Those changes reduce lethality or improve identification. They have nothing to do with morality and do NOT reduce the chance of immoral use.
Those changes reduce lethality or improve identification. They have nothing to do with morality and do NOT reduce the chance of immoral use.
sweng@programming.dev 4 months ago
Well, I, and most lawmakers in the world, disagree with you then. Those restrictions certainly make e.g killing humans harder (generally considered an immoral activity) while not affecting e.g. hunting (generally considered a moral activity).
snooggums@midwest.social 4 months ago
They can make killing multiple people in specific locations more difficult, but they do nothing to keep someone from being able to fire a single bullet for an immoral reaspn, hence the difference between lethality and identification and morality.
The Vegas shooting would not have been less immoral if a single person or nobody died. There is a benefit to reduced lethality, especially against crowds. But again, reduced lethality doesn’t reduce the chance of being used immorally.