WereKitten said:
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 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. |
and the pragmatic usefulness for alchohol?
The thing that can make of those things dangerous and increases health bills?
Also, if someone actually tried to make a nuclear bomb. I'm pretty sure the communty at large would pretty much ostrasize anyone attempting it, and any company or group stupid enough to sell such matierals to a private individual.
Aside from which, now your getting into regulation versus outright banning with stuff like driver's liscenses which is a whole different story. Espiecally regarding children who are of limited mental faculties.
SOME regulation that does not prevent people from using their rights without prior abuse of said rights is fine. The problem is when you outright ban things soley based on potential.
