2 ms·

> If you take the lower end of the estimate, another way of saying it would be "nearly 40% of the interactions involving this product are used illegally." We st

> If you take the lower end of the estimate, another way of saying it would be "nearly 40% of the interactions involving this product are used illegally." We strongly regulate things that have a much smaller chance of causing harm than firearms. I wouldn't take the lower end of the estimate, because most defensive firearms uses are not reported. Firearms are also already highly regulated, yet a number of illicit use still occurs. By your logic, we need fewer firearms regulations to tip the balance. I don't understand what you are proposing that hasn't already been tried, done, or is completely impractical. Banning things, especially an empowering technology, has never worked. It is better to decentralize and distribute that power - in this case, it is a political power - fairly and equally among all people.

drewbug01 2y ago
> I wouldn’t take the lower end of the estimate Oh, sure. Why not. > banning things has never worked I can think of at least one high-profile counter-example to this, specifically with guns, within living memory. I’m done arguing with you; there’s no sense arguing with people who think that gun violence is just a political football. I pray you are never the victim of your preferred policies.
- ben_cog 2y ago
  > I can think of at least one high-profile counter-example to this, specifically with guns, within living memory. Which genocidal dictatorship are you thinking of which banned guns? Doesn't matter, because the idea is entirely stupid to begin with.