When a 2A advocate compares guns to autos, ask about the Corvair

[bigbrother05]

One of the go-to arguments is that cars kill more than guns, but no one wants to ban them.

What about the Corvair that was taken off the market after public outrage (Ralph Nader) after a few deaths that were attributed to design deficiencies. Same could be said about the Pinto and side tanks on pickups.

The auto makers respond to many factors to change designs for safety and efficiency, so why don't the weapons manufacturers?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. It's a ridiculous analogy in the first place.

The intended function of cars is transportation. The intended function of guns is killing. The Corvair was taken off the market because it did not adequately fulfill its intended function of transportation; that is, it was defective because it killed people instead of transporting them. If a gun's intended function is killing, it's defective if it doesn't kill.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. The car/gun analogy literally drives me (pun intended) up the wall

Nobody can prove me to me that the function of a gun is or even can be anything other than maiming or killing or destroying something.

[rogue emissary]

2. Great rebuttal to the cars kill more . . .

Yet we ban, regulate and restrict who can drive them.

[aikoaiko]

14. And we already do that with fireams.

[rogue emissary]

15. Then there should be no problem with what Beto, Harris Swalwell and other have proposed.

[aikoaiko]

16. We ban, regulate and restrict the individuals who can drive cars for cause.

Beto wants to take away guns from everyone without cause.

[rogue emissary]

36. People have all sorts of items confiscated if they are deemed unsafe.

[aikoaiko]

44. Like what? Let's talk about the examples you're thinking about.

Because we didn't even confiscate machine guns when we regulated them (1934) or banned subsequent purchases (1986).

[rogue emissary]

48. Go to an airport with any item that's sharp.

Even if you don't have a criminal record or attempt to bring them on the flight. The TSA will take and not return. Guns, knives, box cutters to name a few items they deem as dangerous.

[aikoaiko]

49. Ok, but that occurs in a secure area -- not every area of life.

I can still own and use my unregulated, unregistered, unlicensed box cutter outside secured areas.

But more to my point, we are allowed to possess many things that could be misused for harming others in great numbers.

[rogue emissary]

67. Beto's policy propot the gun is the cause.

You can't hunt with it effectively. You have to go to a range designed for a long guns. Certainly can't use it to protect your home or person. It's only designed to kill humans on the battle filed.

[aikoaiko]

69. Beto is just plain wrong about all of that.

Last edited Sun Sep 15, 2019, 06:27 PM - Edit history (1)

In GA where the deer are smallish and hogs about the same size, the 5.56 round out of an AR is plenty effective. Go ahead and google Hunting with AR and you'll see lots of effective hunting pictures. Many states let people hunt with 3 or 5 round magazines with any rifle.

You can challenge yourself with an AR at 25 yards ranges where pistols and rifles are used. You don't need long range distances to shot an AR.

It is a great weapon for self/home defense. If I were faced with a dangerous intruder in my home, the weapon I would want the most is my short-barrel AR-15. A shouldered firearm is usually more stable than a pistol to shoot and a single rifle round at room-sized distances would likely be effective to stop a person right there. The only problem with an AR for self-home defense is access if you have it locked up. There are a lot of biometric quick-access handgun safes for handguns that can live on countertops, bookshelves, or end tables, but fewer more expensive options for long guns.

Beto likes to talk about "body shredding" bullets, but in an actual self-defense situation that is what you want. You want a single bullet (preferably hollow-point) to damage the person enough that they are no longer a threat. Shotguns "body shred" too if you use buckshot. And there really isn't a bigger hole than on created with a shotgun slug when considering usual firearms.

I get it. Even though handguns are used more frequently in mass shootings, some of the most terrible ones have used AR15 and that made an impact on him. Hence, his desire to confiscate evil black rifles.

Semi-auto AR15s are NOT usually provided to IS personell entering the battle field.

[Polybius]

63. The government has never threatened to take a entire series of cars away from owners

They only get taken if you owe money and don't pay, or (in NY) if you drive drunk.

[rogue emissary]

66. They've recalled cars determined dangerous or defective.

Doesn't mean they physically take it away from you. If for example they won't allow you to get a tag for the car or drive it on the street. They have effectively taken that car away from you since you can't drive it without tag and inspection sticker etc.

[jpak]

29. So, we can register gunz like cars - and make stupid gun nutz get a license too?

And make them pay an excise tax?

Do tell

[aikoaiko]

43. Yes we could.

Of course, by analogy, that means any guns (even machine guns) could be possessed and used on private property without licenses or registration.

No one needs to be licensed to drive a car on private property nor have their vehicle registered, insured, or otherwise declared to any level of government. Think non-street-legal race cars.

But you're right, we can use the car and licensing model.

[jpak]

46. Unless you make your own gunz - they would have to be possessed off your property

at the gun show/shop at the time of purchase.

and subject to federal age limits, gun-ed, permits, licenses, registration and insurance

and no more sleezy on-line buys without background checks

[DVRacer]

4. That is untrue about the Corvair

The model sold for 10 years from October 1959 to April 1970. It was no more unsafe than an other car of the era according to independent government tests. What was different was the engine in the rear that Americans at the time were unfamiliar with like a Porsche 911/912. The Corvair continued sales 5 years after Ralph wrote his book. What killed the Corvair was pony cars and big blocks.

[bigbrother05]

8. Pony cars didn't kill the VW, but GM wanted to avoid the grief

Generally agree that the Corvair wasn't nearly the hazard Nader portrayed, but the doubts crept in.

Think the lesson Detroit took was that small, efficient cars weren't for them. This led to the rise of Japanese vehicles in that niche and the rest is auto history.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. And, as I remember, all you had to do was install a stabilizer bar in the back...

and like magic you reduced the rollover possibility. Why GM didn't design it in is a mystery.

Rear engines do increase oversteer, which in itself is not a bad thing-- I used to have great fun sliding around curves in Porsches and rear engine Fiats with some Abarth parts.

The thing is that the worst oversteer tends to happen when you're not having fun, just driving like an asshole. Cars in the '60s had far more problems with bad brakes and killer steering wheels.

[DVRacer]

11. Yup gotta remember slow in fast out

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

37. GM changed the suspension after the first few years.

They dumped the swing axle and changed to independent suspension. Before that, they added a stabilizer to the swing axle. Mostly, it drove ok.

Early Beetle rear suspension was also just a swing axle. Since they were round bodies, nobody noticed when they rolled.

[Doc_Technical]

24. Tell that to Ernie Kovacs.

[struggle4progress]

5. When Americans spent as much time with their guns as they spend with their cars,

we'll see a dramatic increase in firearms deaths

[Paladin]

23. Excellent point.

That's why pro-gun advocates never win the guns vs. cars debate. As I've said on prior occasions, the ratio between active car usage (actually driving from point A to point B) and the active use of guns (pulling the trigger and expending a round) in this country has got to be something huge, like 10,000,000-to-1, every day. So much for the cars kill more people than guns argument.

[Yavin4]

6. Everything that can create a potential harm or death to citizens are regulated

From cars to cigarettes to alcohol to toxic chemicals and beyond, are highly regulated. There are age restrictions on sales, inspections, restrictions on point of sales, restrictions on who can buy them, etc.

I need to show ID just to buy Nyquil.

[TruckFump]

7. I nominate the Ford Pinto

That not only killed, but maimed and disfigured people because of the exploding gas tank.

[Hotler]

10. The industry can't fix the person connected to the trigger finger. nt

[Straw Man]

12. Um...

The auto makers respond to many factors to change designs for safety and efficiency, so why don't the weapons manufacturers?

They do. Google "SIG P320 recall" and "Remington 700 recall." Granted that it was done under substantial outside pressure, but the same is true of car manufacturers.

[coti]

13. Cars make better analogies FOR regulating guns than against

By quite a bit

[wellst0nev0ter]

17. I wish we could regulate guns LIKE cars

[Straw Man]

18. Me too.

Fifty-state reciprocity for concealed carry would be great. It works for driver's licenses. Why not handgun permits?

[wellst0nev0ter]

20. Can you conceal/carry cars?

Then you can't conceal carry guns. Simple.

[Straw Man]

31. But you can "open carry" cars anywhere.

So you can open carry guns anywhere.

Reductio ad absurdum.

[wellst0nev0ter]

33. You can't physically carry cars

Especially not in stores or in other buildings, so your argument makes no sense. Reply when you're ready to argue in good faith.

[Straw Man]

38. As I said before ...

Last edited Sat Sep 14, 2019, 04:59 PM - Edit history (1)

... reductio ad absurdum.

You're the one who wants to treat guns like cars, and then you proceed to explain why that is impossible. Is that you call "good faith"?

[Straw Man]

40. So by your logic ...

... we should require seatbelts and airbags on guns, right?

Have you ever heard of an analogy?

[wellst0nev0ter]

52. Soo... different things get regulated differently then?

What a novel concept!

[Straw Man]

55. Um ... do you remember how you started this sub-thread?

I'll help you out:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12463015

[wellst0nev0ter]

58. I meant to say "to the same extent as cars"

Didn't know you took that literally, my apologies.

[Straw Man]

59. Here we go 'round the mulberry bush.

We're back where we started. And now I reply ...

If we regulated guns "to the same extent as cars," one could use a concealed carry permit to carry a registered gun in all 50 states. You were the one who wanted to go all literal, with this post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12463815

[wellst0nev0ter]

61. Actually, that's not a bad idea

But instead of concealed carry licenses, we have gun licenses period. You want to own or operate a gun, you need a license.

A concealed carry license will be recognized across state lines, but as a responsible gun owner, you obey state laws. If a state says you can't conceal carry in 99% of situations, you comply.

Would that work for you?

[Straw Man]

62. Make up your mind: Should gun licensing be done at the state level, or the federal level?

A concealed carry license will be recognized across state lines, but as a responsible gun owner, you obey state laws. If a state says you can't conceal carry in 99% of situations, you comply.

That is the current status quo for reciprocity arrangements. A 50-state reciprocity arrangement would involve some kind of federal mandate. That could open up the possibility of Supreme Court appeals if some states' laws were challenged as too restrictive.

Would that work for you?

[wellst0nev0ter]

65. Are drivers' licenses offered at the state or federal level?

And if you are incapable of following laws passed in a state, you shouldn't own a gun.

If legal precedence were a thing anymore, such a challenge would be thrown out of court.

[Straw Man]

68. State level. Recognized nationally.

Drivers adhere to the laws of the state in which they are driving. Nothing new here, and nothing that wouldn't be equally applicable to 50-state concealed carry.

And if you are incapable of following laws passed in a state, you shouldn't own a gun.

I don't know of any state that doesn't revoke concealed carry permits following felony convictions. But there's a lot to be considered before you can make the above blanket statement, i.e. the level of the offense, mitigating circumstances, etc. Google "Shaneen Allen" and let's talk about how, under current laws, making a wrong turn in your car can make the difference between being a felon and being a perfectly law-abiding citizen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/22/shaneen-allen-race-and-gun-control/

[wellst0nev0ter]

70. It's easier to NOT conceal carry a gun

than it is to avoid a BS traffic stop. In Allen's case, a little police and judicial discretion would have been nice.

[Straw Man]

71. I disagree wholeheartedly.

Discretionary application of confusing and arbitrary laws encourages favoritism and abuse of power. Better to have clear and equitable laws that are universally enforced.

Your response confirms my belief that a lot of gun control laws are intended merely to discourage the possession of guns rather than to promote any actual public safety.

[JonLP24]

19. Another problem is there is more licensing and testing than some cases guns

The analogy falls apart after that.

[Martin Eden]

21. Also tell the 2A folks who compare cars to guns:

You have to pass a test to obtain a driver's license.

Every car is registered to its owner, with transfer of title upon sale.

In many states insurance is a requirement.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. In many states...

...training and licenses are required to carry in public.
Registration is only required for driving on public roads.
A license isn't required to buy or own a car.

[Straw Man]

41. Except for the insurance ...

You have to pass a test to obtain a driver's license.

Every car is registered to its owner, with transfer of title upon sale.

In many states insurance is a requirement.

... this is already the case for handguns in many states. Yet unlike driver's licenses, handgun permit reciprocity is not universal in the United States.

So would you agree that licensing of gun owners and registration of handguns should lead to 50-state reciprocity, just as with driver's licenses and car registrations?

[Martin Eden]

50. Universal across all states

Pass a test and a background check to obtain a license.

Gun sales only by licensed dealers subject to audits of sales & inventory.

Registration of firearm to owner with transfer of title.

Lost or stolen firearms must be promptly reported to proper authority, or owner has a degree of liability for crime committed with their firearm.

[Straw Man]

56. And then we can have 50-state reciprocity for concealed carry?

Sounds good to me. Sign me up.

[Martin Eden]

57. I didn't say that.

All my suggestions were aimed at controlling the distribution of firearms.

Concealed carry is another matter altogether.

[Straw Man]

60. We're talking about the cars/guns analogy.

Certainly it's relevant to discuss what the licensees can do with their licensed guns.

This is the much vaunted "conversation" about gun control. I think it would be a reasonable compromise: exchange licensing of guns and gun owners at the federal level with 50-state reciprocity for carry.

[Iggo]

25. When a car kills someone, it's not because it's doing what it's designed to do.

[Iggo]

26. Also, they run from that comparison when it comes to registration and insurance.

[guillaumeb]

27. A car is desgined for transport.

A firearm is designed to kill.

[jpak]

28. A car *accident* is just that - a mass murder is a deliberate act

Gun nuts can shove their stupid AR-15s where the sun don't shine.

Yup

[randr]

30. Ralph has a credibility problem

While going after the Corvair he was on Board with Ford. The Ford Pinto had a worse record for rear end fire deaths than the Corvair.
The auto industry saw the Corvair, GM's answer to the VW, as a threat. Following the law suit the US auto industry dropped any move toward more efficient cars, the muscle cars ruled, and the foreign auto industry moved in. We all know the results to the mid-west industrial sector.

[Straw Man]

39. Allow me to nitpick.

While going after the Corvair he was on Board with Ford. The Ford Pinto had a worse record for rear end fire deaths than the Corvair.

Corvairs and Pintos weren't on the market at the same time. Production of Corvairs ended in 1969. Nader's indictment of the Corvair, Unsafe At Any Speed, came out in 1965. The Pinto was launched in 1970.

[randr]

42. My memory does not serve me well

Ford may have had another model at the time with similar problems, probably not the Pinto as you point out .

[Straw Man]

45. Could it have been the Mustang?

At first I thought of the Edsel, but that line ended just when the Corvairs came out: 1960.

[randr]

47. May very well have been

[pintobean]

32. You're citing fake news.

[Stuart G]

34. 3 Ideas many young people do not know:

1. Ralph Nader
2. Ford Pinto
3. Corvair

[Initech]

35. Cars have many different functions. Weapons only have one.

[MichMan]

51. Target shooting? Skeet shooting? Thinning overpopulation of deer?

[Initech]

54. They're for killing tasty animals and keeping the king of England out of your face!

/Simpsons

[Crunchy Frog]

53. They don't design cars to kill as many people as possible.

You also have to register your car, have it inspected regularly, have a license and insurance to use it, and follow very strict regulations while driving.

[jmowreader]

64. Corvairs didn't kill. Corsair DEALERS killed

Corvairs have the engine in the back. On all mid-engine and rear-engine cars, you must have more tire in the back than the front...either by putting wider tires on like supercars do, or with more air pressure like VW Bugs have. If you don’t do it this way, the car handles weird and will crash.

GM apparently published service bulletins explaining the need for this, but the dealers paid no heed.

Of course, if GM would have looked at the Beetle and thought ‘our customers want a cheap, fun small car that gets good gas mileage” rather than “our customers want a car with the engine in the back,” they could have done a Vega-like car in 1963.