Guns and Cars.

Great Debates
1

It’s been a while since I’ve started a GD thread, so why not now?

Many, many times over again, in gun control threads, gun control advocates say that they want to see similar restrictions on guns as on cars, as far as licensing and such. There are also analogies used in reference to usefulness vs. deaths caused, and stuff like that.

And I don’t find this approach unreasonable. There are some important distinctions that government the usage of cars that some people don’t really understand or take for granted.

Ownership of cars is not licensed in the US. A person can own any car they want, as many cars as they want, and they can drive those cars on their private property as much as they want with no license or state approval required.

What is licensed is the act of driving on public roads. As the government controls public property, such as roads, they’ve deemed it in their scope of power to regulate who is allowed to use them. This is an important distinction. The government doesn’t invade the privacy of citizens by telling them what cars they can or can’t own, or how many, or how many someone can buy in a month, or that the muffler has to be X inches long. The only time the government has the interest to intervene in such matters is when it directly pertains to the usage of public property - roads.

And to carry the analogy, the state should have no interest in how many guns a person owns, how many they can buy in a month, or if they have to meet certain technical restrictions. The only time their interest comes into the picture is when guns are carried or used on public property. And this matter is taken care of by the issuance of concealed carry permits, in which most states having a licensing system.

And so - those who advocate that we treat guns and cars the same, or similarly - I could certainly live with that. It’s somewhat enlightening to use this as a case in point, of how some people assume the government has more control than it does, and that guns don’t get the special privileges and exemptions that many people seem to think.

And so it doesn’t seem that cars can be used as an example of private property that government regulates, setting a precedent for private gun regulation, as it often is.

2

bump.

3

Well, I can’t think of a gun analogy, but in these parts you can’t keep more than 1 or 2 unlicensed cars on your property unless you are also licensed as a used car dealer, regardless of whether you ever drive them or not. It’s not strictly enforced if the unregistered cars are out of sight – the cops don’t normaly come peeking in your garage windows just looking for unregistered cars – but it’s used against people who would otherwise keep junk cars parked on in the yard and offend the sensibilities of the neighborhood or provide a haven for vermin.

So it’s not strictly true that you only have to register a car if you intend to use it on the public roads.

4

If lawmakers paid attention to (and passed legislation in accord with) the number of deaths/injuries per item of ownership (cars/guns), they would have to outlaw private ownership of vehicles.

5

Well, the government does in fact regulate such things. Manufacturers are prohibited from selling cars with certain features. Everything from seat belts to fuel efficency is regulated by the government.

You might be interested in “Private Guns, Public Health” by David Hemenway. He draws parellels between the public health aproach to car safety and disease regulations and proposals for gun regulations. He made a good case for his argument last weekend on Cspan Booknotes.

His basic argument is that we can reduce gun violence by creating systems which limit the possiblities of gun accidents and criminals getting guns. He’s talking about things like extra safety devices and drawing parallels between them and air bags or seat belts. <BTW don’t let this extremely poor hashing of his ideas mislead you. He actually makes some sense. Unlike my paragraph.>

6

Hemenway’s book begins with a flawed premise that leads to a pre-determined conclusion. He claims that guns kill about ninety people each day in the U.S. A figure which yields more than 32,000 dead people. This is only true if one includes suicides by firearm and accidental gunshot deaths in this statistic. Gun murders total only about 12 to 13 thousand each year in the United States. Suicides should not be included in Hemenway’s figures. And here’s why: Several studies have failed to show any causal link between firearm availability and suicide rates. What these studies do show is that persons who wish to commit suicide where a firearm is unavailable to them, most often will simply substitute another method.

7

I find many problems with the gun-car analogy. For one, it is very weak. Automobiles are a method of transportation; guns are a method of killing things. You obviously can’t put them in the same group. I think a more accurate grouping would be guns and mustard gas.

8

No, wait, I know! Landmines!

9

Have you read it? I have not yet.

You are wrong about this. He is not talking only about murders. He is talking about all deaths resulting from gun wounds. He draws parallels to discussions about car deaths like this:

<WARNING: paraphrase from memory please forgive any mistakes>
Some time ago (in the 50s I believe) people thought about traffic accidents as mostly driver error. The only solution offered then was to enforce the laws and educate the drivers. Eventually, another approach was taken. Data was collected more objectively. Rather than focus on who was at fault for an accident, information was collected on how injuries occured. What was discovered was that many things could be fixed which had nothing to do with the use of the car but which could nevertheless result in many saved lives. Things like colapsable stearing columns, air bags, side impact resistant frames, even things like safer roads and better road signage. None of these things required confiscating cars.

He made the point several times that one of the first things we need to address gun violence is good data. He claimed that we still do not collect reliable data on gun deaths. For instance, he claimed that a program was instuted for automobile accidents involving deaths where over 150 data poinst are gathered accross the country. This data is made available to researchers. Meanwhile, we do not know exactly how many of the deaths involving guns involved handguns vs. long guns.

I agree that he takes some of his ideas too far. I also agree that gun grabbers have glomed onto his research as new impetus for tighter gun regulations. However, I disagree that he himself is calling for gun confiscation. He seems to simply be calling for more safety mechanisms within the “system”. And he seems to simply be calling for a different approach to gun safety.

10

Even if the car is not meant for use on the road? I believe all the things you mention are only regulated for on road use.

11

No, guns are a tool. Yes a tool for killing things, but simply a tool. Can you say that every single person ever killed by a gun should not have been killed? Can you say that every person ever threatened by a gun should not have been so threatened? If not, then your argument falls apart as the anlogy is not between transportation tools and killing tools, the analogy is between useful tools and other useful tools. So, unless you can claim that guns are not nor ever shall be useful, the analogy between cars and guns is perfectly valid for discussing safety issues.

12

Sarin is a tool, too. Yes, a tool for killing things, but simply a tool. Can tyou say that every single person ever killed by toxic nerve agents should not have been killed? etc etc.

That argument is silly. Guns are devices created for the sole purpose of killing people. Now, don’t get me wrong, I enjoy shooting targets and blowing sh*t up. I do it frequently (not so much of the blowing stuff up). But it isn’t something I can’t live without.

13

all analogies are weak if you take them too far. x is like y in respect to a, but not in respect to b c or d.

People like me who make the gun-car analogy aren’t saying that guns are like cars in every respect or that a system of gun registration is going to be exactly like a system of car registration. All the analogy means is that just as registering our vehicles and proving ourselves competent to drive them is not an egregious violation of our liberty, neither is at least registering our guns and possibly also requiring a gun safety course. That’s it.

14

Can you say the same thing for an effective method of self protection?

15

From what? Ze Germans?

16

You are using a narrow-focus beam here, assuming that cars are only transportation and guns are only for killing.

In actual use, cars are used for homocides, suicides, drug-dealing and tons of other things besides transportation (like creation of unwanted pregnancies :wink: ). Similarly, guns are also used to save lives, protect property, enforce peace and educate; tons of other things besides killing.

Not so obvious as you assume.

17

So, if you believe that “if a gun is used only on my property, the state should not care about it or have any say in the matter”, does your rule have a limit as to how strong the gun has to become before the state becomes interested?

If I had a nuclear bomb in my back yard, but did not intend to take it out onto public property, should the government leave me alone?

I am not trying to exagerate, or trying to use a strawman to shoot down your argument. I am honestly asking if there is a limit to how powerful a gun has to become before you think the state becomes involved in the matter. If there is a limit, what is it?

If you say, “it’s fine to have a nuclear bomb, as long as you don’t take it out on public property”, then it seems you don’t place any limits.

If you say, “of course nuclear weapons should not be allowed, even on private property alone”, then it seems that you do have a limit on how much firepower citizens can own, and it is somewhere between a nuclear bomb and a gun.

Just curious if you do have a limit.

18

:confused:
I think you just stepped on your tongue. This is so far off-base that I question the rationality of the statement. Sure you don’t want to revise that a bit?

19

You’re right, I did see Homer Simpson use one to change channels on the TV once.

20

Well, now we hit the main issue with your analogy. When discussing private ownership of guns it is usual to discuss similarities with other private activities or “tools”, if you will. So, perhaps an analogy with swords wold have been more appropos. If you insist on confusing national self defense with personal self defense then sure, from the Germans. If you are willing to take the discussion seriously, however, then no, from individuals regardless of their nationality.

However, if you insist, I will agree that any private individual who uses mustard gas should be arrested. :slight_smile: