• blazera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Whether you can tell or not has no basis on whether he is or not.

    I know youre used to the US where tons of gun homicides happen everyday, but its not normal for the rest of the developed world. If you want guns to be a safe thing, you have to be able to tell before these people go murdering. Hindsight is 20/20. There are people today that are going to kill someone for the first time, people that to the outside world look like responsible gun owners.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Unfortunately, like unlabeled cans, people are able to hide their contents. Unlike the cans, people can even actively attempt to resist “opening” them to find out their contents, making it all that more of an impossible task.

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        right, do you see the problem here? To the outside world, a responsible gun owner, and an irresponsible one that hasnt killed yet look the same. how do you keep guns away from irresponsible gun owners before they kill someone? You have to treat every gun owner as irresponsible, because we cant tell before it happens. And it needs to stop happening.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Ah yes, guilty until proven innocent, the backbone of the American justice system, and a good way to treat one’s fellow human.

          • blazera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I dont think you know what our justice system does with people guilty of shooting people if you think that’s what Im suggesting.

                • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  Well technically we’re talking about people who haven’t hurt anyone who through some minority report precognition we have decided will shoot someone beyond a shadow of a doubt, enough so that we can deprive them of their rights like a criminal even though they aren’t one yet.

                  Hell tbh, why stop there? If we’ve determined that a person has a high enough percentage chance to kill someone one day, why simply remove legal access to one tool with which he could do so instead of removing the would-be killer himself, either through preemptive execution or life imprisonment? Hell, they were statistically similar to murderers of the past so we may as well, right? I mean as long as we’re doing pre-crime it makes sense to me!

                  • blazera@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    This isnt punishment for any kind of crime. Like, no one is allowed to drive drunk. Some people can manage it, they drive drunk anyway and never hit anyone. Are we depriving them of their rights? Am i treating them like criminals by not letting them drive drunk? I dont know what warped dystopian images youve got in your head of a world where people arent allowed to have guns, because we have a reality to look at. Places like Germany and Japan already do this. Are those awful places to live to you?