Simple question, please answer truthfully.
There are thousands of drunk driving deaths a year. You are a car owner, do you bear the same responsibility for the illegal actions of those car owners?
You've asked repeatedly if gun owners bear responsibility for illegal acts with firearms but aren't illegal acts with cars more frequent, have more deaths and injuries?
How dare you accuse/impugn or imply that I have responsibility for illegal acts if you aren't willing to accept the same responsibility.
My first impression, whenever one of these questions was put to me, was that it's like comparing apples and oranges. We've had cars, knives, alcohol, any number of things compared to guns in this way. I tried, without much success, to point out that perhaps the problem with this type of comparing is that guns are unique among all these items. hand guns, especially, have but one purpose. But a big discussion ensued as to what that purpose really is. And we got nowhere.
So, I'll give it a go. I say gun availability is a problem and that law abiding gun owners bear some responsibility for the problems caused by criminals using guns. Here's how, using cars as an example.
Let's say there are 1000 people. 900 of them want cars, 100 do not. The 900 have a powerful lobby that fights against any laws that might prevent them from having cars; the 100 are always trying to limit or curtail car availability. So far the 900 prevail.
Of that group, 100 are irresponsible. They include drunk drivers, drug addicts, mentally ill people, road rage maniacs. These 100 cause tremendous problems, but the 800 good drivers, insist they are not to blame. "That's them," they say. "We have nothing to do with them." The 100 anti-car folks, naturally say this is proof that cars are dangerous and bad and will always result in problems and should be banned. The 800 are too powerful to let that happen and continue to insist it's not their fault or problem. That's where we stand.
I say the 800 bear some responsibility for the problem. Certainly the 100 anti-car people don't. And the 100 problem drivers wouldn't even be a problem if it weren't for the 800 and their powerful lobby.
Translated into everyday language, for me to deny any responsibility for the drunk driver who kills a kid on a bike, would be wrong if there were a serious movement afoot to ban all cars from the road and I opposed it. By supporting car availability, I would automatically bear some responsibility for the consequences, good and bad.
What do you think?