Even in the hands of trained professionals, accidents still happen. The only difference is that a car is a hell of a lot bigger than a bullet, and thus has a better chance of hitting someone.


I'm not saying that cars are a bigger threat than guns. I just don't see why guns get special treatment.

Because guns are intended for killing. Cars are not.

What do you have a better chance of avoiding: a speeding bullet going so fast and so small you would have been dead before you even heard the discharge, and needless to say, saw it coming; or a large, noisy chunk of metal stampeding down an open space with its headlights turned on possibly?

Oh that makes it all different then. It doesn't matter how dangerous something is, all that matters is what it was made for.

What has a better chance of hitting me? You can't really accurately answer this. You can take into effect how accurate the gun is, how fast the car is going, whether or not I'm facing the incoming object, if it's on a busy street, if there's anything to warn me about the bullet, what coverage there is, etc. etc.

Just in general, what has a better chance of knocking you out before you even saw it coming? Anything can do anything under x conditions. However, there's some inherent factors in cars and firing guns that make one more leathal over the other.

They both can. If you want to ask me what can do that better, the answer is obviously the bullet.

No-one said it doesn't matter how dangerous something is. However, you need to be able to justify the existence of dangerous objects in our society. Cars may be dangerous but they're vital to the functioning of our society. Guns are dangerous and they're only needed by a very small number of people.

Guns aren't allowed in the UK. People get stabbed instead.
I hope everyone uses tazers in the future.

Tazers are fun! Except when you die like an overfed goldfish.

You are arguing guns are better than cars?

Do you live in the deep south?

If so; pick ups are cars too.

No, he isn't really arguing that. He's just grasping at whatever he can to make his stance make sense to him. Whether he believes it or not. Similar to the good doctor in the other thread.

Nemo: Don't take offense to that. It happens to be true. However, everyone does that from time to time. Whenever people have a belief that they can't really explain, they do this. I have been guilty of it, as well.

In a blunt comparison we have:

1. A car capable of reaching a speed of 300 km/h in 30 seconds (for arguments sake).

2. A 9mm handgun with a 9mm bullet.

We put the two at the exact same point, 500 meters from the target; a person standing still. Assuming for a moment that the shooter of the gun has outstanding aim.

When we give the go, the car will start driving to the target at full speed and at the same time the gun will be fired. Now, by the time the bullet reaches the target the car won't even have driven 50 meters. So in terms of survivability I'd say your odds are a lot worse with a bullet.

This was Mythbusters with your favorite host; Havoc. See you next time!

Sooooooooo, is anyone on nemo's side?

I am, kinda. I don't agree with banning them, but I don't agree with handing them out like candy either. I lean towards the ban side though, slightly.

Yeah. I see it as the lesser of two evils. I don't like the idea of a privilege (no matter how mundane) being taken away, but when it could indirectly end up killing innocents, I see the importance of it.

The question is, did video kill the radio star with a gun or a car?

What?

Ugh.

That reminds me:

Why hate guns?

Guns make holes in your body
Through which you can't potty
Just your blood and guts spill out

I frown upon the use of 'potty' as a verb.
In seriousness, murder and violence are too frequent as it is. I don't want the relaxing of gun laws making it worse. (UK-based opinion)

I haven´t seen a single good argument about making them more legal.

So big no.

It's simple threat assessment. The intent of a person can change, the capability to harm however is what makes someone a threat.

Sure, you can use a car as a weapon, you could also use my desk chair, or a fork in an assault. Difference is, these were not designed nor built to be weapons.

A firearm however is a weapon. A well trained man with a firearm, is a threat. And by providing such weapons to the public, you create a great threat in the process. Who provides security for these weapons? Is an individual reliable enough to own a weapon and ensure it's not stolen? Do more citizens with firearms make the streets safer, or do people remain hesitant to act?

Further more, people have friends. People form gun-clubs and groups. What happens when one of these groups decides to turn hostile, or rob a bank? Will there be an armed response by the local public? Of course not. More men and women who upload the law will have to step in. And more officers will continue to risk their lives year after year as firearms continue to be sold to the public.

My opinion, firearms belong only in the Military and in Law Enforcement, not in the hands of a civilian.