Need?

So I'm reading this from Sebastian and I see the same old tired argument:

"You don't need an AK-47/M-16 to hunt birds/deer/whatever."

Now, of course you don't need an AK-47 or an M-16, because both of those weapons are illegal to own. That point aside however, the argument for need is specious at best.

The counter argument I like is related to cars. Now, before I even begin, a person would counter this by saying cars have a utility that far outweighs the risk of operation. It is a false counter since a benign utility does not make cars any less dangerous.

Anyway, ask whoever (Senator Ashford) what kind of car they drive. How much you want to bet Mr. Ashford is not driving a Prius, or that if he is, he owns a car other than a Prius. Ask him if we should outlaw Corvettes, and Chargers, and Hummers, and any other automobile that far exceeds the utility that the person who owns it needs.

I mean really, a single person can do just fine with a subcompact Hybrid or something like a Ford Festiva, they don't need a sports car. Soccer Moms don't need a giant SUV when a minivan is adequate. And Billy Bob don't need no truck with the 4 Wheel Drive Lift Kit and light bar when he goes to the grocery store. I mean, Billy Bob don't even use the bed of the truck for hauling anything but empty beer cans anyway, and a Chevy S-10 quarter ton is perfectly fine for that.

And no more Muscle Cars for teenagers, they are not experienced enough to handle the power. Or for old folks for that matter, degrading reflexes and all that.

Really people, we have a problem with global warming, and all these larger than necessary vehicles are hurting the earth and people all over. Not to mention that in the wrong hands, a car is a deadly weapon and can kill! The driving skill of the average person is deplorable and the fact that they can keep the car between on the pavement more often than not is just amazing.

I mean, let's look at the numbers from the CDC. In 2004, the year they have numbers for, there were 44,933 DEATHS from Motor Vehicle Accidents (MVA), with 3120 DEATHS from other transportation accidents. That means 48,053 people DIED while in a moving vehicle of some sort or another, the bulk of that being in Personally Owned Vehicles (POV).

Now let's contrast this with firearms. The number of deaths from "Accidental" Discharge of a Firearm (which means Negligent and Mechanical Failure) is 649. Suicide by firearm (which I hardly count since a person who chooses suicide will merely find an alternative method of killing themselves, but to be fair I am including it) is 16,750. Of course, 15,689 people found another way to off themselves, so I'm thinking that the 16,750 folks who used a gun had other means at their disposal and were going bye-bye anyway. Homicides by firearm numbered 11,624, with another 5,733 homicide deaths through other means. Gee, imagine that, we don't need guns to kill each other. The bulk of firearm homicides happened in the 15-34 age group (anyone want to guess why?).

Note that these numbers do not seem to differentiate between a criminal homicide and a justified homicide, merely that a gun was determined to be a contributing factor in a persons death (guns don't cause death, but they do cause medical conditions which lead to death, like exsanguination, or organ failure, etc.). Now, I suppose I could find statistics on how many homicides were done with a handgun or assault rifle, but that is not my point today.

My point is that automobiles kill FOUR TIMES as many people (who did not want to die) as guns every year. Now, let's put this into perspective. According to the Police Foundation, there are approximately 192 million working firearms in private possession with about 2/3 rds of those being long guns (which a small percentage of are "assault rifles")(note that that 192 million figure for firearms does not take into account firearms owned by police and military agencies, also, the number is from 1997, if anyone has a more recent figure, please let me know). According to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics, there are about 243 million registered automobiles in the US. Now, let's do a little math here (243 divided by 192, 19 goes into 24 once, carry the zero, hrmmm, and we get..) and we see that there are only 1.26 more cars on the road per firearm in private hands.

Now, if firearms are so damn dangerous, why are these number not more in line. MVAs should only account for about 1.26 more deaths than firearms, or less, since cars are so safe compared to big scary firearms. We should think of the children, lets outlaw ownership of an MVA that far exceeds your requirements for personal transport. Only farmers and certain businesses can own trucks larger than 1/4 ton, all cars must be Prius type cars, no more SUVs, if you need extra passenger capacity, get a hybrid minivan. I mean, if all the cars on the road are about the same, the number of deadly accidents will go down since there will be no disparity of mass. Better yet, since when you have a car versus motorcycle, usually you get a seriously injured or dead rider versus a driver (I know this first hand, BTW). So unless you have a need, or the weather is bad, you must ride a motorcycle in full armor. Not only will this reduce emissions (bikes get better mileage, especially if you have engines of 500CC or less), but since there will be less collisions, there will be fewer deaths.

I mean really, is it worth all these deaths so people can own whatever car they can afford? Is this the "cost of doing business" so we can drive on the American Highways?

I trust I've made my point?

A LITTLE BIT MORE: For those who whine "Oh , all those poor people who die in the crossfire!" Yeah, that is sad, I feel for them, they were just out walking or driving, or sitting in their living room. Then BAM! they're hit with a 1 oz or less slug moving at high speed. Flesh is torn, maybe a bone is broken, maybe an organ or major artery or primary nerve is hit. If help arrives quickly, and they are alive when help arrives, they will likely survive with little imparment.

You're right, we should just ban ALL guns!

Then I think of all those people who die in car accidents who ARE NOT DRIVING! They are just riding in a car taking it easy, or walking across the street, or riding their bicycle, or shopping at a farmers market, when WHAM!, a 3000 lbs or more missle smacks them at speed! Bones are broken, organs ruptured, massive trauma to multiple systems, even to occupants of the vehicle! Even if help arrives quickly, so many systems are likely damaged that death is still a very real possibility. There is so much energy involved in an MVA that any collision that occurs at a speed greater than 35 MPH may very well overwhelm the safety systems of a car and either cause them to fail, or cause them to injure the very person they are designed to protect.

Oh, and since there is no ennumeration of the right to drive a car in the constitution (unlike the possession and bearing of arms, which are), vehicle operators must be licensed and the privilege of driving can be removed for cause. In fact, many folks lose the privilege of driving every day, and despite sever penalties for driving without a license, they still do it. More laws that don't stop folks from breaking them.

Having survived three major MVAs (collision speeds above 50 MPH, none of them my fault in the least) by sheer dumb luck and speedy medical response (and almost fanatical use of safety gear), I can tell you that it is not fun. But then again, I've never been shot (yet, I'm only 33, the life is young).

I'd pass tougher laws on DUIs and for motor vehicle operator training before I'd worry myself about tougher gun laws.

AND MORE:

John D has numbers regarding the number of MVA deaths resulting from a DUI. Seems we had 16,855 people die from DUIs (Data from here). Just the "price of doing business" so people can drink alcohol (sorry, some poster on the Huffington post made a crack about gun deaths being the "cost of doing business" so the gun nuts could have guns).