6 ms·
What interests me about the gun debate (if one can call it that), is that there are ways of dying that are considered acceptable risks and ways of dying that ar
by agarden 11y ago
What interests me about the gun debate (if one can call it that), is that there are ways of dying that are considered acceptable risks and ways of dying that are not. If you are driving your kids across town and get t-boned by a drunk driver and everyone dies, that is considered a tragedy. But no one will advocate giving up driving. Something really bad happened, everyone move on with your lives.
Or when a relative dies because of a medical error, they might be rage at the particular doctor at fault, but there isn't a general outcry against hospitals or doctors. Everyone will still urge you to go to the ER at first signs of a serious problem.
But if a lunatic shoots a few people in a public place, then guns should just be banned altogether and there is a general outcry and the POTUS needs to visit the victims to console them.
Maybe someone can enlighten me why the risk of gun deaths is so much less acceptable (to a portion of the population) than the risk of death by automobile.
EDIT: Skiing is purely entertainment. About 41.5 people die a year in skiing accidents[1]. This, too, is considered an acceptable risk.
[1] http://www.nsaa.org/media/68045/NSAA-Facts-About-Skiing-Snowboarding-Safety-10-1-12.pdf http://www.nsaa.org/media/68045/NSAA-Facts-About-Skiing-Snow...
- notontopicbut 11y agoI think most people don't find guns crucial to their day to day lives, but doctors and cars are.
- massysett 11y agoBecause automobile travel has positive economic and social effects. You can't say the same about mass handgun ownership.
- alistairSH 11y agoBecause guns are expressly designed to kill. They serve no other purpose (ignoring sporting uses, as those are basically a proxy for proving how well one can kill with a gun). There is no reason anybody outside of the military needs a gun to carry out their day to day jobs. That isn't true of cars or hospitals.
- throwaway21816 11y agoKnives are expressly designed to cut. They serve no Purpose (ignoring cooking, as those are basically a proxy for proving how well one can cut with a knife). There is no reason anybody outside of the kitchen needs a knife to carry out their day to day jobs. Encryption is expressly designed to hide terrorists. It serves no purpose (ignoring privacy, as that is basically a proxy for proving how well one can hide from the government). There is no reason anybody outside of the military needs encryption to carry out their day to day jobs.
- zrail 11y agoThis is ridiculous and you know it.
- alistairSH 11y agoNice throw-away. How 'bout you man up and own your opinions?
- ad-hominem 11y agoAd-hominem
- theworstshill 11y ago>Because guns are expressly designed to kill. And whats wrong with that? There are always two sides to every situation, a party that is bend on taking away someone's assets (possibly life) and another party defending that.
- alistairSH 11y agoNothing is wrong with it. Guns have their place. I was just answering the question - "why do people react differently to guns than cars?" Because guns are fundamentally different. I'm not personally opposed to gun ownership. I think we need better regulation of guns, though I don't really have any answers (and certainly none that are viable in today's political climate).
- smcl 11y ago>> ... t-boned by a drunk driver and everyone dies, that is considered a tragedy. But no one will advocate giving up driving Apples and oranges there. It is a criminal offense to drink drive where I am, and probably where you are too. I find it a bit painful/hilarious that I actually predicted someone would come up with your second example about 25 minutes ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289280
- agarden 11y agoIt is a criminal offense to shoot people.
- maldusiecle 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- devit 11y agoCars are used everyday by a large part of the population and are very useful and often essential for transportation. Guns are only useful in rare cases for preventing or stopping crime, and most people don't have one or if they do they have never used it beyond practice.
- agarden 11y agoDo you think that we are familiar with cars and driving, and so find the risks acceptable? Or is it that because most people want to drive, they rationalize the risk? PS. I live in the country and have most of my life. A gun is a very useful tool if you live in an area with wild animals.
- jernfrost 11y agoSo sick of replying to this sort of logic. Nobody says we should GIVE UP guns. We are talking about regulating. Just like the dam car you used in your retarded analogy. WHY is the car strictly regulated in the US like anywhere else, but NOT the gun!!!??? Are guns somehow way safer than cars? Pretty much anything which is dangerous is regulated. I mean McDonalds even has to put a sticker on your cup, stating it is hot. Somehow hot coffee gets stricter regulation in the US than guns. That is totally backwards and it just boggles the mind of the rest of us why so many Americans are so dense they can't see this.
- agarden 11y agoI am not trying to make an argument. I am trying to understand why people react the way they do to different risks. I said banning guns because that is what the Guardian article was arguing for, or seemed to be.
- agarden 11y agoGuns are regulated. You must be at least eighteen in most states in order to buy a gun. In many places (most?), there is a waiting period. You pay one day, you come back another to pick it up. Concealed carry is either illegal or requires taking a class, registering, and getting a permit. Open carry is legal in some places, illegal in others. It is harder to get a concealed carry permit than a driver's license, at least past the age of 21. I'm not saying that there aren't more regulations that could be passed that would make gun ownership safer. I think there probably are. But to hold that car ownership is more regulated than gun ownership is not a tenable position.
- thinkcontext 11y agoCars require registration, insurance, and inspection. The government has spent considerable resources researching causes of injury/death and pushed over decades ever stricter safety standards and new technologies. This is a considerable amount of regulation that guns do not have and would probably make a big difference.
- talmand 11y ago