why do pro-gun folks compare drunk driving to guns/?

Though I agree with your point about the comparison, I wouldn't say that stricter regulations that make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to obtain guns are going to solve everything.

But, I am not here to argue. The comparison is made due to the number of people that die in car accidents per year. Drunk driving, being one of the causes of accidents, is illegal, and yet it cannot be prevented as well as people would like. Guns, and shootings in gun-free zones, are compared to in the sense that that though there are already regulations, some people feel that the law does not apply to them. Even though regulation is stricter, it still occurs. Shootings, even if you make gun ownership almost impossible, are still going to happen. Places with stricter regulation has shown to have higher crime rate and murder by hand gun rates while the laws were in effect. Besides, there are plenty of stories that have shown that having a gun can prevent a shooting. Like the shooting in the theater around this last Christmas (Dec. 16, 2012) in San Antonio. And that shooting in Old Sacramento this New Years. Both were stopped by someone else with a gun, yet the media fails to do it's job to report the story, or the entire story.

Making something against the law will not always stop it.. examples.. War on drugs,Drunk driving!!. If guns were ever against the law than only the bad guys would have them..

As for school guards.

We could use the money we give to countries that hate us,our children are more important!!

Having a gun will not help all the time but being defenseless will never help..

Isn't it better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!

A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again."

licensing guns will no more stop deaths by gun than licensing drivers will stop drivers from driving drunk (or texting while driving, or falling asleep at the wheel, etc).

We also cannot register people who steal guns any more than we can register people who steal cars. Only AFTER the fact can the law do something about them.

registering guns will not stop them from being stolen, any more than registering cars means they are never stolen.

revoking licenses of drunk drivers often happens before they are in an accident. Under this logic, you would need to take away any gun seen in public that seems even remotely threatening [even Hello Kitty bubble guns - if you saw that bit of Yahoo news] to insure that no one pulled a trigger and shot anyone.

^^ and that violates our 2nd amendment rights

P S before you start calling people stupid, serve in the United States military to better understand the sacrifice it has taken to gain and maintain the rights we have (including free speech).

Anti-gun administration. I stay interior the west and that i don't have faith that removing all weapons will help any of the crimes taking place. i don't, inspite of the undeniable fact that, use my weapons as a ability of killing others. i take advantage of my rifles for searching throughout the fall, and that's it. I additionally carry around a small snub nostril hand gun for self-protection yet i've got on no account had to apply it.... yet. If the government takes away our rights to our weapons what is going to they get rid of next? Our astounding to determine on our religious course? (i'm confident a definite team would basically love that) If and while the government starts off removing our modification rights it relatively is while united states of america would be heading into some extreme difficulty.

The point is that a car is an inanimate objects that is also is used in the deaths of many ppl yet ppl aren't irrationally calling for massive restrictions on it with the intent of eventually making one illegal.

Now wipe the drool off your chin because what we did there is called an "analogy", we are not stating that a gun IS a car but for purposes of illustration it is also an inanimate object that causes the deaths of many (more) ppl every year.

Let me know if I can straighten out any other very basic information for you.

I've actually never heard that comparison.

Cars and booze aren't constitutionally protected.

@KYLE

EXACTLY

The Swiss have the highest rate of gun ownership in the developed world and lower homicide rates than gun banning UK,

Mexico banned all guns and has a very high murder rate.

It isn't the presence of guns...it the the choices of the people to kill or not kill.

ADD:

Hey analogy titan....your hospital analogy has nothing to do with math, it has to do with proper analysis of cause and effect.

people tend to go to hospitals when they are very sick...that is why people tend to die there.

licensing guns would only create a list for some government that is bent on disarming the people in order to seize or preserve power. I don't think that would pass the Supreme Court.

btw, did you know that 80% of all guns used in crimes are NOT legally bought?? why would anyone think a criminal is going to use a gun the cops know he owns?

Guns are not the problem. Society is the problem. If they took all the guns away nothing would change; people would still kill each other (at higher rates, according to history) at alarming rates. How do I know that? Go to youtube.com and click on a video, any video, and scroll down to the comments section. It will not take you long to find two or more idiots screaming and hurling hate-filled words at each other for some stupid reason. Our society is filled with unprecedented amounts of hate. It is a cancer. Guns are not the cancer, they are the hemorrhaging, or the proof of the cancer. Society is the cancer. To stop the hemorrhaging, you treat the cancer; not the hemorrhaging.

Drunk driving is not as much a problem as is these idiots riding the center line and glaring at you with a look on his face "Foool, you ain't gonna make me get over."

We're trying to show you that the issue is not the guns, but the people.

We have to deal with the people. Not the guns.