The WA government says its new firearms laws are the toughest in the country, “making explicit that the possession and use of a firearm is a privilege but not a right”, according to the police minister.
I didn’t say they were great.
I’m saying that the current rise in minors is a symptom of voter dissatisfaction.
These changes to WA law related to firearms are sold to the general public as being “tough on crime” or in some nebulous way “making communities safer”, when realistically they won’t impact criminals in any but the most tangential way.
What is going to happen is that someone who is a law abiding citizen, already subject to all sorts of regulatory compliance, is going to have decide which of their guns they can most easily forgo to get under an arbitrary cap.
If you don’t like guns, lets use a metaphor and imagine you’re a golfer who is now forced to choose whether they are going to forgo the putter, the sand wedge, the iron or the wood - because people who don’t even play golf have decided you can only have 3.
The example they gave (shooters fishers farmers) also has policies that better represent views in the regional communities than nationals. I don’t really agree with them, but they’re more honest and better represent what they claim to than the nationals.
If you don’t like guns, lets use a metaphor and imagine you’re a golfer
Probably best to stick to guns without the metaphors.
Hard to find an apples to apples comparison. The damage a gun can do is uniquely unequal, while the products still having a societal purpose, to anything else i can think of.
deleted by creator
I didn’t say they were great.
I’m saying that the current rise in minors is a symptom of voter dissatisfaction.
These changes to WA law related to firearms are sold to the general public as being “tough on crime” or in some nebulous way “making communities safer”, when realistically they won’t impact criminals in any but the most tangential way.
What is going to happen is that someone who is a law abiding citizen, already subject to all sorts of regulatory compliance, is going to have decide which of their guns they can most easily forgo to get under an arbitrary cap.
If you don’t like guns, lets use a metaphor and imagine you’re a golfer who is now forced to choose whether they are going to forgo the putter, the sand wedge, the iron or the wood - because people who don’t even play golf have decided you can only have 3.
deleted by creator
The example they gave (shooters fishers farmers) also has policies that better represent views in the regional communities than nationals. I don’t really agree with them, but they’re more honest and better represent what they claim to than the nationals.
Probably best to stick to guns without the metaphors.
Hard to find an apples to apples comparison. The damage a gun can do is uniquely unequal, while the products still having a societal purpose, to anything else i can think of.