Difference between revisions of "Woozle/2022/02/17/1"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [https://nextdoor.com/p/q_T9J2WxWbxy/c/730151979 | + | ==2022-02-15== |
| + | [https://nextdoor.com/p/q_T9J2WxWbxy/c/730151979 MM compares] Ford's liability for making a car which was used to kill someone with Remington's liability for making a gun which was used to kill someone: {{fmt/quote|We have to stop car violence.}} | ||
| − | How many times does it need to be pointed out that this is what driver's licenses are for | + | How many times does it need to be pointed out that this is what driver's licenses are for – and that if gun licenses were as carefully restricted as driver's licenses, we probably wouldn't be having this argument? |
| − | + | That said, cars are much more necessary for survival in many US places than guns are, and therefore guns should probably be ''more'' heavily regulated. | |
| − | + | We should maybe have a conversation about how this happened, and whether the great suburbanization experiment which started in the mid-20th has been good for society. | |
| − | + | [https://nextdoor.com/p/q_T9J2WxWbxy/c/730235570 BK also notes] that {{fmt/quote|Guns don’t shoot themselves.}} | |
| − | + | It's arguably true that "Guns don't kill people; people kill people", at least most of the time. This is, in fact, why we need to keep guns away from people. (...though it should be noted that sometimes guns do shoot themselves. They're dangerous, no matter how you slice it.) | |
| + | |||
| + | In response to the main article, [https://nextdoor.com/p/q_T9J2WxWbxy/c/730236588 BK notes] that {{fmt/quote|that was extremely dumb on Remington’s part}}, to which [https://nextdoor.com/p/q_T9J2WxWbxy/c/730237509 Scott reponds] {{fmt/quote|Is "dumb on Remington's part" code for "inconvenient for the lib-owning gun nut narrative"?}} – but BK clearly misinterprets this as somehow calling him a lib, which it obviously isn't. One is forced to wonder how many other things BK has misunderstood. | ||
Revision as of 13:50, 16 February 2022
2022-02-15
MM compares Ford's liability for making a car which was used to kill someone with Remington's liability for making a gun which was used to kill someone: «We have to stop car violence.»
How many times does it need to be pointed out that this is what driver's licenses are for – and that if gun licenses were as carefully restricted as driver's licenses, we probably wouldn't be having this argument?
That said, cars are much more necessary for survival in many US places than guns are, and therefore guns should probably be more heavily regulated.
We should maybe have a conversation about how this happened, and whether the great suburbanization experiment which started in the mid-20th has been good for society.
BK also notes that «Guns don’t shoot themselves.»
It's arguably true that "Guns don't kill people; people kill people", at least most of the time. This is, in fact, why we need to keep guns away from people. (...though it should be noted that sometimes guns do shoot themselves. They're dangerous, no matter how you slice it.)
In response to the main article, BK notes that «that was extremely dumb on Remington’s part», to which Scott reponds «Is "dumb on Remington's part" code for "inconvenient for the lib-owning gun nut narrative"?» – but BK clearly misinterprets this as somehow calling him a lib, which it obviously isn't. One is forced to wonder how many other things BK has misunderstood.