• squiblet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    11 months ago

    If I modified a rifle to be full auto, that would be a crime in most countries. That would not, however, mean I didn’t own the rifle.

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      When you hurt profits it’s just like murder? Is that what your saying?

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s worse in many western jurisdictions. People are plentiful and cheap, rich billionaires are rare and must be protected. 🤢

      • squiblet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Uh, no. It’s a statement about the ability to modify property and laws relating to that. Not sure who brought up murder.

        • Signtist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s a statement comparing 2 objects that are forbidden to modify. Guns are forbidden due to their ability to kill even more people through modification, video game systems are forbidden due to their ability to hurt company profits through piracy.

          People are pointing out the huge moral difference between the bases for those two similar rules, and how one cannot compare them fairly as being equivalent unless they also believe those bases are equivalent.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      You would lose ownership the moment they found out about it. I’m not really sure I understand your point and it comes off as a huge false comparison. There is a difference between the laws that are there to protect the general population and the ones meant to protect corporate profits.

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Perhaps rifles should not be owned by individuals then.