Making it harder to do crimes shouldn't be discouraged because some criminals will find new ways to do crimes. You're defending the ability to commit crimes be

Making it harder to do crimes shouldn't be discouraged because some criminals will find new ways to do crimes. You're defending the ability to commit crimes because the law isn't perfect. The law _cannot_ be perfect, so no law will ever satisfy your requirement. Following this line of reasoning to it's conclusion: because all laws are imperfect, and criminals can always find ways around them, your position is that no laws should be enacted. After all, you can't have crime if nothing is criminalized, right?