3 ms·
> Finally, the idea of "banning" guns -- which every basically qualified engineer or physicist should be capable to building from readily available materials an
by sushisource 6y ago
> Finally, the idea of "banning" guns -- which every basically qualified engineer or physicist should be capable to building from readily available materials and tools -- makes them even more interesting. If for no other reason than to illuminate preposterous and insulting nature of the idea.
This makes no sense. Assaulting someone is illegal, but anyone can do it. It's still illegal.
What?
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoHurting someone is malum in se whereas owning guns is malum prohibitum when prohibited. This is the relevant distinction.
- sushisource 6y agoThat's a cop out. Literally all of our laws exist because some portion of the population are shitheads who can't be trusted. Who cares if the thing we're banning is intrinsically bad or not. Phrasing it in Latin doesn't make it any more compelling either. We also ban nuclear and biological weapons for good reason. Does it really matter that they are harder to obtain? (Tip: They won't be in the long run, there was a time when guns were hard to make too).
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago> Who cares if the thing we're banning is intrinsically bad or not. I’m sure you would care if the thing we’re banning is something you like that doesn’t hurt anyone. > We also ban nuclear and biological weapons for good reason. Do we? I thought we built them and kept them ready to use. > Phrasing it in Latin doesn't make it any more compelling either. Those are legal terms because actual judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers, and others have discussed this extensively and determined that the distinction is relevant.