Bad analogy. Steady efforts over the years has resulted in a decline of over 50% in drunk-driving fatalities, including a decline of around 80% for those ages 21 and younger, and rates are steadily falling. What an amazing concept, actual results once efforts are made! And we didn’t need to ban anything.
Gee, if only there was some analogy we could make for the gun debate problem…
In certain situations, that’s true. That’s assuming you’ve drawn your gun in response to an actual threat.
At a bar when you’ve been insulted, no. Home intruder, yes.
I agree with the questions he asks (save for suicide which I believe should be a personal choice). But I don’t think he asked enough questions.
If I were a woman living alone I would feel safer owning a gun.
If I were parents raising kids in a rough neighborhood I would feel safer owning guns.
It comes down to responsibility, imo. Adults should be able to responsibly and legally own tools to protect themselves under reasonable limiting conditions.
Not unless we figure out how to prohibit informal brewing and distilling!
We made car ownership by working class youngsters more difficult through more expensive autos and insurance. And cars are smaller and safer. I doubt education had much effect at all.
I have a friend who insists that it is far safer to ride a bicycle in congested DC traffic if you are not wearing a helmet. Sometimes subjective feelings should be questioned.
Most women have no defense against an aggressive intruder. A gun gives them a chance to protect themselves. I prefer that the woman make that choice for herself.
Touche. 
Your “feelings” aren’t borne out by statistics. Having a gun in the house doesn’t make you safer.
Again, we have news stories every goddam week about a toddler shooting someone. Toddlers shoot more people in America than terrorists. This is a simple fact. You’re more likely to be killed by a toddler with a gun than a terrorist.
You can manufacture endless hypotheticals of situations where having a gun is preferable to not having one. Public policy cannot be run on that basis though.
Overall the numbers are pretty clear. Having a gun in the home exposes you and your family to greater risk than not having one. There will always be outliers but those are not sufficient to tip the balance.
Banning lethal guns is reasonable, IMHO, but I’ve known some gun-control advocates to argue passionately that people should not be allowed to have even pepper spray or tasers for self-defense. “Keep victims defenseless!” seemed to be their motto.
I don’t understand them…
But let’s just say, for sake of argument, that data indicate that she is say, 10% safer against an intruder, but her toddler is exposed to 300% greater risk, is this still a matter for you of wanting her to “feel” safer, as you argued in your previous post? Or is this a matter of liberty, in which you simply feel that a grown-up ought to be able to weigh the risks for themselves, and hopefully come to the right decision, as you now seem to be saying?
DragonAsh doesn’t mention education, just “[s]teady efforts over the years.”
And that’s what’s happened. Groups like MADD were regarded as unwanted busybodies in the mid-1980s, and the notion of having a ‘designated driver’ - jeez, gotta have one person in the car who doesn’t get to have any fun! I remember the jokes like “you shouldn’t drink and drive, you might hit a bump and spill your drink.” People thought that was funny back then.
But in less than half the time between then and now, designated drivers became the norm, and trying to drive home when you’d had a few drinks but weren’t totally sloshed has gone from being something most people did once in awhile, to being almost universally frowned upon.
The world can be improved, people’s behavior can be changed, there just has to be enough of a consensus that it needs to be done.
Gotta admit I’ve never encountered this.
Yes. And, for the sake of honest debate, please break that 300% stat down into real numbers. Not to sidetrack this, but rape is a horrible crime that violates the soul as well as the body. If a woman wants protection against rapists, I say hell yes. The police can’t protect them unless they violate the potential offenders constitutional rights.
So, yes, as adults we should be allowed to make that decision.
I didn’t consider those as I should have but I totally agree with your point.
But this is a matter of opinion. The questions/hypotheticals we ask are very important. Appeal to authority is unconvincing, imo.
Do these “some advocates” also approach you when mowing your lawn with an electric mower, and shout at you? These hypothetical people are such a pain!
I can agree with gun rights advocates that it’s not just a matter of guns – there are other factors as well. I think that the age of modern communications has, to some degree, “modeled” behavior for people who might be suicidal or undergoing psychological problems. We live in a time when families are decentralized and living in greater isolation – I’d guess that these are also factors that contribute to mass shootings.
I’m not interested in regulating firearms just for the hell of it. But it does seem like a reasonable component to consider in this debate, given that firearms are ultimately the means by which these atrocities are committed. When hijackers used planes as weapons of mass destruction, we upgraded security at airports and on airplanes. When Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer to make a bomb, we implemented new procedures to scrutinize such purchases. Discussing ways to reduce violence by firearms is a rational reaction to a problem; sophomoric attempts to turn a weak slippery slope argument into some sort of enduring aphorism is not.
They’re illegal in quite a few European countries…