Reply #51: if only ...

[iverglas]

then why should we ban weapons because criminals possess them illegally?

I don't know. Who is it who is proposing to ban firearms, again? Why are you asking me this question?

And if what you meant to say was "why should we restrict legal access to firearms because criminals possess them illegally", who was it who was proposing to restrict legal access to firearms because criminals possess them illegally?

... possessing an illegal firearm is a crime, punished after the fact. that's not the point i'm trying to make. i'm saying it should not be a crime to possess a firearm.

And again: who is it who is proposing to make it a crime to possess a firearm? Why are you saying this to me?

I think that *I* was talking about possessing a firearm without a permit.

The requirement for a driver's licence just does not make it a crime to drive a car. It makes it a crime (broadly speaking) to drive a car without a licence.

does that stop people with no license from driving? nope.

Who is it who said that requiring that people who wish to possess firearms have a permit would stop people with no permits from possessing firearms?

Are *you* suggesting that since requiring that people who wish to drive have a licence does not stop people with no licence from driving, no one should be required to meet any qualifications for driving? -- that being what a licence is, after all, all about.

When did the fact that people break laws mean that there should be no laws?

i can't think of many crimes that don't require some kind of tool to accomplish. whether that tool is your own voice ("HIJACK!" in an airport), a firearm, or your car.

And I think that's totally irrelevant. A voice is not a "tool", nor is the fist with which one strikes someone's nose. Acts are what laws prohibit. Acts are committed by people, the bodies which commit the acts being constituent elements of people.

Possession of a firearm without a permit is an act. Just like driving without a licence is an act, and broadcasting without a licence is an act, and performing surgery without a licence is an act, and building an office tower without a permit is an act.

There simply ARE some acts that are not at all intrinsically "bad" that we nonetheless justifiably require people to have permits before engaging in. In fact, there are lots and lots and lots of them, and some of them, like performing surgery and building houses, are quite "good" things, but are nonetheless prohibited without permits.

They are acts that can have important consequences for other people or for society. They are acts that we therefore require people to meet certain requirements for doing, before permitting them to do them.

.