# Price for gun rights is paid in PA. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 4, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005 "2009-04-04T22:55:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/321 "2009-04-07T03:17:23Z")
> [@SuntanTigerTamer](#): > > Are you retarded? Honestly. Reading comprehension fail… > > How many different ways can it be said that blame lies primarily with the person who pulls the trigger, and only peripherally with those who helped put the fucking gun in their hands? You hear what you want to hear; what you feel qualified to respond to. Your whole view on this issue is clouded by the trembling fear that someday a jackbooted government agent will burst into your home, interrupt happy time with your copy of HEAT, and demand you give up your own private arsenal that you have spent years of your life putting together, posing in the mirror with, and showing off to your friends. > > NOT ONE PERSON HERE HAS SUGGESTED THAT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA. So what does it mean to assign “moral responsibility” for something if you don’t think it should affect policy? I contend that you are trying to elevate your opinion into some objective fact, which is obnoxious and distasteful. What do you think you are trying to do? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/322 "2009-04-07T03:21:21Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > Hey asshole, how was [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11011638&postcount=286) post selfish, exactly? > If you’re going to call me selfish, I’m going to call you asshole, asshole. 😛 Like Argent Towers, I was at the gym as well. And much as he reactivated his NRA membership to spite me, I made the gym change the one teevee showing Fox News to MSNBC. So, even steven! Anyway, we made our prima facie case, right. We said: Yes, guns have some social benefits; you can use them to hunt animals to eat and make shoes out of, they make people happy (this, obvs, is a real-deal social benefit, I don’t deny that), very, very occasionally they are used in lawful self-defense (cf. Bernie Goetz). So, there are some benefits. Alas, there are some detriments too. Easy access to guns allow them to fall into the hands of less savory types. A lot of people end up dead. My first post recounted the by-now-familiar litany of sad episodes of gun violence in this country in only the past couple of years. Now it seems to me that the harms overwhelm the benefits. I asked, and the question recurs: explain to me, gun advocates, how the social benefits of private gun possession do not exceed its very real disadvantages. ---
**Author:** ![Sanity\_Challenged](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Sanity\_Challenged](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sanity_Challenged)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/323 "2009-04-07T03:22:17Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > What a load of lethally retarded and criminally self-indulgent–and just plain dishonest–bullshit this thread is extruding out my monitor. > > Gun nuts, and your ridiculous insistence on flapping the Constitution in the faces of the sane in order to obscure the fact that you have absolutely zero rational arguments on this subject, please join me in the following thought experiment. > > I have a time machine. I set the dial for “Founding Fathers” and, beads and blankets in hand, persuade the Signers to climb on into my shiny ship and return to the present with me. On the way back, I ask them to contemplate the implications of the following amendment–James Madison to act as chair, of course: > > When we arrived, I would take them on a tour of a couple inner-city neighborhoods; I’d let them witness a couple shoot-outs between cops and criminals; I’d take them to a few funerals of accidental shooting victims. I’d set the dial for Columbine and for Virginia Tech. I’d show them some examples of the ever-escalating arms race between the police and gangs. I’d give them as much time as they wanted to learn how the world has changed since the day they ratified that sentence–a day in which the “New World” they were living in was still largely wilderness with multiple threats–both known and unknown–and very little (to no) organized protection from those threats. > > When they had satisfied themselves that they had sufficiently “caught up” with the times, I would ask them to debate whether, given the chance, they’d make any edits in that sentence. > > Now, are all of you NRAers seriously going to try to look me in the eye and tell me that you believe their response would be, “Nope, leave it as is. This is pretty much how we pictured it. Yay NRA!” > > Seriously? You think if you could as the Signers “Is this really what you intended as the result of that one sentence?” they’d say Yes? > > Seriously? > > Why do you people keep trotting out that dishonest bullshit about the wording of the 2nd Amendment when no sane person could possibly believe that Madison et al. meant it the way the NRA interprets it? Really? This is supposed to be a serious point? Imaginary time machines and conjectures about what long-dead men might think in a wacky, hypothetical scenario? But hey, you took the time to type it, so… First of all, I think you’d have a hard time convincing them that our world is a darker, scarier place than theirs. You don’t think they had shooting accidents, murders, and outlaws vs. law enforcement shootouts in their day? Heck, they’d just finished up a huge shootout we know as the War of Independence, and they were the outlaws! It took us years of media sensationalism to get us as scared of the world as we are today - one short visit in your time machine isn’t going to get them there. But just for the sake of argument, what if you did manage to convince them that our world was that much more dangerous than theirs. I have to believe in all likelihood they’d say “That’s all the more reason the common, law-abiding citizen needs access to the tools to defend themselves!” Remember, these weren’t guys for whom taking up arms to defend your life and your freedom was a historical concept - they lived it. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/324 "2009-04-07T03:26:44Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > In 2002, the number of motor vehicle related fatalities was 45,579. In 2002, the number of firearms fatalities was 30,242. Link please? Not disputing, just want to see a link. One weakness in this analysis is that some of those 30,000 fatalities were probably the bad guys (to use a technical term). Hard to say that a bad guy getting shot is a bad result of a firearm use. Another weakness is you don’t count lives saved as a result of a firearm use in your analysis anywhere. Note that a “use” that saves a life would include shooting the bad guy but may also include all of the firearm uses in the training and practice of the person that shot the bad guy (or perhaps the class of people that shot the bad guy depending on circumstances, i.e., all police officers). Also, counting the number of lives saved would be difficult. Therefore, your analysis doesn’t really arrive at a meaningful comparison of the lives lost in car uses v. firearm uses. (Also, the analysis should probably include lives saved by use of a car, which, again, would be hard to determine.) ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/325 "2009-04-07T03:31:01Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > So what does it mean to assign “moral responsibility” for something if you don’t think it should affect policy? I contend that you are trying to elevate your opinion into some objective fact, which is obnoxious and distasteful. What do you think you are trying to do? Did I miss a reply to my post? ---
**Author:** ![SuntanTigerTamer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@SuntanTigerTamer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuntanTigerTamer)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/326 "2009-04-07T03:35:58Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > So what does it mean to assign “moral responsibility” for something if you don’t think it should affect policy? I contend that you are trying to elevate your opinion into some objective fact, which is obnoxious and distasteful. What do you think you are trying to do? Firstly, I have no desire to argue morality with you, of all people. But: I never said it SHOULDN’T effect policy; I said that, for the purpose of my question, disregard your legal entitlement and reflect on your moral obligation. And there is no doubt in my mind that if given a choice between these options: 1. I choose to fight gun control laws because I want to have guns (no matter the reason), even though I understand that this makes it easier for potential criminals to obtain them. and 1. I choose to support gun control, knowing that they weaken or erode my own personal freedoms, under the assumption (or hope) that they (could) help keep guns out of the hands of potential criminals. #2 is the MORALLY responsible choice. Morally responsible in that it puts the (even potential) good of the community above my own personal rights and freedoms. And on preview, you state: “One weakness in this analysis is that some of those 30,000 fatalities were probably the bad guys (to use a technical term). Hard to say that a bad guy getting shot is a bad result of a firearm use.” This is exactly why no one should argue basic human morals with Rand Rover. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/327 "2009-04-07T03:48:04Z")
> [@SuntanTigerTamer](#): > > And on preview, you state: > > “One weakness in this analysis is that some of those 30,000 fatalities were probably the bad guys (to use a technical term). Hard to say that a bad guy getting shot is a bad result of a firearm use.” > > This is exactly why no one should argue basic human morals with Rand Rover. Well, if you figure that some of the motor vehicle fatalities are bad guys too - drunk drivers, fleeing felons, etc. - it’s probably a wash. But, yeah, arguing morality with **Rand Rover** is something like arguing evolution with Bishop Ussher. ---
**Author:** ![SuntanTigerTamer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@SuntanTigerTamer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuntanTigerTamer)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/328 "2009-04-07T03:53:06Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Therefore, your analysis doesn’t really arrive at a meaningful comparison of the lives lost in car uses v. firearm uses. (Also, the analysis should probably include lives saved by use of a car, which, again, would be hard to determine.) Fine, but do we then get to count every time a fire truck, ambulance, and police car are driven twice? I really don’t see a problem with Hentor’s breakdown. The comparison that Clothahump made was between car deaths and firearm deaths, not lives saved by cars vs guns. I would still be willing to wager hard currency that vehicles saved lives more often then guns saved lives. Beyond that, I would say that it doesn’t fucking matter, no one is talking about fucking cars. Find a different nit to pick. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/329 "2009-04-07T03:59:42Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > Are you suggesting that nobody ever has a rapist break into their house, or that nobody is ever attacked at night in the city? > > Sure, it probably won’t happen to you, statistically. But what if it does? Don’t you think that people (PEOPLE - not me, PEOPLE - everyone from suburbanites in their homes to an immigrant liquor store owner in the ghetto to a black guy traveling through a racist town in the South - since you harped so much on me being “selfish” before) should have the right to defend themselves in the event that it does? > > It’s so easy to just say “oh, it won’t happen to me.” But if it does, then what? Personally I am NOT going to rely on the government or the cops to protect me; I’m going to rely on myself. (Note = the word “myself” is not the same as the word “selfish.”) > > Also, as far as I can tell, nobody’s ever responded to the point about how liquor prohibition didn’t stop people from getting alcohol, and weed prohibition doesn’t stop people from getting weed, and the “border” doesn’t prevent people immigrating illegally - so how do you propose to stop criminals from getting guns if they want them? Psychic powers? Magic? Prayer? The fact that countries that control guns have a lot less gun deaths and crime seems to make that another gun lovers lie. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/330 "2009-04-07T04:28:02Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > The fact that countries that control guns have a lot less gun deaths and crime seems to make that another gun lovers lie. That reminds me of the time a poster claimed that pistols were not used in the late 1700’s. Another lie I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/331 "2009-04-07T05:05:37Z")
What about Switzerland - highest per capita gun ownership rate on earth, and one of the lowest for crime. What’s your response to that? “Oh, well, they don’t have the same problems with poverty and unemployment and stuff that we do.” That’s right. So let’s fix THAT shit, instead of making it the guns’ fault. There are already shitloads of guns here, and millions more in Mexico that are just itching to be smuggled across the border. Banning them will NOT make them go away! It will just mean that only criminals will have them, as trite as that sounds. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/332 "2009-04-07T06:41:11Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Now it seems to me that the harms overwhelm the benefits. I asked, and the question recurs: explain to me, gun advocates, how the social benefits of private gun possession do not exceed its very real disadvantages. Without agreeing with you, the only case you’ve made is that gun ownership _(in the wrong hands)_ has disadvantages – I dispute the weight of disadvantage to advantage, in ratio, however I don’t think I’ll convince you – you still haven’t proven that banning guns would fix this problem. As to the argument ‘countries with tighter gun laws have less gun violence,’ I’d make the case that you’re intentionally ignoring Switzerland, and the fact that the countries with lower gun crime also have lower knife, fist, and ballbat crime than the United States. I seriously doubt these countries have a lower ownership of hands, fists and knives than the United States (although they probably do own less baseball bats… that’s an oddly American sport, wonder why it’s not caught on elsewhere?). If the problem is removed from that of Gun themselves, then I’d say we should fix the issues **causing** the violence, rather than attempting to ban the items used in the violence. The evidence simply does not show that 1) banning firearms lowers firearm violence, 2) banning firearms lowers _ **overall** _ violence (2 being what it would have to achieve for it to be even considerable legislation). ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/333 "2009-04-07T10:55:50Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Link please? Not disputing, just want to see a link. Centers for Disease Control WISQARS fatalities website: [http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10\_sy.html](http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html). > [@](#): > > One weakness in this analysis is that some of those 30,000 fatalities were probably the bad guys (to use a technical term). Hard to say that a bad guy getting shot is a bad result of a firearm use. I wouldn’t call this an analysis. It’s just descriptive statistics. By the way, there were 300 “legal intervention” related fatalities among those data. > [@](#): > > Another weakness is you don’t count lives saved as a result of a firearm use in your analysis anywhere. Note that a “use” that saves a life would include shooting the bad guy but may also include all of the firearm uses in the training and practice of the person that shot the bad guy (or perhaps the class of people that shot the bad guy depending on circumstances, i.e., all police officers). Also, counting the number of lives saved would be difficult. It’s not an analysis. I’m not considering anything at all about explanatory factors. It’s simply a descriptive comparison of the “dangerousness” of two things in order to illustrate how fucking stupid the cars thing is each and every time it’s brought up. You have to be pretty thick headed to not understand this concept. Then again, some on the right were convinced that it was more dangerous to be living in California than to be a soldier in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/334 "2009-04-07T11:52:33Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Well, as it happens, because I was sentenced to 3 years at the age of 17, I am banned from owning a gun for life here in the UK. Which, as I have never wanted to shoot anything really anyway, suits me fine. > > And as for anything you know about my personality, all I have given you is a no-frills, non-glamorous account of some of my mistakes in a previous lifetime, and you think you can sit there and judge me on it? > > Well, Mr-Hard-Ass-Second-Rate-Eliot-Ness-Wannabe, everytime you respond to one of my posts, you make an even bigger cunt of yourself\*, so you carry on! > > - And who likes a big, baggy cunt, eh? I see you have just as much trouble following board rules as you do society’s rules, shitbag. No surprise there. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/335 "2009-04-07T12:37:07Z")
Okay, gun grabbers, one more time: Why do you believe the government can control illegal firearms when it can’t control illegal drugs or illegal immigration? If I decide I want a handgun, and I don’t give a damn about your laws, how do you intend to stop me? ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/336 "2009-04-07T12:44:52Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Okay, gun grabbers, one more time: Why do you believe the government can control illegal firearms when it can’t control illegal drugs or illegal immigration? If I decide I want a handgun, and I don’t give a damn about your laws, how do you intend to stop me? We have already been force fed statistical and morality lessons from same. Get ready for the magic lesson now… ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/337 "2009-04-07T12:47:51Z")
> [@SuntanTigerTamer](#): > > Firstly, I have no desire to argue morality with you, of all people. > > But: I never said it SHOULDN’T effect policy; I said that, for the purpose of my question, disregard your legal entitlement and reflect on your moral obligation. And there is no doubt in my mind that if given a choice between these options: > > 1. I choose to fight gun control laws because I want to have guns (no matter the reason), even though I understand that this makes it easier for potential criminals to obtain them. > > and > > 1. I choose to support gun control, knowing that they weaken or erode my own personal freedoms, under the assumption (or hope) that they (could) help keep guns out of the hands of potential criminals. > > #2 is the MORALLY responsible choice. Morally responsible in that it puts the (even potential) good of the community above my own personal rights and freedoms. > . 1. You prefer one opinion over another. That doesn’t mean that the opinion you prefer is “morally responsible” while the one you don’t prefer isn’t. 2. You are making the mistake of altruism–ie, the position that something is good just because it benefits others. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/338 "2009-04-07T12:52:18Z")
> [@SuntanTigerTamer](#): > > I got: Blah blah blah recycled bullshit I’ve said a hundred times guns=cars=rock and roll. > > Your response to people trying to curb gun violence is to change the subject and talk about cars. And obesity. And what the fuck ever else floats through your brain. > > No one here is saying “Let’s find a way to make sure that no one is ever hurt/killed/made fun of again!” > > We are saying: “What can be done about the FIREARMS problem/infatuation/addiction in this country?” > > You’re answering the first one, that no one asked, and saying that the second one isn’t, in fact, a problem, when the newspapers and body counts tell us it is every single day. Okay, so tell me: How do you intend to stop me from getting a firearm if I decide I want one? Please explain why you believe your ban on firearms won’t end up as yet another set of unenforceable laws. I didn’t have much trouble buying grass, acid, psilocybin and mescalin when I was younger, why would I have trouble finding someone to sell me an Uzi or a Glock? Given the government’s incompetence and corruption in dealing with other contraband, why would it be more efficent and honest when it comes to contraband firearms? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/339 "2009-04-07T13:01:09Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > .It’s not an analysis. I’m not considering anything at all about explanatory factors. It’s simply a descriptive comparison of the “dangerousness” of two things in order to illustrate how fucking stupid the cars thing is each and every time it’s brought up. > . I understand, but to get a full picture of the “dangerousness” of guns v cars, I think you need to look at the issues I raised. A fun stopping harm from occurring should weigh in guns’ favor in the analysis. To illustrate what I’m saying–we could posit a world where everty gun death was a good guy kiling a bad guy where the bad guy definitely would have killed 100 people if he weren’t stopped. In this world, not having a gun around would be a very dangerous activity (and the pro gun position may well be that everyone should be required to carry a gun while the anti-gun position could be that everyone should be able to choose whether to own a gun (ie, the current pro-gun position)). Again, take this only 61-1, which is that the dangerousness of guns v cars can be illustrated only by also considering good uses of guns. Richard parker, I didn’t respond because I would have just repeated myself. We have both laid out our positions and we disagree, so I didn’t think there was more for me to say. I’ll look back at your post later tonight when I can navigate better. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2009, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005/340 "2009-04-07T13:07:47Z")
> [@SuntanTigerTamer](#): > > I really don’t see a problem with Hentor’s breakdown. The comparison that Clothahump made was between car deaths and firearm deaths, not lives saved by cars vs guns. > . Well, the problem is that you can’t just compare raw deaths from cars v guns because some gun deaths are not bad things. In addition to my argument above that a gun death can be a good thing (by saving other lives), it also seems to me that some gun deaths are neutral things (ie, suicides where the person would have killed themselves in any event and chose a gun to do so). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/price-for-gun-rights-is-paid-in-pa/492005.md?page=18)