A great comparison to the 'assault weapons ban' debate: ban smartphones!

[xanadrew]

I found a pretty powerful pro-gun (anti-AWB) argument in the form of a parody, gun control arguments used against smartphones:

https://www.facebook.com/NobodyNeedsAnIPhone

The logic is pretty hard to deny. Excerpt:

"...[every year] between 900 and 1000 deaths [in the US] are as a result of a distracted driver reported to be using a mobile phone at the time of the crash... this number is [almost] DOUBLE the number of deaths EVERY YEAR than there has been deaths as a result of mass shootings over the past 30 years combined...We are calling for a ban on all smartphones...We just want impose common sense restrictions on these dangerous devices that studies show time and time again are killing more of our children every day...We don't want to infringe on anyone's rights to communication, but nobody NEEDS an iPhone."

The entire post is pretty funny, and relevant to the current revived hysteria over guns. Check it out. What do you think?

[cryogenic419]

Its funny but at the same time uses the same kind of logic that has been used against guns for ages now. Sadly, even though it has some valid facts and figures nobody would ever take this seriously. Even if plain as day facts show that smartphones were more lethal than guns, they will never touch them.

[vranasaurus]

It would probably save 1 child, so therefore they should be banned.

[Daggitt]

No one has a right to a cell phone , let alone a smart phone. And EVERYBODY knows it is much more effective to just stick your head out the window and yell into the air a couple times. All you need is a double yeller. ANY would be attacker is going to flee. Yelling is a much more effective metod to get help than dialing 911. And especially for the ladies who aren't competent to operate a complicated device anyway. They can just yell out into the night if attacked by a rapist . Those HIGH POWERED smartphones are killing America's youth. It is uncontrovertable that there is no constitutional right to a cell phone. The phone was not even invented when the Framers wrote the bill of rights so it is not a right. Clearly it would be perfectly constitutional to go house to house seizing these dangerous weapons. There should be no phones within a thousand feet of any school EVER ! As to those select few who can show they absolutely must have a phone (Like the President's daughters and his Wife - important people like that ONLY) well they could at least provide proof of a gazillion dollars in liability insurance with the entire western world specifically listed as additional insureds. Even then the phone should be disabled so it can not discharge more than one message in a single transmission. NO high capacity assault style phones. Also any smart phone manufactued for consumers after January 1 , 1994 must have a unique frequency ID number which is preregistered with the police , the IRS , ATF and the local dog catcher. None of these is unreasonable if it prevents one prank call and saves the life of a child. Oh , and you must pass a battery of mental exams before you can talk on a phone for any purpose. If I thought I could get the necessary 51 votes I'd be going for broke to try and pass destroying and disabling every last one of them insidious smart phones right now.

[MrDontPlay]

I have used my smart phone to access the Internet and buy items such as ammunition, tear gas, and firearms, many with high capacity baby killing assault clippy things. Also if the wrong person got ahold of one of these assault phones, they could get directions to any place that they could purchase these weapons of war locally, then get directions to places with lots of white kids to shoot. Some of these devices are capable of storing up to 64GB of evil information.

[Tom Servo]

And EVERYBODY knows it is much more effective to just stick your head out the window and yell into the air a couple times. All you need is a double yeller.

You owe me a new keyboard for that one. Brilliant!

[KMAX]

Great stuff. LOL Double Yeller indeed. I seriously think smart phones cause brain damage, because I see most of the people I work with messing with their phones all through break and lunch, yet they can't carry on an intelligent conversation for more than ten seconds.

[Puddle]

That was funny stuff. Too bad the comparison is very similar to the equally ridiculous legislation that is being proposed and passed in some states.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I thought the same sort of thing after reading about a CT bill that suggests that you AND your family living with you get mental exams before buying a gun.

Seems to me that alcohol kills tens of thousand of folks also, so I suggest a mental exam for you and yours before you buy alcohol. All purchases would go through NICS and a record would be kept.

Anyway, let me introduce this. The difference between gun deaths and car/phone/alcohol/MD malpractice deaths is the nature of the killing instrument.

The gun is designed as primarily lethal and the deaths are from it's misuse as a lethal instrument. That is what drives the vivid image and opposition to its generated deaths. The others - the deaths are side effects of a nonlethal use.

This emotional twist gives a special valence to the gun in the minds of the antis and they don't buy the comparison of death rates. It is a useful argument for those who have rational mind.

However, the willful use of the gun to kill in the movies or school as compared to the stupid use of the phone in cars is not seen as comparable. Also, the latter deaths are seen as public health issues. That would seem to move the gun deaths into public health and that leads to strict controls and bans - as a health issue.

That's my take on the comparison of death argument and how far you want to push it. The public health paradigm is totally anti.

I don't think comparisons of deaths, sports (modern sporting rifles), it's just a tool, etc. are powerful arguments for the anti folks. The existence of the 2nd Amend. is to accept the lethal nature and weapons use of the gun.

[xanadrew]

No argument is an effective argument against someone that forgoes reason. You can really only ever hope to persuade those that think more critically, in any argument.

In either case, I think that willfully improper use of a firearm in blatant disregard for the safety of innocent people around you is clearly and directly comparable to willfully improper use of a phone in blatant disregard for the safety of innocent people around you. "False equivalence" seems to be a buzzword these days for anyone presented with a comparison that they don't like, weather it's actually "false" or not. Those people need to be called out when they do that.

If it doesn't convince, then an argument like that will hopefully at least frustrate someone that refuses to think rationally into instead reacting emotionally to it, in turn exposing their opinion for what it really is: an ill-conceived and emotional reaction, not a thoughtful and realistic stance.

[JimDandy]

The gun is designed as primarily lethal and the deaths are from it's misuse as a lethal instrument. That is what drives the vivid image and opposition to its generated deaths. The others - the deaths are side effects of a nonlethal use.

I would say it goes further than that Familiarity breeds contempt. Everyone and their sister has a car, hyperbolically. Everyone knows what it can do, and what to expect. How many times have you been in a discussion with a gun control advocate that doesn't know even the basics of guns? Remember Senator McCarthy and the Shoulder Thing That Goes Up?