Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Forum Nobility
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Toxn last won the day on April 12 2017

Toxn had the most liked content!

About Toxn

  • Rank
    Social Justice Prince

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

594 profile views
  1. So your argument is mere assertion? Can't refute that. Anyway, I have to make the long trek home (by train and car).
  2. So half the number of cars guns owned by the average gun owner.
  3. Again, that's not what we're discussing at all. Oedipus' contention was that cars are more dangerous than guns, and less regulated. So talking about crime is besides the point here.
  4. I doubt that - unless you're talking about cars owned in sequence, which sort of elides the point. The Fortune article I found estimates something like 50 million gun owners (of which 5% own most of the guns), so raw numbers gives you 5-6 guns per owner, on average.
  5. That's kind of a different issue - we're comparing deaths to raw numbers here (again - strained, but I didn't make the comparison).
  6. Isn't dividing by the total amount of guns a bit odd, given that most gun owners own more than one? I went with gun owners as a proxy for that reason. This also doesn't do much to quantify exposure risk - which is admittedly much harder to look at in this case.
  7. I agree that the comparison gets a bit strained, but then I didn't make it. I have no idea how stringent licencing is for wherever-you-come-from, so you'll have to fill in on the details. Does it involve a competency test? I'm also assuming here that you guys use a similar system to ours - where there are different types of vehicle licences required to operate bikes, trucks and cars. Finally; would you say that the automotive approach is better, safety-wise? Would having a similar approach to firearms do more to limit people getting shot (which is about as narrowly as you can define such a complex thing). Or would it be better to apply the reverse approach and ban vehicles capable of exceeding certain speed limits or something?
  8. I thought safety features on guns were optional, but I'm glad to be corrected on this point. The number of mandatory features new cars are required to have is remarkable, and increases year-on-year. So you'll have to forgive me for assuming that firearms might lag a bit in this department.
  9. All fair enough points, although I'd quibble that there's scant difference in practice between regulation of public use and regulation of all use where cars are concerned. The US has mandatory safety features for cars, correct?
  10. 300 million guns according to wiki. 265 million guns and 55 million gun owners, according to Fortune. More wiki stuff: Gun-related deaths per year in the US: ~33 000 Car-related deaths per year in the US: ~35 000
  11. You should start charging a fee for your tank identification knowledge.
  12. Ah, I understand where you're coming from now. I think I conflated your and Oedipus' points. US folk can chime in on licenses in their neck of the woods. Where I live, however, it's much the same process as for you - although club membership is only strictly required for semi-auto rifles rather (bolt-actions, pistols or shotguns fall under a self-defence or occasional hunting/sport shooting licence). You also need to motivate ownership here. People carp about some of it, of course (especially the pistol folk), but I haven't seen any folk fail to get a licence if they're keen and willing to put in the time, effort etc.
  13. Since I've already mentioned that automobiles are heavily regulated, what about exposure risk? The data I could find showed that around 15% of the US population owns guns and 80% owns cars. Even assuming that gun owners shoot a lot and carry frequently, I can't imagine that the exposure time is higher for guns than cars. So cars should kill at least five times more people by simple exposure than guns, even if using both is equally safe. The other data I could find showed that deaths attributable to automobiles are around the same as deaths attributable to firearms in the US. So, even if we make the dubious assumption about equal time-based levels of exposure, car ownership is at least five times safter than gun ownership. You could use this to make the argument that the automotive safety lobby already romped on home on this one, and that cars are as safe as they can be made given the limits of engineering and the decreasing benefits associated with further risk-reduction measures.