I merely pointed at the hypocrisy of using the line "think of the children" to enact laws that limit and control everyone else for issues that cause significant

I merely pointed at the hypocrisy of using the line "think of the children" to enact laws that limit and control everyone else for issues that cause significantly less harm than guns which indicates that the goal is not to protect children, but to enforce certain beliefs and exert more control. > How does this support your stance on unrestricted porn access again? Requiring an ID for porn would be equivalent to requiring an ID for alcohol would it not? No because in the former the website will be forced to share my details with the government, I will be in a database, with no way of removing myself from there. I can also show a fake ID for alcohol if I wish to. The difference here is the tracking, and I can't trust that my data will not be logged. consequences. > Let's look at firearms as well since you seem to really think you've proven something with your statements. What state can I click a website check box saying I'm 18 and have as may firearms as I want show up in my house? I didn't intend on proving anything except that that argument, meaning that no firearms are sold to 18 year olds legally, is bogus with respect to shootings carried via assault weapons. What you appear not to grasp is the difference in the order of magnitude of the consequences. Having access to guns with intention to do harm is, by all means, not equivalent to having access to porn unless the person is actively seeking for ways to commit harm, at which point they are well into Tor. > The idea that some people get around laws is never a justification to just do away with laws or not have them in the first place. This is even more true when it comes to children, our society is ENTIRELY built on the agreement that under 18 is not an adult and they do not have full rights or access to whatever they want. There is a good scientific reason for this. I have never claimed anything to the contrary. However, you made my point quite well without realizing it. I merely replaced a few words of a segment in your comment, and appended a clause. What state can I purchase an assault rifle from a legal shop and have as many assault rifles as I want sold to me, if assault rifles are completely banned from the country? You agreed, right there, that laws should exist even if people do seek for ways to go around them, and that making it harder to do a bad thing works. It follows then that reducing access and imposing further restrictions on ownership will make access significantly harder for bad actors, be it children or otherwise.