Quote:
Originally Posted by Papa_Complex
Turbo Ghost,
Everyone brings out the motorcycle comparison and it's a completely invalid one. A motorcycle, of whatever type, has as it's primary purpose for being the transportation of a person. The primary function of a firearm is to project a bullet at sufficient velocity to kill. Comparisons like that are a big reason why I say that Americans MUST change their view of firearms.
|
How is the primary purpose of an object relevant in regards to the number of deaths it causes? Or, to frame the question differently, what makes the thousands of deaths by motor vehicles more acceptable than the thousands of deaths by firearms?
Nobody is really talking about doing away with assault rifles, or any other types of firearms. The discussion is about disallowing their private ownership. I think that makes the question of all types of motor vehicles a valid question. If you aim to reduce the number of deaths attributed to firearms by restricting their possession and operation to professional organizations (police, security guards, etc.), then where is the push to restrict the possession and operation of motor vehicles to professional organizations (taxis, busses)? By the numbers, motor vehicles are far more deadly machines. Disallowing their private ownership would go a long way toward reducing those fatalities. Is convenience of transportation really worth a life?