Comment rescue: your Editor on the Delaware Liberal

Our good friends at the Delaware Liberal are all up in arms — pun most definitely intended — about guns being legal, because of the massacre by a wimpy guy who couldn’t get laid, Elliot Rodgers. I’ll leave the stories about Mr Rodger in the fine hands of Patterico and Robert Stacey Stacy McCain (that’s three separate links for Mr McCain), but I wanted to record this into-moderation comment I left on the Delaware Liberal, because it contains some important statistics:

Dana says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 26, 2014 at 3:04 pm

radef16 wrote:

Say that the perpretartor took his BMW at 100 mph and aimed it toward the largest group of students that he could find. Many would have been killed and seriously injured. What would your response be in that case?

Unfourtunatly, for you, guns connote only the negative.That is your opinion and I respect it. Why are you so unable to respect my opinion? Are you somehow better than me? Maybe more “enlightened?”

Almost 100 years ago alcohol was the object blamed as the root of all evil. So much so that a constitutional amendment was passed to ban it entirely.

We all know how that worked out.

Well, if you search this fine site for “marijuana,” you’ll find a fair amount of support for legalizing yet another intoxicant, which would result in more people on the road driving stoned. And though it has been awhile, this site used to sponsor “drinking liberally” get togethers, parties at local taverns and other establishments which served alcoholic beverages. Given that these parties were widely spaced out geographically, it meant that almost all of the participants would have had to have driven to them, thus greatly increasing the probabilities that some of them would have been driving back with blood alcohol levels in excess of the legal limit.

The good folks of the Delaware Liberal do not have what I would call a sterling record when it comes to wanting to crack down on the intoxicated getting behind the wheel of two tons of rolling death, even though, in 2011, there was one alcohol-related automobile fatality every 53 minutes, 9,878 people were killed in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes. During the same year, there were 8,583 people murdered, with all types of firearms, in the United Statesfewer than were killed by alcohol-related wrecks.

There are something like 310 million firearms in civilian hands in this country, and roughly 254 million automobiles registered in the United States.

The odds that an individual American will be killed by a firearm are .00279%; the odds that an individual American will be killed by an alcohol-related automobile accident are .00389%, right at 40% higher, but our good friends at the Delaware Liberal don’t want to ban automobiles, and have been rather blasé about driving while intoxicated. But, then again, perhaps now that they are aware of the statistics, perhaps they’ll convert over to a ban-the-Buick status.

Jason330, the site owner, does not particularly like or respect me, which is absolutely his privilege, and my comments have “been disappeared” from that site before, which is why I wanted to reproduce this one here (very slightly edited). What the anti-Second Amendment left will not tell you is that you are far more likely to be killed by an automobile than by a firearm, despite their arguments that the sole purpose of the firearm is to cause death, while the automobile has many more purposes than killing people.

Comments are closed.