What’s your source for this? I checked the CDC, and they said 16,864 unintentional injuries, plus about 600 fatalities. Now, if you count unreported injuries, plus accidents that resulted in no injuries, the rate has to be at least 2-10x that. We’re at 30-250x the accident rate you quoted.
2 Likes
I quoted the fatal accident rate. Yes there are more non-fatal injuries, as you managed to find the stats.
For everyone decrying the tone of this Daily Show segment (zomg, a comedy show being teh funneh!!1!) here’s an ABC take on the same subject matter.
(hint: it comes to the same conclusion)
5 Likes
Yep,! Among ajwt’s above, that looks like the best name for it, and a good explanation too.
(And btw, welcome back. I’m enjoying your um, less prickly side?)
2 Likes
Yes, yes, we all use generalizations every day as part of our decision making. From “What street to walk down.” to “Who do I trust/fear?” to “What brand of phone is good?”
But while these generalizations - some of them prejudiced against certain races, nationalities, or class of people - can be more or less harmless as you go about your day, to make a conscious generalization - especially a wrongful one - can lead to perpetuating myths and lead to discrimination.
Why is it illegitimate? How is assuming a person believes and acts a certain way because they were born X, vs assuming someone must act and believe a certain way because they own X? Stereotyping because one owns a certain thing or has a particular interest has even less legitimacy because people from all sexes, races, and colors partake in said interest.
I am sure if I said “gamer” you picture a white male, but assuming that is what a “gamer” is has lead to so many games marginalizing women and people of color to the point of exclusion and when they do show up they are usually pretty stereotypical.
The attitude totally changed because the stereotype that gays were basically perverted heathens ready to nail you in a public stall or trick your teenager into having sex with them (i.e. “wrong”) turned out to be a complete bullshit stereotype. With exposure came more understanding at how wrong their biases were.
Gun powder is an explosive. But a bullet won’t just “explode” like a pipe bomb will. In fact if a round cooks off in a fire is pretty harmless as it needs to be in a gun for the pressure to build up to get it to gain velocity.
But hey - I don’t make the laws and get to call what as what. Make some bullets and some pipe bombs and call the ATF and see which ones they will arrest you for.
If you are passing laws based on stereotypes, that is absolutely wrong. We should ban ALL Muslims because of the stereotype they want to kill infidels? We passed anti-gay and racist laws based on the stereotypes those people were dangerous. We passed anti-drug laws based on the stereotype someone smoking a joint was doomed to turn into a savage junkie. You want to pass more laws restricting me based on a bullshit stereotype - then yeah - that is wrong.
Law abiding gun owners who have accidents are not the main cause of gun injuries in the US. Go ahead and keep pretending that is the main issue and ignore the larger one. Cool. You can find people misusing everything from alcohol to dildos to cars to computers. I expect you to mount a crusade against those irresponsible yahoos.
Burden of proof is on them. The number are out there and even with accidental INJURIES, the numbers are very low. Do the math and show me the fraction of 1%. I guarantee i see more irresponsible car owners per year than gun owners. ,
Hey - speaking of irresponsible users - Maybe we could ban alcohol again. In my experience it plays a part in a lot of accidents and violence. over 10000 a year DIE from just drunk driving per year. That is just deaths, over $59 BILLION dollars worth of damage from wrecks (couldn’t find a number on the number of actual wrecks). 1.4 MILLION people were arrested for driving drunk (not including those arrested on land.) That is just the number caught. Factor in the domestic abuse, fights, murders, etc from drunk arguments, rapes, etc - it is pretty clear that the many, many alcohol users aren’t using responsibly.
Maybe we should ban this completely worthless, non-productive item form society. We have nothing to lose. Oh what - we tried that? It made things worse? Banning something doesn’t make it go away? Huh.
Intelligence is knowing that tomatoes are fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put them in the fruit salad.
4 Likes
Some of those things ARE regulated to a greater or lesser extent. For example, spray paint cans.
1 Like
Guns are regulated too. But none of those things are regulated as explosives. Flammable, perhaps.
And the reason to regulate spray cans is bullshit. It isn’t for their ability of housing flammable paint under pressure, its so kids dont paint shit they shouldn’t.
Yeah, we build cars safer and safer, trying to make them idiot proof. Once we perfect self driving cars and force you to no longer actually pilot the vehicle, we will see accidents be largely a thing of the past. Stupid deer and road hazards will be the main cause, not drinking, being too tired, or simply not paying attention.
But anyway, you are comparing willful actions of gun crime, vs mostly accidental actions of vehicular deaths.
I think if we removed the female stats from the accident rates, we would see better numbers. That is a valid generalization, amiright? Oh wait ,except that isn’t true either. (pg 41 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjJ557nrOTJAhXHuhoKHSzoB34QFggvMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov%2FPubs%2F812032.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHNOfWaKPSy-kojfJUXiecRTyalMw&sig2=7awSJ1Pk6apBrk7YuFLyMg)
My point wasn’t even about cars, it was about alcohol. The generalization is there are too many irresponsible gun owners, when I don’t think the numbers are there to justify that generalization.
By contrast, just looking at drunk driving, not even the 101 stupid/bad things people do when drunk, it is pretty clear a considerable amount of drinkers are irresponsible and causing harm to themselves and others.
1 Like
I can get a gun permit here. I can’t get spray paint. Literally: I have to drive somewhere else (to where it’s even EASIER to get a gun permit) in order to be able to buy spray paint at all.
And in order to drive there, I have to have a state-vetted license and mandatory insurance for the car.
Even my DOG has to be licensed and have a legally-mandated medical procedure (rabies vaccination) to protect others.
The point is: there are lots of ways to kill a human being. Only one of them gives people apoplectic fits about even the most minimal amount of regulation for the protection of the public at large.
Minimum standard regulation for the protection of human beings…is that really too high a bar to set?
5 Likes
Apparently you lack the common ammosexual fear of slippery slopes.
3 Likes
Wait.
#What?
(I used to be a decent Tag remover, nothing acetone and elbow grease won’t fix)
Where do you live? Why have the clamped down so hard on spray paint? Probably for a pretty ridiculous reason.
The reason you insure your car has nothing to do with protecting people. Neither is your dog license, though vaccinations are to protect others. Not everything the gov does is for your protection. Not everything do for protection protects anyone. Insisting on registering your dog and car doesn’t stop the thousands of people from doing neither.
We have regulations. I guess you want more, but don’t act like we don’t have any. The bulk of people using guns to harm others are circumventing the systems we have in place. But I am sure if we just clamped down harder it would really change things. It worked with meth! I can’t even buy Sudafed with out showing my ID, and now Meth is like non-existent.
I imagine you have a source for this claim? Not necessarily doubting you do, but I would like to see it.
2 Likes
It’s an older study. I would like them to do it again, but if it worked for them back then, why would it change?
pg 1 is the main table, p9 breaks it down some.
The main two sources are the black market/streets/theft (~40%), and Friends/Family (~40%). They dosen’t say if it is from straw purchases, or just people they know who can sell them guns.
Source of gun:
Store - 8.3% <-- would require background check
Pawnshop - 3.8% <-- would require background check
Fleamarket - 1.0% <-- may require background check
Gun show - 0.7% <-- may require background check
Friends or family - 39.6%
Street/illegal sources - 39.2%
I have made several acknowledgements that the type of gun owner in these generalizations exists. My point is, just like pretty much any group of people, there is such a variety that you do yourself a disservice of thinking they are all alike.
The statistics show the generalization of the average owner being irresponsible and/or bumbling is a false one. Just like statistics show Muslims aren’t all violent radicals. But hey, feel free to keep telling yourself what ever makes you sleep at night, I guess.
There are many different types of gun owners who own guns for different reasons. My actual real world experience and exposure has shown me this first hand. Of course some of you don’t trust me because I am one of “them” when I tell you how utterly normal so many gun owners are. I guess I can’t blame you, I know people who don’t believe the plight of minorities or women. They don’t experience it so they must just be making shit up and they have plenty of youtube and World Star videos to back up their biases. I just though y’all were better than them.
Well obviously then you just need a better messenger. With a gun.
