konnichiwa said:
EricHiggin said:
The fact of the matter is that at the core of what he said, is that as long as someone pays money, whether it be for tough vehicle regulations, or tough gun regulations, to be able to legally have and use those items, then using them to kill is acceptable, considering innocent people are being mowed down with both guns, and vehicles. If he didn't mean that, then he should have said something more along the lines of "Yes, obviously we do need much stricter regulations and restrictions on vehicles, as well as guns". If he would have said that, he would be taken seriously. That's not what he said though. Which makes me assume he must be going against the Fox comment. While unlikely, he could be going along with Fox, and pointing out that the vehicle control we have now, which is much more in depth than guns, obviously isn't working good enough either, yet no one is complaining. I don't think that is the case though.
|
Personally I thought the same as boffer and had same interpretation it also feels like a complaint from Fox that backfired. 'Sure he killed people with guns but would you say we need to be stricter if he did it with a truck?' the point Kevin makes is that 'we' are stricter and it is harder to get the abilitry to drive with a car/pick up/truck than it is to get a gun.
|
Hard to legally drive a truck maybe, but one can easily get one through other means, not register, no license, no insurance, ect.
I purchased my first car from a neighbor with cash. I took it down and registered it in my name, purchased car insurance and have my license to drive it. But I could have easily not done any of those things and just drove it until I got caught. Or drove it headlong into a concert of people killing them.
There ar elots of people out driving without insurance or licenses today.
