3 ms·
> Look at the dangerous potential of a baseball bat, or a crowbar, or a javelin. Should we not ban all those things? I can't speak for the person you're respon
by wwweston 14y ago
> Look at the dangerous potential of a baseball bat, or a crowbar, or a javelin. Should we not ban all those things?
I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but which do you really think is more likely:
* he's arguing that "potential for misuse" may well be a legitimate reason for regulating some things (inside a larger cost-benefit analysis about danger vs beneficial use, both observed and potential), perhaps up to and including banning
* he's arguing that every single potentially dangerous thing should be banned (and also, believes in a flat equivalence between melee weapons, firearms, and motor vehicles)
> Should we not ban all those things? Cars? Airplanes?
Probably not ban outright. We do seem to have made some progress in automobile and air travel safety by enacting/tweaking requirements for manufacture, registration and insurance for ownership, training and licensing for operating various classes of vehicle, and regulations regarding operation.
- bmelton 14y agoAirplanes and automobiles are not fundamental rights enumerated by the Constitution. The president has balked at the notion of requiring licensure (or even having to present a license) to exercise the right to vote because it is sacrosanct in the bill of rights. So what is difference between the first amendment and the second? While I obviously understand the difference in utility between a gun, an airplane and a hammer, the gun is only lacking utility to people that do not believe in the value of a right to prevent against tyranny. Neither a hammer or a car is particularly effective in that regard, though our fundamental rights are more specifically geared for that objective, however ugly some might find them.