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.
I was suggesting that we hold the drunk driver responsible for their actions and we do not instead blame Henry Ford for his role in the proliferation of automobiles.
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
This is on you conservatives. Take a bow.
“sanctity of life”
(only applies to fetuses, though)
They don’t even care about the fetus though, it’s just an excuse to oppress women.
“Oppress women = get votes. I doubt they even care to control women. They know their inbred voters do though. So they’re all in.
Man these bots reposting from reddit are spreading to the comments, alert the fediverse!
No can do sir, one might start thinking freely
Who are you talking to? I’ve seen maybe two conservatives on Lemmy, and they had open minds.
Maybe the poster is talking more generally, not specifically to conservatives on Lemmy?
They’re just, putting the message out there, but it’s posted here because it relates to the subject.
Who is responsible when a drunk driver kills someone? Not the driver, right?
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.
Who is suing to make killing 12 year old girls legal?
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?
I was suggesting that we hold the drunk driver responsible for their actions and we do not instead blame Henry Ford for his role in the proliferation of automobiles.
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?
Yes. There are laws governing the operation of motor vehicles on public roadways.
Soo who said cars didn’t have a useful purpose?
Law enforcement seems to think otherwise.
Not in many nations. Only here. Wonder why?
Police carry firearms in about 170 countries. There are about 20 countries in which they do not.
Well when you onit my first sentence…
You said cars have a useful purpose other than killing people. I don’t dispute that. What do you feel that I should address?
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.
I don’t have a problem with requiring training and a license to carry a firearm in public.
You may not. But many gun owners do. Especially older guns.
I can only speak for myself.
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
Why do you ever need to carry pepper spray in public? Do you believe that we should prohibiting carrying pepper spray in public as well?
Do you think we ought to ban everything that does not solve some problem in society, such as recreational drugs?