Parked cars don’t count.
I stood next to a target for a while and no one shot me.
Deaths in car accidents are unintentional, brought on by carelessness.
Death by firearms due to carelessness is far below that of cars.
Deliberate shooting is a completely different problem.
However, to play your game, homicide by firearm kills roughly one third the number that cars do.
How do parked cars get parked? Did you think they were born there? A parking lot at an MLB stadium before a game has lots of cars driving around.
Okay. Do you conclude that cars are more dangerous than guns because of this?
If the cars are already parked, then they’re not much danger to you, are they?
I’ve had years of riding a bicycle in traffic and on rural road and drivers frequently pass far closer than safe operation dictates.
What’s your definition of more dangerous?
By the numbers, more people are killed by cars than guns.
By the numbers, more people are killed by guns than ebola and anthrax. Can you draw a conclusion or are you just not capable? Perhaps it’s the latter, because you’re really ignorant about how parking lots work.
However, it appears to be safe to carry anthrax around.
Parking lots are temporary vehicle storage facilities.
Okay, this guy’s just another fucking idiot. Sheesh.
Want to stop playing stupid gotcha word games?
Understanding stats and risk exposure only seems like gotcha word games if you aren’t very bright.
OK, guns kill fewer people than cars. or rather, people with guns kill fewer than drivers of cars.
Happy?
You realize that we live in a democracy, right? You might as well say that who you vote for doesn’t matter.
Does naral adopt any abortion restrictions that are proposed by pro-choice Democrats? Why is the gun lobby the only one that has to accede to pretty much anything that anyone wants to do?
There are plenty of gun control proposals I would take seriously. I am in favor of comprehensive gun control reform (licensing and registration with federal preemption and repeal of the old and outdated gun control laws, See NFA restrictions on suppressors, SBR, SBS, etc) and a good idea doesn’t stop being a good idea because someone I otherwise disagree with proposes it.
Because those gun control measures you are talking about restrict rights without providing any benefits. It thought that was clear from the post you were replying to.
We can try to come up with numbers we can all agree on as long as you agree that there is a number.
I didn’t say that the comparison is coming from your side, the arguments are.
The 300 number is the number for civilians. Police justifiable homicides are a different animal but even there the vast majority of them are clean kills.
Hentor obviously needs better reading skills.
That number includes juveniles as well and he knows or should know it. So he is either lying or stupid. You be the judge.
Are you going to tell us where you got yours from, or are you willing to accept the default assumption that they’re out of your ass?
No, the comparison is an argument, from you, and it’s something else you are trying to weasel out of supporting.
What do you use for courage when you don’t have your gun in your hand? :rolleyes:
The highest credible estimates I have seen say that convicted felons make up a slim majority of gun murderers. 70% have convictions including misdemeanors. Another 20% are juveniles.
I don’t know about a permanent bar on gun ownership for all convictions but I would be OK with at least a temporary restriction especially for violent misdemeanors.
Are you really asking for sources AGAIN? The Department of Justice and criminologists up and down the spectrum all agree that there are between 100,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses. What do you think the number is?
No, my comparison was a rebuttal against arguments from your side. Your side points out how risky people are as an argument to restrict gun ownership well those same risky people drive cars on a daily basis at speeds capable of killing people. The argument from your side seems to be that we need to outlaw guns because it is too much power to put into the hands of an unreliable public.
Yet another PILLAR of the hoplophoobe argument.
Its not a commandment, its the constitution. There are ways to change it if you don’t like it.
You’re an idiot. Have you seen ANY of my comments on the cop shoots black dude threads?
You’re the one who assumes all “justified homicides” are “benefits” and I’m an idiot? 
(And, BTW, I’ve no idea what you’ve posted in another thread or why you cannot answer a simple question in this one. Are your views so important that I should search for them specially … or skim threads until I see your name?)
I provide links to cites, this twat pulls numbers from his asshole, suggests his made up numbers of course includes juveniles, and then calls me a liar. This is the standard of contributions from the gunintelligent contingent here.
Of course it is. It won’t change YOUR mind but the argument your side is making seems to be applicabe to cars as well as guns at least in this case.
We already prohibit felons, wife beaters, juveniles, drug users and the mentally ill (prohibited persons) from purchasing firearms. The judiciary tells us who belongs in these categories (well I suppose a birth certificate tells us who is a juvenile), who tells us who the assholes and idiots are?
And if you really think that the most vocal elements of the gun control side of this thread doesn’t want to ban firearms then you haven’t been paying attention. They want to eliminate the private ownership of firearms (more or less).