But Criminals Don't Follow Laws!

[Greenday]

It's a very valid argument when it comes to gun bans. All out bans in the history of time have never worked. When Prohibition was enacted, did it stop everyone from drinking? No. Do people do drugs today despite it being illegal? Yes.

Regulation, not all out bans, is what works.

[crashhelmet]

Owning a gun does not mean you are going to kill people. We have laws against shooting people.

Drinking alcohol doesn't mean you are going to drink and drive, but we have laws against drunk driving.

Etc. etc. I can go on about it. Banning guns won't stop shootings.

Just like making driving drunk illegal hasn't stopped people from getting behind the wheel of a car when they've had too much to drink.

Just like making rape illegal hasn't stopped the countless unreported attacks that happen every day.

I can go on and on too. So why bother wasting tax payers money? Hell, think of all the taxes we wouldn't have to pay if we weren't fighting these losing wars. We could use it to buy enough guns and ammo to make us feel safe!

Maybe the Libertarians are right. We should just privatize everything. Want to feel safe? Hire your own security/police force. Otherwise, let natural selection take over.

[Greenday]

Owning a gun does not mean you are going to kill people. We have laws against shooting people.

Drinking alcohol doesn't mean you are going to drink and drive, but we have laws against drunk driving.

Etc. etc. I can go on about it. Banning guns won't stop shootings.

[crashhelmet]

People are always going to commit crimes, but you can't use that as an excuse to not enact new laws. If so, we get back to my original argument.

Without diving too far into the Gun Control Debate in this thread too, re-enacting the law banning assault rifles would be a good start to fixing the problem with criminals still having guns, or at least those types. Eliminate all 3rd party sales and any other method for them to get them through middlemen. Hold the US Military, DOJ, and local/state agencies more liable for the proper safeguarding of the weapons they have. That way gangs and other organizations aren't getting them from there.

There are many ways it can be done, but this argument is used as if it's impossible. Otherwise just admit that ALL laws are pointless.

[TheHuckster]

Despite drug laws, we still have users and dealers.

Despite DUI laws, we still have countless numbers of drunk drivers and the lives they take.

Despite domestic battery laws, we still have huge issues with domestic abuse.

What about rape, robbery, and other crimes?

Despite laws against fraud, racketeering, and insider trading, we still have the mess on Wall Street.

The difference between each of these supposedly analogous arguments and the argument about outlawing guns is this:

If you take away all the drugs from the "good guys", it doesn't put them in a disadvantage against the "bad guys."

Contrast that with the gun argument, and if the "bad guys" have all the weapons and the "good guys" have nothing to protect themselves with thanks to the very law the bad guys are vehemently denying, then that puts the "good guys" at a disadvantage against the "bad guys."

Whether or not you consider the "all the criminals will have guns" argument valid or not, it still can't be compared to the laws against drugs, drunk driving, or the rest of them.

[Andara Bledin]

Laws do little to prevent people from committing crimes and are about punishing people who commit crime.

They're supposed to be a deterrent.

The reason that this issue comes up in the gun debates is because we already have laws on the books that makes most of the people committing the crimes not legally allowed to have the guns in the first place, making new laws both redundant and a waste of resources.

If we're going to pass new laws (which costs thousands to millions of dollars to do), then we should at least make the effort to ensure those laws will actually have a measurable effect. Otherwise it's just the lawmakers jacking off to the tune of more "feel-good" legislature.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

I hate this argument. I hate it with a passion. It comes up a lot in the gun debate threads. "But criminals don't follow the laws, so they're just going to take guns away from the law abiding citizens!"

Why have laws at all then?

Despite drug laws, we still have users and dealers.

Despite DUI laws, we still have countless numbers of drunk drivers and the lives they take.

Despite domestic battery laws, we still have huge issues with domestic abuse.

What about rape, robbery, and other crimes?

Despite laws against fraud, racketeering, and insider trading, we still have the mess on Wall Street.

Why have laws if the criminals aren't going to follow them anyway?

Let's just turn this into the Old West again. Let's completely separate into the haves and have nots, let the strongest survive, and vigilante justice run free.

Maybe it's not the laws that need adjustments. Maybe it's the penalties that need to be adjusted? Castration for rapists? Chop the hands off of thieves? Instant Death penalty for violent crimes?

What needs to be done if the current laws are pointless?