Recent Posts

Guns don’t make us safer; Airbags do: how the two differ, in spite of gun hugger comparisons

by Dog Gone on July 20, 2016

The RNC national convention is working overtime to make people feel afraid; it is some of the worst fear mongering, the most inaccurate passel of lies I have seen in a long time.  Outside of the convention it is an armed camp of paramilitary-armed people, despite the protests of Cleveland law enforcement who does not want them there because they pose a danger.

 

I recently read a discussion with someone who was intellectually dishonest, yet this person expected, one might say DEMANDED that he be regarded with trust and confidence from the rest of us when he carries a firearm in public.

 

I don’t have a lot of respect for the judgment or the integrity of someone who demonstrates both poor logical reasoning and intellectual dishonesty, including a willingness to engage in ad hominem attacks.  If your thinking is so flawed you think airbags are like guns, you need remedial education in how to think.  How you reach conclusions and the soundness of those conclusions matters, particularly if you are using the same mechanisms of judgment when you decide to use lethal force.  Carrying firearms in public without a pressing specific reason, such as working in the transfer of large amounts of money in an armored car, appeals to emotion, at the expense of critical thinking.  Emotion is a poor way to make decisions, particularly when it suppresses those critical thinking functions.  I would argue that carrying a gun does that, and there is scientific evidence to support that.  Science matters in separating fact from fiction, logic from emotion.  It enables us to make better decisions.

 

Just one of the failed arguments proffered was that there was no difference in protecting oneself and one’s family from intentional or accidental injury by having airbags in one’s car, and carrying a firearm to shoot someone to protect oneself and family.  Airbags make us all safer; firearms widely carried in public locations endanger us, making us all less safe, even the gun carrier, ESPECIALLY the gun carrier,  and they particularly endanger law enforcement.  There is no ambiguity in the numbers.  More guns invariably go hand in hand with more gun violence.  The difference in the numbers of guns, especially in public places, matters.

 

We were also told by the gun carrier that no matter how poorly reasoned, no matter how factually unfounded his conclusions or flawed his judgement, that his opinion was equal to the opposition opinion.  All opinions are not equal; some are sound opinions, and others are not.  The difference matters.

 

Here is a partial list of reasons why that is a faulty comparison:

1. Airbags are a passive defense against injury, triggered independently of individual choice or judgment; firearms are not.
2. Airbags are subject to extensive study, recall, and other consumer protections, including liability suits; firearms are not.
3. Airbags are required by law; firearms are not.
4. Airbags don’t accidentally injure innocent bystanders; firearms do.
5. Airbags are not a means to commit suicide; firearms are.
6. In the event of an airbag injury, nearly always there is only one victim; firearms frequently have multiple victims.
7. No one creates anything remotely like an arsenal of airbags, while firearms are stockpiled.
8. No one uses airbags to overthrow or attempt to overthrow government; the same is not true of airbags.
9. Airbags only work in close proximity; the same is not true for firearms.
10.Airbags are not essential for national defense, firearms are.
11. Airbags are not mentioned anywhere, directly or indirectly, in the U.S. Constitution; Arms are.
12.  Airbags have a single use after which they are discarded; this is not true of firearms.

Please feel free to add comments with any other ways in which airbags are NOT a legitimate comparison to firearms and personal safety.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: