Car accidents kills more than guns


One headline stated Secretary of State John Kerry plans to sign the U.N. Arms Treaty.

Will it reduce gun violence by forcing criminals to obey the law? If so I’m all for it.

If it will affect only those who abide by the law already, what is the point except to appease those who want to limit the rights of gun owners?

Fox News ( included the statement: “The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.” That seems pretty all-inclusive.

More laws and tighter gun restrictions do not equal less gun violence as proven by Chicago. Better enforcement of existing laws might help and cracking down on gangs affiliated with drug cartels would likely have a major effect.

My guess is Secretary Kerry’s mind is already made up and the pressure by the president and others is great but it is hoped he can justify his choice.

According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics ( more people in every age category die from unintentional motor vehicle collisions or other causes than by firearms, but that’s not what is emphasized by the mainstream media.

Jim Davison




chicoli says...

Car accidents kill more than guns? What a silly, tired argument! Well, let me think about it. Car accidents kill people at the same rate in all countries. Guns in the US kill people from 10 to 100 times more frequently than in any other industrialized country. To operate a car you need a "background check", take a test and buy liability insurance. You need to pay a registration and licence on a yearly basis. Yor licence can be removed, if you are proved to be an irresponsible driver. If you kill or injure someone with your car your insurance will cover the victim. One only wish that the same rules be applied to gun ownership! Law abiding citizens should not object to a 2-3 minutes background check.

To force criminals to obey the law? What a silly, tired argument! How about "if you are a criminal don't deny it to me". The definition of "criminal" is precisely the fact that they don't obey the law. We must deny their getting gun ownership by a good, thorough background check to start. So far more than one million Americans with unaceptable criminal records have been denied gun permits thanks to the Brady law. so it's doable. We certainly need to expand this law.

Posted 26 September 2013, 1:31 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

You define criminal as not obeying the law.

How about the 13 million illegal immigrants not obeying the law - don't you think they need a background check?

Secretary of State John Kerry signed away the lawful rights to gun owners by signing the UN Trade Treaty which is one of the most arrogant, ignorant moves to be taken yet by this Administration.

Posted 26 September 2013, 3:35 p.m. Suggest removal

downhillracer says...

Signing a treaty to reduce the weapons trade? Sounds pretty reasonable to me, but "Mr. Vet" seems to feel everything done by this administration is "arrogant, ignorant", so no one should be surprised by his random thoughts now focusing on immigration policy, versus the initial discussion of the international weapons business and the ridiculous assumption that "Obama is coming for my guns!" How very sad such a narrow and closed mind..

Posted 26 September 2013, 4:50 p.m. Suggest removal

barracuda says...

A honest question... No hidden agenda..
Can any one tell me how we can get the "criminal idiots" that want to kill people to abide by these new laws?
A lot of these thugs steal the guns from others. And my guess is that they are not going to give them up if the "other" criminal idiots still have their guns and plan to keep them.
I would be for some more laws and rules if would curtail the crimnals... But I cannot see that happening....
FYI... The cars kill more people argument is still very valid.... And still a fact of life that these new laws wont change.... Yet you and I get into a car every day and think nothing of it.... Hmmm

Posted 26 September 2013, 5:24 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

barracuda, my thought is that if we implement smart policies and do so consistently over time - 20 years, 30 years, 50 years - that the easy availability of guns will begin to dissipate for criminals. There is no 100% solution, but I think consistent, smart policies over time will help.

But we can't even agree to implement the same checks at gun shows and for online sales that have been in place for regular gun sales for years. The NRA cries, "They're taking away our guns!" and the bill dies. It's sad.

Posted 27 September 2013, 10:24 p.m. Suggest removal

barracuda says...

Even though on some instances I am on the NRA's side on issues, some times I cannot agree with its stance. Kind of like Politics and Party lines, huh. I am more of a Conservative than a Republican etc.
Yes, some areas of the gun laws need to be tightened up, to think that this is a way to stop the gun violence is a little ignorant, as most gun crimes already have laws pertaining to them.

Posted 28 September 2013, 8:01 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Clearly, the way you anticipate "easy availability . . . for criminals" dissipating is by reducing easy availability for everyone. I agree with you that over time, if guns were less available for everyone, they'd be less available to criminals. But I believe the availability would decline MUCH faster for the law-abiding than for the criminals, thereby making life much more dangerous for the non-criminal (not to mention depriving them of the inalienable right of self-defense). You may be satisfied with the increased assaults, rapes and murders of innocent people in the hope that it will eventually reduce the lethality of criminal conduct, but there is no real evidence that this would occur.

And it is disingenuous to claim that the laws being proposed "at gun shows" are the same as what has been in place for regular gun sales for years. Gun sales between private individuals are not in "interstate commerce" like a sale by Cabela's or Midway. It's a huge expansion of federal power to say they must submit to federal control.

Posted 28 September 2013, 8:34 p.m. Suggest removal

chicoli says...

Barracuda, in Israel practically every citizen has a weapon. They have to pass the most rigorous background check in the world, though. Moreover they have to wait months before they get their permit. If someone is cought cheating, the penalty is extremely stiff. There is a good template to copy in our country.

Sorry, if you and I don't have a valid liability insurance, proper licensing and registration we're not going to be able to get in our cars. By the way, your speed limit, parking and your car overall safety features are also regulated. And you believe you think nothing of it...Hmmm! Think again!

Posted 28 September 2013, 7:02 a.m. Suggest removal

barracuda says...

I agree we have to do something to make these terrible crimes go away.
But you guys cant really believe that just because a person dose not have a valid drivers license means one dose not drive. It is very common, so much that in our state we have to have extra protection in our insurance coverage for underinsured (no insurance) drivers. I see a lot of arrests in the U.B. regarding "no valid drivers license".
We read the newspapers and see on television EVERY day where people are killed by drunk drivers, which has the most simple laws regarding it. If you drink...*DONT* drive (as low as .02 for some instances) But you and I drive all of the time right by the idiots who will disobey those simple rules, and think nothing of it! So again, I cannot believe an of these thugs will hand over their guns.... It has to be through education etc. MOST crimes involving guns happen with illegal guns in the first place.

Posted 28 September 2013, 7:52 a.m. Suggest removal

jubilado says...

I'm getting very tired of the argument "criminals will always get guns, so your proposed background checks and other laws won't do any good." Since some criminals who shouldn't have guns, get them, the above argument says "we must give up--we can't do anything--no stronger background checks!" So we make it easy for them. Many criminals take advantage of the gun show loophole and private sales with no background checks, which leads the anti-background checks people to say "see they are getting guns." Duh.

Has the effort to cut traffic deaths worked over time? Yes it has. In 1952 the fatality rate for 1 million miles driven was 7.2. In 2010 the rate was 1.1. This is because as a society we did not throw up our hands and say "oh my, there is nothing we can do."
Moms Against Drunk Drivers, mandatory seat belt laws, are among the many reasons the number of traffic fatalities have fallen sharply over the years.

The number of gun related deaths and traffic deaths in 2010 were virtually equal.
You can look it up. (2010-32,885 traffic deaths)
(2010-31,672 firearm deaths)

Posted 26 September 2013, 6:34 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

We don't have to "do nothing." We can enforce the gun laws we have now. Every year, thousands of people who have no right to own guns give it a try, filing perjured background check applications, and when they're caught, they are NOT prosecuted. We're basically telling them, "Give it a try; if it doesn't work, no harm, no foul, and if it does, you get a gun."

Jubilado, we have reduced fatalities from drunk driving in large part by discouraging the law-abiding and those with a conscience from driving after drinking. We appealed to their consciences and we imposed penalties that would be and are laughed at by the hardened criminals, who still drive drunk or stoned, but that terrify the law-abiding. This was, in effect, a major cultural change. But the law-abiding and those with a conscience have never gone around shooting people. Trying to pass laws on guns based on what worked on DUIs is simply foolish.

Posted 28 September 2013, 9:36 p.m. Suggest removal

jubilado says...

PearlY you are still saying "No new laws." Really-never, ever? Without a stronger background check law the gun show loophole will remain big enough to drive several semi's through. And, of course we should enforce the laws we already have.

Can't we have a "cultural change" regarding gun laws. I fear you are a captive of the fallacious slippery slope argument. You mentioned only drunk drivers in regard to my, I think, fair comparison between traffic fatalities and gun deaths. I remember many people saying "I'll never wear seat belts" years ago. Eventually they did. There are many reasons the traffic fatality rate dropped from 7.2 to 1.1. You chose one aspect.

I own guns and I can't see why some supposedly "responsible gun owners" are so frightened by stronger background checks. Polls show that nationally even a majority of NRA households favor the change.

Posted 28 September 2013, 10:03 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

I didn't say "no new laws." That's your take. I can think of a number of new laws that actually would reduce gun violence, principally in the area of juvenile justice, sentencing reform, post-release community supervision, and mental illness. If reducing gun violence were really the point, that's where the discussions would be happening.

Polls show millions of people are believers in astrology, but I don't favor laws enacted on that basis, either.

Anyway, the only poll I'm aware of that show what you say is one by a political media consultant who refuses to report most of his methodology or even the actual questions asked. On the gun control poll, all he will say about who was polled is 945 people half of whom were never members of the NRA and half who were EITHER current OR lapsed members of the NRA. He refused to release the data on how many in the second group were actually current members, so conceivably there could be NO current NRA members polled, and he refuses to release the actual questions asked, and how the poll respondents were selected. I don't find it credible. I know a couple dozen real NRA members, and only one is even on the fence on this issue; the rest all oppose.

The reason I am frightened by stronger background checks is simple:

Point 1: In every other country where guns ended up being confiscated, the process started and was aided by national registration, of which universal background checks is a variant.

Point 2: The obvious aim of most of those currently advocating universal background checks is a form of gun ownership slightly stricter than what prevailed in Washington DC before the Heller decision, namely, a virtual ban. Since universal background checks are obviously of little value in reducing actual gun violence and no one seriously argues otherwise, it is logical to assume that the goal of these groups is exactly that - a ban, and not really a reduction in gun violence.

Since I don't want an ultimate gun ban, I see it as dangerous to allow any laws to be enacted that will do little good AND will significantly advance the ease of a ban. I'm completely open to considering laws that WOULD really be effective at reducing gun violence.

I take a long term view of this. A gun ban is unlikely in the next 10-15 years and by then, my hands will probably be too arthritic to do much with one. So my concern is for the future generations, and the country as a whole. But I'm well aware that those on the other side of this issue are taking a long-term view of this too. Some horrific policies, such as fully socialized health care and total dependency on government, started in the 1930s and are only coming to fruition today, with a ways still to go even for those.

You are a captive of the fallacious logical conclusion that because not everything is a slippery slope therefore there are no slippery slopes.

Posted 29 September 2013, 7:54 a.m. Suggest removal

jubilado says...

If you buy a gun from a federally licensed dealer you do have a background check and this has been the case for years. What's the problem with requiring checks on the people who are now outside the system, if they are in fact responsible people who have every right to own guns. Millions have had background checks. Has the government made any move to break down their door and seize their guns? There were many national polls, not the single poll you mentioned, which showed and overwhelming majority of Americans want to tighten background checks to include those who can now circumvent the system.

The Second Amendment to many is THE most important part of the Bill of Rights. Fine. You have several hundred years of US history and the Supreme court to ease your mind that gun seizure won't happen. A politician at any level who came out for seizure of all guns would not only not get reelected, he or she undoubtedly wouldn't see many more sunrises.

I-594 is not about gun control. A 594 field representative came through Walla Walla. He owns guns. So did his father and grandfather. I own guns. The measure is simply an attempt to keep guns away from people who know they can't go to a federally licensed dealer and purchase a weapon. At present the gun show loophole offers a ridiculously easy way to circumvent the system.

I'm very worried about the NSA, about the TPP treaty, about Citizens United which allows the wealthy and corporations and unions to donate unlimited amounts out of their treasuries (often not anonymously) to political campaigns, about corporations basically owning the Congress.

I am not worried about gun seizure. If you think that it's a real future possibility, then there is really no reason for us to waste any more time exchanging thoughts. I will say that, while I don't agree with your line of reasoning, at least it rises above the level of "your old lady wears combat boots"comments so often found here.

Posted 30 September 2013, 10:20 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Jubilado, let me run some scenarios by you and then tell me it is not a burden for people in these situations to be forced to run a background check:

1. A good friend, whom I know to own a handgun, is suffering a major emotional breakdown after a divorce and some financial setbacks. Fearing he might commit suicide, I insist he turn his gun over to me. He does, and I store it in my safe. Should we both be felons? Should I forever be banned from owning guns in the future? Should my only alternative be to try to get him involuntarily committed (which would likely have failed, since he had made no threats of harm or self-harm) and worsen his emotional and financial state? Or should I have tried to get a severely depressed man to run a background check on me and if I was even able to do that, wait for two to four weeks before taking the gun from him?

2. My dad's next door neighbor and good friend of over 10 years had a chance to go on a hunting trip, but the night before departure discovered his own rifle was non-functional. My dad lent him his own rifle, so he could go on his long-awaited trip. Should they both have been forced to endure months or years of legal wranglings, criminal charges, attorney fees and possible criminal records?

3. When my young-adult nephew is, in his father's opinion, mature enough, he will receive as gifts several firearms passed down in the family over many years, one of them carried across the country to Alaska during the Gold Rush. Do you think it's really likely that NICS knows that young man better than his father does?

These are just a few of the examples from my own life where a background check for transactions between private individuals would impose a substantial burden or a substantial risk, for no discernible benefit.

Posted 1 October 2013, 7:51 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment