4 ms·

Not a fair comparison. One item cannot be used to harm others. The other item can be. Personal freedom does not include freedom to harm others.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>not a fair comparison. One item cannot be used to harm others Going looking for expensive power tools in unattended work vehicles to pawn because you're desperate for your next fix or driving drunk sure sounds like "harming others" to me. I am well aware that that is the exception and not the rule. The same is true for guns and explosives. Most guns will never be fired at anyone, they will go home, trunk, range, trunk, home, repeat or they will sit in a closet collecting dust. Pretty much all non-commercial explosive use in non-warring nations is for entertainment (anvil tossing and the like).
- clavalle 6y ago
  Theft and intoxicated driving are still illegal. You can get explosives and machine guns, you just have to jump through a few hoops with the ATF.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >Theft and intoxicated driving are still illegal. Shooting people is still illegal >You can get explosives and machine guns, you just have to jump through a few hoops with the ATF. You can get opioids and cocaine but not without jumping through a few hoops with doctors.
    - clavalle 6y ago
      Side note: Explosives law is pretty interesting. If you hurt someone or something using explosives, even if it was a complete accident and in no way foreseeable, and even if the person or thing was damaged because of /their/ negligence you are automatically 100% at fault as the person who set off the explosive. Because explosives are considered so dangerous that whomever uses them must be expected to take extraordinary precaution.
      - flowerlad 6y ago
        We need the same level of accountability for guns too.
        throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        We do, they're actually stricter because there's many more avenues for criminal prosecution.
- flowerlad 6y ago
  The difference is the potential risk for your fellow citizens. All risks are not equal. In one case the risk is loss of property, in the other the risk is loss of lives of dozens of your fellow citizens (in one case, a classroom of 6-year-olds) in a matter of a few minutes. Risk to your fellow citizens has to be figured into whether you are allowed to have something.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

>not a fair comparison. One item cannot be used to harm others Going looking for expensive power tools in unattended work vehicles to pawn because you're desperate for your next fix or driving drunk sure sounds like "harming others" to me. I am well aware that that is the exception and not the rule. The same is true for guns and explosives. Most guns will never be fired at anyone, they will go home, trunk, range, trunk, home, repeat or they will sit in a closet collecting dust. Pretty much all non-commercial explosive use in non-warring nations is for entertainment (anvil tossing and the like).

clavalle 6y ago
Theft and intoxicated driving are still illegal. You can get explosives and machine guns, you just have to jump through a few hoops with the ATF.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >Theft and intoxicated driving are still illegal. Shooting people is still illegal >You can get explosives and machine guns, you just have to jump through a few hoops with the ATF. You can get opioids and cocaine but not without jumping through a few hoops with doctors.
  - clavalle 6y ago
    Side note: Explosives law is pretty interesting. If you hurt someone or something using explosives, even if it was a complete accident and in no way foreseeable, and even if the person or thing was damaged because of /their/ negligence you are automatically 100% at fault as the person who set off the explosive. Because explosives are considered so dangerous that whomever uses them must be expected to take extraordinary precaution.
    - flowerlad 6y ago
      We need the same level of accountability for guns too.
      - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        We do, they're actually stricter because there's many more avenues for criminal prosecution.
flowerlad 6y ago
The difference is the potential risk for your fellow citizens. All risks are not equal. In one case the risk is loss of property, in the other the risk is loss of lives of dozens of your fellow citizens (in one case, a classroom of 6-year-olds) in a matter of a few minutes. Risk to your fellow citizens has to be figured into whether you are allowed to have something.