Is it time to talk about guns?

No not an opinion, a direct quote.

 

Okay lets go through this again.
What you are expressing is a false equivalency.

Now let's look into it.
You are equating injuries from drunk driving with deaths by firearms.
First you are comparing deaths to deaths and injuries. But let's assume you meant to compare deaths only.

Next you are comparing firearms to cars. Cars are designed to move people from one place to another, not kill people. Firearms on the other hand are designed to kill. When a drunk driver kills a person it is accidental in almost every case. Not so with firearms. Firearm deaths may be accidental, due to immediate negative emotions, or even pre-planned. I can't think of any pre-planned drunk driving death.

Third certain types of cars are banned from public highways, certain types of equipment and modifications of cars are banned, and while ownership is not restricted a license for the user must be issued if the car is used in public, and the car must be registered and in many states is subject to periodic inspection.

Fourth, cars travel millions of miles every year, which translates to millions of hours of operation. Firearms on the other hand are used far less frequently. Don't believe me? Go stand by a highway and count how many cars pass you in an hour driven by people going from one place to another, then go stand anywhere you want and count how many guns are fired in an hour and compare. The proportion of deaths by drunk drivers verses the miles of travel and hours of operation of cars is minuscule compared to the hours of operation of firearms.

Lastly, let's assume you want to kill someone. Would it be more likely that you would get drunk, hop in your car, drive to where that person is and then try and run them down with your car, or just pull out a gun and shoot them?
Or, let's suppose you want to rob a bank. Would you get drunk and then drive up to the bank with your car and ram the building trying to get at the bank tellers, or would you walk into the bank with a gun?
Maybe you want to invade a home and rape someone. Get drunk and drive through the front door with your car?

 

It's time to think about many things... but getting something actually done seems to be the larger issue.

 

The notion that getting guns out of the hands of criminals will end gun violence (or make people safe) is simply not true for a number of reasons.
1. Many acts of gun violence are committed by law abiding citizens, not prior criminals. They don't become criminals until they commit a crime with a gun. So how do you remove a gun from a person who is going to commit a crime in the future?
The only way I know is to prohibit all gun ownership, which I do not recommend.
2. Accidents happen with guns and are not violations of the law.
3. Accidents happen with guns that are owned and operated by responsible and even trained individuals.

And lastly to Eric's statement, "I honestly don’t feel any safer carrying one!" (He is referring to a gun.)
Then why would you carry a gun? I thought the whole idea was because you would be safer?

 

Here is what you said:

So this part is an independent clause. It has the verb killed, and several subjects, people, firearms, and drunk drivers. And it can stand alone as a sentence. And yes in this clause you incorrectly equate deaths by firearms with deaths by drunk drivers.
But then you go on in the same sentence.

This is a relative clause that contains the pronoun, who, referring (relative) to the previously mentioned drunk drivers, and the verb injure. It can not stand on its own as we don't know who who is unless we refer back to the independent clause.
In this way you have tied the injuries caused by drunk drivers to the deaths caused by drunk drivers.

And then you finish with:

Which further supports your notion about drunk drivers, cars, firearms and deaths and injuries.

Next.
I am not saying that the tool "car" is doing a better job at killing people than the tool "firearm". In fact I said the exact opposite.
Let me review my main points and then maybe you can tell me why you think I said cars are better tools for killing people than firearms.
I'll skip number one as it doesn't enter into this part of your argument.

2. Cars are not designed to kill people. Cars have a non lethal utilitarian function, firearms do not. So why would we compare cars to firearms and then say cars should be banned?
Drunk driving deaths are almost always accidental, many deaths by firearms are intentional.
Cars driven by drunks are a very inefficient means of killing people. I thought this was obvious but I guess not so let me point out that in 2017 the Las Vegas shooter killed 60 people, wounded 411, and caused a total of 867 injuries, (not counting the shooter) from 490 yards away in 10 minutes...with a firearm. And that is just one example of what firearms are capable of doing.
Can you point out a drunk driver doing the same amount of damage in that amount of time please?

3. Cars are heavily regulated, much more so than firearms.

4. There are millions of cars on the road everyday, in operation. There aren't millions of guns being fired every day. Only a very teeny wienie, itsy bitsy, small percentage of those cars are driven by drunk drivers and only a small percentage of those drunk drivers actually kill or injure others. So why would I compare firearms to cars and then say cars are more efficient ways of killing people and should be banned? Makes no sense at all.

5. The number of people choosing to kill someone by getting drunk and then trying to kill them with a car, again is very small when compared to the number of people choosing to kill someone with a firearm. Cars have a non lethal utilitarian function, firearms do not, as I said above. So why would I compare cars to firearms and the say cars should be banned?

 

​

 

In response to Eric!'s notion about carrying a gun, you said:

In response to Eric! and yourself I replied:

You are asking me about the sentence I made in the above:

First of all. I don't recommend, or want to prohibit the ownership of all guns by private individuals in the U.S.

Secondly, as there will always be guns in the hands of private citizens there will be violence connected to those guns.
The use of guns in the carrying out of criminal activity is but one form of gun violence. That violence can be carried out by those with prior criminal records or by those who become criminals due to the commission of a criminal activity involving guns.
Even if we could somehow remove guns from all known and convicted criminals, there would still be those who become criminals through the use of a gun. In other words we can't stop criminal gun violence by simply removing guns from known criminals. Crimes can still be committed with guns by respectable citizens as no one is born a criminal. It takes a criminal act to become a criminal.

Lastly, if if we somehow eliminate the use of guns entirely from all forms of criminal activity there will still be violent accidents that are not of a criminal nature that occur and involve the use of a gun. For example someone shoots themself or another while innocently cleaning a gun, or a gun falls to the floor and discharges hitting someone, or a gun explodes.
Unless you don't consider those to be violent. I think they are very violent.