Thanks for the response.
- You think that I’m claiming guns and cars “equal.” For instance, you say:
“two things that share just ONE trait, aren’t equal by a long shot.”
and
“ Just cos the use of cars results in deaths too, doesn’t mean they’re the same as guns.”
But in my piece I never claimed that cars are “equal” or “the same as” guns and, to be honest, I’m not even sure what such a claim could mean. Equal in respect to what? The same as in regards to what?
What my piece does claim, for the sake of argument, is “The idea that gun deaths are equal to or greater than car deaths…” But I’m not using “equal” in the sense of mathematical identity. I’m using it in the sense of no significant difference. You yourself make this same sort of claim in your response when you say:
“just 106 million gun owning Americans correlate with the same number of deaths.”
(Emphasis added.) So surely you can’t fault me for that! In my post, I explicitly specify that there are *points* of analogy and disanalogy between cars and guns, as we’ll see below.
2. You point out that
“Guns are more lethal, because they’re designed to be so.”
But I already addressed this idea in the post you’re responding to: “This doesn’t undermine the AGC person’s point of analogy, it actually undermines the relevance of the point of disanalogy appealed to by the GCA.”
3. You say:
“the 288 million car owning Americans correlated with 30–40K deaths a year but just 106 million gun owning Americans correlate with the same number of deaths. It’s of course even worse, but even by that low standard guns are more than three times as lethal.”
Well, that is interesting! I have never seen anyone argue that the RATIO of the number of Gun deaths to gun ownership is what is unacceptably high.
So is it your claim that if more Americans owned guns and yet the number of mass shootings, school shootings, general gun homicides, etc. remained the same that you would suddenly become fine with amount of gun violence and no longer see a need for more gun control?
4. You point out that
“Also, cars have getting safer and safer (seat belts and airbags) while guns have been getting unsafer and unsafer (for example, 100 round clips and bumpstocks).”
But, again, I already addressed this in the post you’re responding to. I said, “Consider the sorts of safety features and regulations that have been implemented into cars to make them safer: seat belts, air-bags, camera technology, lane assistance, tire technology, crumple zones, break technology, etc.”
5. You say
“You need a LICENSE for cars, if ONLY that’d be true for guns. Cars not only kill ACCIDENTALLY, while guns kill INTENTIONALLY, but they also kill the USER while guns MOSTLY kill the person it is used on.”
Many gun rights advocates have already responded thoroughly to this point, which is why I chose not to address it in my post. If you consider more details in how cars are regulated and not regulated in relation to guns, arguing that guns should be regulated like cars is NOT what a gun control advocate wants to argue! As one article points out:
“In fact, many gun-rights advocates would be okay with regulating guns like cars. There would be no federal registration or licensing, state-granted licenses would be given to people over 16, 17, or 18 years old after passing a simple test, the license would be good in all 50 states, and using a gun on private property wouldn’t require a license. As others have pointed out, in many ways this would be less onerous than current firearm regulations. Purchasing a car requires no background check or waiting period, and cars can be purchased by people who have been convicted of a felony, use illegal drugs, have been dishonorably discharged from the military, or are illegal aliens — all of whom are “prohibited persons” under current federal gun laws.”
(Source)
