In 2013 guns claimed the lives of over 33,000 people, while cars claimed just under 33,000 lives. A lot of people suggest that gun fatalities would be lessened if guns were regulated like cars are, this Is the point that Nicholas Kristof talks about in his New York Times essay “Our Blind Spot about Guns”. Others point out that cars and guns are not the most accurate analogy, like Guns.com writer Greg Camp in his article “Guns are not cars; cars are not guns”. Regulating guns as much as we regulate cars can possibly render guns useless and may even invade our gun rights.
In “Our Blind Spot about Guns”, Kristof observes that changing laws and adding special features to cars made the number of car fatalities drop and argues that doing the same …show more content…
Side by side he tells us what problems are in the analogy, from the rights of them both to the purpose of the items. Camp notes “cars and guns are both property. They are both mechanical devices. They are both commonly owned, and this ubiquity has consequences for the lives of the owners and the people around them.” (5) There are major consequences to both items. With cars, it’s hard to avoid a lot of danger, but responsible gun owners can lessen deaths by doing simple things like making sure the safety on their guns are on and keep guns in areas not accessible to kids. Another thing camp talks about is not needing training to use a gun because it’s a right. (7-9) I don’t really agree with this. I think teaching people how to use a gun can probably reduce the already minimal accidental shootings. The next thing Camp mentions is “the most common point of failure, though, in drawing analogies between guns and cars is in the comparison of purpose. Yes, we mandate safety devices on cars. That’s because a car works best when we minimize risks of injury in contrast a gun is a weapon.” He goes on to point out that “a safe gun is no gun at all. It’s merely an oddly shaped paperweight.”
In “Our Blind Spot about Guns”, Kristof observes that changing laws and adding special features to cars made the number of car fatalities drop and argues that doing the same …show more content…
Side by side he tells us what problems are in the analogy, from the rights of them both to the purpose of the items. Camp notes “cars and guns are both property. They are both mechanical devices. They are both commonly owned, and this ubiquity has consequences for the lives of the owners and the people around them.” (5) There are major consequences to both items. With cars, it’s hard to avoid a lot of danger, but responsible gun owners can lessen deaths by doing simple things like making sure the safety on their guns are on and keep guns in areas not accessible to kids. Another thing camp talks about is not needing training to use a gun because it’s a right. (7-9) I don’t really agree with this. I think teaching people how to use a gun can probably reduce the already minimal accidental shootings. The next thing Camp mentions is “the most common point of failure, though, in drawing analogies between guns and cars is in the comparison of purpose. Yes, we mandate safety devices on cars. That’s because a car works best when we minimize risks of injury in contrast a gun is a weapon.” He goes on to point out that “a safe gun is no gun at all. It’s merely an oddly shaped paperweight.”