• PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    🙄 In which we equate Nuclear weapons with individual arms. It’s the mental equivalent of assuming Communism means you have to share your tooth brush.

    • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      My point is there is clearly a limit to how many people a weapon can kill before no sane person would allow people to possess it.

      Apparently, for you this number is greater than 61 deaths per weapon, seeing as this is the number of people killed in the Las Vegas Mass Shooting.

      So, which is it? 100? 1000? 1 million? When is a weapon too dangerous to be available commonplace in your opinion?

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        No one except liberals attempts to classify individual arms based on some inconsistent and dubious concepts of “magnitude of lethality” that is related to the prowess of a user wielding such a weapon.

        • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Literally every single government on this planet classifies and restricts weapons based on potential of danger/lethality.

          Anything from knife types/blade lengths to gun caliber is regulated everywhere. The same applies to chemicals with which explosives/poisons can be manufactured. You can’t order them in any country without filling out forms.

          It’s literally the most basic type of risk assessment possible and by far the most effective way to reduce harm.