(February 17, 2019 at 2:38 pm)Yonadav Wrote:(February 17, 2019 at 2:06 pm)Brian37 Wrote: He ultimately wants to convince himself that if his version of "responsibility" with cars in his example works, why wouldn't it work with guns? The problem isn't "responsibility". The problem with both guns and cars, is that marketing sells humans a sense of entitlement, and that, far too often can lead people, with both guns and cars to not take those products seriously. But the difference between a gun and a car, is that if you leave your keys in your car and it gets stolen, while still a lapse in judgment, a car cannot be taken 32 stories up into a hotel to murder 52 music concert goers.You are happy when people are killed with guns, because it gives you another opportunity for cheap moral superiority. Your outrage is all about you feeling good about you.
Nonsense!
I hate seeing stories of shootings and murder. I most certainly did not love knowing my drunk dad shot his 38 with me in the room when I was a kid.
This is the old, "You want to take away my right to protect myself" BULLSHIT.
Why is it Australia WHICH STILL ALLOWS firearm ownership does not have the firearm violence we do? Because they don't have their heads up their asses like we do.
I am not happy one fucking bit hearing about bars or schools or holy places or concerts getting shot up. I am not happy with the amount of suicides or domestic violence either.
Just like Nader wasn't saying in the 70s, "ban all cars" but. "Currently your products suck".
Our laws SUCK currently. If they worked like the right claimed we'd be the safest nation in the world.
