38 ms·
The reason I'm calling it a bad comparison is that you don't (typically) get into a car with the intention of killing someone. If every firearm owner decided t
by Teknoman117 4y ago
The reason I'm calling it a bad comparison is that you don't (typically) get into a car with the intention of killing someone.
If every firearm owner decided that they were going to step outside and kill someone, millions would be dead.
Deaths resulting from improper operation isn't something you can reasonably compare to using a firearm with lethal intent.
- romwell 4y agoOne doesn't buy a gun with the intention to kill someone either — deterrence is a commonly cited reason for gun ownership. And if every car owner decided they were going to step outside and run over someone, millions will be dead. Vehicular deaths are written off as deaths resulting from "improper operation" bevause it's profitable to treat them as such. If they did that in aviation, everything would be "pilot error", and we'd be at 1920s level of safety. Current traffic fatalities are by design. Vehicles are inherently dangerous to operate. Remarkably, the US treats both gun amd traffic fatalities as unsolvable problems stemming from "improper use" (driver error / crime), which is little more than an excuse to throw hands up in the air and solve the problems (with strong towns approach to urban planning / regulation and addressing social issues that lead to crime, respectively).