LogFAQs > #887670202

Malcrasternus posted...

No, you completely ignored the post, merely saying it's irrelevant without being able to explain why.

So there are two reasons I don't want to get into the specifics of what you said.

The first is, it doesn't actually impact the "benefit to risk factor" the way that you want it to. Just because a person can in theory be more judicious in using a bullet than a nuclear device doesn't mean they will be -- and in any case, my point is that whether or not we allow a rights violation is contingent on exactly that, the "benefit to risk factor." Rights aren't sacrosanct, so we already essentially agree that what matters is the practical implications of ownership. Where we disagree is to what extent rights should be abridged.

Second, what you said isn't actually true? You can buy explosives legally, just not nuclear devices. And what you said applies to explosives generally. So even though I agree with you in principle, it already isn't how we regulate firearms and explosives. I'm not sure what else to say about that.
---

He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.