line" thing really a reason that anybody actually believes anymore? Like, if things got so bad that the government was "turning on its own people" with weaponry, somebody really thinks some guys with guns from Wal-Mart are going to be what stops them?
Yes. "Guys with guns from Wal-Mart" could wreak havoc against a larger, better-equipped, and better-trained army. History is abound with examples.
Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S
#55From the article: > By contrast, safety features on firearms—such as smartguns unlocked by an owner’s thumbprint or a radio-frequency encryption—are opposed by the National Rifle Association, whose allies in Congress also block funding for the sort of public-health research that might show, in even clearer detail, the cost of America’s love affair with guns. Can someone explain the NRA to me? At this point they come…
Accepting the premise that it's a good thing that the population at large can own guns, their argument is that they're thinking a few steps ahead: If smartguns become popular, the government can then outlaw non-smartguns without too many people caring (they can still own and fire guns). Then the smart-stuff is leveraged to "enhance" security - transferring ownership, for an example, could be made subject to a governm…
[deleted]
Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S
#56According to the CDC, homicides by discharge of firearm was at about 11,000 in 2011. Death by motor vehicle accident was 35,000.
By contrast, 53,000 die from the flu, 27,000 from falls, 36,000 from accidental poisoning, and 600,000 from heart disease.
Table 10: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf
Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the fact that there is a very small chance that a person may kill themselves with a gun does not mean the government should deny that person the right to own a gun. And people with a history of mental illness are already excluded from owning guns.
This argument seems at odds with the claim that suicide constitutes the majority of the deaths.
How so?
Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S
#58Ignoring the click-bait headline implying that guns have become more dangerous than cars - what we actually see are that deaths from both have declined. Car deaths slightly more quickly than gun deaths.
I find that incredibly encouraging. Nothing about guns or gun ownership has changed dramatically in the United States over this period. Perhaps this signals that the bizarre, and often fetishized, culture of violence in the United States is on the wane. I hope so.
Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S
#59From the article: > By contrast, safety features on firearms—such as smartguns unlocked by an owner’s thumbprint or a radio-frequency encryption—are opposed by the National Rifle Association, whose allies in Congress also block funding for the sort of public-health research that might show, in even clearer detail, the cost of America’s love affair with guns. Can someone explain the NRA to me? At this point they come…
> somehow the NRA works against its own interests to make guns as dangerous as possible?
In an ideal world, cars are designed to be as safe as possible, as they are transports and getting people home safely is their most important aspect.
In an ideal world, guns are designed to be a dangerous and murderous as possible, as they are killing devices and efficiently turning people into corpses is their most important aspect.
The NRA does exactly what it should: advocate for murder device efficiency and access.
Of course, whether easy access to highly efficient murder devices should be allowed is a public policy question, but in the US, the answer is yes, and the NRA's strategies are a rational move based on that policy. The problem here is that advocating for easy access and efficiency of murder machines kinda looks bad.
Re: A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S
#60Depending on your source of numbers, 40-60% of gun deaths are suicide and 30-60% are gang related. That at most leaves 0-30% "preventable" shootings. Gang member aren't going to use "smart guns" and I have the moral right to kill myself.