Replies

Rush is Right there. Problem with your arguement. That may be true as far as it goes, but it does not refute the foundation of the cited statistic. A .50 Caliber is more likely to kill people in which it is involved in an shooting than a smaller .22 Caliber. Pressumably, in a large population the shooters of .22's and .50's are of equal ability (although the .50 caliber shooter is likely to have a higher testosterone level). Therefore, it must be the size and nature of the gun that accounts for the kill rate discrepancy. Thus, the nature of the .50 caliber itself is dangerous.

"....Rush is Right there. Problem with your arguement. That may be true as far as it goes, but it does not refute the foundation of the cited statistic. A .50 Caliber is more likely to kill people in which it is involved in an shooting than a smaller .22 Caliber. Pressumably, in a large population the shooters of .22's and .50's are of equal ability (although the .50 caliber shooter is likely to have a higher testosterone level). Therefore, it must be the size and nature of the gun that accounts for the kill rate discrepancy. Thus, the nature of the .50 caliber itself is dangerous....."

And your point is what?

The question at hand is whether people should choose to drive vehicles that are inherently more dangerous (i.e. are many times more likely to kill a third party in an auto accident)and wasteful (get significantly poorer gas mileage) than perfectly serviceable and safe alternatives with similar utility to the owner without compelling reason to do so. If there is any relevance to your analogy, it would be this: if a .22 caliber weapon serves its purpose (shooting rats or whatever) as well as another weapon, a .50 caliber weapon for example, that is fundamentally more dangerous to humans, why would one choose to use the more dangerous weapon? A reasonable man would only choose the potentially more dangerous weapon to shoot rats if he had some other compelling reason to do so.

With respect to SUVs, I grant that people who live in climates with frequent snow or who are outdoor enthusiasts or who pull heavy objects have compelling reasons to own SUVs. But what of the other 80% of SUV owners? What's their compelling reason to endanger other drivers and waste valuable resources?

Oh, I know. El Rushbo will tell me that if I don't want to be slaughtered by some SUV driver who imagines his two ton sledge handles like Ferrari, I should buy one myself. Then only a hapless third party will be turned into hamburger when the SUV Nikki Lauda t-bones me. Or, if I don't want to be killed by some rat hunter blasting away with a .50 caliber machine gun I should buy a RPG for self defense.

I'm not sure I follow any of this logic.

Regards