But Criminals Don't Follow Laws!

[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?

[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.

^-.-^

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I think another problem in this country is that we don't place blame in the correct spot when something happens. We don't look at things objectively.

In the case of shooting sprees, my opinion is that we do need better laws, standardized laws across the country in terms of guns and ammo. We ALSO need to look into our social safety net and what the heck is wrong with our mental health care. BOTH of these things need to be addressed. However we have one side putting all the blame on mental health, the other side putting all the blame on the guns, and then those just screaming because HEY! RAWRWAJRLAISJFRABBLERABLLERABBLE PITCHFORKS.

In the case of rape, well, the blame more often than not gets put on the victim. We start teaching people how not to get raped instead of teaching people to not rape. We say that women are asking for it when they make themselves up nicely, instead of saying that man chose to force himself on her.

In almost every case, we have this tendency to try to find something neat and clean to put the blame on instead of sitting down and going, "Fixing this is going to be messy, and hard, but it's got to be fixed."

[bara]

Well, the majority of these mass shootings aren't known criminals. So its a moot argument isn't it?

[Rageaholic]

It depends on the law.

Punishing a serial killer with life in prison is intended for justice. It makes sure that there is a price to pay for doing evil things. It may not prevent people from killing, but it makes sure those who do will be stopped.

But then you got laws that are so obviously intended to control things. Gun control isn't meant to punish people for using guns, it's meant to prevent shootings from happening. It just so happens that punishing people who use guns is the method used to prevent the shootings. Well when shootings still happen, then the only thing the law does is punish people who have guns and not necessarly the killers. Therefore, it serves no purpose.

(I don't really have that strong of an opinion on the issue of gun control, but that's what I'm getting at from those who are against it)

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I'm not sure we can say, definitely, that jail time doesn't stop people from killing. It certainly doesn't stop some people from killing.

The problem I've had with people claiming "you're only punishing law abiding citizens" is that a law abiding citizen (unless provably mentally unstable) would still be able to get guns.

I'm sorry if I don't want gun-ignorant, but still law-abiding people running around with guns, just like I don't want a person who was never taught to drive a car driving around. If I had to spend hours in a classroom, and additionally more hours on the road, then take two tests before I was allowed a driver's license (one that was under restrictions until a certain age) I think gun owners could handle doing it before they get lethal weaponry.

I know that Massachusetts has these laws already in place, but Missouri doesn't. Oklahoma doesn't. Ohio doesn't. That terrifies me.

[BlaqueKatt]

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. .

the "assault weapons ban" is a perfect example of pointless laws, all it banned were cosmetic features.



this image shows different models of the same firearm-the ruger mini 14(used for coyote, rabbit, squirrel, and deer hunting), they all fire the same ammunition, at the same rate, but only the first one is legal under the "assault weapons ban", this is why it was refered to as the "scary weapons ban"-it actually only banned cosmetic features that have zero effect on the operation of the firearm. Re-enacting it would be the equivalent of banning red paint on cars to stop the deaths caused by drag racing.

[insertNameHere]

the "assault weapons ban" is a perfect example of pointless laws, all it banned were cosmetic features.



this image shows different models of the same firearm-the ruger mini 14(used for coyote, rabbit, squirrel, and deer hunting), they all fire the same ammunition, at the same rate, but only the first one is legal under the "assault weapons ban", this is why it was refered to as the "scary weapons ban"-it actually only banned cosmetic features that have zero effect on the operation of the firearm. Re-enacting it would be the equivalent of banning red paint on cars to stop the deaths caused by drag racing.

Mostly true, the only thing for functionality affected was new guns couldn't be sold to regular people with over 10rd magazines.... However, there were plenty of Military surplus 30rd magazines in existence that were legal to obtain and use. at least for Ar15s the mini 14 was a little harder I believe to get 30rd mags for due to less being in existence before the ban.

The government and gangs all have high powered rifles with 30rd mags, why can't I choose to be on equal footing if I need to defend myself? I agree with an earlier point made of we need to find the REAL cause of people snapping and work with that instead of going after guns.

[Andara Bledin]

I agree with an earlier point made of we need to find the REAL cause of people snapping and work with that instead of going after guns.

While we do need to figure out why people snap, they really are a statistical anomaly and while their crimes are scary and terrible, there are far more endemic crime issues we should focus on first.

I mentioned in another thread a definite correlation between lack of education (just basic education) and violent crime. I don't know what we can do to fix our education problem, but working on that will have more substantial long-term benefits all around than just about anything else, and if it does prove that there's a causal link, the violent crime rate will also be reduced.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

I mentioned in another thread a definite correlation between lack of education (just basic education) and violent crime. I don't know what we can do to fix our education problem, but working on that will have more substantial long-term benefits all around than just about anything else, and if it does prove that there's a causal link, the violent crime rate will also be reduced.

I can see that a link would be possible, when many opportunities are denied to you for want of education, I can see there would be anger and possibly acting on that anger, feeling that society or the government had somehow failed you.

However, even if the link was proven, people likely wouldn't support increasing education, because many people think treating the visible symptoms of a problem is better than actually treating the underlying problem, which isn't as dramatic, and doesn't "feel" like it's doing anything, especially as it would take time, and passing some random, ill thought out weapons laws is "instant gratification".