Cars and airplanes provide an obvious and widespread social utility. “Assault rifles” (the legal classification under federal law), for example, provide no such widespread social utility and are arguably not worth their societal drawbacks.
For example, we understand and accept as a society that more cars and airplane travel will result in measurably more child deaths but taken as a whole are worth the trade off. Firearms scattered far and wide across the country with flimsy oversight that result in measurably more child deaths are simply not worth those extra deaths. It’s a cold calculation and a discussion that’s long overdue in our so-called civil life.
and
A cold calculation....indeed. A cold, liberal calculation.
Now, this "we" business...who is we?
Now this "acceptance".....Democrat liberals are working feverishly to abolish both cars and airplanes. No? Absolutely.
BTW....one is a unit of measure.
You said we "accept" the risks of say cars and airplanes(see above) that killing kids was for the greater good......you hear that from liberals..."for the greater good".
Yet, firearms....absolutely not. Noting the liberal agenda on firearms is far more wide-ranging and sinister than so-called "assault weapons". This is settled history.
I was simply pointing out that liberals(you) are feverishly trying to get rid of cars and airplanes(for the greater good) of the environment and of course because they cause so many children's deaths....for example.
We could say, it depends if you are liberal....I guess. Killing kids in cars...OK(acceptable you say). Accidentally by firearm....bad. Therefore we should punish literally hundreds of millions for accidents or crimes. Of who have the right to keep and bare arms.
You keep saying "measurably".....one death(child) is a unit of "measurement"....this is measurably.
What… are you talking about?
See above.