3 ms·

In most developed countries gun ownership is controlled enough that you don't really need to worry about that. If we're talking about that one developed countr

In most developed countries gun ownership is controlled enough that you don't really need to worry about that. If we're talking about that one developed country where everybody and their grandmother carries a gun, I get the feeling geofencing them would not be a popular measure. But yeah, in principle this is totally a thing we should do.

ALittleLight 6y ago
I assume axes need regulating, so you don't cut down the trees, matches so you can't burn them, poisons so you don't kill the birds, speakers because loud noise could disrupt them, etc. ?
- astrea 6y ago
  You act as if you're making a valid counter-point, but all of these actions would indeed be punishable by their respective law or regulation.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    Doing harmful things is what's punishable and regulated. Having the means to do them is not. e.g. I would be punished for chopping down a bird sanctuary, but not required to get a license to own an axe.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      In most countries you can't carry a knife on you that's longer than a few centimeters in public. I have no idea what kind of axe legislation exists because I doubt it's ever been a major issue if someone somewhere in the forest swings an axe around, but it actually is perfectly common to regulate tools that are dangerous for other people or endangered animals, plants and so on.
- dionidium 6y ago
  If you could make an axe or a match that couldn’t hurt people, then obviously, yes, you’d do that. We haven’t before now had the technology to do that in a way that wouldn’t violate other rights, but the technology is shifting in such a way that there are domains where we will have that ability and of course we should do it. The only reason anybody objects to this is because, again, we used to live in a world where you’d have to do something objectionable to achieve these goals, but as that becomes less true the objections will seem increasingly absurd. Our intuitions in this space lag reality.

ALittleLight 6y ago

I assume axes need regulating, so you don't cut down the trees, matches so you can't burn them, poisons so you don't kill the birds, speakers because loud noise could disrupt them, etc. ?

astrea 6y ago
You act as if you're making a valid counter-point, but all of these actions would indeed be punishable by their respective law or regulation.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  Doing harmful things is what's punishable and regulated. Having the means to do them is not. e.g. I would be punished for chopping down a bird sanctuary, but not required to get a license to own an axe.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    In most countries you can't carry a knife on you that's longer than a few centimeters in public. I have no idea what kind of axe legislation exists because I doubt it's ever been a major issue if someone somewhere in the forest swings an axe around, but it actually is perfectly common to regulate tools that are dangerous for other people or endangered animals, plants and so on.
dionidium 6y ago
If you could make an axe or a match that couldn’t hurt people, then obviously, yes, you’d do that. We haven’t before now had the technology to do that in a way that wouldn’t violate other rights, but the technology is shifting in such a way that there are domains where we will have that ability and of course we should do it. The only reason anybody objects to this is because, again, we used to live in a world where you’d have to do something objectionable to achieve these goals, but as that becomes less true the objections will seem increasingly absurd. Our intuitions in this space lag reality.