Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forum
NRA types try and claim cars kill more people than guns. Well cars are regulated. And keept getting
re-regulated as technology improves to make them safer. Cars are also marketed for their safety features or safety record. Fact is cars are improving as are drivers. Gun sellers on the other hand sell the lethality of their product.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
rrneck
(17,671 posts)The question to ask is lethal for who? That's why the whole gun argument is so circular.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)Secondly, even with all the regulations and safety improvements, cars do still kill more than guns, and unlike guns nearly all the deaths are not suicides, whereas the gun numbers include people intending to kill themselves and who would have at least tried some other method, though the surety of another method may not have left them actually dead like a gun does. For example, in Japan, where guns are illegal, chemical mixtures to assure death have become the method of choice for suiciders at great risk to others who may be in apartments abutting the suicider, or one who may open a car door to assist not knowing the car is full of toxic gas, and so on.
I am not an NRA type, but bullshit is bullshit, and your OP is thusly.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)and you have to register them with the DMV if you want to use one on a road. and you will go to jail if caught driving under the influence of alcohol and legal/illegal mind altering drugs.
you don't have to take a test to drive one (or buy one either). I could walk down to the car dealer pay him and have him deliver it to my property. Then I could drive it around on my property to my hearts delight.
Although in some states you don't have to register your handgun to 'take it out on the road' in most you have to apply for a CCW to take it out concealed.
There are penalties for being out and about intoxicated with a handgun.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)in order to get a license you have to take a test. Better?
Bay Boy
(1,689 posts)...the eqivalent would be the license to ccw
Clames
(2,038 posts)One of my shotguns has a safety that automatically engages after loading. The other has a button that allows the slide to be moved forward without chambering a shell needlessly. One of my handguns has a safety that also acts as a decocker to prevent ND's. My 1950's Yugo Mauser has a 3 position safety that locks both the trigger and the bolt.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)and the test to get the is largely cursory?
And I can use my old jalopy firearm in spite of regulations on new firearms?
Sign me up.
you can order a carfax and get the cars record in minutes, lets do the same with guns.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and the reports may not be worth the 20 bucks
http://www.komonews.com/news/consumer/5730906.html
appleannie1
(5,067 posts)State Gun Deaths MV Deaths
Alaska 104 84
Arizona 856 809
Colorado 583 565
Indiana 735 715
Michigan 1095 977
Nevada 406 255
Oregon 417 394
Utah 260 256
Virginia 836 827
Washington 623 580
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to appleannie1 (Reply #8)
rangatang Message auto-removed
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)significantly in a 100 years. In some cases, modern firearms are less lethal then their predecessors. The AR-15 is about half as powerful as the prior two rifles it replaced, the M-1 Garand and the M-14, both of which are available to civilians, the M-1 Garand in it's original configuration and the M-14 in the semi-automatic M1A, a gun widely used in high-power rifle marksmanship matches. Actually the .223/5.56 round used is the least powerful, standard issue rifle round ever used by the American military.
If anything modern guns are safer then ever and only fire when the trigger is pulled and are made out of stronger steel (improvements in heat treating) and polymers.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Guns are already much more safe than cars could ever be from a mechanical standpoint. The MTBF of a gun is much higher than any automobile made (even the much lauded Volvo). Mechanical safeties almost never fail and if they do, they are not the primary method of preventing negligent discharge. A mechanical failure on a car could, and frequently has, caused death or injury to driver, passengers and even innocent bystanders.
No -- an auto, an airplane, and a gun are as safe, or unsafe, as the person operating them.
Why the fact that autos kill significantly more people than guns (a fact, not a claim) is relevant is that to claim you're for banning guns or access to guns for safety sake is hypocritical if you're not willing to do EXACTLY the same thing for autos.
spin
(17,493 posts)Yet I don't see a push to ban Corvettes or Mustangs that can double the interstate speed limit in most states in our nation. The top end speed of a Corvette Z06 is 190 mph and a Mustang Shelby GT 500 is 155. (ref: http://carsort.com/compare/Chevrolet-Corvette-vs-Ford-Mustang)
It could be argued that no civilian needs a car that can go that fast. Yet if a group seriously proposed legislation that would ban high performance Corvettes and Mustangs, many car owners would be upset especially if some in the speed control movement suggested that the final goal was to only allow cars to have a top speed of 80 mph.
Instead of banning certain cars it would make far more sense to push for better legislation to insure that only responsible drivers own cars and for better enforcement of existing laws. Banning certain Corvettes and Mustangs would do little to reduce the rate of deaths caused by speeders as such cars are rarely involved in accidents.
Many times on a crowded interstate I have been moving with the flow of traffic and had some driver who was weaving in and out of traffic in an irresponsible manner pass me at possibly 120 mph or more. I would estimate that my vehicle will top out at 130 mph but I would never drive it that fast. Over my 50 years of driving experience, I have only had two speeding tickets and both were minor violations. I have never caused a traffic accident but have had several where another driver rear ended me when I was sitting still in traffic.
So like many other motorists I support efforts to crack down on such irresponsible drivers but do not wish to have limits placed on the size and power of the engine I have in my vehicle.
Now currently I have no desire or reason to own either a Corvette Z06 or an AR-15. However if I do buy either in the future, I would handle it in a responsible manner just as 99.9% of other people who own such items do. Banning such items does little to correct their misuse by irresponsible people. Methods to insure as best as possible that only honest and sane people own extremely fast cars or firearms will accomplish far more and will have support from the majority of drivers and gun owners. Suggesting bans on items such as these simply angers owners and potential owners and serves little value as such laws are basically impossible to pass.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... 
0 - 37mph in EIGHT seconds with a top speed of 65MPH. If you force people to drive only these it would cut down on both auto fatalities AND teen pregnancies (guaranteed no one EVER gets laid in one of these).
If you drive anything else -- you're a Car Nutter
ileus
(15,396 posts)holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Assuming no one is standing on it.
guardian
(2,282 posts)After all THIS is all the car one NEEDS. I'm not sure the car might be called the New York State Safe Car?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... I could pretend to be "Tron"
av8r1998
(265 posts)So Make it as easy to buy a gun as it is to buy a car and we have a starting off point...
Gun sellers on the other hand sell the lethality of their product.
Another anti gun myth
ileus
(15,396 posts)Of course they're neither a right or a personal safety device like firearms are.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)lurkso: In some cases, modern firearms are less lethal then their predecessors.
Is this progress, or not?
If anything modern guns are safer then ever and only fire when the trigger is pulled and are made out of stronger steel..
Wow, safer & less lethal, who could ask for more from a gun, eh?
lurkso: The AR-15 is about half as powerful as the prior two rifles it replaced, the M-1 Garand and the M-14, both of which are available to civilians, the M-1 Garand in it's original configuration and the M-14 in the semi-automatic M1A, a gun widely used in high-power rifle marksmanship matches. Actually the .223/5.56 round used is the least powerful, standard issue rifle round ever used by the American military.
.. cons: the m1 garand weighs over 11 lbs, & 150 grain bullets of course weigh two & a half times more than a 62 grainer (or 55) which the m16 uses. The m16 (civ AR15) weighs from 6 lbs, I believe ~8 lbs loaded with a 30 rd clip. Which means the m16 user can carry over twice as much ammo on a weight by weight basis.
The m1 garand is limited to a smaller clip, 8 I think, while the m16 can use a 30 rd clip. The m16 (but not the AR15) has an automatic fire feature - a 3 rd burst of 3 bullets with one trigger pull. This of course increases the odds of hitting what you're shooting at with the spray.
The m1 garand has a greater recoil which of course generally hinders accurate fire. The m1 does have a greater range due the heavier bullet. The m16 has little recoil, a girlie man could use it easily.
The m16(ar15) 0.223 (5.56) tends to fragment into two after it enters a body, creating two separate bullet paths, which can both cause cavitation to injure more surrounding tissue & cause grotesque wounds. The m16 is used as much to cause incapacitation on a battlefield as much as for killing.
You can fire more rapidly & accurately with an m16 than a m1 garand.
You are correct the m1 bullet has twice the kinetic energy of the m16's 0.223 round, but my bet is one has a better chance of survival after being hit by an m1 30 caliber 150 grainer, than the m16's 0.223 55 grainer. Tho not by that much, really.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"The m1 garand is limited to a smaller clip, 8 I think, while the m16 can use a 30 rd clip. The m16 (but not the AR15) has an automatic fire feature - a 3 rd burst of 3 bullets with one trigger pull. This of course increases the odds of hitting what you're shooting at with the spray."
Uh huh. Let's break this down.
"The m1 garand is limited to a smaller clip, 8 I think, while the m16 can use a 30 rd clip."
Having an external feed, the M16/AR15 can connect to a potentially unlimited ammunition source, Beta-C mags fairly reliably feed a hundred rounds into this platform. The weapon doesn't contain the ammo, the magazine does, and the magazine, being external to the weapon can be any size you like, as long as it can lift the ammo into the feed on the weapon.
"The m16 (but not the AR15) has an automatic fire feature - a 3 rd burst of 3 bullets with one trigger pull."
The M16 originally had the ability to select fire between semi-auto and full auto, and burst. (M16A1, and later the semi/full auto only M16A3) The M16A2 was then introduced with a selector between semi-auto and 3 round burst. The M16A4 also had the ability to select between semi-auto, and burst. Full auto has fallen out of favor due to ammo waste, barrel overheating and other problems.
"This of course increases the odds of hitting what you're shooting at with the spray."
Totally explains why full auto has fallen out of favor... oh wait. No, it doesn't. 3 round burst allows for SUPPRESSIVE FIRE without encouraging inexperienced troops to burn through their entire ammo supply in the opening seconds of an engagement. Otherwise, they would have just stuck with semi-auto. There are three competing needs here, volume of fire, accuracy, and ammo conservation. Full auto sacrifices accuracy and ammo conservation utterly for volume of fire. Semi-auto sacrifices volume of fire for maximum accuracy and maximum ammo conservation. 3 round burst is a balance of the three needs.
"The m16 has little recoil, a girlie man could use it easily."
Thanks for the sexism. Super awesome of you.
"You can fire more rapidly & accurately with an m16 than a m1 garand."
The accuracy claim here is debatable depending on unspecified criteria like the quality of the Garand (match grade are excellent) and the range of the target. At 600y-900y, I'd probably prefer the Garand. Below that, probably the M16. Especially if the intent is to incapacitate or kill a target, rather than just put a hole in a piece of paper.
"You are correct the m1 bullet has twice the kinetic energy of the m16's 0.223 round, but my bet is one has a better chance of survival after being hit by an m1 30 caliber 150 grainer, than the m16's 0.223 55 grainer."
Based on? Because the army has studied this extensively. You even alluded to it above, though you don't seem to have considered your own point: "The m16 is used as much to cause incapacitation on a battlefield as much as for killing."
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)atheist crusader: This is completely full of errors.
Yet where did you point out a single one? you didn't, you posted subjective addendum which really isn't here nor there.
For example:
me: The m1 garand is limited to a smaller clip, 8 I think, while the m16 can use a 30 rd clip."
you: Having an external feed, the M16/AR15 can connect to a potentially unlimited ammunition source, Beta-C mags fairly reliably feed a hundred rounds into this platform. The weapon doesn't contain the ammo, the magazine does, and the magazine, being external to the weapon can be any size you like, as long as it can lift the ammo into the feed on the weapon.
In other words, the m1 is limited to an 8 rd clip (I believe), while the m16 can use a 30 rd clip. Thank you but no cigar, what I wrote was correct. Stop being an nra stooge.
me "The m16 has little recoil, a girlie man could use it easily."
you: Thanks for the sexism. Super awesome of you.
This is an error? where? would you have rather'd '90 lb weakling'? blame arnold schwarzenegger as well, he led me astray.
me: "You are correct the m1 bullet has twice the kinetic energy of the m16's 0.223 round, but my bet is one has a better chance of survival after being hit by an m1 30 caliber 150 grainer, than the m16's 0.223 55 grainer."
you: Based on? Because the army has studied this extensively..
I really don't know, as I said 'my bet', it was pretty clear it was my opinion.
If these are errors to you, I don't think you understand what an error really is.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"The m16 (but not the AR15) has an automatic fire feature - a 3 rd burst of 3 bullets with one trigger pull."
Auto and burst are separate SELECT FIRE nomenclature, and do not overlap.
Some military M16's do not have this feature (auto or semi ONLY, no burst, still in service).
Some AR15's DO have this feature. AR15 A1 and A2 (Colt model 601 602) have full auto capability. Not all AR's are intended for, or legal for sale to US Civilians that are not also Law Enforcement. (The AR15 designation actually predates the M16) There are also AR's with the LE or Law Enforcement designation that will accept full or burst capable fire control components.
You sort of hedged on the mag size I suppose, but pretty pointless for you to specify a particular size. Original Colt mags came in 20 round form factor, current NATO STANAG mags come in 30 rounders. The point is rather that the AR will accept a detachable mag of any size, rather than the internal fixed magazine of the M1 Garand comparison, into which you insert an en-bloc clip.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)me : "The m16 (but not the AR15) has an automatic fire feature - a 3 rd burst of 3 bullets with one trigger pull."
athcrusader: Auto and burst are separate SELECT FIRE nomenclature, and do not overlap.
Some military M16's do not have this feature (auto or semi ONLY, no burst, still in service).
More a nitpick; the 3 rd burst is akin to a limited automatic fire. I said automatic fire feature to obviously distance from full automatic.
ath crusader: Some AR15's DO have this feature. AR15 A1 and A2 (Colt model 601 602) have full auto capability. Not all AR's are intended for, or legal for sale to US Civilians that are not also Law Enforcement. There are also AR's with the LE or Law Enforcement designation that will accept full or burst capable fire control components.
Oh fer chryce sake I wasn't writing a technical manual on the m16 vs the AR15. I was quickly noting differences between the two which somebody previously had contended the m1 far more powerful than the m16. My main comparison was the m1 to the m16 anyway, not the m16 with the ar15.
You sort of hedged on the mag size I suppose, but pretty pointless for you to specify a particular size. Original Colt mags came in 20 round form factor, current NATO STANAG mags come in 30 rounders. The point is rather that the AR will accept a detachable mag of any size, rather than the internal fixed magazine of the M1 Garand comparison, into which you insert an en-bloc clip.
The point I was making which was apparent to most others, was that the m1 was LIMITED to a smaller clip of 8 rounds, while the m16 & ar15 could hold clips of 30 rds.
You still don't understand what an error really is, & this drops you down on my rating list from neutral to questionable. Oh I know, you don't give a **************. Neither do I.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"I was quickly noting differences between the two which somebody previously had contended the m1 far more powerful than the m16. My main comparison was the m1 to the m16 anyway, not the m16 with the ar15."
The M16/AR15 platform is 'more powerful' than the Garand in precisely ONE metric: cyclic rate. In ALL other dimensions the Garand is more powerful.
Trust me, I own both. If I had, in some hypothetical situation, no choice but to stand 400y downrange and be shot once with one weapon or the other, I would without hesitation choose the .223 platform, every time.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)regulations that require drop tests to ensure it cannot fire under certain circumstances, etc.
A gun produced today is VASTLY safer than one produced 50 years ago.
russ1943
(618 posts)For those interested the CDC’s National Vital Statistics Report shows that in 2010 (most recent avail) Firearms deaths exceeded Motor vehicle accident deaths in thirteen states plus D.C. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf see Table 19.
