As we'd suspect, the shootings in Texas are being politicized by the anti-gun groups. It seems I can't turn around without some anti-gun nut calling for more laws, if not outright elimination of guns. As if that would actually stop these events. Of course, none of these people have called for elimination of autos or trucks, particularly after last week's events in NYC.
What we hear is 'but that was only 8 people killed by a truck while there were 58 in Vegas and 26 in Texas' as if scale is somehow meaningful. Frankly, I'm less concerned about numbers, and more concerned about means, motive and outcome. The assumption is that the means is a desire to use a weapon, so being concerned with autos is silly since few people use them as weapons. There is a massive flaw in this concept. Two flaws, really. First, they are used as weapons (Nice and London are just 2 recent examples, and ISIS has called for them to be used more...but I should add Charlottesville to the list) often enough to be of concern. Second, whether they are used as weapons or not, autos kill far more people every year than guns, and people aren't even trying. Imagine how the numbers would rise if they were. By any comparative measure, it's not even close. WE MUST BAN AUTOS AND TRUCKS!!
There were 35,485 auto deaths in 2015. That same year, there were 13,286 gun deaths. 60% of gun deaths are suicides, so let's reduce the number to 5,314 (I know people use autos to commit suicide, but the numbers are tiny). Gang and drug violence, as well as associated police activity, killed another 70% of that remainder, pushing gun deaths to 1,594 in 2015. Not a small number, but comparably speaking, relatively small. If sheer scale is the guide by which our decisions on policy should be made, we really need to be concerned more with autos, not guns. And we know the gun control nuts love to toss out numbers like 58 and 26, but ignore other numbers that undermine their position. Because 58 and 26 are big, big, scary numbers in standalone situations. Autos rarely kill that many in one fell swoop. I have read people say "my child could have been there" after a shooting, and that's true. But your child is more likely to be killed by an auto. While the individual numbers of auto deaths are much smaller by incident, the totals should be large enough to spark fear and calls for more legislation to outlaw these demon vehicles!
As far as motive goes, this is really where gun control nuts have a moderately useful discussion point. Because there are relatively few examples of autos used as weapons, especially here in the US. But drunk driving is a very real thing and represents a decent proportion of the number of auto deaths. That's 10,265 of the total auto deaths represented by driving while impaired. I'd say anyone who drinks and drives has a motive to kill or be killed, at least equivalent to the people who choose to shoot others. Even so, there is no comparison - autos are far more dangerous.
I used impaired driving because the motivation for impaired driving is really not too far off from the motivation of a mass shooter - usually these are people with severe personal problems who lack a means of managing their problems. Some drink, some express outrage and get guns. Many drinkers don't get behind the wheel of a car and many mentally ill gun owners don't go on murderous rages, but those who do are extremely dangerous. Yet drunk drivers are still more plentiful and dangerous than the mentally ill gun owners.
Some may say 'but we're taking action on drunk driving so we should take action on shooters, too.' Well, we are and we have. After all, it's illegal to drink and drive, and it's illegal to shoot people. In fact, since most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, we can even say just having the guns in areas where they aren't allowed is the same as drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car. So action has been taking place. What more action makes sense? I'm open to ideas that help to reduce the chances of death, but not open to ideas that remove the (generalized) right to drive or the right to own guns.
Some may say 'we need stricter laws to prevent people from having guns, the way we take action against DUI by taking away licenses to drive'. Well, maybe, but maybe not. After all, many drunk drivers drive without a license anyway. And many mass shooters often purchase their weapons and ammo illegally. So the concept of 'more laws will make us safer' is absurd in the extreme. Clearly, people intent on injuring themselves and others care little for laws. We know Columbine saw an inordinate number of laws being broken. I'd suggest that having 20 more on the books wouldn't have helped a whit.
So let's focus on outcome. As far as I can tell, the main outcome we're concerned with in every case (gun or car) is death. If you were to ask me how would I prefer to die, I'm not really sure I care. After all, the result is the same. After I'm dead do I care that it was a bullet or a truck? Maybe my friends and family do, and perhaps that's why people get their knickers in a twist over guns. Because they are scary if you don't use or understand them. But I do know that you're likely to die more quickly and (hopefully) more painlessly with a gun than a car or truck. So maybe there's a benefit there? I don't think there is, but some might. In reality, the discussion of controlling guns centers around some form of survivor guilt and emotional association. They tend to feel cars have a value (I can get to point B from point A with one) but since they don't understand guns, they fail to see the value in owning one (having owned my own, I understand their value even when I'm not using them).
From my perspective, hearing a mother say "I want my child to be safe when he/she goes to church/concert/school" is a perfectly legitimate statement of fact. Nobody wants their kids to get hurt. But the numbers seem to indicate their kids are pretty safe from guns, and far more at risk from cars and trucks. So why the senselessness about being scared of guns?
I really don't know and simply can't understand it. More people die in NYC each day from crossing the street than die from randomized mass shooting events in the US. I take my life in my hands every day that I go into the city to work. For some reason, I'm still not interested in banning cars and trucks. As I said to a friend, I'll take my chances with guns. After all, you have to be less concerned that you happen to wander into a shooting situation - which is pure chance - than you have to be concerned about being plowed down in the street, which is far more likely to happen since you deliberately put yourself in harm's way each day.
As an added note, I like to point out that we've banned bombs, and yet bombs are still used from time to time. Let's not forget that the worst mass school killing in history, the Bath Schoolhouse, was a bomb. Technically, 9/11 was the use of 'bombs' (jets full of fuel are quite explosive). Boston Marathon utilized home made bombs. The Las Vegas shooter had bombs. Oklahoma City, the Unabomber, Eric Rudolph....I could keep going. Point is, banning something doesn't make you safer. Bombs are still made. For some reason people don't get as freaky about them when they are used. We don't call for more laws. Why not? Because they're already outlawed, and yet they still kill a large number of people. So we don't get politically upset with them anymore.
From my perspective, this is just a bunch of silly, misinformed idiots blathering on and on about something they are utterly and completely clueless about, egged on by moronic politicians with moral superiority as a calling card. They lack a proper understanding of statistics, history and politics. They are driven only by emotion and fear. But we know these are powerful tools for politicians.
