Countering Couric: More People Die In Traffic Accidents Than Gun Violence


CBS’s Katie Couric, formerly queen of “Today” show sunshine, has written a very anti-gun piece on her blog, Couric & Co. It seems worthwhile to do a point-by-point response, so below, please note that italics are from Couric's blog, and the response is in normal font.

Thirteen people shot dead in Binghamton, New York.

Four people crushed to death near the Georgia-Tennessee state line.

Eight killed at a North Carolina nursing home.

Four more people crushed or burned to death in Polk County, Florida.

Ten murdered across several towns in southern Alabama.

Seventeen people killed in Coalinga, California.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

In the last month, seven mass shootings have claimed the lives of 53 people.

We all know the dangers of driving, but not many of us stop to think about it. Sometimes, a really bad accident can claim the lives of multiple people.

The enormity of these tragedies makes them front page news. But, on average, 32 people die every day in gun-related violence.

The enormous tragedy is, it's not front-page news. But, on average, 113 people died every day in a vehicle-related death in 2008. This is down about ten percent from the previous year, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Gun control advocates say it is too easy for the wrong people to get their hands on a weapon.

Some say that it is too easy for the wrong people - young and inexperienced, old and physically unable, illegal immigrants, or even those convicted of driving under the influence - to get behind the wheel legally.

Background checks are meant to keep criminals from owning guns. But just about anyone can walk into a gun show and buy a weapon from a private dealer, no questions asked.

Testing is meant to keep the woefully incompetent from driving. But in reality, just about anyone can walk into a state's Department of Motor Vehicles office and pass a basic proficiency test - no questions asked.

The Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence reports that 83% of Americans favor background checks on all gun sales.

There is no comparable campaign to prevent driving-related deaths. There are niche groups, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, but nothing that deals with the entire problem of vehicle deaths.

Legislators have an obligation to protect the Constitution.

They also have a responsibility to protect citizens from more of the tragedies that keep replaying themselves in communities all across America.

But government has no obligation, or right, to deny firearms to law-abiding citizens for the sake of weeding out the minuscule amount of people who are depraved enough to go on murderous rampages. Like owning a vehicle, its proper operation and use can be beneficial and enjoyable - and improper operation and use can be deadly.

That's a page from my notebook.

Katie, your notebook is biased.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Look at the bigger issue..

Come on Couric.  You can't just blast people having guns, when far more incompetent people have their driver's license.  I don't ever hear her advocating that people should take the driver's license tests more often, when clearly driving kills more people per year.  Like mentioned above there is no group that wholly promotes safer driving.  She should be rooting for that since on average more than 3 times as many people die a day from driving related deaths than from gun-related violence.

Maybe Katie is trying to

Maybe Katie is trying to say we need MORE guns out there to reduce the number of people causing fatal accidents.

 Traffic is terrible!!

Automobiles can be used as

Automobiles can be used as weapons too.

My father was in the ER some years back and this man was brought in and put in a partition beside him.  The guy was screaming and yelling about the pain he was in and I could tell the nurses and Dr.'s (while still being professional) were not pleased with this guy.  Turned out, he rammed his car into a patrolman's car and the car (the patrolmans) exploded and killed the officer.  A terrible tragedy for our community.  

What can we do about this senseless violence Katie?

Nice, the Crown Vicky's gas

Nice, the Crown Vicky's gas tank surprise.

"I believe in American Exceptionalism, just like Brits believe in British Exceptionalism and Greeks believe in Greek Exceptionalism." - PreBO, 4/4/09

And let's not forget, CO2

And let's not forget, CO2 spewing vehicles are in the ongoing process of killing everyone (and polar bears, too).

/sarc

That's it... I'm

That's it... I'm campaigning to have cars banned.  Too many people have died.  Along those lines, I'm also campaigning to reinstate prohibition because the average number drunk driving deaths per month in America is inconsiderably large... and seems to be growing.

how'z the rating's

ooh, k-katie,keep trying to blame the some one else, for all the blame street bad news. how about the facts first, the truth next??

hey!

remember - cars don't kill people.  People kill people. (coincidentally on drudge this morning)

Making spoons illegal.

More women use spooons and eat too many treats and get fat and unattractive.  If we can just start a spoon registration, it will prevent all kinds of bad outcomes.

Too many single moms startedd with a single spoonfull of ice cream.  Life spiraled out of control and next thing hubby was chasin' a hooters girl.

What happens when Uncle Ted is driving?

Bittercup

Did she look to see if the number of auto fatalities spike when the Kennedy Clan comes to town? 

 

But it's worse than that --

But it's worse than that -- or funnier in a macabre way how liberals have such selective standards on killing people.

10 years ago, it was reported that 45,000 Americans had died in survivable auto crashes because they should have survived since in the 1970s.

That's because of the insane CAFE standards which forced auto manufacturers to make cars smaller and "lighter" using non-protecting plastica and aluminum.

Of course, while that's continuing, States are busy passing essentially unenforceable legislation "banning" cell phone usage by drivers. How many people are killed annually because they were using their cell phone?

Well I saw a survey once that had that at around #9 in distractions causing accidents. Way less than being distracted by their kids. Eating? Smoking. Changing a CD.

Liberals love passing legislation that kills people. Look at the millions of impoverished black and brown people who've died of malaria because of the ban on DDT.

Let's start Carbon Dioxide Day
Check out the poster @ Hollycrud checker-outers

Seriously...

Who wants to have the T-shirts made?

"Gun Owning, Bacon-Eating, Chain-Smoking, Beer Drinking, BASE-Jumping, Whitewater-Rafting, Adrenaline Junkies Against Cars"

 That'd make a terrible bumper sticker, but 'twould be quite fun to explain...

Should it be noted that

Should it be noted that these car-related deaths are accidents, and the shootings aren't?

 

no

Of the 52,827 crash fatalities recorded in 2007 only 16,835 were listed as "not driver caused".

the rest were reasons such as drugs, alcohol, innatentive behavior, rage, etc.

you can look for yourself here using the query tool.

True, bal.

But many accidents are just waiting to happen. Should we focus more on trying to prevent these accidents (i.e. more stringent requirements and testing for driver capabilities for starters) or on restricting the rights of safe and law abiding gun owners?

Would more lives be saved by restricting the rights of a minority of drivers or by restricting the rights of all legal gun owners?

I'd be more comfortable restricting those who pose the greatest threat. Like inept drivers and violent criminals.

 

Healthcare...Food...Education...Housing... - What sprouted as free for some is maturing into a free-for-all.

...

You're missing the point.  Making vehicles, a morally neutral object, harder to obtain and use in order to "protect us from ourselves" is just as moronic as making firearms, which are morally neutral objects, harder to obtain and use.

 I have the technical knowledge on how to use several common household cleaning chemicals to create some particularly nasty weapons.  Should we regulate the availability of Scrubbing Bubbles because it can possibly be used to harm someone?

BAN IT ALL!!!

Don't forget rocks and sticks and eatin utensils and hands and belts and teeth and...awww...forget it. Might as well kill everyone now since even our breathin is killin people via global warming. I mean  the only way to ensure everyones safety is to make sure that everyone is equally dead, right?

;-)

 

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love youBut if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

Don Marquis 1878-1937

A gun is "morally neutral"?

A gun is "morally neutral"? A gun has one purpose, and it's not to remove the soap scum from your sink.

hm

Link didn't seem to work.

Link didn't seem to work. All I'm saying is that cars and guns are just not the same thing. 

What are the statistics that show how many people intentionally kill or hurt someone with a car vs. the number of people intentionally murdered or harmed by guns. 

not sure why the link didnt work

but let's try again.   I think its good reading and worth sharing.

Indeed...

Guns have only one purpose, I'm sure.  Nobody could use them for target-shooting (a pretty fun pasttime, y'know).  Nobody could use a gun for hunting, either - we still use bows and arrows for that, though they both are a bit higher-tech than when first invented...
Nobody could possibly use a gun for anything other than murderous intent.

 In case you were wondering, I am being incredibly sarcastic.

Duh. But the PURPOSE of the

Duh.

But the PURPOSE of the gun is still destruction with incredible force. It doesn't help you get groceries, or take you to work, or get the kids to soccer, and then -- OOPS -- it accidentally goes off when one of the kids drops a juice box. 

Get over it, Bal

I've owned guns for more than fifty years. Never has one 'gone off' by accident, even when one of my sweet children dropped a juice box in the back seat of my car. I did say some bad words when that happened, but nobody was shot.

I'm not saying that's how

I'm not saying that's how people get shot.

I guess if you were picking

I guess if you were picking up your kids from soccer practice and you get killed by a drunk driver, or are just walking into an Italian market when an 80-yo woman accidentally floors it coming out of her parking space and runs you over, killing you, what do you do?

I guess what I am trying to say ia this: both guns and cars are simply objects that, in the hands of incompetent, incapacitated, or those with bad intentions, can both be dangerous.

 

Rog, my point was that a gun

Rog, my point was that a gun killing someone and a car killing someone are two different things. 

...your point...

is terrible.  Whether a gun kills someone or a car kills someone, accident or no, THEY'RE DEAD.  Misuse of either object can result in death to innocent people - and the fact that guns are singled out when math simply does not support that mindset, is bias.  A hairdryer can be misused to kill someone in a bathtub; a lightbulb can be contrived into an explosive device; a four-inch metal pipe can be manufactured into an easily-concealed, single-shot shotgun.  And all of that is incredibly easy - each would take less than fifteen minutes to make.  But we're not dealing with a media story on banning hairdryers, lightbulbs, or plumbing. 
Why does the media care so much about guns?

 The problem is not the guns themselves.  The problem is, the media doesn't like the people who enjoy owning firearms for self-defense, hunting, and recreation.  They don't like the people.

 Why?

I just don't, in any way,

I just don't, in any way, buy the argument that cars are just as dangerous as guns. Don't. Won't. 

I don't want to take anyone's guns away. I don't think you should be able to have assault rifles, however.  

→ bal

I don't have a wish to own an assault rifle.

But I'd bet we differ on the definition of "assault rifle"


LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

Cognitive Dissonance, you

Cognitive Dissonance, you don't buy the argument that cars are just as dangerous as guns when in the face of overwhelming facts are more people die from car related injuries.  

You don't want to take anyone's guns away and yet you don't want someone to have an assault rifle????  Wow, talk about contradiction!!!   Hello, preventing a person from buying a gun is basically the same as taking it away.  

Assault rifles are an essential weapon for the militia to defend the country.  Why in blazes would you limit the fire power of the militia to defend the country????  Don't you realize part of the deterence to a foreign power contemplating war with the US is the the undeniable fact that this country would be UNGOVERNABLE by any occupying force because of an armed citizenry?????? That is one of the basic principles of the founding fathers for the militia. It was even recognized by our enemies, the guy who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor!!!!!

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (WWII, Imperial Japanese Navy)

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

→ Ca. Angels Pitcher killed

A Pitcher for the California Angels was killed this morning by a . . .

wait for it . . .

hit & run driver.


LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

When exactly is this militia

When exactly is this militia going to be called upon?

And I'm sure if guns were owned by as many people as cars, and used everyday that the number of fatalities would rise. It's just not a good comparison.

does it matter?

when is a good time to make out a will? a living will? a trust for your kids? buy life insurance?

Ummm, Bal there are

Ummm, Bal there are literally as many guns as there are cars in this country!  Guns are used when required by law abiding citizens.  The fact that millions of rounds of ammunition are used every year demonstrates the fact that guns are used and practiced with.  It's not just law enforcement who practices using millions of rounds just themselves.  By your logic, the police shouldn't have guns because they rarely use them on a person when you factor in the ratio of practice rounds to actual use on a perp.    

The Militia is called upon in a state of emergency or national defense. All Governors have the power to call up the militia.  I think you fail to realize every adult with a gun is THEE militia and when called up has the power to arrest and enforce the law.  You know the term Posse Comitatus?  Just because it hasn't been called out recently doesn't invalidate the need for it. Here is an excellent article that should enlighten you as to history of our country in calling the citizenry as a backstop to law enforcement: http://www.homelands...

In fact, as an extention of posse comitatus you, the citizen are empowered to make citizen's arrests, that is detain a law breaker to turn over to the police.   Each state has it variation on what a citizen can and can not do to uphold the LAW.  You see the idea of the citizenry fully active in partnership with law enforcement binds the government together with it's people.  When you remove the citizen from this equation, you undermine the trust of the people in "their" government.  When officials get arrogant and exclude the citizen for purposes of so called "professionals knowing what they are doing" what they done is to create the "us versus them" mentality.  That's a dangerous thing to do.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

The point is that comparing

The point is that comparing guns and cars is not a good comparison. Cars are being used by way more people than guns, so of course there are going to be more deaths, more accidents, more everything. 

I disagree...

bal. It is a great comparison when those that started the debate are attempting to paint an inanimate object as the culprit. We simply showed that there are other inanimate objects that are far more deadly.

Furthermore, given that our example is more common and therefore misused for more deaths, it should be the perfect example of how insane it is to blame guns for deaths instead of correctly blaming the people that MISUSED the firearm.

The car example simply shows how ridiculous it is to blame any inanimate object for any crime. 

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love youBut if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

Don Marquis 1878-1937

This is true.  The real

This is true.  The real problem with guns is that they allow those with dark motives to cause a great amount of death and destruction.  Our task is to keep the tool out of the control of those who would be motivated to use it for murder.  Still, I suppose the point others are making here is that someone driving a Hummer could easily kill more people by jumping the curb onto a crowded sidewalk than those who have been killed in shooting rampages.  It's also worth mentioning that knife deaths are very relevent here.  Any time gun fatalities is mentioned, so should those by knives.  It can also be put in perspective by showing the much higher number of stabbings where guns are outlawed.  People will kill people and there are plenty of tools to get the job done.

Our task is to keep the

Our task is to keep the tool out of the control of those who would be motivated to use it for murder. 

Thousands of people die every year from someone who abuses their freedom of action, shall we limit everyone's freedom of action because a minority abuses the right?   A minority of the police go rogue and intentionally murder someone, so by the liberal's logic we should disband the police.

Here's a better one (insane) currently being enacted:  someone making food or growing food could cause food poisoning, therefore we must restrict everyone from growing food, it is illegal to grow food for sale unless you are approved by the FDA.  Go ahead and tell your kid to sell lemonaid using squeezed lemons, you just encouraged your kid on a life of crime...

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

Yup, them damn clumsy guns

just running around, having accidents. 

A gun doesn't just "accidentally" go off. There has to be some sort of impetus, such as dropping it, mishandling it, not making sure the safety is on, etc...

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Duh, the gun causes

Duh, the gun causes destruction for a purpose:  self defense or hunting.  You clearly don't understand or refuse to accept the founding fathers reasoning for the 2nd amendment:  Self defense against others, self defense for the nation (militia) or if necessary self defence against a government gone rogue.  Any reading of the founding fathers would give you this understanding.  Any review of the laws at that time would confirm what I'm saying.  In some states it was actually against the LAW to NOT have a fire arm if you were an adult!!! 

Please don't give me this nonsense about times changing and how we don't need them anymore, that's total BS.  A judge just a couple of years ago ruled that the police ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE to protect you!!!!!! Any argument that claims we have law enforcement to protect the public thus invalidating the need of guns was flushed down the toilet by that judge's ruling.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

Good morning Bal

 You're right about the soap scum Bal.

Mine were very effective during the Katrina aftermath in removing the thieving scum from my property and my neighborhood.

Depends on which kind of scum you have to deal with.

 Jesus Loves You so much He died for you

bal, should it be noted...

that people pulled the trigger and people were behind the wheel of the cars and that BOTH cars and guns are inanimate objects that,  do the bidding of the PERSON wielding them? 

Should it be noted that it was the people RESPONSIBLE for the gun violence and car crashes(at least in the 35,492 in 07 that were driver induced) that were the culprits and NOT the tools that they misused? 

Should it be noted that some are using INANIMATE TOOLS to excuse, or at least deflect blame from, the people that CHOSE to do malicious deeds?

I feel that the answer is yes to my above questions, what do you think?

For the record I agree with you that the numbers should be seperated into accidents and driver induced fatalities.

However, Kat provided that info(thnx Kat, good link ;-), and yet there were still over 3x's the number of deaths by crash v/s G.V..

The indistputable fact is that people misusing the inanimate car kill more people than people misusing the inanimate gun every year.  

 

 

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love youBut if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

Don Marquis 1878-1937

not at all true balboa

over one third of the deaths from firearms are suicides

these numbers include bad guys killed by copys

these numbers include gang shoot-outs and drive-bys

these numbers include the accidental shootings

so, there is little comparison between car deaths and gun deaths as they are really apples and oranges

What I find interesting is

What I find interesting is your obsession with restricting a civil right under the guise of public safety when you don't or won't demand restricting a PRIVILEGE.  Driving is a privilege, not a civil right.

Swimming pools kill more children than guns, but for some reason you obsess over restricting a civil right as opposed to a use of property currently governed by zoning ordinances. 

Bal, why are you more inclined to abridge a civil right than a privilege or zoning ordinance????  Especially when the privilege and zoning issue cause more deaths and injuries than the civil right????  I hope you can appreciate why conservatives see such a disconnect over this issue and understand why many believe liberals have ulterior motives.  Some such as myself believe those ulterior motives are sinister - as in a bloodless coup for unilateral control of the country.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

It should be noted

That balboa attempts to reason with the boiled turnip inside his head.  The results are seldom useful.

Hey, Blonde? I'm gonna need

Hey, Blonde? I'm gonna need a better class of troll in this particular thread. 

;-) 

Don't forget...

the number show just how insane those anti gun(and, no offense, the anti-car luddite) jackasses really are...

There are 306,175,5?? people in in the USA right now....

and gun violence kills about 11,680 people a year....

where as cars kill about 41,245 people a year....

so......

about .0040 % of the population dies from gun violence a year....

while about .0130 % of the population dies in car crashes. 

So in any given year over 99.9% of the population WON'T die from either guns or cars.

Wow, I knew it was safe to drive around with a loaded gun in my car, but I didn't know it was that safe. ;-)

Seriously though, a person is certifiably mentally ill if they really think that gun violence (or car crashes) are a real problem in the overall scheme of things. 

Of course in America today it seems crazy is the norm and the certifiable ones are the sane, so who knows. 

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love youBut if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

Don Marquis 1878-1937

Would Katie report these figures?

Unlike auto accidents, I would assume that most of these are intentional.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

What makes the world go round &round. Sex,Drugs,Guns. Rock&Roll.

Katie, everyone one is effected when senseless gun violence happens. But lets be real. Cigarettes,Alcohol, Cars, Medical Malpractice, kill a hell of alot more % of people per year than gun violence. But I tell ya when the wolf comes a knocking on your door what ya gonna do. The great equalizer is mans greatest invention. Its still a jungle out there and the gun keeps people civilized at best. When the liberals plan on regulating my god given right they can go to hell. Remember the 2nd admendment is not about hunting and has nothing to do with the government giving you the right to possess guns. It prohibits the government from regulating my god given right to be able to defend my family and self. In other words the government is prohibited from interfering in my life. So shut your yap girl.

 

Anti gun hysteria

More people are drowned in their own backyard pools than from firearms. In fact death from firearms, accidental or otherwise is very far down the list of causes of death in America. A simple google search reveals the number of drownings is also 5 times the number of deaths from firearms, yet I do not hear of any push to ban swimming pools. Interestingly, the number of people killed by their doctors or elective medical procedures is better than four times greater than from firearms and again, no ban on doctors operating on people. In fact if you think about it, you are less likely to die if you just stay home and play with your firearms than if you go to the doctor for some malidy. Every time some wing nut goes off and shoots some people the anti gun wing nuts start frothing at the mouth, making all kinds of untrue claims about guns being evil and killing people. I have numerous firearms that stay loaded for home security and I have yet to see one jump out of a closet or a night stand and kill anyone. These opportunists see this as a way to try and take the 2nd amendment and make it null and void. Bellowing cows and sheep.

The left really doesn't care about gun violence

They just don't want us to be able to effectively resist the coming totalitarian government when the time comes.

-Dave

This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.

Dave that's right

That is WHY we each need a few of these: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99NHb6B03s&NR=1

Just ordered a Ruger LCP for my wife.  Still a long wait so it could be months still.  I was reading
Montana or somewhere up there was going to make their own guns labeled for use
and sale in their State only.  That way the Fed regs would not apply.  They want
to fight the Feds in court saying they have no jurisdiction.  TEXAS needs to
make some in-state machine guns sold only to Texans!

M-B

Not to mention the

Not to mention the innocents and the unsuspecting killed on 9-11, Beirut, Somalia, Iraq, the USS Cole, Lockerbie, Leon Klinghoffer, Munich, Yvonne Fletcher, Afghanistan, Aldo Moro, Robert Stethem, the Gulag, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Cuba, London, Madrid, and many many other times and places because of the influence of Leftists like Couric in our world.

My reasoning is, that without the Libtards having so much power, the various creeps who carried out these horrific acts would have done so only once, or realizing they wouldn't get away with it, wouldn't have the sympathetic publicity of the MSM and the usual suspects, and be emboldened by Socialist weakness would not have bothered.

The support of Communist dictatorships is more obvious.

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).