How many deaths are acceptable?

I do not support ANY new gun laws.

First, let's do some stat comparison, and then I'll apply the same logic to both examples.

This excerpt is from Wikipedia:"Firearms were used to kill 13,286 people in the U.S. in 2015, excluding suicide."

"Insurance Journal" reports:Motor vehicle accidents claimed 40,100 deaths in 2017, almost the same as in 2016 when 40,327 were reported.and this:Approximately 4.57 million people were seriously injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2017, about the same as in 2016, according to the safety organization.and this:The group estimates that the costs to society of motor vehicle crashes and injuries totaled $413.8 billion.

There are 263.6 million registered vehicles in the United States and an unscientific estimate of 357 million guns in the U.S. I would bet there are more guns than this, but that is MY opinion. Either way, it is agreeable by most people that there are more guns than registered automobiles.

With far more deaths annually by fewer vehicles, than far fewer deaths annually by more guns, it is easy to see that automobiles are far deadlier than guns. The more than 4.5 million serious injuries annually by automobiles removes any doubt, because the number of serious injuries by guns does not even come close to scratching that surface.

Gun control bliss-ninnies would have gun enthusiasts relegated to muskets,...or less, but would never ask the people to drive a horse and buggy to work in order to reduce or save the lives lost by vehicle.

Vehicles are extremely useful tools. Guns are extremely useful tools. By what rationale is it reasonable to accept more than 40,000 annual vehicle deaths for the mere 'convenience' of quick and easy transportation? Are vehicle deaths less tragic because they were not gun deaths? What value is placed on the life lost by a vehicle death compared to a life loss due to a gun related death? Do family and friends of those lost to vehicle deaths grieve less than those who lose loved ones to guns? Do they become outraged and demand legislation to ban automobiles, or for common sense laws to regulate types of automobiles used in mass attacks,...say, perhaps the box truck?

Now, let's look at how laws apply:

There are laws that prohibit murder, not only by gun, but by any means. Bliss-ninnies will have you believe that more gun laws will change the determination or ability for someone to commit murder. There are gun laws in place that prohibit guns from falling into the hands of criminals/felons, yet criminals still have guns. Albeit in France, a good example of the futility in banning guns, is the muslim perpetrated mass murder using banned AK47s.

I believe any reasonable person would agree that we have far more traffic laws than gun laws. Even so, from every podunk town to every major city, the traffic courts are jam packed DAILY with offenders. I'm not even addressing the millions of daily near misses from irresponsible automobile owners who are determined that they own the road and you best get out of their way or they will make their way through you, over you, or under you. Commonly charged offenses range from driving with no license, on suspended license, recklessly, speeding, unsafe movement, while impaired, without prescribed eye wear, running red lights, too fast for conditions, improper equipment, unregistered vehicle, etc.

If there were courts in every jurisdiction in the country that handled this volume of gun related infractions on a daily basis, one might have a legitimate argument for gun control, and this insane imbalance in automobile offenses is with the number of guns in the U.S. exceeding registered vehicles. Sadly, in addition to our casual acceptance of so many auto deaths in exchange for the convenience of easy and quick transportation, the courts simply fine for the citations, which fattens the government coffers, and many people are repeatedly in traffic court. If "common sense laws" were king, with all the traffic laws written to make driving safer, our traffic courts from sea to sea would not be packed daily and people would not ignore the law and be extremely irresponsible with these very dangerous tools. So much for the argument that more laws would reduce gun deaths.

Then we must consider that thousands of 15 and 16 year old drivers are licensed and released onto our highways annually, in spite of their changing and raging hormone growth, immaturity, and lack of experience and common sense. They are rocketing along our road ways and highways in 5,000 pound missiles, just feet and inches from other rocketing 5,000 pound missiles. Wikipedia states that more than 2,000 youths below the age of 16 are killed annually by vehicle. I do not have a stat for the number of serious injuries for this age group, but a simple ratio and proportion calculation can be done if we examined the total number of licensed drivers. Remember the 4.57 million of seriously injured per year? Yeah, that number would factor into the equation.

In summary and conclusion, we self absorbed and selfish Americans give way less consideration to the nearly four times number of auto deaths annually compared to gun deaths. We just can't be inconvenienced by the facts. More "common sense" gun laws and disarming law abiding Americans, rendering them defenseless, would bring the number of gun deaths higher and closer to that of auto deaths. Is this a fact? Certainly one could argue that we just don't know, but when compared to the ratio of ignored traffic laws and any other laws in general, I would bet the farm that bad guys would still obtain guns and use them,...and probably more often.

There are so many other examples and comparisons that could be made in this assessment, but I intentionally chose these very specific points of argument to analyze. Trying to address every conceivable comparison would lose the effectiveness and sensibility of this analogy.

I realize there will likely be some disagreements with what I have presented here, but I fully believe that anyone with half a brain would agree that my analogy is fair.

I had one person who wanted to argue the point that automobiles were not designed to kill as guns are. There are a couple of holes in that argument. First of all, who gives a flip about the intended purpose when the facts prove that far more people are irresponsible, dangerous, and deadly with autos than are guns? Secondly, guns are designed for many different purposes. Anyone who owns a target pistol knows it is not exactly a candidate for concealed carry. Competition rifles are designed for,...competition. Surprise! Surprise! Their triggers are usually far too light for a defense weapon. Gun guys understand these couple of examples well,...and I could keep going with examples, but the bliss-ninnies are too uneducated about guns to understand. We can explain it to them, but we can't understand it for them.

Now, I am stepping off the soap box and anxiously awaiting your thoughts and opinions.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

How many deaths are acceptable?