H

Herrera95

Possible yeah. But that's because behind the technological push, there is also a good ethical and social push as well. Technology alone is just a tool. It can bring the apocalypse as well as paradise.
Like you said it is just a tool. Just like guns. It can't bring apocalypse or paradise only people do that. But it can equalize the game (the only way for a woman to stand a chance against a man).

And how you claim that we had social and ethical improves while at the same time claim that we used to live better in the past?
 
Guns are not tools, they are weapons. They are build to kill.


the only way for a woman to stand a chance against a man
No lol. We have social policies for that.


And how you claim that we had social and ethical improves while at the same time claim that we used to live better in the past?
Again, I'm not saying that we used to live better in the past, you are strawmanning. I say that some aera were not as dark as they were one hundred years ago. Which means that we must be careful not to say that technology alone can solve society's problems.

Technology can help, but without good ethics and good politics, technology will only bring chaos.
 
H

Herrera95

No lol. We have social policies for that.
Social police won't protect women when they are alone with a man that wants to hurt them.
Post automatically merged:

Technology can help, but without good ethics and good politics, technology will only bring chaos.
Technology has nothing to do with bringing chaos. With or without tech like you said without good ethics (fuck politics) chaos will be installed.
 
Social police won't protect women when they are alone with a man that wants to hurt them.
Post automatically merged:


Technology has nothing to do with bringing chaos. With or without tech like you said without good ethics (fuck politics) chaos will be installed.
Fck technology tbh but I'd like to have a gun for self protection, thanks
 
H

Herrera95

I don't think owning a weapon is necessarily a problem.
It's the lack of stringent controls.

It's not really "phobic" to say that we need comprehensive testing to prevent those whom have potentially disastrous mental health conditions from having guns. For their sake and those around them.
I agree but just to be sure what would be those conditions for you so one can't own a gun.

And we are talking about having it at home or walking around at town?
 
I agree but just to be sure what would be those conditions for you so one can't own a gun.

And we are talking about having it at home or walking around at town?
Home protection (private land). Public carry should ideally be only for those in high-risk jobs/situations that require it. At the same time, America has proven its somewhat necessary to have concealed carry.

But private property gun ownership should be allowed 100%.
 
H

Herrera95

Home protection (private land). Public carry should ideally be only for those in high-risk jobs/situations that require it. At the same time, America has proven its somewhat necessary to have concealed carry.

But private property gun ownership should be allowed 100%.
Agreed but what about the conditions where you can't have it?
 
Agreed but what about the conditions where you can't have it?
You mean when you're deemed mentally unfit? Then that should extend to 'at home'. With an individual who is of sound ability to own a gun goes outside with it illegally, then that is a calculated risk; allowing someone who has clear psychological issues to have a gun at home is not.

We cannot infringe on freedom in favour of "protection". It is nothing but authoritarianism. Besides, those who mean you harm will always find a way, weapon prohibition or no.
 
Top