3 ms·
Why does a law have to be 100% to be considered worth having?
by Braxton1980 1y ago
Why does a law have to be 100% to be considered worth having?
- josephcsible 1y agoIt doesn't need to be 100% effective, but it needs to be effective enough to make up for the downsides.
- pjc50 1y ago[flagged]
- yostrovs 1y ago[flagged]
- christophilus 1y agoI don’t doubt you’ve heard someone argue that, but I never have. I’ve always heard it as a right to defense, generally as in a right to defend yourself from oppressive authorities. I never took that to mean assassinations as much as militia actions against militaries. You can argue whether or not that is an effective approach to securing freedom, but that’s the argument I’m most familiar with.
- pjc50 1y agoMore of a distinction without a difference. Once you get to that situation, you've legitimized murder; now we see what that looks like. "Militia" action against "military"? Neither side will bother with the scruples of waiting for the enemy to put on a uniform and pick up a weapon. It will be death squads vs car bombs.
- delecti 1y agoThe 2A people couch it in metaphor and implication, but "we need guns to stop tyranny" is fundamentally saying that tyrants ought be shot. We can argue whether the semantics of whether death in battle counts as murder, but I think that's just quibbling over the definition of "assassination".
- panarchy 1y agoHow many gun deaths per capita does Japan have compared to the USA?
- ajuc 1y agoThere are whole continents of countries showing how effective gun control is. At this point you've got to be ignoring it on purpose. It's not some statistical difference between almost no violence and no violence. It's night and day. Orders of magnitude. Teens walking back from parties through the middle of the city at 1 am with their parents permission vs clan wars.
- Braxton1980 1y agoDefine effective