Yes, not sure why its a distraction, a car is a controlled item, not as controlled as a gun. But you need a license to drive legally in public.
therefore there is some level of responsibility given to owner of car for proper usage.
Unlike a knife or rat poison.
With that, society has deemed it “more dangerous” as such there is a level or responsibility for said owner, I am not one for Cops or general public to decide what that level is. Thats why we have courts and jury’s.
is the standard as high as a gun, no we as a society have accepted rules that deem it less of a concern, but more than a knife or rat poison.
But I don’t think if you look at this logically, it all lines up and makes sense. If we require licensing or regulation on ownership or registration, we have put rules in place for said object, when said object is used in violation of those rules, not only the user who did the act, but how the object was obtained should be examined vs the rules, and punishment provided if it was in violation of our laws. Don’t care if its a gun, a knife, a pen, rat poison, scissors etc…
Its much easier to discuss if we stop with identifying an item and talk about how our laws should work for all items.
if somebody wants to inflict damage, especially a mentally deranged 15 year old they will find a way to do that.
Does that mean firearms shouldn’t be handled responsibly, no
Does that mean those who handle them irresponsibly should be held to the letter of the law (including those who irresponsibly made them available in this case), yes.
Maybe the burden of responsibility for gun ownership should be higher than it is now, and the consequences for not abiding by that responsibility higher.
A gun is a tool with the sole purpose of causing harm to people or things. You pull the trigger, and a projectile comes out the barrel. It has no other utility. The comparison to cars is ridiculous.
Also, your country doesn’t have a problem with kids ramming their cars in to the school building and killing innocent kids.
I’m arguing the responsibility should be higher. As should the penalties for misusing them
The problem with that argument and your argument is there are penalties already in lace and they are the first charges that soft on crime prosecutors drop in the multiple charging situation (always) in which a gun is involved. So rather than advocate for tougher enforcement of already existing laws, soft on crime people like you prefer to talk about the gun as the problem and how we should put more bans and “rules” (that we won’t enforce) in place
If the person involved in this story survived I’m all for the death penalty for using a firearm to commit a murder. How about you? Are you willing to place the responsibility that high?
The car is simply placed here as a tool of death in this instance because the person I was responding to feels other countries have less violence because of fewer guns. I’m simply making the point that somebody who wants to commit violence will find a different way to do that when guns aren’t as available
Last year in same state this shooting occurred a guy stabbed 6 teens on an inner tubing outing he felt (rightfully) threatened by. He didn’t have a gun. He committed violence with the tool he had at his disposal
But you guys are the best. A car killing and wounding multiple people is no comparison. And hunters using firearms safely is no comparison
Yeah. Nothing is a comparison when you just want to blame and ban the gun.