A gun is now more likely to kill you than a car is in the U.S

There are people that believe that's already happened. The Waco & Ruby Ridge incidents of the 90s fueled the "government out to get you" mindset and started people talking about "not letting it happen again". And by talking I mean openly in mainline churches in the midwest-not gun shop boasting.

Since then it seems like federal law enforcement has taken a softer touch with their sieges. This could be simply a change in doctrine to avoid bad press but enough people believe it's more than that.

Also, these days it isn't so much about guys with guns from Wal-Mart as it is country boys that did a couple tours in IQ/AF as a 11something and their friends. That's also why the NRA is touchy about funding for studies on things--there's a perception that "the powers that be" want to diagnose everyone who served with PTSD and then use that as a reason to take away their guns. This is compounded by some despair over disarming IQ villagers so they are easy pickings for ISIS and the perception that "they were training us to do it back home".

The NRA is against anything which gets in the way of a patriot and their duty. RFID and similiar 'safety' features can be used by the government to identify gun owners, confiscate weapons and suppress the public's right to revolt against their tyranny. Americans have a sacred right enshrined into the Constutition to be able to bear arms in order to respond to the presence of government with deadly force.

It's no different the the argument people here sometimes make that black markets and TOR are necessary for freedom of speech and civil liberties, even if having them means enabling criminal activity - because the greater threat is always the threat of a government which can't be spoken up against. In the case of guns, the greater threat is always a government which can't be put down.

> > Well, among the key facts necessary to understand that is that the "safety features" are not pure cost-free benefit, and the NRA believes the costs outweigh the benefits.

> Sure. Advanced safety features in cars probably cost a lot to develop, too, and I'm sure there's a lot of people who think seatbelts are lame and cars would be cooler without them. But car companies actively work to promote safety while the NRA seems to actively undermine it.

The cost at issue here is generally not monetary. Most safety features are designed to prevent the weapon from firing, which gives rise to the expression "loaded club."

Consider, e.g., the magazine safety, which prevents a semi-automatic weapon from firing without a magazine, even if a round is already chambered. If I owned a handgun, which I do not, I would absolutely want this feature. The likelihood that it would prevent a potentially fatal negligent discharge is much higher than the likelihood that it would be the decisive factor in me losing a gunfight. However, there are combat techniques that depend on the weapon firing without a magazine, and competitions in which it would be difficult or impossible to participate without that ability. There is also the risk that the safety would otherwise interfere with the operation of the weapon.

Comparing cause-of-death rates between automobiles and firearms is a lot like comparing the median number of miles traveled riding in a car versus carrying a gun.

Death is a possible unintended side effect of riding in an automobile. Death is the explicit primary purpose of discharging a gunpowder weapon.

Thus, this is far more laudable accomplishment for automotive safety than it is a deplorable statistic for gun owners. Cars now cause less deaths by accident than a consumer product that is actually designed to kill things when used correctly. Yay.

I don't ever have an absolute need to own or use a gun, but it is practically impossible to earn a profitable living without spending at least 40 minutes per day driving in my car, or riding in any other form of on-road transportation.

I don't particularly feel like the jerkass riding on the hard shoulder at 50 mph to bypass a rush-hour jam is in any way comparable to someone who plinks beer bottles--the ones they just emptied--off their back fence without stopping to consider if there are neighbors living in that general direction. They could even be the same guy. If so, I meet him far more often on the road.

Neither guns nor cars kill without an operator--not yet, anyway. If I am now less at risk from an idiot behind a wheel than an idiot with his finger on the trigger, that is unequivocally good news, because I encounter far more of the former. But the article doesn't exactly break the statistics down by intent. I suspect that rates of deaths by gun due to accident or operator negligence are still less than deaths by vehicle due to accident or operator negligence.

So I still feel like guns are safer for me than the average person, because I don't particularly feel like anyone has an actual desire to kill me specifically, especially given my own disinclination toward suicide.

The article doesn't tell me anything meaningful. It seems to be presenting the statistics in a very narrowly interpreted way to advance a particular editorial point of view. The Economist might as well tell me how likely I am to die from falling off a ladder while cleaning my gutters, and compare that to deaths by food poisoning, except that there are far fewer passionate advocates for pasteurization and ladder stabilization bars.

gun owners place a high value on agency. I have wondered if one reason they tend to not see suicides as legitimate in gun death stats is because they tend to see suicide as a willful act that a person also has a right to. Just a speculation...