“It’s very easy to blame an inanimate object. Any kind of instrument in the wrong hands can be put to evil use. This comes down to intent — criminal behavior, accountability and responsibility,” Mr. Kollitides said in an exclusive interview last week. [...] “He killed the gun’s owner, stole her car, stole her gun and then went to a school and killed innocent kids. No background checks could have prevented that. He illegally obtained the guns,” he told me in his small New York office. “Only two things could have potentially stopped him: his mother locking up her guns and an armed guard. Even then, he could have driven his stolen car into a playground full of kids. He was intent on killing, which we know is already illegal.”Sure, except that aside from guns like the AR-15, there basically aren't any other legally available "inanimate objects" capable of inflicting the sort of damage necessary to carry out a Newtown massacre. It's one thing to argue that guns should be legal, but don't tell me that there's no difference between a semiautomatic rifle and a stolen car. That's just ridiculous.
But even if cars were as effective as semiautomatic rifles at carrying out mass murders, so what? We do a lot more regulating of cars than we do of guns, and yet nobody feels like their freedom is seriously jeopardized. Despite the fact that you are required to register your car, that you're required to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle, and that you must carry auto insurance, I don't think a single person has ever seriously argued that their liberty has been curtailed in any meaningful way.
I really have no idea what could have been going through Kollitides's head when he made that comparison, but I am sure of one thing: If I ever see him behind the wheel of an auto, I'm going to get as far away from his as I can, as quickly as possible.