>I think it's actually worse than your framing suggests, even though it's generally recognized that widespread gun ownership is very poor for public health. Wh

>I think it's actually worse than your framing suggests, even though it's generally recognized that widespread gun ownership is very poor for public health. Which is "worse" doesn't matter. He framed it that way because while cars do make it much easier for a hapless peasant to put the kinetic energy of a few thousand pounds at high speed somewhere it has no business being the overwhelming majority of cars will never be in that situation and many societies have decided that the benefits of widespread accessibility outweigh those costs. >while making the intent irrelevant. Please explain. And please do a better job than "I don't like cars so therefore we should apply really strict standards to it the way we do with hazardous activities like blasting, fumigation of dwellings, etc,". Why do you want those standards applied and why are cars so deserving?