"good morning department of redundancy department good morning may I help you?"
Yeah, but ... I mean ....
Okay, so, one of my posts on the subject, from another thread, last last month:
While it is true I find the car comparison inappropriate, the firearms lobby really has insisted; the common sense of the comparison is disrupted, for gun safety advocates because it never was a legitimate comparison, and firearms advocates because decades have passed and they still haven't figured out basic questions of function. They need to show us how to ride their guns to work, and mounting them on a car doesn't count. They need to show how they write a novel, or take the SAT (#2 pencil only), with a gun.
(#3510304/33↗)
So, since you went ahead and wrote the car comparison in
yet another thread↗, I thought perhaps the Department of Redundancy Department might well wonder yet again whether anyone offering that two-bit sleight is capable of answering the basic question.
We had a terrible accident out here, in my corner of the world, last night, and the questions at hand are
how did that happen, and
do we really want to know.
But like the car, it does make a good point about guns:
When you show me how to perform this or that task with a gun, we can consider the associated machines similarly to how the Road Crash Statistics will be relevant once you show me how to drive your gun to work, and something goes here about using a firearm to fill out your SAT form.
In this case, nobody is ever going to undertake this particular activity with a firearm; it's the wrong tool for the job because while the car is made for transportation, the pencil for writing, and so on, other instruments that can be harmful have ostensibly different purposes; a firearm is for killing. It is not a proper tool for turning out the lights, or opening a beer, or landscaping, or bee-shooing, or spicing up our sex lives.
Indeed, I recall a conversation one could hear some decades ago among Lustbader readers, who would sit around like macho men comparing their guns or cars, but they werre counting up lethal weapons in a room according to some passage in one or another of the novels arguing over a hundred seventy lethal weapons in a hotel room, and I think that includes stuff like strangling someone with the phone cables, or bludgeoning them with the components, and right there are four; owing to certain martial arts involving fans it seems worth noting the arguable thesis that courtesy stationery might be used to slice someone's throat open.
That scrap of memory only wanders through because one of the most common political representations on behalf of gun ownership in firearm safety discussions is the cognitive disruption evident about shooter rights advocates; nobody needs to make believe about advocates who aren't capable of discerning such basic differences.
Yet it keeps happening.
What's that? Another comparison of cars to guns? (
sigh). Good morning, Department of Redundancy Department; may I help you, or are you beyond help?
So, driving cars: Mandatory education? Mandatory periodic relicensing obligations, including occasional mandatory competence testing? Mandatory liability insurance? And on that last, there are, of course,
other outlooks↗ on the subject of mandatory liability insurance for gun ownership, but it always reads like cognitive dissonance when the argument on behalf of shooter rights invokes an automotive comparison while, generally speaking, shooter rights advocates don't really seem to want to deal with the rest of what goes with that juxtaposition.
