This is AMERICA, guys! Accountibility and responsibility are mostly gone. Thinking is a thing of the past, and certainly hasn't been taught in schools for over 100 yrs (about 119, I think). Attorneys and judges say you don't have to be responsible for anything, yourself, your kids or your pets.

Sue (who picked up a kitten yesterday that had apparently been thrown onto a hot stove)

"Sue (who picked up a kitten yesterday that had apparently been thrown onto a hot stove)"

Good for you. Do you want a metal? What does this have to do with anything?

...

I don't think we can fix the lack of personal accountability by taking more freedoms away. People intent on hurting others will use whatever they can. Rocks, lazers, whatever. Murder is murder if it's with a gun, knife, stick, lazer, whatever. Please don't tell me I can't or shouldn't own one of these things because of what I might do with it. It's insulting.

-Jeff

Maybe choosing to take responsability for another?

I can me harsh at times, but... Wow, dude.

"Maybe choosing to take responsability for another?"

I'm not quite sure that I understand you here. I don't expect anyone else to take responsability for my actions, nor me for theirs.

And I don't intend to make this some sort of battle, I was harsh and I'm sorry. I like kittens too.

Wow... She should get a medal... But I believe your point was that she may be a bleeding heart liberal wanting to restrain your freedoms and using cuddly animal corollaries to help sway you to her side?

Cars have to be registered and the drivers licensed. Gun owners have to have licenses. Explosives require licensing. Hell, even crossbows require a license. I believe the point here is that while this item can be used for peaceful purposes, it is readily accessible to anyone with money, without thought to who might be buying it or for what purpose.

I'll fight to the death your right to own a gun or to argue about anything, but certain things just don't belong in the hands of the untrained, unmonitored and unlicensed. But one thing is for sure, anyone who *really* wants one will get it and use it as they please, just like a gun or car - regardless of government licensing. Licensing does, however, limit the exposure to idiot kids and psychotics to some degree and certainly wouldn't harm a law-abiding adult. The difference here is that it's MIGHTY difficult to track a laser being pointed at a tanker from a passing car or rooftop a mile away. So, limiting supply, manufacture and availability of an item which is a TOY does make some sense.

You're argument is largely correct - it's insulting for me to say you can't own or use one. That doesn't make Susan's indignation over social abuses (including the laser) any less true, now does it? And I don't recall her insulting any single person's comments.

I don't see how the inclusion of that little tid-bit of info was helpful at all to the conversation, but rather seemed like a cry for legitamacy or authority as "someone who cares". But that's my personal opinion and I could be totaly off track with that line of thinking. It was a bit more sarcastic/funny in my head than it reads on the screen.

There's also the comment about when they become inexpensive enought that every idiot with own one, which implies that only responsible people have money and that poor people are largely irresponsible. But that's another debate.
...

Cars do not have to be registered and a person does not need a licence to drive on their own private property. Registration and licencing comes when you want to drive on public streets.

I don't agree with the registration of guns either. There are records of serial numbers, but only if the authorities have the gun in their hands are they able to trace it to the owner. That is not registration.

If I had the cash I'd buy one of those lazers...just because I could. And I'd use it for personal amusement, just like I do with the guns that I own. I do treat them as toys in that reguard, but I also know their capabilities and treat them with all due diligence.

And you have every right to do so. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Obviously registration of weapons is a heated topic. In fact, when I read about this, my first post was rather off-the-cuff and I didn't take the time to really think everything through.

If you mass produce a million toys that have the potential to be used as a deadly weapon that could affect thousands at one go or even just as a physically maiming device (enough to burn and blind), is that moral? Does it serve a purpose to get one other than to say you have one? With a gun, I'd say it's a little bit different. It can be a defensive weapon. I can't see using this laser as such, or at least not easily!

On the other hand if you only produce a couple hundred for serious researchers and make sure you know who owns them, make them expensive and track them as dangerous devices, it only makes it a product that some other nation will make on the cheap and sell as a toy. Likely being smuggled into a country that limits it's use. I don't see any shortage of illegal weapons under the same principles.

So, this whole discussion is mostly pointless other than to serve as a platform for opinions. It's simply much too late to do anything about it. I'm glad that you meant it as sarcasm and do like kittens. I'm a complete smart ass, so I can see myself doing the same. It just didn't quite come off that way. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Oh well mate, no worries. Sorry to get involved, I just felt she had been insulted when she was making a plea that, though largely wishful thinking, was from the heart.

People, people people!!!

One match in the hands of an arsonist can be more deadly and cause more destruction than any handgun ever built. We are now losing the availability of strike anywhere matches because some lobbyist insisted that they were too easy to abuse, and some politician looking for ethereal votes stuffed it into a bill that no one at the time thought would cause anyone much of a problem.

There will always be two sides of the fence on this type issue. One side prefers regulation, the other accountability. Some things we deal with incorporate too much inherent risk, and need to be regulated, like fissile material. Most items that have been a part of our civilation on a personal level don't really require such regulation, except perhaps to generate tax revenues to pay for the costs of operating such items (cars are a good example). Regulation should only ever be applied as a result of inherent function, not as an implication of abuse. If we regulate based on the ability to abuse an item, well, that just doesn't make sense. Accountability is more appropriate for such an act, and it seems to make good case law sense. For instance, I can use Brand X lye to make my buffalo soap, or to open my drains, or to neutralize acid spills, if I am careful. Or I could use the lye to injure or kill someone. If I do the latter, then I should be held accountable, and the law makes that pretty clear. The problem is that not everyone who uses these things gets caught, and also that once the offensive act is perpetrated, there is no taking it back (well, usually that's the case). So well intentioned people think that if all lye were somehow not as available to the general public, then it's subsequent abuse would also diminish (nevermind the fact that lye can easily be extracted from wood ash). So guess what, lye is going to be harder to procure, just like high nitro fertilizer is, just like strike anywhere matches are, just like 4f blackpowder is. The end result; those who would abuse lye to bring harm to others or the environment will find something else to abuse in like manner.

If we keep heading down this path, eventually everything will be regulated, and you will have to have a permit and pay a fee to fill your tank with gasoline, provided your tank has less than a 20 gallon capacity (regulation limit, any more than that could be used to make a certain size bomb or some such nonsense).

While I don't like the prospect of people walking around with a source in their briefcase, just how much regulation will be enough?

The other in question was the kitten. As an abandoned and abused juvenile, it is no way capable of taking responsability for itself.

I think cats are people. Like humans, but better. :P

Accountability should be taught at home, it is not an academic topic. I was always more concerned with how my parents would react to my behavior than anything that could happen at school. That was not the case for everyone, and it should've been.

As for the kitten incident, you get a big BZ for that. I hope you kick butt on whoever did that to the poor kitten, assuming you ever find out who it was.

I guess the question we must ask is how accountability and responsibility became such discountable conditions in our society?

I will agree that without enforcing accountability and responsibility, the only option we are left with is regulation. Personally, I think deterrance is far more desirable than restriction.