LogFAQs > #973006157

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, Database 11 ( 12.2022-11.2023 ), DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	But there is no gun problem in the States
adjl 04/22/23 12:45:18 PM #50:	Ozmose posted... Most of the regulations proposed are banning something. Well, yes. That's what regulations do: They make it illegal to not follow them. Ozmose posted... The end result for most of them would be millions of law abiding people being turned into felons with the stroke of a pen, Any new regulation that required current owners to take action to become compliant with it would inevitably have a grace period before it was implemented, as is pretty standard for such regulations in any context. Nobody's being turned into a felon overnight; I'd expect at least a year between the announcement of new regulations and them coming into effect. Ozmose posted... or turning over billions of dollars in personal property. With reasonable regulations, any property that does have to be turned over is going to be stuff they shouldn't have in the first place. There are potentially ways around even having to do that, though, such as requiring prohibited weapons to be rendered inoperable (so collectors can still enjoy staring at them) or having stricter storage and registration requirements to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. Ozmose posted... Are you really surprised people are opposed to that? Surprised? Of course not. Nobody should ever be surprised that the 2A worshippers get uppity about anyone suggesting that they shouldn't just be able to have whatever guns they want with zero restrictions. I just don't care. Registration, background and mental health checks, waiting periods, and secure storage are all things responsible gun owners should already be doing, let alone be okay with having codified into law. Those that aren't okay with it generally aren't the sort of people that should have guns in the first place, so I really couldn't care less if they get uppity about having their guns taken away. Ozmose posted... People might be willing to negotiate if there was some actual give and take involved "Well, I don't like you putting this stop sign up on this corner, but I'll accept it if you let me go 110 mph through the next 3 blocks." Except, you know, obviously not. Laws are not about "give and take." They're about improving public safety (in this sort of case). That's not to say that their impact on those that don't actually threaten public safety shouldn't be limited wherever possible, but saying "I know you're trying to cut down on the murder rate, but what's in it for me?" is so obviously and insanely asinine that I'm astounded I have to spell this out for you. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:973006157] in But there ... [t:80418355]...</cite> <quote>Ozmose posted... </cite><quote>Most of the regulations proposed are banning something.</quote>Well, yes. That's what regulations do: They make it illegal to not follow them.Ozmose posted... </cite><quote>The end result for most of them would be millions of law abiding people being turned into felons with the stroke of a pen,</quote>Any new regulation that required current owners to take action to become compliant with it would inevitably have a grace period before it was implemented, as is pretty standard for such regulations in any context. Nobody's being turned into a felon overnight; I'd expect at least a year between the announcement of new regulations and them coming into effect.Ozmose posted... </cite><quote>or turning over billions of dollars in personal property.</quote>With reasonable regulations, any property that does have to be turned over is going to be stuff they shouldn't have in the first place. There are potentially ways around even having to do that, though, such as requiring prohibited weapons to be rendered inoperable (so collectors can still enjoy staring at them) or having stricter storage and registration requirements to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands.Ozmose posted... </cite><quote>Are you really surprised people are opposed to that?</quote>Surprised? Of course not. Nobody should ever be surprised that the 2A worshippers get uppity about anyone suggesting that they shouldn't just be able to have whatever guns they want with zero restrictions. I just don't care. Registration, background and mental health checks, waiting periods, and secure storage are all things responsible gun owners should already be doing, let alone be okay with having codified into law. Those that aren't okay with it generally aren't the sort of people that should have guns in the first place, so I really couldn't care less if they get uppity about having their guns taken away.Ozmose posted... </cite><quote>People might be willing to negotiate if there was some actual give and take involved</quote>"Well, I don't like you putting this stop sign up on this corner, but I'll accept it if you let me go 110 mph through the next 3 blocks."Except, you know, obviously not. Laws are not about "give and take." They're about improving public safety (in this sort of case). That's not to say that their impact on those that don't actually threaten public safety shouldn't be limited wherever possible, but saying "I know you're trying to cut down on the murder rate, but what's in it for me?" is so obviously and insanely asinine that I'm astounded I have to spell this out for you. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1