| Kasz216 said: So why aren't we banning alchohol instead then? That's clearly the instigating factor there. It's something who's main property is "makes your brain not work well." Or if we are banning guns... lets ban everything a drunk is worse off with. Like a Car(more dangerous then a gun) Knives, heavy objects, pencils, forks, sporks. Beer basically makes EVERYTHING dangerous. Including steps. |
That's a strawman. My argumentation is that a lot of real world causes (alcohol, drugs, lack of reflexes, fear, surprise, lack of training, anger, illness) can lead to accidents or voluntary but tragic outcomes, and that pragmatic decisions are taken and a line is drawn to limit personal freedoms depending on how much damage someone can do in a whim.
Cars are useful for economy to work, for kids to get an education and so on. A pragmatic risk assessment evaluation was taken to allow any citizen to drive one (over a certain age, under some qualifications and so on...) even though every car is potentially very dangerous in some cirumstances. Even a sober, perfectly mentally stable and pacific citizen is not allowed to build a nuke in his garage because in that case the pragmatic risk assessment had a different outcome.
I'm pointing out that while idealistic stances can be useful guiding lights, law is a very human thing that has to cope with what makes sense in the real circumstances of the community creating it.
