dnewton3
Staff member
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/20/pol.../?intcmp=hplnws
A man kills his family by driving them into a lake. All would agree this is a horrific loss of life. But this is a senseless tragedy that could have been prevented. Ask yourself these questions …
- If the vehicle were smaller, would fewer people have been killed? After all, an SUV with a third row seat is just too big. Fewer people would have died had this been a two-seat coupe. We need seating capacity limits!
- Why was there unrestricted access to a body of water? We should be demanding that all lakes and retention ponds have full barricades around them! It is just too easy to get into water!
- Was the vehicle was legally owned and registered? How did he get such easy access to this dangerous vehicle? Did he purchase this at a dealer, or from a private individual? Wait - what if he borrowed or even rented this SUV? We need laws to prevent loaning vehicles from one person to another. We need stricter laws curtailing the ownership of such large, inherently evil machines!
- How did the father get to the skills to kill like that? Did he practice on driving simulation games? Shouldn’t we require more and stricter laws to obtain a license? Apparently the academic and proficiency exams to get a driver's license are not enough! We need background checks to get a license!
- How did the vehicle get up to such a speed in the first place? Look at the damage to the front end; the impact was tremendous. Are vehicles just too fast and powerful now days? No one “needs” this much power. Let’s have power limits on vehicles!
- Is this not the fault of the automaker for providing the vehicle? In fact, is not the entire automotive industry at fault? They should be held civilly liable and sued for tremendous amounts of money because they make these vehicles with the full knowledge of how they can be used!
Sound familiar?
I want to be clear; I am NOT making light of the loss of life. This was premeditated murder.
But I am illustrating the inane logic and hypocrisy of gun-control talking-points.
And before you would argue that guns are made for killing and vehicles are not, ask yourself these additional three questions:
1) did the design intent of the weapon alter the quantity of people killed? (Could he not have killed more if his family were larger? After all, unused seats were available in this murder weapon.)
2) did the design intent of the weapon modify the degree of "dead-ness" of the family? (Would they have been "more" dead if a gun were used? Or maybe less dead if he suffocated them with a soft pillow?)
3) did the design intent of the weapon change the amount of terror in each victim's mind? Did the children have less fear because daddy wasn't pointing a 9mm semi-auto at them? Did the wife think to herself as they violently slammed into the water "Oh, good ... At least he's not shooting us with his assault rifle .... I feel much better about that ..."?
Think about it.
I should mention that this isn't about politics and we should stay far away from this here on BITOG in that regard. I'm pointing out the fact that (so called) logic is often a one-way street with some folks. Their "logic" is typically based upon emotion and not intellect.
.
A man kills his family by driving them into a lake. All would agree this is a horrific loss of life. But this is a senseless tragedy that could have been prevented. Ask yourself these questions …
- If the vehicle were smaller, would fewer people have been killed? After all, an SUV with a third row seat is just too big. Fewer people would have died had this been a two-seat coupe. We need seating capacity limits!
- Why was there unrestricted access to a body of water? We should be demanding that all lakes and retention ponds have full barricades around them! It is just too easy to get into water!
- Was the vehicle was legally owned and registered? How did he get such easy access to this dangerous vehicle? Did he purchase this at a dealer, or from a private individual? Wait - what if he borrowed or even rented this SUV? We need laws to prevent loaning vehicles from one person to another. We need stricter laws curtailing the ownership of such large, inherently evil machines!
- How did the father get to the skills to kill like that? Did he practice on driving simulation games? Shouldn’t we require more and stricter laws to obtain a license? Apparently the academic and proficiency exams to get a driver's license are not enough! We need background checks to get a license!
- How did the vehicle get up to such a speed in the first place? Look at the damage to the front end; the impact was tremendous. Are vehicles just too fast and powerful now days? No one “needs” this much power. Let’s have power limits on vehicles!
- Is this not the fault of the automaker for providing the vehicle? In fact, is not the entire automotive industry at fault? They should be held civilly liable and sued for tremendous amounts of money because they make these vehicles with the full knowledge of how they can be used!
Sound familiar?
I want to be clear; I am NOT making light of the loss of life. This was premeditated murder.
But I am illustrating the inane logic and hypocrisy of gun-control talking-points.
And before you would argue that guns are made for killing and vehicles are not, ask yourself these additional three questions:
1) did the design intent of the weapon alter the quantity of people killed? (Could he not have killed more if his family were larger? After all, unused seats were available in this murder weapon.)
2) did the design intent of the weapon modify the degree of "dead-ness" of the family? (Would they have been "more" dead if a gun were used? Or maybe less dead if he suffocated them with a soft pillow?)
3) did the design intent of the weapon change the amount of terror in each victim's mind? Did the children have less fear because daddy wasn't pointing a 9mm semi-auto at them? Did the wife think to herself as they violently slammed into the water "Oh, good ... At least he's not shooting us with his assault rifle .... I feel much better about that ..."?
Think about it.
I should mention that this isn't about politics and we should stay far away from this here on BITOG in that regard. I'm pointing out the fact that (so called) logic is often a one-way street with some folks. Their "logic" is typically based upon emotion and not intellect.
.
Last edited:
