|
I agree with the ruling. D.C has to figure out a way to reduce their gun violence with out declaring that just because your happen to live inside the boarder of their city a right that everyone else has doesn't exist for you.
My point was that the argument that cars and guns are similar because of the equal or increased amount of deaths caused by them makes it so, is flawed.
If cancer and diabetes caused the same deaths, or one more then another it doesn't make them similar. Even though both are diseases. Doctors use entirely different methods to reduce deaths in both. Yes sometimes a single method (early detection i.e) work for both. But to treat them equally because the resulting tragedy of both is similar, or worse is not the deciding factor on how they are treated.
It's talk like that from NRA or gun advocates that gets us no where. The same is true of left wing nuts who shrill at the site of any weapon that isn't a bow and arrow. Like the the waste of time in Massachusetts where I live on an assault rifle ban. By the time all the hysterics were over, no one asked: "how many people would it save"?. The best guess was one person every 13 years, since that was the last time anyone could confirm some one being killed by one (an assault rifle). All that effort and emotion wasted on a particular item that hardly anyone owns, uses in a crime, or even gets killed by at some point. All because they look scary to some liberal nutcase.
__________________
|