I don’t post much, and I know this is a long read, but it makes a point I have been trying to make clear for a long time. I have since learned that it doesn’t matter what you tell someone…if they are against it, they will have an unwarranted, un-backed rebuttal. Either way, this is how I see it:
There are two types of laws…pre-emptive laws, and punitive laws (these are opinions…not facts). Pre-emptive laws are to prevent, punitive laws to punish after the fact.
Pre-emptive laws only work on those that follow the law….I will repeat (never enough times it seems), pre-emptive laws are for those that follow the law. They do not work on criminals, in most cases. You might have a borderline criminal, that might decide to go the ‘law abiding’ direction based on what the punitive stance is on a pre-emptive law, but in MOST cases…a criminal will not follow the law.
SO, pre-emptively controlling, banning, regulating guns does NOT work!!!! A criminal does not care what the law says about the type, amount, or capability of legally owned weapons…they are not law abiding….they don’t plan to own it legally! If a criminal is going to break the law, they obviously don’t care about it! Find me one story about a criminal who is planning a home invasion, or bank robbery, who stops and says “Wait, I can’t do this…I don’t have a legally owned weapon to use in the crime.” Pre-emptive laws will not stop the criminals….just the law abiding.
Punitive laws (which is where I think the effort needs to be concentrated) is how to stop criminals. We will NOT stop them from having a gun, no matter how strict the pre-emptive laws are, BUT we can discourage the illegal use of them by enforcing strict punitive laws. Using the above example, something that you do hear about is where the same criminal says “Wait, I can’t do this…I don’t want to end up tied to an electric chair and put out of my misery!”
I won’t drag this out, but I think I made the point. Regulating law abiding citizens will not stop the criminals. Less tolerance on crime can!