This maps exactly onto guns and gun control attempts.Civilized people can agree to control gun ownership, but the uncivilized people among them will continue to own guns. All this does is to shift power to the uncivilized people. It will reduce the number of guns in a society, but will increase the amount of risk of violence.
It’s not an argument about gun control. It’s an argument about regulating the behavior of only the people who agree with having their behavior regulated, leaving everyone else to do exactly as they choose, and suggesting that that would not be a good outcome.
Your whole statement is contradicted by evidence, including the conclusion, “will increase the amount of risk of violence”—exactly the opposite happened where it was tried.
This maps exactly onto guns and gun control attempts.Civilized people can agree to control gun ownership, but the uncivilized people among them will continue to own guns. All this does is to shift power to the uncivilized people. It will reduce the number of guns in a society, but will increase the amount of risk of violence.
Downvoting not because I disagree but because I think starting an argument about gun control is distracting in this context.
It’s not an argument about gun control. It’s an argument about regulating the behavior of only the people who agree with having their behavior regulated, leaving everyone else to do exactly as they choose, and suggesting that that would not be a good outcome.
Worked well enough in Aus, UK and Canada.
What I said is not wrong in any way. What you said is not wrong in any way. Why do you think you have refuted what I said?
Your whole statement is contradicted by evidence, including the conclusion, “will increase the amount of risk of violence”—exactly the opposite happened where it was tried.