I agree that it can be a strawman to say that in certain contexts. My general issue with regulations and laws is not that they're passed and used as a preventa

I agree that it can be a strawman to say that in certain contexts. My general issue with regulations and laws is not that they're passed and used as a preventative, but that much of the time they're generally "kneejerk reactions" to whatever the hot topic is in the news at the moment. Usually means they're rarely well thought out as to what the consequences of such regulation will be in the future and tend to be full of self-interests that go against what the law/regulation is supposed to prevent in the first place. Such laws are also time-sensitive to politicians, since they feel they need to push it out while the issue is still interesting to the majority of voters. All of that just makes for what will most likely be a bad law/regulation more than a good one. Politicians end up viewing new laws on top of old laws as an easy way to make people shut up about an issue for the time being instead of making people take responsibility and deal with the reason the law is supposidly needed in the first place. Makes them look good and something concrete they can point to that they did something while elected when elections come around. If there were more discussion about whether a law is needed and the consequences, there would probably be less complaining about such laws and regulations further down the road and make everyone a bit less disgruntled even if everyone cannot be happy.