Car v. Firearm
Nov. 19th, 2018 10:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mangosteenA popular argument in discussing the dangerousness of cars vs. firearms goes something like this:
And you know? That's a good point. It's certainly worth looking at it a little more, because on its face that argument is a fair one; two seemingly equivalent circumstances have completely different patterns of blame.
So, let's poke at it. I'm going to propose a couple of different lenses through which to look at the argument, and we'll see where it goes.
Lens 1: Differences If two things are called the same name (e.g. "apple" and "apple"), but the description of how they're the same is different (e.g. "That apple is a fruit in a bowl in front of me." and "That is a picture of an apple.), then they're actually two different things, regardless of the name. Aristotle totally nailed that one.
Lens 2: Primary use: The primary use of an object is what we'd expect the object to be used for, in general. In the case of a car, that's transportation. In the case of a firearm, that's projecting force at a distance.
Lens 3: Proper use: The proper use of an object is when a user uses the object for its primary use. For example, a driver using a car to transport themselves (and possibly passengers), or a person using a firearm to project force at a distance.
So let's take the argument at the top again, and view it through those lenses.
"When a drunk driver kills someone with a car, we blame the driver."
Object: car
Primary use: transportation
Use in this case: propelling the car into a person
The use in this case does not match up with the primary use, so it fails the "proper use" test for the object.
"When there's a mass shooting using a gun, we blame the gun."
Object: firearm
Primary use: projecting force at a distance
Use in this case: projecting force at a distance
The use in this case does match up, so it passes the "proper use" test for the object.
Remember what I said before: If two objects are called the same name, but the description of how they're the same is different, then they're two different things.
A person who uses a car to kill innocent people was not using a car properly; killing someone is not the same as transport; the primary purpose of the tool.
A person who uses a firearm to kill innocent people was using a firearm properly; they successfully projected force at a distance; the primary purpose of the tool.
...and therein lies the difference.
If the proper use of a tool doesn't result in killing people, then misuse that results in killing someone innocent ends with blaming the operator.
If the proper use of a tool does result in killing people, then misuse that results in killing someone innocent ends with blaming the tool.
Therefore, treating them differently and placing the blame in different places makes complete sense, because they're different.
"When a drunk driver kills someone with a car, we blame the driver, but when there's a mass shooting using a firearm, we blame the firearm. That doesn't make any sense."
And you know? That's a good point. It's certainly worth looking at it a little more, because on its face that argument is a fair one; two seemingly equivalent circumstances have completely different patterns of blame.
So, let's poke at it. I'm going to propose a couple of different lenses through which to look at the argument, and we'll see where it goes.
Lens 1: Differences If two things are called the same name (e.g. "apple" and "apple"), but the description of how they're the same is different (e.g. "That apple is a fruit in a bowl in front of me." and "That is a picture of an apple.), then they're actually two different things, regardless of the name. Aristotle totally nailed that one.
Lens 2: Primary use: The primary use of an object is what we'd expect the object to be used for, in general. In the case of a car, that's transportation. In the case of a firearm, that's projecting force at a distance.
Lens 3: Proper use: The proper use of an object is when a user uses the object for its primary use. For example, a driver using a car to transport themselves (and possibly passengers), or a person using a firearm to project force at a distance.
So let's take the argument at the top again, and view it through those lenses.
"When a drunk driver kills someone with a car, we blame the driver."
Object: car
Primary use: transportation
Use in this case: propelling the car into a person
The use in this case does not match up with the primary use, so it fails the "proper use" test for the object.
"When there's a mass shooting using a gun, we blame the gun."
Object: firearm
Primary use: projecting force at a distance
Use in this case: projecting force at a distance
The use in this case does match up, so it passes the "proper use" test for the object.
Remember what I said before: If two objects are called the same name, but the description of how they're the same is different, then they're two different things.
A person who uses a car to kill innocent people was not using a car properly; killing someone is not the same as transport; the primary purpose of the tool.
A person who uses a firearm to kill innocent people was using a firearm properly; they successfully projected force at a distance; the primary purpose of the tool.
...and therein lies the difference.
If the proper use of a tool doesn't result in killing people, then misuse that results in killing someone innocent ends with blaming the operator.
If the proper use of a tool does result in killing people, then misuse that results in killing someone innocent ends with blaming the tool.
Therefore, treating them differently and placing the blame in different places makes complete sense, because they're different.
no subject
Date: 2018-11-20 01:38 am (UTC)I don't think I've heard a lot of narratives where the alcohol gets blamed. Maybe that's more prevalent in drier communities? What I've heard is more along the lines of that the person who was drinking get blamed for the personality defect of drinking the alcohol (or more commonly drinking it and then driving). With drinking and shooting, my perception is that blame is cast toward the alcohol decision as long as the people in question are just being reckless, but that if someone intentionally shoots another person in a drunken rage, the blamed shifts more toward the choice to own and use a gun.
I guess an important distinction is intentional versus accidental. The blame seems more likely to fall on the drinking decision in cases of accidents.
no subject
Date: 2018-11-20 01:49 am (UTC)This is a great article on the topic.
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/when-covering-car-crashes-be-careful-not-to-blame-the-victim.php
no subject
Date: 2018-11-20 01:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-11-20 01:59 am (UTC)Some locales even provide bright flags to carry across the cross-walk! Although this is the most extreme I've seen..
Although maybe you hear it less because a pedestrian doesn't share the road with tonnes of metal for as long (in theory there's a sidewalk), whereas a cyclist is permanently sharing the space them