3 ms·
> But that would upset the teetotalers and puritans. It's easy to cater to them. In the packet that legalizes all drugs you also remove all gun control laws.
by 323 4y ago
> But that would upset the teetotalers and puritans.
It's easy to cater to them. In the packet that legalizes all drugs you also remove all gun control laws.
So you make all drugs and all guns legal in all circumstances and at all times, just like it should be in a free country. The state should not control what you put in your mouth or veins or what you carry in your pocket.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y agoAnd if I don't want some rando putting a bullet in me in a mall or school shooting spree what "freedom" do I have to avoid that? And don't say "carry" because that's been proven time and again to be utter nonsense in practice.
- 323 4y agoPeople make the same argument about drugs: what if a druggie attacks me with a knife in a mall.
- factsarelolz 4y agoPerhaps adapt to the risk in which the activities you put yourself in? Plenty of people go to the mall or school without catching a bullet from a "rando"
- dsfyu404ed 4y agoI'm genuinely unsure if this is satire. The last time someone tried to shoot up a mall they got clapped by some rando who was carrying. The last time someone tried to shoot up a school the police prevented anyone from interfering while they went at it for 40min. Your selection of examples seem specifically chosen to highlight the failure of the policy you are at least pretending to advocate for. Existing gun laws do basically nothing to stop the kind of pre-meditated violence of which you speak. At best they act as a marginal deterrent and that marginal effect carries over into the actual results. Frankly, I don't think that crimes of pure possession (for guns, drugs or any other vice) should be crimes except with some specific time and place qualifiers (bomb at home -> ok, bomb in airport -> not ok).
- AlgorithmicTime 4y ago