Where Are the Anti-Car Zones, Car Bans, and Stricter Car Laws? Statistics Say Cars 80% More Likely To Kill Than Guns

In a study done by a Duke researcher, cars are 25 times more likely to kill than guns


Via Chris Conover at Forbes

There clearly is a critical difference between the regulatory regimes governing guns and autos. Guns tend to be regulated as if they are obviously inherently dangerous and must be carefully controlled (in terms of who is permitted to own them, whether they can be displayed in public, even how they must be stored if children are in the house).

In contrast, there seems to be no equivalent presumption about cars whose rules regarding ownership and use seem far less restrictive. That is, virtually anyone (including the mentally ill, past criminals etc.) may own a car and do whatever they want with it on private property.This puzzles me in light of the available empirical evidence:

That is, my owning a car is 80 percent more likely to result in the death of another person than my owning a gun. In light of this simple fact, it is puzzling why gun ownership is so vehemently scorned on the left as somehow being a flagrantly irresponsible act.

This article contrasts the governments restrictions and laws on the vehicle versus the firearm, and why even though one has been statistically proven to cause 25 times more deaths, it is less monitored by the government. Those anti-gun have been saying that guns are more dangerous than vehicles but have been using faulty numbers and statistics. The claims from The Economist, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Moms Demand Action don’t take into account the larger amount of guns than cars in America.


The evidence? Congressional research shows in 2013 there were 310 million guns (that has probably grown closer to 350 million today) and there were 269 million registered vehicles in 2013. Chris Conover discusses this.

In this sharply divided country, there surely is also strong disagreement about the extent to which government ought to be protecting citizens from self-harm. But I presume that a broad spectrum of the public on both sides of the aisle would agree there is an appropriate government role in protecting citizens from being harmed by one another. So if we leave aside self-inflicted deaths, the average car is 1.8 times as risky as the average gun. That is, my owning a car is 80 percent more likely to result in the death of another person my owning a gun.

Even further convincing, Conover contrasts gun and car accidents. The number of firearm accident related deaths for 2013 was 1.4 deaths per million guns, which totals less than 2 accidental deaths a day. In 2013 the number of accidental car deaths came out to 12,700, which makes a total of 36.2 accidental deaths for every million vehicles. This makes it 25 times more likely that you would be killed by a car than a gun. He ends his findings by saying this.

So again, in light of these eye-opening but indisputable facts, why is gun ownership so vilified by progressives? They could save literally 25 times as many lives by convincing a single typical car owner to drive more responsibly than convincing a single typical gun owner to use their weapon more responsibly. Instead of derisively sneering at those who “cling to guns” out of bitterness, perhaps they ought to ask themselves why guns rather than cars invite their scorn.

This study should be huge, it should be published objectively by many media outlets, but as we have noticed in many other instances any evidence showing that guns aren’t the problem does not fit the agenda. The agenda to associate the gun with violence, terror, death, and evil. The agenda to ban guns and ultimately take away our Second Amendment.

As we all know, guns are objects that can be used for good and evil. We know we should never compromise or allow our right to bear arms to be infringed on because in the end innocent citizens will be left defenseless and will suffer. Other countries have gone through complete gun bans and the evidence shows sharp spikes in crime rates. If you were a criminal what would be better, being in a country where citizens are known to carry guns and defend themselves or being in a country where citizens do not own guns and are basically sitting ducks? America has had a small taste of this in it’s gun free zones, 92% of mass shootings since 2009 have happened in gun free zones.

2 holster comboThe intentions may be honest, many seek to decrease senseless gun violence by criminals, but again: we know the solution to take away our right to guns should never be compromised on. As has been repeatedly shown in other countries and here in America, the criminals will always have guns, and we cannot allow injustices by leaving our citizens defenseless.

Those victimized in gun-free zones have experienced these injustices, such as four Marines and one Navy sailor that were gunned down in the Chattanooga shooting, and a young woman who followed the law and left her gun at home but was raped at gunpoint on her gun-free zone campus.

We have seen the contrast between cities with extreme gun laws and cities that encourage its residents to carry, and it proves that citizens who carry protect the innocent, deter criminals and ultimately reduce crime.

In the end we cannot continue to allow lies that threaten our rights, we need to get the truth out that guns protect and defend, and will always be insurance against democide and tyranny.


Author: Annie Stonebreaker

Annie is attending North Idaho College for a degree in journalism and is enjoying writing about everything guns for Defend and Carry. She finds our right to bear arms imperative and can get quite spicy on the topic. In her spare time she loves reading, playing outdoors, any water activities, eating sweet treats, eating in general, playing music or spending time with her Fiance, and being surrounded by good friends, conversation and laughter.

Share This Post On