GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[Blindgreed1]

I am opposed to legislation that will take more rights away from me without an effective impact. What "bothers me" as you put it, is people who lobby to make things illegal based on an ideal or current event without considering the downstream effects. None of us will be winners as long as sheeple keep levying for more government and less rights.

I haven't seen anyone lobbying to repeal the second amendment right to bear arms here, Gunnar.

So, it reads to me more like what's bothering you is people lobbying for better regulation of firearms, as was done in Australia.

My understanding is that the national laws restricting gun access there after the Port Arthur massacre were developed, in part, to reduce mass shooting murders specifically, and there haven't been any such mass murders in Australia since. So, I won't deny Australia that achievement just because homicides as a whole have remained steady there over the same period, nor because parts of the model conflict with the right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense in the U.S. and would thus be unconstitutional here.

As for downstream effects, I agree with you that always needs to be considered before enacting new national laws or abolishing/revising old ones. Estimated cost and other impacts are typically included in bills before they're reviewed and either passed or rejected and also outlined in Executive Actions/Orders. But what's seen as a positive ROI by some will inevitably be seen as a negative one by others, depending on their priorities.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what, if anything, happens with gun laws when a new President takes office.

You don't get me. You never have and I doubt you ever will. And you've never learned a damn thing from me and I'd appreciate it if we kept it that way. Capiche?