LogFAQs > #939335804

CharlesBronson posted...

grow a pair. Look, we get it. Your afraid of guns. Do you sit to pee too?

Lol.

zebatov posted...

Maybe if it actually hindered the people its supposed to, they wouldnt.

Realistically, there's no reason gun control has to involve unreasonable hindrance on people that are using them responsibly. The worst would be a need to lock them up when not in use (takes like two minutes) and a waiting period for new purchases (which is meaningless because anybody who thinks they need a gun as soon as they can get to a store is wrong and probably shouldn't have one anyway). Any form of control is going to restrict the supply that's available for criminals simply because that's how supply chains work, and any penalties suffered by people who fell short of their responsibilities as owners (which in this case would be properly securing them and honestly not that much else) are deserved despite not being full-on criminals because gun owners shouldn't be that irresponsible.

This "the problem's not going to completely go away if we do this so we should just give up and not do anything at all" attitude is really quite silly. There's ample middle ground that will preserve responsible gun owners' abilities to own and use guns responsibly while still reducing the number of guns that end up on the streets. The only reason this isn't enacted is because the arms industry's propaganda department is well-funded enough to convince everyone that a gun safe is literally Hitler.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.