Bill O’Reilly’s definition of “freedom” isn’t freedom
(2 minute read … unless you read really slow)
More than 500 people were shot by 1 gunman in Las Vegas. At least 59 people died. The shooter had no history of mental illness and didn’t fit the typical description of somebody who would commit the largest mass shooting in American history. Except for 1 thing: He owned a shit ton of guns — 42 in total, of which 23 were found in his Vegas hotel room. Many of the guns were high-powered, semi-automatic weapons. If this variable was removed or lessened, many lives could’ve been saved. If this variable was removed or lessened, many lives could’ve been saved. If this variable was removed or lessened, many lives could’ve been saved. If this variable was removed or lessened, many lives could’ve been saved.
“The big downside to American freedom is on display,” said Bill O’Reilly. The thing is, Bill, your freedom (assault weapons), isn’t freedom when it’s used as a vehicle to take away 59 other people’s freedom (their lives).
If you’re one of those ardent gun owners who’s all like “By Gawd they’re comin’ for my guns”, then please listen. As a non-gun person, I’ll say really clearly, I only want your guns if they have the ability to kill a massive amount of people, or if you’re mentally handicapped, or if you own like 30 of them, or if you’re selling them for side cash while you could just learn how to drive for Lyft. And actually, I don’t want them. I’d probably get really scared if all those guns started arriving via FedEx to my apartment. But maybe the military wants them? Maybe we can recycle them into decorative chairs? There are tons of stats to back me up on this, but all I’m asking (along with a lot of other people) is to be logical and sensible. It’s not freedom when it can take away 59 other people’s freedom.