There is no reason to ban possession of something, if the act of possessing it causes no harm.
Assuredly, if the act of using it causes harm, then doing so should be prohibited. But possession is absolutely fine and ought to be left unmolested by the state.
The only possible justification for criminalizing possession is that you believe the possessor will later do harm. And imprisoning people before they do harm is the sign of a failed civilization.
You're not a lawyer, stupid.
whoa m8, put down that fully automatic clippity snipper and back away slowly.
>>57295953
Or what if the sole purpose of a thing is to cause harm?
Of course, Amerilards would never understand. They're perfectly content with indulging in their racism as numerous innocent young people of color die.
>>57295953
That's why drugs should be legal.
>>57296993
How can the sole purpose of a thing be to cause harm, if it can at any point not cause harm?
>>57295953
One way to reduce risk is to reduce possession.
This can be done by controlling all potential parties for responsibility.
And this is especially necessary when there may be a wide disconnect between transactions, to the point where personal liability is harder to establish.
For example, if I'm an explosives manufacturer, then who knows how long it will take for somebody to use the explosives that I make to blow something up they shouldn't.
Thus controlling who may be sold explosives and such can be important.
>>57297225
An unplugged electric razor can't shave, yet its sole purpose is to shave.
Nice try though. Maybe you should get an education that matter you republitard LOL
>>57295953
Aren't those heinous tools banned in bongland?
>>57296993
>>57297460
Straya bringing in the shitpost
>>57296993
There's no situation where an item's sole malicious intent is to harm. Even a gun has uses for self defence, which is not an unethical or illegal act in the sane places of the world.
Unless some kind of reverse-Dominator was invented that only shot law abiding citizens the case will never be that an items only use is to harm.
>>57297627
Can't even logically refute anything I say, so you call it a shitpost. Ever took a class on logic you uneducated tard? ad hominem.
>>57297863
Yes but even in self defense, an items purpose is often inclusive of causing harm (otherwise, it could not provide a deterrence), hence you're completely wrong.
All of you are just violent uneducated hicks, grow up and stop overcompensating for your tiny dicks
>>57297921
>uneducated tard
>ad hominem
>>57297921
Canadian litmus test here, it was a shit post.
>>57298206
Ah yes but the key difference is that I both addressed his argument while simultaneously insulting him. The insult was not a part of refuting his argument, it was merely an added bonus. Thats the key point of an ad hominem argument, it is used to substitute, not compliment, an argument.
Of course an American would never understand the difference :^)
>>57298198
To address your point directly, a gun can deter without the need to fire it, let alone fire it at someone, let alone fire it at someone and hit that someone.
To address a different issue, why do you pretend that harming is bad? You acknowledge that it can be good, and yet you still use it as a negative quality of guns.
>>57298538
>(^;
>>57295953
>There is no reason to ban possession of something, if the act of possessing it causes no harm.
Should I be allowed to point a gun at your head at all times?
>>57298668
>To address your point directly, a gun can deter without the need to fire it, let alone fire it at someone, let alone fire it at someone and hit that someone.
Yes but the basic premise is that if fired, it can cause harm. The only other time it doesn't cause harm, is if it is inaptly used, or intentionally misused (ie. via "warning shots").
All of these cases are reliant on the sole nature of the device- to cause harm.
>To address a different issue
Stopped reading there :^)
Face it you Americ ucks, you don't need guns except to kill innocent people of color.
>>57299010
No because that's threatening behavior. Having the gun holstered with an open carry license is not. Same goes for a concealed carry license.
The difference is that any fuckface without the mental capacity to value human life is able to have guns. Ameritards think that there's only two camps of gun control: all or nothing. No, assholes, you can keep the gun that you have, and improve the system by reducing the risk of unstable individuals carrying guns with more rigorous regulations and testing.
>>57296993
What if the sole purpose of a flag is to shitpost incessantly?
Of course, Ausfailians would never understand. They're perfectly content with indulging their retarded leftist ideals as numerous innocent whites die.
>>57299532
Threatening does not cause harm
>>57299564
>What if the sole purpose of a flag is to shitpost incessantly?
Now that is an ad hominem argument, because you attack the arguer rather than the argument.
Nice to see you're incapable of logical debate though. Good luck graduating high school.
>>57299374
>Yes but the basic premise is that if fired, it can cause harm.
I can use any object to cause harm. What is your solution to all other objects?
>>57299010
Of course!
>>57300294
>muh phallus E
You could have just not replied instead of being a retard. It's like you just saw the graphic and needed an excuse to cite it.
>>57299603
Owning firearm != pointing it at people
>>57300369
Don't derail the topic, this is about guns you uneducated ameritard
>>57299603
There are self-defense laws in the defender's favor against threatening behavior. As long as we're playing devil's advocate, while the act of threatening does not cause physical harm, it can cause emotional or mental duress, which people are suing each other over left and right.
>>57301375
It was actually about cutlery, but don't let me stop you all now that you've got going.
>>57301564
m8 ive already derailed this thread into endless shitposting, what do i care?
thanks for the chuckles though
>>57301375
The topic is about the banning and possession of objects.
Could you answer my question, please?
Yeah , having C-4 can't harm anyone until it explodes. That's why it should be legal, right?
>>57302037
Well . . . yeah
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that.
>>57302019
why bother? i've already destroyed this thread
>>57302037
Completely different argument. By that logic, any number of household chemicals and ingredients can be turned into a bomb. Ban all bomb ingredients? Update the list as researchers find new bomb items?
C4 is illegal because it's fucking C4.
>>57302315
Do my reasons matter?
I couldn't care less about the thread.
>>57302567
I thought explosives were legal, just required a tax stamp.
>>57295953
>There is no reason to ban possession of something
There is if you seek power, ban any material you deem either dangerous or indecent allows you to control your populace at a greater level.
You can easily convince people that this is the right thing with fear. People value their short-term daily life comfort above all long term consequences.
>>57295953
>The only possible justification for criminalizing possession is that you believe the possessor will later do harm. And imprisoning people before they do harm is the sign of a failed civilization.
How about vetting them to determine if they are likely to do harm? If a person has ties to radical Islam or white supremacy groups, organizations known for their violent rhetoric and actions, would it not make sense to take that into consideration when this person attempts to purchase a firearm? Or what if they're schizophrenic and experience psychotic delusions when they don't take their meds?
The second amendment isn't wholly outdated, but the "shall not be infringed" clause is.
>possessing something without using it
>worth possessing it at all
You might as well just print off a .jpg of it and frame it then.
Possession implies possibility of use and possession of something such as an active atomic bomb implies the possibility, and willingness, of future use of that bomb.
The difference between that and a gun is that atomic bombs cannot be used for personal self defense and therefor the only justification for personal use is their use as weapons of war against the interests of the collective (embodied by the state) therefor in the interest of that collective the state will rationally move to prohibit the ownership of active atomic bombs and the components by which to manufacture them.
Because it's statistically verifiable that that isn't the case with firearms, and that they are practical tools for exercising self-defense and defense of property and family, the same rule shouldn't apply.
>>57295953
>There is no reason to ban possession of something, if the act of possessing it causes no harm.
I possess Islam as a religion, billions of other people do as well...but a few radicals have scary faggots, like yourself, contradicting themselves.
>BAN ISLAM!
thinking no one notices your bullshit
At least you tried to sound rational, retard
>>57302567
Then there're things that are illegal to have, after all.
>>57303751
Even if that were an agreeable solution, I don't think an infallible vetting process can be created.
>>57304335
If 'infallible' were the standard for every piece of legislation passed, we'd have no laws.
