Oh! oh! AND taxes! They gotta love that right?
In the far future, people will call this “The Golden Age of False Equivalences”.
Exactly. Vehicles have a significant utilitarian value independent of the fact they could be used as weapons.
If guns were the only tool capable of hammering nails (or I guess the term would be “gunning” nails) then we’d probably be less confused about why they’re so popular and available.
According to Wikipedia, "[Kennedy] is a libertarian and a registered Republican, describing herself as a “Republitarian”.
Apparently she’s also a big Richard Nixon fan.
Sounds like Fox Business News is desperate for talking heads.
If there’s any upside to the horrific dawning realisation that motor vehicles can be “weaponised” it is that the resulting irrational fear of motor vehicles may, in the future, result in motor vehicles being significantly restricted from travelling near places where vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists are located. The transformation of large swathes our city centres to motor-vehicle free zones, at least during the busy periods, would, in my view, be an overwhelmingly positive step in improving the quality of life for many people.
Of course, the real benefit in terms of people killed would be that the vastly higher number (than of those killed by deliberate vehicular homicide) of people killed by drivers’ “oopsies” would also be significantly reduced. If it takes people being terrified to achieve this, so be it.
Dear Ms Kennedy:
Trucks… yes! And don’t forget high heel footwear. I read that wearing those can adversely affect your feet, ankles, spine, you name it.
And yet, just assuming this guy had to do the same things to buy guns as he did to drive his cars, nothing would have prevented him from owning these guns. Hes a 64 year old white male with no criminal history and at the time he bought them didn’t appear to have any issues. Concoct me a law that would have prevented this. Waiting periods? He waits. Back ground check? He already went through several NICS checks, nothing in his background. License and required training? Obviously he would have passed. High insurance premium? He was rich.
Ban all semi-auto rifles with forced confiscation of existing ones. Eh - maybe - if he didn’t find one on the dark web. But good luck with passing and enforcing that.
As usual, Tom the Dancing Bug was here years earlier…
So, your argument is that this incident would not have been prevented by a better level of gun control.
Here, hold my avocados while I try to order semi-automatic rifles with this bump-thing from the darknet in the EU. Which is incidentially just thightening the gun control, with hunters in Finland actively lobbying against it.
Still holding my avocados?
Then you’ve got your hands full and can’t type more stuff like “good look passing and enforcing that”.
Maybe I should give away even more avocados, so people have full hands and can’t shoot at each other. Wouldn’t that be nice? Oh, I forgot, they can’t drive their trucks, then. We can’t have that, of course.
Let’s have more avocados, anyway. They are supposedly good for my heart. And I fucking need something good for my heart before it breaks.
I am seriously thinking about leaving even BB BBS behind. I have had enough.
Geeze! If the deaths are equivalent what would it be like if gun ownership were the same as owning cars? [shudders]
That is a very good point. For the frequency and exposure to use, vehicles are many many orders of magnitudes safer, yet they are still highly regulated, and those regulation have improved their safety.
BUT…NOW isn’t the time.
Can’t drive a truck off a 34th floor to land on people 100 yards away.
Sounds like something out of a Die Hard movie.
My argument is that the level of gun control equal with cars would have done NOTHING to stop this.
UK level of gun control? If you magically made them disappear over night, sure.
But the reality is there are literally tens of millions of legal gun owners with semi-automatic rifles. Explain to me how one thinks this would work? You could do what the current states who ban certain assault rifles do, grand father them in, but you are still left with millions of gun owners out there. My friend in New York sees 5 every time he is at the range and they have one of the most stern set of laws after California. Voluntary turn in? Confiscation? How about a buy back? Some people have more or less retirement plans locked into their collection.
I wish we didn’t have an epidemic of opioid abuse so I could get drugs for my chronic pain with out feeling like and being treated a criminal junky. But we all know what thoughts and prayer and wishes get us. Legality doesn’t make the world work the way you want it to.
Yay, we’re on false equivalencies again.
What’s next, BB, “Look at this Semi-automatic-Banana-with-a-Bump-stock, just look at it” ?
Just stop it.
Too much like right.
Making something illegal which, FFS, is a true abomination on the face of the earth, which sole purpose is killing as many opponents as fast as possible doesn’t make the world a worse place than it is.
If everyone could JUST agree on that. One step at a time, no?
No. Even this is too much. Because people just claim it doesn’t change anything, and that’ts that. Let’s stop doing politics, then. Because, reality.
Sorry. I can’t get my head around this.
It took decades of bad gun policy to get us here. It may well take decades of good policy to get the number of guns in circulation down to a reasonable level. But we gotta start some time.