This is just sad all the way around. In Kentucky, 5 year old shoots 2 year old sister with rifle.

You could do this for just about anything.

5 members of SoCal family killed by alleged drunken driver ID'd

This is just sad all the way around. In Kentucky, 5 year old shoots 2 year old sister with rifle.

You could do this for just about anything.

5 members of SoCal family killed by alleged drunken driver ID'd

If the point was to be arbitrary, then yeah you could. But since we're talking about gun control and not drunk driving, your point is lost on me.

Give me liberty or give me death.

In the US this has morphed into "Give me positive liberty or give me death."

What? I trust my neighbor to drive a (highly regulated) car, so I therefore should trust them to own a nuke?

Regulations or not, your neighbor could murder you with both, right?

What? I trust my neighbor to drive a (highly regulated) car, so I therefore should trust them to own a nuke?

Regulations or not, your neighbor could murder you with both, right?

uh, they could try to murder me with a car, which they have a good reason to own for other purposes, or they could instantly murder 20,000,000 people using a nuke.
You really can't tell the difference?

uh, they could try to murder me with a car, which they have a good reason to own for other purposes, or they could instantly murder 20,000,000 people using a nuke.
You really can't tell the difference?

I can see the difference, but I can also see that if your neighbor is going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to develop and build a nuke...He could probably find another way to do the same damage. If you can't trust him with a nuke then you can't trust him with anything. He needs to be locked away.

uh, they could try to murder me with a car, which they have a good reason to own for other purposes, or they could instantly murder 20,000,000 people using a nuke.
You really can't tell the difference?

I can see the difference, but I can also see that if your neighbor is going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to develop and build a nuke...He could probably find another way to do the same damage. If you can't trust him with a nuke then you can't trust him with anything. He needs to be locked away.

Maybe the risk assessment of a nuclear accident compared with a car accident warrants a bit of extraordinary caution. Don't ya think? I mean there is such a thing as levels of trust. I trust someone with a bottle of vodka. But I wouldn't trust someone with that same bottle filled with nerve gas. Just sayin.

Maybe the risk assessment of a nuclear accident compared with a car accident warrants a bit of extraordinary caution. Don't ya think? I mean there is such a thing as levels of trust. I trust someone with a bottle of vodka. But I wouldn't trust someone with that same bottle filled with nerve gas. Just sayin.

I think the point was he wasn't talking about an 'accident'.

Maybe the risk assessment of a nuclear accident compared with a car accident warrants a bit of extraordinary caution. Don't ya think?

Well first off I don't think any billionaires are going to waste their money making a nuclear bomb. Not even Bill Gates would do that. I think it's a bogus argument.

Second, for the sake of argument, I would hold them to the same standard as our government. Do you trust your government with nuclear missiles?

Maybe the risk assessment of a nuclear accident compared with a car accident warrants a bit of extraordinary caution. Don't ya think? I mean there is such a thing as levels of trust. I trust someone with a bottle of vodka. But I wouldn't trust someone with that same bottle filled with nerve gas. Just sayin.

I think the point was he wasn't talking about an 'accident'.

One is an extension of the other. If you don't trust someone to be responsible enough to not have "accidents", then you're surely not going to trust them when they are -- as Spock said-- "emotionally compromised".