doctoroctogon

Ty again for the thoughtful answers. What are your thoughts on something like “you need 2 sponsors not immediate family to buy a gun”. Would that let almost everyone buy loners access guns?

It’s not about liking or disliking what you said. You did not answer the question. I asked about Where limits should be and you responded with tangential facts about current lack of limits and a lynching meme.

I’d love to hear your answer if you have one to the question that was asked.

This is tangentially interesting but not an answer to the question.

By that logic then - nukes should be available to the public as well?

One follow up question - does risk-with-ill-intent play into your calculus at all? EG if there was a gun that had same accident risk as a revolver but you could kill 1M people with it before being stopped, should that be legal? If not, where’s the limit of risk-with-Ill-intent.

A related, follow up question is your thoughts on requirements to get said items. Should background checks be required? Training?

That’s really interesting - thanks for the thorough and thoughtful response!

I’m out here just trying to understand the philosophy and frameworks people are using. I’ve not advocated for a single thing.

Question for the pro-gun folks: where is the limit on what a civilian needs to defend themselves? Assuming you agree civilians shouldn’t have nukes. How about fighter jets. What about tanks. What about bazookas. How do you make that call. If, for example, greater than 5 round magazines isn’t the limit, where is the limit and why?

plus one

Removing dependencies is the number one thing a company can do to make teams more productive.