Everyone knew he wasn't lying. People who own farms that are overrun by wild hogs regularly can have death assisters, fine. The debate he deliberately waded into *with an edge case that we can legislate around* was: whether the US should continue to actively cultivate easy ways for noncombatants to be mowed down. No one is unhappy he's an edge case, and no one argued he was making stuff up. None of that. It's even fair that he brought up his unusual circumstance. The problem was always that it was used as a diversion and justification for the US's gun law status quo.
Look: on that matter - Nations we would like to compare ourselves don't have our stats. Our little gun club and murdered children ratio puts the US in a way different group of countries. Even if they weren't the case, I feel like "let's work much harder on children not have to plan to be killed" shouldn't be controversial. The hog guy should be lobbying for an exception/circumstantial solution within very strict gun laws.
If billionaires can get exemption rather than consistent tax laws because of "reasons" then farmers / ranchers can do so to rent a M2 for a week to address the invaders. Forget terminators, I'm putting AI chips into hogzilla brains.
Look: on that matter - Nations we would like to compare ourselves don't have our stats. Our little gun club and murdered children ratio puts the US in a way different group of countries. Even if they weren't the case, I feel like "let's work much harder on children not have to plan to be killed" shouldn't be controversial. The hog guy should be lobbying for an exception/circumstantial solution within very strict gun laws.