I don't think this is a very apt comparison.
Cars are more prevalent in our society than guns and on average are used far more frequently and for much longer periods of time.
Also, cars have a primary purpose which is unrelated to the deaths they cause, while a primary purpose of a handgun is to shoot other human beings. Cars also fill a very real need for transportation, while for many owners, guns appear to fill a psychological need to feel protected. And this need is based on a false assumption, since handgun ownership in fact makes you and those around you statistically far less safe.
Well, for the purposes of this conversation it has been established that basically we are dealing with raw numbers as concerns causes of death.
Azdgari established this in reply #158
X = Murders that would occur if law-abiding citizens did not have firearms.
Y = Murders prevented by the fact that law-abiding citizens carry firearms.
Z = X - Y.
We don't need to have X and Y, because we have Z, and Z is what happens in the real world.
For the purpose of this discussion of constitutional rights, primary purpose is irrelevant. The purpose of a gun is determined by the person who wields it.
The problem is what should be done to reduce gun violence. How can we bring down Z?
Some people think the best plan is to ban private ownership.
Some people think the best plan is to impose stricter regulations.
It has been suggested we could make buying ammunition more burdensome.
MB and Brakeman choose to address what I agree is the root of the problem.
I am still trying to determine what Azdgari's point is.
My use of the Car analogy is apt when discussing public safety and individual responsibility. It is not equivalent in terms of constitutional rights however.
I have to get back to driving now. Just took a quicky lunch break. I'll be back laterz. When next we speak I will be in Decorah, IA...anyone know anything fun to do in that part of the country? It's going to be a short day for me.