With that logic, you could say all sorts of outrageous things.
No dogs, no dog bites!
Some dogs that are deemed very dangerous do indeed require special permissions in my country (you can dispute over the exact species that are on this list but they are in fact species that caused incidents in the past, some of them have bitten children to death).
And some dog breeds that are deemed torture breeds (in torture for the dogs because they are so disfigured that they can't even breath properly) are in fact forbidden.
No cars, no traffic!
This does in fact work if done right but most cities' public transport system SUCKS (Vienna has a really good one which is why my sister actually doesn't own a car anymore - she just doesn't need it).
No weapons, no criminals!
You probably wouldn't have less criminals but it would definitely reduce the number of around THIRTY THOUSAND citizens that get shot by guns in the United States PER YEAR.
Seriously, those are numbers some countries with an actual civil war going on don't reach.
And no, I'm not saying you should remove all guns (which would be a lost cause anyway considering how swamped the US already is with them) but to use the 2nd amendment in defense of assault rfiles sales (you know, that type of weapon that is commonly used in mass shootings to massacre down dozens of people within a few minutes) is nonsense. You do not need an assault rifle - a WAR WEAPON - to defend yourself and your property. Semi-automatic Pistols and regular shotguns are more than enough to do that. There obviously is an agreement on which weapons are safe for civilian use anyway otherwise the ban of grenade launchers (like the PAW), rocket launchers (why can't you buy a Javelin on the public market?) and recoilles rifles like the Davy Crocket would violate the 2nd amendment, too.
But with such a mindset, the government can violate your rights with no resistance. If the government banned everything that posed a risk to people or the environment, this country (and the world) would be a very different, not very pleasant place.
Not every ban the government does is bad. Yes, they sometimes go overboard but most of the stuff that gets banned country-wide gets banned for a good reason - just remember that when the ENTIRE WORLD banned lead paint at the beginning of the last century and the US was like "meh, it's cheap so let's just continue to use it what's the worst that could happen?" and did so until into the thrities with the the result that EVEN TODAY small children can still still DIE from lead poisoning when playing in the floor of an old house and eating paint chips fallen from the walls.
Certain invasive species are a major issue and can damage ecosystems beyond repair once they have established themselves to a certain degree. Just ask antkeepers from southern Texas about their struggles to find anything that isn't Solenopsis invicta - or the farmers who regularly have to deal with farming equipment worth thousands of dollars getting destroyed by concrete-hard invicta hills hidden among their crops.
And no, I'm not saying that ALL exotic animals should be banned but sorting out at least the known invasives and organisms that are very likely to flourish in a certain ecosystem (like swamp snakes in Florida) might actually be a smart thing to do. And if a species manages to wipe out an entire GROUP of animals from a place (like yellow crazy ants wipe out entire bird populations from islands, electric ants smash spider populations into non-existance or imported fire ants make pretty much all other ants go extinct) that's a good reason for not wanting to have them in your own country.
Edited by Serafine, June 13 2019 - 2:14 AM.
. Wasn't there some drama not too long ago about how some dude in Australia wanted to release S. invicta and watch them conquer the native species?
