Letter: Automobiles kill people

In the news media for a while now, we have been hearing about gun control — nothing about auto or 18-wheeler control.

Last year (2011) in the United States (statistics from the Internet) approximately 10,000 people were killed by guns (murder, suicide etc.) Last year (2011) approximately 32,500 people were killed by autos.

As you can see, there were three people killed by auto for every one killed by a gun. I would venture to say that the people who want gun control are the same people who will scream the loudest if there is a law passed to ban autos.

One death by a gun is one too many. One death by an auto is one too many.

Edwin LaFleur

retired Exxon senior operator

Crowley

Comments

1) Comment by wadep66 - 14/01/2013

Statistics lesson: You use a rate per given unit to compare things. Example: NHTSA shows 15.65 people killed per 100,000 licensed drivers in 2010, down from 23.21 in 1994. So cars are getting SAFER. Get it?

2) Comment by wadep66 - 14/01/2013

This is the worst letter to the editor in a long time. Let's talk about how heavily regulated the auto industry is. Much more than the gun makers. Cars are subject to EPA, NHTSA, DOT regs just to name a few. With airbags, seatbelts, safety locks, etc. You have to take a test and get a license to drive, right? The rate of those killed by autos has plummeted over the years. Do some research. Oh, and here's another minor point. CARS ARE MADE TO TRANSPORT PEOPLE. GUNS ARE MADE TO KILL PEOPLE. See the difference?

3) Comment by DMJ - 14/01/2013

Mr. LaFluer is wrong in his stats. 10,000 murderd by guns, with another 20,000 using guns to commit suicide. This number is rapidly approaching the number of people killed in autos. Doesn't the Advocate even bother to do a cursory fact check on these letters? Also, no one is suggesting we ban all guns, just that we enact some sensible gun control. And of course no one is suggesting banning cars, though less driving in general would be a huge step for public safety. Besides, it's a bogus comparison anyway- autos are transportation; guns are weapons. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

4) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 13/01/2013

Scrooge, some interesting reading that I just posted on another thread.... These Acts were passed a mere 5 months after the Bill of Rights was ratified. In case anyone is confused on what a well regulated militia is... http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm /// Every white male from 18-45 was required to be armed but here is my favorite part... "That it shall be the duty of the brigade inspector, to attend the regimental and battalion meeting of the militia composing their several brigades, during the time of their being under arms, to inspect their arms, ammunition and accoutrements..." So who will be first in line to bring their weapons in to the local National Guard armory for inspection?

5) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 13/01/2013

Scrooge, don't expect a response to your first question. They know there isn't one.

6) Comment by Scrooge - 12/01/2013

"Guns aren't made for the express purpose of killing people," Right, so what would protection entail? Why are some many in denial about this fact? By sports do you mean hunting? The primary intended purpose of weapons as the framers intended is to kill and maim. Period. Otherwise, why why would the framers insert the second amendment? Constitutional rights for sports? I do not believe that y'all can be that stupid. Protection could be construed as original intent , yes. I am not disputing the validity of second amendment, only the interpretation of its purpose by "pantywaists" who don't seem to want to admit what weapons do, one wonders that given the opportunity how these "pantywaists' would react if they cannot acknowledge what it is they have these weapons for. Owning a weapon is not a extension of one's manhood, as in "mine is bigger then yours" anymore than questioning the validity of arguments is weak and does cast concerns about the mental health of the more vocal proponents. Obviously hand grenades are banned for good reason and deaths by grenade in the US are nil, yet there is no correlation?

7) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 12/01/2013

Painty waists? Lol. Hey, Yahoo, what part of "well-regulated" did you fail to read in that amendment?

8) Comment by Bighug - 12/01/2013

Guns aren't made for the express purpose of killing people, Scrooge. Most people use them for sports or protection. I've never killed anyone with a gun, though I own several.

9) Comment by chem - 12/01/2013

So even with licensing and other controls/ training, the automobile kills three times the number of people that guns do. Or rather, the people driving the autos kill the people. Guns are used for their intended purpose, and yet, people driving automobiles kill many more people. The number of guns in the hands of responsible owners is in the millions and those guns are used responsibly every day. the few criminals/loonies commiting murders is but a tiny fraction of gun owners.

10) Comment by LSUinVail - 12/01/2013

For the painty-waists posting here, you are correct, driving an auto has been heavily regulated and restricted. The difference here is that there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the rights of the people to keep and bear automobiles shall not be infringed.

11) Comment by dday198 - 12/01/2013

walmart stupid

12) Comment by Mygulfbleedsforu - 12/01/2013

Once again, we have a false equivalency. "Control" and "ban" are used in the same sentence, comparatively, as though controlling means banning. There is control over automobile usage. You must be licensed and able to prove it, and if you are not, your auto can be taken from you. To first be licensed you must pass written, vision, and actual driving tests. And you know what? NO ONE COMPLAINS. What you don't know, Mr. LaFleur, is what the statistics would be on automobile safety if there were no regulations.

13) Comment by postscript56 - 12/01/2013

Can you drive your 4-wheeler down Airline Hwy? Can you take a formula one or nascar race-ready vehicle out on the road? How about a tank? There are all sorts of restrictions on what vehicles can be driven on public use roads. Without those restrictions there would likely be even more vehicle-related deaths. No one is prevented from owning or driving a vehicle (unless they lose that privilege) - only the type of vehicle that can be used on public roads. We can apply the same thinking to gun ownership without bringing about the downfall of America.

14) Comment by Scrooge - 12/01/2013

There are several paradoxes with this argument: automobiles aren't created for the express purpose of killing people and automobiles have very strict registration and licensing requirements. Automobiles are used by the vast majority of people on a daily basis for the purpose for which they were intended; if guns were used like automobiles for their purpose the carnage would be unimaginable.

15) Comment by Bighug - 12/01/2013

Banning autos may be a little drastic, but what about requiring a search of the person's background and a mental test before allowing their purchase? Also, require the owner to keep it locked and control access to the key. What about those big gas-guzzlers? They are suitable only for police work and should not be allowed to be owned by private citizens.