Quote Originally Posted by HamburgO View Post
Perhaps you can explain this to me: Any mass shooting incident, whether in the US, Finland or Germany, generates a huge public outcry, with voices raised demanding to ban civilian gun ownership partially or entirely. Now, I don't have all the numbers worldwide, but in 2010 in the US, more than 10,000 people were killed in traffic accidents that involved driving under the influence of alcohol. That's about a third of all traffic fatalities, and even more deaths than were caused by firearms, even in the trigger-happy, gun-infested US. Non-fatal, albeit often serious, drunk driving related injuries in the US are in the hundreds of thousands every year. In Germany, 2009 gives us a similar picture - about 5,500 traffic fatalities, about a third of those alcohol related, i.e. 1,800 people killed by drunk driving. There, the contrast is even more stark, since deaths by firearms in Germany in the same year were a mere 269! In other words, app. 600% more people were killed by drunk driving in Germany than by firearms...

So my question, and I am not being facetious, is WTF we have all this hue and cry about firearms, while in 54 years of life I have not heard a single politician or citizen's group demand a total ban and a zero tolerance policy on driving under the influence. Note that I'm not saying "ban cars" or "ban driving", that would be ridiculous. However, make it an automatic felony, on the level of assault, to drive while under the influence, to any degree, of alcohol or other drugs. Equip new cars with breathalyzers or skin tests that must come up clean to allow starting the engine (the technology exists). It looks to me as though the US could save 10,000 lives per year just by enforcing that, Germany could save 1,800 lives, both countries could save 100's of thousands of people from injury, and billions of $ or EUR in the short- and long-term public healthcare cost to the taxpayer.

Why the double-standard, why do we accept one casualty rate, yet not the other, far smaller. Why do we as a society tolerate, even treat as cavalier, a common practice that kills hundreds of thousands worldwide and injures millions every year? I don't know, but it sure seems completely irrational, and I think we need to get things into perspective.
In short, your guess is as good as mine. Like I said, the level of acceptable casualties without being too restrictive of personal freedoms varies from country to country and also by what is causing those casualties. Never said it was rational, humans mostly aren't, and you will always have casualties no matter what you do. Life is dangerous. I really don't know what the answer is to your WTF question and I am not being facetious here.

Bob