|
|
|
|
|
by nagrom
5423 days ago
|
|
So, we refuse to sell bats to people who want to play baseball in the middle of the summer (the item's main and intended innocent purpose) because other people want to use them for other purposes? If you don't explicitly do that, you need to figure out a way to identify the potential nefarious users from the potential good ones. Do we allow a bat as long as you buy a mitt and a ball too? Only to people over the age of 25 because most of the looters are under 25? By postcode? There's no way that any business should be expected to do that - it's a police action. If parliament wants to make bats illegal, or controlled items, that's one issue (resting with parliament, not Amazon and just as contentious). To refuse to sell sporting goods in case they're used for offense is just silly. Do we then refuse to sell cricket bats, or broom handles, or 2x4s, or javelins or kitchen knives if there's an upsurge in their sales? Ultimately, the people responsible for the use of these items are the people who use them. Let's not try to increase the UK's tactics of using enterprises to carry out work to which the government doesn't want to admit. |
|
This is sad. Honest people resorting to ordering baseball bats on a website for their defense. Imagine that that was your grandmother left with no other option.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." --Ghandi