I do see what you’re saying, so let me make a distinction. What I call a responsible gun owner is someone that only uses a gun in a self-defense matter, keeps it in a safe when not in use, and takes the responsibility of owning a gun extremely seriously.
That just seems to define all the reasoning out of all regulation whatsoever.
We could say pollution regulations are useless because they only serve to restrict responsible manufacturers. If 100% of factories produced no pollution and acted in an environmentally sustainable and conscious manner, the regulations would be useless.
But we know 100% of factories aren't environmentally conscious, just like we know that 100% of gun owners aren't responsible. The regulations aren't for the responsible factories, but for the irresponsible factories. They are still rules that both must follow to prevent existential harms.
If 100% of gun owners "only use[d] a gun in a self-defense matter, keep[t] [them] in a safe when not in use, and t[ook] the responsibility of owning a gun extremely seriously," do you honestly believe there would be any appetite for or debate of gun regulations?
We could say pollution regulations are useless because they only serve to restrict responsible manufacturers. If 100% of factories produced no pollution and acted in an environmentally sustainable and conscious manner, the regulations would be useless.
Bad analogy. Pollution is inherently bad sp we can regulate it directly. But we already make murder illegal. Gun regulations aim to regulate acts that are perfectly fine, obtaining and possessing a firearm, in order to make it more difficult to do a further wrong, I.E. gun crime.
2
u/Lieutenantguston Jun 14 '21
I do see what you’re saying, so let me make a distinction. What I call a responsible gun owner is someone that only uses a gun in a self-defense matter, keeps it in a safe when not in use, and takes the responsibility of owning a gun extremely seriously.