Or drive a truck - that's not a crime, anywhere. The truck used in Nice France killed 2x more in 90 seconds than the worst mass shooting in US history did in 20 minutes, and you can rent them a U-Haul moving store for $100. Why wouldn't they just use that even more deadly weapon?
-
I'd say it's a real-world and reasonable to ask what criminals will do in response to a law/idea. You disagree? Should we just make laws without considering logical/probable outcomes? People really seem to hate objective, game theoretical critical analysis. (that's all I'm doing)
There is nothing probable about it. There is not enough data to establish school trucking as an outcome. Even if there were, the reasonable reaction would be to ask "How do we mitigate that?" Not to give up trying to solve the problem.
-
-
May I ask what you believe premeditated killers would do in response? I'm curious what people believe the outcomes of their 'solutions'/ideas would be, and I don't think it's an inappropriate aspect of any prohibition proposal to seriously consider/debate.
-
They would probably do something and it would probably be not as effective. We could then look at that and try to fix it too, or not if there was no clear step forward. The trying is the thing.
- 3 réponses de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.