4 ms·

By that reasoning it is three times more important to prevent automobile ownership, three times more important to prevent access to poisonous substances, and th

by stray 11y ago

By that reasoning it is three times more important to prevent automobile ownership, three times more important to prevent access to poisonous substances, and three times more important to prevent high places. Because the three most common causes of accidental death in the US are Unintentional fall deaths, Motor vehicle traffic deaths, and Unintentional poisoning deaths. And each of those kills roughly three times as many Americans as guns. When you add in intentional firearm deaths, it's roughly the same as automobile deaths -- yet we give 16 year olds the keys without a second thought.

yongjik 11y ago
Of course it is more important to prevent automobile ownership. That's why the US has DMV offices, administrating automobile ownership and zealously preventing "unqualified" people from driving these vehicles. Imagine how many more will die if people say "Driving a vehicle isn't privilege, it's my basic right." Snark aside, I think we're talking about different problems. The comment I'm replying to proposed that arming citizens will solve (or mitigate) the problem of terrorism. I pointed out that the proposed solution will kill orders of magnitude more people than terrorism itself. Automobiles are a separate problem.
- stray 11y ago
  Yeah I just think the increased number of accidental shootings will balance or possibly exceed the number if intentional shootings including terrorism. A guy with a gun isn't going to be as brave when he knows others probably have guns too. And most shootings are intentional. So it seems no more dangerous to arm everybody. And possibly far less dangerous. Not to mention that many other types of crime would likely decrease as well. You know, because of the threat of getting shoy by your would-be victim.
  - j2bax 11y ago
    That's debatable. I have to think of situations like one I saw in the news recently where some hero decided he should shoot an unarmed robber in the mall. I think there would be far more situations like this if everyone was packing. People aren't always very rational and if every time a major conflict breaks out the guns come out you are going to have a far bigger issue than the occasional terrorist attack. I'm not saying I don't agree that well trained individuals shouldn't be able to carry and provide safety to everyone around them, but I don't think the grand majority of the populous would be willing to put in the time to have this kind of training. Even if everyone has a gun, handling a terrorist in a crowded space can be a very tricky ordeal and you could easily have people killing each other with crossfire if everyone is trying to take them out.

by stray 11y ago

yongjik 11y ago

Of course it is more important to prevent automobile ownership. That's why the US has DMV offices, administrating automobile ownership and zealously preventing "unqualified" people from driving these vehicles. Imagine how many more will die if people say "Driving a vehicle isn't privilege, it's my basic right." Snark aside, I think we're talking about different problems. The comment I'm replying to proposed that arming citizens will solve (or mitigate) the problem of terrorism. I pointed out that the proposed solution will kill orders of magnitude more people than terrorism itself. Automobiles are a separate problem.

stray 11y ago
Yeah I just think the increased number of accidental shootings will balance or possibly exceed the number if intentional shootings including terrorism. A guy with a gun isn't going to be as brave when he knows others probably have guns too. And most shootings are intentional. So it seems no more dangerous to arm everybody. And possibly far less dangerous. Not to mention that many other types of crime would likely decrease as well. You know, because of the threat of getting shoy by your would-be victim.
- j2bax 11y ago
  That's debatable. I have to think of situations like one I saw in the news recently where some hero decided he should shoot an unarmed robber in the mall. I think there would be far more situations like this if everyone was packing. People aren't always very rational and if every time a major conflict breaks out the guns come out you are going to have a far bigger issue than the occasional terrorist attack. I'm not saying I don't agree that well trained individuals shouldn't be able to carry and provide safety to everyone around them, but I don't think the grand majority of the populous would be willing to put in the time to have this kind of training. Even if everyone has a gun, handling a terrorist in a crowded space can be a very tricky ordeal and you could easily have people killing each other with crossfire if everyone is trying to take them out.