Why Using The “Criminals Don’t Follow Laws Anyway!” Argument Makes You An Idiot

[Galraedia]

You know what argument I’m sick of? The anti-gun regulation crowd’s argument that since criminals don’t follow laws, we can’t create any new gun regulations. I’m sure I’m not the only one to commit a few hundred words to the subject, but over the last couple of days I’ve been bombarded with it to the point that I either need to scream or write something about it. So I’m choosing the latter.

Firstly, let’s just establish what an insanely stupid argument that is. The very definition of criminal is someone who breaks the law and commits crime. Criminals break all kinds of laws. They kill, steal, rape, assault, traffic guns or people, drive too fast in the slow lane, drive too slow in the fast lane, don’t register their car on time, under report on their taxes, and the list goes on and on and on. If every time we wanted to write a law to curb and discourage a destructive behavior someone said “But-but, criminals don’t follow laws anyway, so why do we need a law against rape?” you know what we’d have? A society with no laws whatsoever. Call me fucking crazy, but I have a hard time buying into anarchy as the way to go simply because you have no better argument for why you need to own an assault weapon that fires tumbling rounds that rip bodies into Swiss Cheese with roast beef flapping out of them.

America is better than that…or at least it goddamned-well should be. We should be better than having to suffer inane arguments against writing laws — arguments that essentially throw out the entire rule of law in favor of “Mommy, I want to own a semi-automatic weapon!” Instead, that’s what we’re treated to, sociopathy wrapped in a cloak of pseudo-intellectualism. Of course criminals don’t follow the laws. Bees also sting, and dogs also bark. While we’re declaring universal truths, how about I throw one out: Gun Zealots wouldn’t care if 500,000 children were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary, or in Aurora, Colorado.

The deaths of innocents is acceptable collateral damage to these people; why are we listening to them?

Read more: http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com/why-using-the-criminals-dont-follow-laws-anyway-argument-makes-you-an-idiot/

[MotherPetrie]

1. K&R.

[Hoyt]

2. Darn tootin.

[Progressive dog]

3. K&R

[MichaelSoE]

4. ok ... so criminals do not obey the law...

what if guns were made illegal? Then perhaps, just perhaps, they would be arrested for not obeying the 'you can't have a gun' law before they are arrested for not obeying the 'you can't murder' law.

[Zoeisright]

5. Didn't have much logical reasoning education, did ya?

[dmallind]

6. No - making asinine inferences like this does though

The "argument" as commonly used is either venally or ignorantly misapplied here. The concept is not that "criminals will break laws against terrible action X so let's not make X illegal". It is instead "criminals who are willing to do terrible action X are not likely to be stopped by laws against much lesser action Y".

Bank robbers in the traditional heist model are willing to rob banks, with 20+ year prison terms if caught. If pursued by police it is insane to think they would refuse to run a red light to escape, which carries only a fine as penalty. This is far mre analogous to the typical RKBA argument against additional gun laws where restrictions on legal ownership are putported to contol illegal use.

Shooting people is already illegal in almost all cases. It obviously should be. Someone willing to shoot people, risking life imprisonment or execution, is never, ever, going to be deterred by laws against 10+ magazines, or illegal straw purchases, ot not having a CCW, or avoiding background checks, risking either fines or piddling jail time.

Assuming nobody sane thinks that a would-be spree killer with child targets will be deterred by zoning regs against guns near schools, the assumption must be that the intent behind gun restrictions is to make it harder for them to be armed in the first place. This however is possible only by attempting to eliminate guns in toto, as it is impossible to predict who will become such a loon with any accuracy (trying to pretend you would have seen the "danger signs" in the latest bete du jour ex post facto is not the point; instead ask yourselves what your accuracy is at predicting those you know now who will be mass murderers in the future - how many have you gotten wrong and how many right?). As long as guns remain not just legal but also and/or fairly simple to produce (marijuana is a good model for the difference - any competent machinist can make a gun from common stainless bar stock), they will be available to those who will not be deterred from the greater crime of using them nefariously by any conceivable crime of mere possession however regulated.

The only options are to focus on use rather than possession, or to pursue utter eradication. While many here may wish for the latter, it is practically, legally, and politically unlikely in the extreme. Absent that, worrying about ephemera like registration or insurance or carry laws is utterly pointless if you want to reduce the actual harm done by nefarious use of guns. If the desire is to inconvenience or punish those whose use is not harmful but who are more likely to comply with such ephemera, then have at it - just don't kid yourselves that it will do shit to reduce gun violence.

[Galraedia]

7. So then by your logic...

We shouldn’t require driver’s to get a license because nine-year-olds will find a way to buy a car and drive on the highway anyway?

I'm sorry but your logic is flawed.

It is instead "criminals who are willing to do terrible action X are not likely to be stopped by laws against much lesser action Y".

One, the goal is never to simply stop all gun violence. That's impossible. The goal is to lower it. Background checks and limiting magazine rounds simply make a gun massacre less likely. Saying that any common sense action against gun violence is a waste of time because these people are looking to commit violence is like saying that we should legalize crystal meth because people are looking to get high.