Probably the people suing over the right to drive drunk as long as you don’t crash into someone and using the fact that most people who drive drunk do not get into accidents should get a portion of the blame.
Bro cars have a useful purpose other than killing people. Guns don’t provide nearly the same utility as a car, and arguably no positive utility at all, in modern society.
We had this conversation actually, about a hundred years ago, that’s why you can’t just buy a car at a car show and drive it on public roads without a test, a license, and without following the rules. If Henry Ford fought more vigorously at the time, we wouldn’t have this rules, and then all the excessive deaths would be his fault also. In fact, a lot of the problems with car culture in US can be traced to specific people and companies, and they have a big portion of responsibilities for excessive deaths.
And that’s talking about a car, a car’s primary usage is not a murder. You don’t need to overcome any of those hurdles to obtain and operate a firearm in a lot of cases, and the firearm’s primary purpose is to kill, so it’s even less excusable.
And then we come to the second part of it. Why do you ever need to carry a firearm in public, what purpose can it server in a society, what problem it solves
deleted by creator
Probably the people suing over the right to drive drunk as long as you don’t crash into someone and using the fact that most people who drive drunk do not get into accidents should get a portion of the blame.
deleted by creator
Conservatives, with their bullshit and historically wrong interpretation of the Second Amendment.
The drunk driver, and sometimes the bartender who overserved: https://www.scribd.com/document/627785752/Press-Release-4
What are you implying? That the person isn’t at fault?
deleted by creator
Bro cars have a useful purpose other than killing people. Guns don’t provide nearly the same utility as a car, and arguably no positive utility at all, in modern society.
Don’t forget they are also heavily and continuously regulated to reduce the danger to society whenever possible.
Isn’t it incredible what you can accomplish when you don’t have a self-absorbed death cult insisting they know best?
deleted by creator
Soo who said cars didn’t have a useful purpose?
deleted by creator
Not in many nations. Only here. Wonder why?
deleted by creator
Well when you onit my first sentence…
deleted by creator
We had this conversation actually, about a hundred years ago, that’s why you can’t just buy a car at a car show and drive it on public roads without a test, a license, and without following the rules. If Henry Ford fought more vigorously at the time, we wouldn’t have this rules, and then all the excessive deaths would be his fault also. In fact, a lot of the problems with car culture in US can be traced to specific people and companies, and they have a big portion of responsibilities for excessive deaths.
And that’s talking about a car, a car’s primary usage is not a murder. You don’t need to overcome any of those hurdles to obtain and operate a firearm in a lot of cases, and the firearm’s primary purpose is to kill, so it’s even less excusable.
deleted by creator
You may not. But many gun owners do. Especially older guns.
deleted by creator
And then we come to the second part of it. Why do you ever need to carry a firearm in public, what purpose can it server in a society, what problem it solves
deleted by creator