and nashwan... you admit that the only way the law works is by punishing law abiding
Not punishing, restricting. Just as people are restricted in the speed they can drive, even if they are very good drivers, pilots have to get licences, aircraft have to be registered, some businesses are subject to regulation, require permits, etc.
Cars are all subject to registration, I don't recall any of your threads here bemoaning that fact.
Why is the registration and licencing of a car, and notifying the authorities of it's transfer acceptable to you, but the same system for guns unacceptable?
I mean, if you drive around without a unique number affixed to your car where the police can clearly see it, you'll be stopped, but somehow it's unaceptable if your bullets can be traced?
It's acceptable to have the costs of transport increased by registration and lciencing, but not guns?
As a point of principle, if a cheap and workable system of ammunition tracing was technically available (say a microscopic plate embedded in each bullet), would you be against it? In principle, forget the technical details.
(And it seems to me they might be able to embedded rfid chips into bullets at fractional cost soon)
in other words, you note that if less people are able to afford guns or get through the red tape then there will be a smaller pool of them?
Isn't that just logic?
do you advocate huge fees and restrictions on motorcycles to cut down on useless motorcycle deaths?
I'm not advocating anything, just adding my thoughts.
But no, I would not "advocate" trying to cut down the number of motorbikes that way. Motorbikes are transport, and without transport more people will die, not less.
I'm in favour of licencing motorbike riders, to ensure they are competent, and registration of motobikes. I think both things are pretty sensible.
