• Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m trying to figure out your logic here. You seem to be trying to defend an undefendable position. Cars, afaik, typically require a license to actually own one, yet we don’t consider them too dangerous for someone to own. Are they too dangerous for an unlicensed individual to own? Yeah, but most people can get a license for one.

    On the other hand, anyone can own a sword or a crossbow, or (afaik) build a maser out of a couple microwaves if they want to (or until recently, build and own a flamethrower), so those must be perfectly safe to own. I can pull the electron guns out of old CRTs and build a device pretty much guaranteed to cause melanoma in anyone I point it at. I’m sure the people who end up with skin cancer would be happy to know that the hacked-together cancer-beam I created is perfectly safe because it doesn’t require a license to own.

    So I’m trying to figure out what your point is. You seem to be trying to say that if something is restricted, then it is “too dangerous to own” but that’s obviously not true. Yet for some reason, you’re trying to cling to this argument.

    • osarusan@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are they too dangerous for an unlicensed individual to own? Yeah

      Congratulations. You figured out my point in your first paragraph.