(June 30, 2016 at 8:42 am)Rhythm Wrote: How about a law called an assault weapon ban that doesn't ban assault rifles, bans win190s instead, and applies to law abiding gun owners(someday, but not today )....but obviously a criminal couldn't give a shit? That's going after the good guys, imo, not that the folks that wrote it and enacted it meant to do that...they just didn't know any better, apparently.
I've never understood this "criminals don't obey the law, so this law only influences good people," logic, because it's another one of those things where the person proposing it has clearly never looked beyond the bounds of the country they're discussing to verify that. Australia has an assault weapons ban, and the number of criminals with assault weapons is almost nonexistent. We don't have guys with AR-15s shooting up public places every other month, despite being criminals and therefore not caring about the law, because the law makes it way harder for them to obtain one whether they care about it or not.
Now, is the situation identical in America? No, it's not; the Yankees have dug themselves into a pretty nice hole in terms of gun legislation that it's in all likelihood going to be way harder to get out of. But acting as though "criminals don't obey the law," is both not a statement that demonstrates the thing you might think it does, and is also an argument against laws, not gun control laws specifically. Yet were I to propose removing all laws on the basis of that logic, or hell, even one specific other law in any other context, the problems with that argument would be immediately apparent.
Yes, criminals don't obey the laws. I thought we already understood that laws don't exist to prevent pre-crime.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!