How would you counter?

[DWH]

I have been in an online debate about 2A rights and the discussion has merged to the "car users kill more than guns users" platform. As I posted that antis should worry more about automobile owners than firearm owners, this point was made:

>>"It would be interesting to do the following study - it would be VERY hard, so let's make it somewhat of a "thought experiment".

Let's add up all the hours in the country where people HOLD their gun. Let's call this gun hours. This is because guns not in someone's hands RARELY fires!

Let do the same with cars. Add all those hours when people are IN their car. Let's call these car hours.

Now, I would actually bet that the yearly ratio of gun deaths to gun hours is MUCH higher then the car deaths to car hours.

So, are we being hypocritical now?">>

I've got to admit it has stumped me for a bit. How would you counter?

 

[conw]

Concede the point. Then counter that first of all, it's apples and oranges to a large extent because guns also have the demonstrable potential to save lives without hurting anyone, and that a well-trained gun owner is much less likely to get into an accident with his own gun than a well-trained/safe car-owner. This fact is irrefutable, simply because a gun is much, much simpler to operate safely. Safe gun handling, provided someone has impulse control and is over 12, takes 3-4 minutes to teach, explain, demonstrate, and ingrain. Safely driving a car takes...what...two to five years oftentimes?

Finally, finish with the following point:

The average person is far, far more skilled in operating a motor vehicle than a firearm. This is because cars are accepted and used frequently by most participants in our culture, whereas gun ownership is not universally accepted in our culture. If it were more culturally acceptable, there would be a more open dialogue on the 4 rules, etc. So guns are not inherently unsafe; they are more unsafe for uneducated gun owners, and uneducated gun owners exist because of a lack of gun education in schools, etc.

Which is an excellent segue back to what is probably the main point of contention, which is whether there should be a push in society to accept gun ownership. The last point I made suggests that there should be, because it would reduce the amount of gun accidents per gun hour.

 

[jakemccoy]

I would actually bet that the yearly ratio of gun deaths to gun hours is MUCH higher then the car deaths to car hours.

I disagree. Car time is much lower because overall gun time is so huge. I'll explain...

Every time a gun owner touches a gun, that's gun time. Touching includes carrying because accidents happen when carrying, right? For me, gun time is about 16 hours per day everyday because I carry in my home office and in my home. So, my gun time is about 32 times more than my car time. Grand total for all gun owners, gun time is way more freakin' hours than car time.

 

[solareclipse]

Never argue with an anti outside of court. It is futile

 

[conw]

jake makes a fabulous point, too. Saying gun time must be when you're holding the gun is like saying car time is when you have your foot on the accelerator.

Frankly though, contrary to solareclipse, I'm compelled that you have found someone who is actually debating point-by-point with you. I can't seem to get anyone to do that on any issue for more than one round. No one understands that even if you don't convince one another, it's fabulous for the mind and it hones your respective arguments.

 

[Kind of Blued]

The car argument was probably less than ideal to begin with, simply because it's comparing apples to elevators.

Nevertheless, their "argument" is simply stupid, and even if they had an exact number, it wouldn't say a whole lot about guns or cars. Both can be great tools if used properly, and both can be used for horrible purposes. Nevertheless, accidents happen according to the inherent complexity of operation, amount of training, and, perhaps of most importance for the sake of your argument, complacency.

 

[DWH]

It is compelling ,as I'm not used to folks going the length on this arguement either. I'm not a statistician nor a grand debater, but my quickly posted reply to the above quoted post was "the bottom line is that car drivers still kill more than gun owners regardless of ratios, percentages, or hours. The guy's rooting club piled on saying that I was coping out, and that his logic slaughtered mine. Not that I care much, but I would like to counter his counter with something to quiet his rooters.

 

[cbrgator]

I would flat out disagree. And I honestly DO flat out disagree.

 

[jakemccoy]

You can also say that this is all Internet statistics, which includes lots of hunches, arbitrary extrapolating and biased assumptions. Each side can prove anything if we agree on a given assumption.

 

[Maxx409]

Let's say said car was used in the taking of food like a deer. We'll call that deer time and also said gun was used in taking of deer.

How many gun owners have died taking a deer with a gun as opposed to car drivers taking said deer with a car. Depends also on their usage.

And to add to the above. The criminals I used to know had their guns on them 24-7. And since it only take seconds to kill someone. Most of their time is safely carrying. Same with LEO's. Most people aren't in their cars 24-7.

 

[TRGRHPY]

It is estimated that everyone is likely to be involved in an auto collision at least once in their lifetime. Not everyone will be involved in a shooting.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

It's very simple, just counter with one of the lefties favorite arguments. It is borderline smartass, but just say "one is too many".

 

[coloradokevin]

Jake,

You raise a good point! I wake up every day, and usually handle a gun at least a bit around the house (don't always wear one at home). But, the minute I leave home I'm wearing a gun... and it is with me the entire time I'm away (I work with the gun, I drive with the gun, I eat with the gun... it is one of my daily accessories, just like my cellphone).

Anyway, I'm not surprised to see the otherwise somewhat intelligent counter argument that was raised by the anti-gunner! Honestly, I've had something similar said to me in the past: "Cars kill more people, but it is only because almost everyone drives, and a LOT of people don't own guns".

As someone else said, this is apples to elevators!

 

[JohnKSa]

Guns are more like syringes than cars, IMO.

 

[Swinglow]

Tell him that "thought experiments" are by definition purely hypothetical, don't exist in reality and can't be proven or disproven. That being the case, you are as free to speculate on the outcome of such an imaginary experiment as he is. And you bet the outcome would be that the ratio of car deaths to car hours are in fact much higher than the ratio of gun deaths to gun hours. Ask if he can prove that's not true.

Follow with something like, "While it's been fascinating comparing our opinions as to the outcome of purely imaginary experiments, can we get back to comparing numbers that actually exist in the real world and are therefore relevant to the topic?"

You may also want to ask if his opinion on the topic is based entirely on imaginary conclusions from imaginary experiments, or if any of it is based on an observation of reality and facts.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Swinglow,

NICE

 

[woad_yurt]

DH:
That argument construct would be bounced back by any Philosophy 101 instructor as casuistic (something that sounds good until one examines it.) In order for it to be a valid construct, the general concept should apply in other instances of violent death. Let us apply it to, say, death by house fires:

“Let's add up all the hours in the country in which houses are actually on fire. Let's call this “house fire hours.” This is because people in houses not on fire are rarely incinerated.

Now, I would actually bet that the yearly ratio of house fire deaths to house fire hours is MUCH higher then the car deaths to car hours.”

Using this construct, everything would be skewed.

“Let's add up all the hours in the country in which tress are actually falling. Let's call this “falling tree hours.” This is because people near stable trees are rarely crushed….”

What’s next, avalanche hours? I could come up with a million of ‘em.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Jake, I would go even further. My guns are "on the job" even when they are off-body. They protect my home when they sit by my side, loaded and ready. I spend maybe a few hours each day away from any of my guns. Sometimes more, of course, but often less.

I suppose the antis could counter that their cars are "on the job" when parked in their drive, too. But I'd debate that. The car isn't really "doing" anything by existing. But by existing, my guns make me safer.

 

[Bubba613]

Every time a gun owner touches a gun, that's gun time. Touching includes carrying because accidents happen when carrying, right?

That's idiotic. Guns don't go off when they're in the holster and no one is touching them. Or are we re-inventing the "guns kill" myth here?

It is irrelevant whether the side contending guns are less safe than cars is correct or not. Airplanes are safer than cars. That does not mean we need to ban cars and travel by airplane.
Working in a convenience store is less safe than being an accountant. That doesn't mean we need to ban c-stores and all become accountants.
Everything has an element of risk in it. Some more, some less. People who own and carry guns assume a measure of risk in doing so (and I think that risk is very under-counted in the gun community). The ability to do so is protected by the Constitution of the U.S. and many state constitutions as well.
It may be more risky, but it is one I am willing to take, is all the argument anyone needs.

 

[Ric]

Clarence Thomas has a great saying, never engage with an idiot. You are not going to convince him and end up being frustrated.

 

[hso]

The car/gun analogy is not a good argument and shouldn't be used.

Our whole economy rests on private and commercial vehicle use and the daily use of a vehicle is almost essential for the majority of people in this country. Not so for firearms. The other problem with using the analogy is that cars are registered, drivers are licensed and liability insurance is required. Not something we want for firearms and firearms owners.

Avoid the vehicle comparisons like the plague.

 

[heron]

As to the guns vs cars argument, the aspect of operator attentiveness might be brought to bear . . . how many people are talking on the cell phone and eating lunch while they shoot?

 

[TAB]

I wonder how many hours the average person in the US actually does have contact with a guns.


For every person that carrys 24/7/365 there are alteast 1000 that don't touch a gun all year.

Like it or not most gun owners don't shoot more then 500 rounds in thier life time.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

TAB: "Like it or not most gun owners don't shoot more then 500 rounds in thier life time."

How sad; we should take up a collection for their relief.

 

[eye5600]

First, as noted above, it's a bad analogy.
Second, statistics are notorious for good reason. In a case like this there really isn't a statistic that is comparable between the two cases.

My line of thinking is what are MY odds? My odds of something bad in a car are similar (per mile) to the general population.

We can easily segment the population vis a vis gun risk: the non-owning population, the legally-owning population, the illegally-owning population. It's a little like noting that the odds of a crash on Sunday afternoon is higher for NASCAR drivers than for folks on their way to Grandma's.