|
|
|
|
|
by Brian_K_White
1169 days ago
|
|
So potential is good enough justification? Anyone can carry a poison or a pathogen or simply be highly trained and know a lot, no need to carry anything, or even be obviously muscular. I suppose it must be reasonable to bar anyone who knows how to lock doors and start fires, or mix cleaning supplies. Assume we had an equivant way to scan for it like a metal detector or a frisking. |
|
If you disagree that potential is a good enough justification, would you agree that private citizens should be able to own nuclear bombs? If not, why? If you do think citizens owning nuclear bombs is reasonable, I don't think we will find common ground.
> Anyone can carry a poison or a pathogen or simply be highly trained and know a lot, no need to carry anything, or even be obviously muscular.
Try attending a conference openly carrying a bucket of arsenic or a bottle of anthrax. Or just a jerrycan with gasoline and some matches. Or wearing a bomb vest and wielding a machete. I like to imagine you will be sent away. It's not like guns are unfairly targeted here.
When those other methods of murdering people are as common in the death-statistics as firearms (such as the "killing spree by a muscular martial artist" one you propose), perhaps we should worry about them more. But they are not, so banning guns is the most logical step to increase safety.