It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

3 charged in killing of store security guard over virus mask

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2020 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

When are you going to figure this out?

Tools of any sort can be misused. Hammers. Guns. Hell, feathers can be turned into torture devices.

It's not the damned tools. It's the damned users.

Blame them. Not the tool. Tools only do what they're told to do, they don't do things on their own.




posted on May, 9 2020 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: chr0naut

When are you going to figure this out?

Tools of any sort can be misused. Hammers. Guns. Hell, feathers can be turned into torture devices.

It's not the damned tools. It's the damned users.

Blame them. Not the tool. Tools only do what they're told to do, they don't do things on their own.


So, wouldn't keeping those dangerous tools out of the hands of those who cannot find a legitimate benign use of them, or are likely to misuse them, be a reasonable thing?

Just because a tool exists, does not mean that everyone should have it.

High Explosives exist. They are extremely dangerous, but also do have a number of legitimate and benign uses. Should you be able to buy usable quantities of High Explosives over the counter in a supermarket? And what about permit to carry those High Explosives in public spaces?

Surely you can see that there must be reasonable limits on the access to, and use of, dangerous tools, and that this does not, in any way, actually affect the personal freedom of the majority of the public? Such limitations are something outside of the emotive issue of 'liberty'.

edit on 9/5/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



new topics
 
16
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join