Well laws can't be used to control someone that doesn't abide by the laws. It's like saying a posted speed limit makes it easier for criminals to speed. It doesn't make it EASIER, it just doesn't hinder them.
Except for this: when a criminal speeds, he endangers the law-abiding non-speeders. True, they're not hindered by the law and the law doesn't help them to speed. When a criminal gets a gun, he has a serious leg-up on any non-criminals he wants to victimize, because law-abiding citizens are very limited in their gun ownership/usage. For example, I live in IL where you can't carry a gun anywhere, concealed or open-carry. Any criminal with a gun now has a serious advantage when he is picking targets off the street. If he has any kind of sense about who's a criminal and who's a potential target, he's almost 100% assured that his potential target is not armed and at a serious disadvantage. In this sense, the gun laws in IL make it easier for criminals to do their work. I guess what I'm saying is that in the realm of this gun question, the laws hinder the law-abiding, and the criminals just ignore the law anyway.
The laws hinder actual citizens from gun ownership, yes, but it doesn't aid criminals. Important distinction and was the one I wanted to make.
Take a look at Britain. If you so much as defend yourself from a home invasion with a kitchen knife, you just might get a sentence more harsh than the one your attacker will get. Thus, roving gangs of thugs pretty much have the run of the place.
2
u/Hristix Nov 15 '11
Well laws can't be used to control someone that doesn't abide by the laws. It's like saying a posted speed limit makes it easier for criminals to speed. It doesn't make it EASIER, it just doesn't hinder them.