4 ms·

> Well, among the key facts necessary to understand that is that the "safety features" are not pure cost-free benefit, and the NRA believes the costs outweigh t

> Well, among the key facts necessary to understand that is that the "safety features" are not pure cost-free benefit, and the NRA believes the costs outweigh the benefits. They have some decent arguments for the existence of the costs; reasonable people could disagree about the relative degree of each. Sure. Advanced safety features in cars probably cost a lot to develop, too, and I'm sure there's a lot of people who think seatbelts are lame and cars would be cooler without them. But car companies actively work to promote safety while the NRA seems to actively undermine it. > It is also worth remembering that even as the number of guns have increased, the death rate has, as the article pointed out, gone down That's actually the direct opposite of what the article says. The very first paragraph states: "Deaths by guns, though—the great majority suicides, accidents or domestic violence—have been trending slightly upwards." > When you find yourself completely unable to understand how anyone could possibly believe something, that's usually a sign that you've been exposed to only the propaganda of one side. Note that I said understand, not agree with or believe. I understand many points of view I do not agree with. Some of them I even had to go chase down, in accordance with the principle I just gave, because I could tell I'd just been fed one side of the propaganda. I agree. That was the premise of my question. Unfortunately, I haven't seen too much clarification yet :(

coryrc 12y ago
Safety of whom? I care about the safety of the person using the gun for self-defense. The "safety" features compromise the gun for its intended usage.
danielweber 12y ago
That's actually the direct opposite of what the article says. The very first paragraph states: "Deaths by guns, though—the great majority suicides, accidents or domestic violence—have been trending slightly upwards." They don't give a source, but their own graph [1] shows that, aside from a tick on 2006, gun deaths have been trending down, almost indistinguishable from flat in recent years. I couldn't find a nice graph, but googling gave me these two years (that I did not cherry pick): here's an anti-gun site giving the numbers for 1998 as 30K [2] and another anti-gun "just the facts" editorial in 2013 saying it's 31K. [3] Using normal per-population numbers, the US increased in population over 13% over that time. The US in the 21st century is a very safe place to be. Foreign news may distort the picture, but middle-class Americans don't worry about being killed by guns. [1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fnews%2Funited-states%2F21638140-gun-now-more-likely-kill-you-car-bangers-v-bullets&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fnews%2Funited-states%2F21638140-gun-now-more-likely-kill-you-car-bangers-v-bullets&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.2239j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8&safe=active https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp... [2] http://college.cengage.com/english/resources/research_guide/2e/resources/case_study.html http://college.cengage.com/english/resources/research_guide/... [3] http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16547690-just-the-facts-gun-violence-in-america?lite http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16547690-just-the...
SloopJon 12y ago
> > Well, among the key facts necessary to understand that is that the "safety features" are not pure cost-free benefit, and the NRA believes the costs outweigh the benefits. > Sure. Advanced safety features in cars probably cost a lot to develop, too, and I'm sure there's a lot of people who think seatbelts are lame and cars would be cooler without them. But car companies actively work to promote safety while the NRA seems to actively undermine it. The cost at issue here is generally not monetary. Most safety features are designed to prevent the weapon from firing, which gives rise to the expression "loaded club." Consider, e.g., the magazine safety, which prevents a semi-automatic weapon from firing without a magazine, even if a round is already chambered. If I owned a handgun, which I do not, I would absolutely want this feature. The likelihood that it would prevent a potentially fatal negligent discharge is much higher than the likelihood that it would be the decisive factor in me losing a gunfight. However, there are combat techniques that depend on the weapon firing without a magazine, and competitions in which it would be difficult or impossible to participate without that ability. There is also the risk that the safety would otherwise interfere with the operation of the weapon.

coryrc 12y ago

Safety of whom? I care about the safety of the person using the gun for self-defense. The "safety" features compromise the gun for its intended usage.

danielweber 12y ago

That's actually the direct opposite of what the article says. The very first paragraph states: "Deaths by guns, though—the great majority suicides, accidents or domestic violence—have been trending slightly upwards." They don't give a source, but their own graph [1] shows that, aside from a tick on 2006, gun deaths have been trending down, almost indistinguishable from flat in recent years. I couldn't find a nice graph, but googling gave me these two years (that I did not cherry pick): here's an anti-gun site giving the numbers for 1998 as 30K [2] and another anti-gun "just the facts" editorial in 2013 saying it's 31K. [3] Using normal per-population numbers, the US increased in population over 13% over that time. The US in the 21st century is a very safe place to be. Foreign news may distort the picture, but middle-class Americans don't worry about being killed by guns. [1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fnews%2Funited-states%2F21638140-gun-now-more-likely-kill-you-car-bangers-v-bullets&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fnews%2Funited-states%2F21638140-gun-now-more-likely-kill-you-car-bangers-v-bullets&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.2239j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8&safe=active https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp... [2] http://college.cengage.com/english/resources/research_guide/2e/resources/case_study.html http://college.cengage.com/english/resources/research_guide/... [3] http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16547690-just-the-facts-gun-violence-in-america?lite http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16547690-just-the...

SloopJon 12y ago

> > Well, among the key facts necessary to understand that is that the "safety features" are not pure cost-free benefit, and the NRA believes the costs outweigh the benefits. > Sure. Advanced safety features in cars probably cost a lot to develop, too, and I'm sure there's a lot of people who think seatbelts are lame and cars would be cooler without them. But car companies actively work to promote safety while the NRA seems to actively undermine it. The cost at issue here is generally not monetary. Most safety features are designed to prevent the weapon from firing, which gives rise to the expression "loaded club." Consider, e.g., the magazine safety, which prevents a semi-automatic weapon from firing without a magazine, even if a round is already chambered. If I owned a handgun, which I do not, I would absolutely want this feature. The likelihood that it would prevent a potentially fatal negligent discharge is much higher than the likelihood that it would be the decisive factor in me losing a gunfight. However, there are combat techniques that depend on the weapon firing without a magazine, and competitions in which it would be difficult or impossible to participate without that ability. There is also the risk that the safety would otherwise interfere with the operation of the weapon.