3 ms·
Taking a step back from this case. In general any legal argument of the form: People will break the law, so there is no point in the law, is bullshit. Imagine
by TZubiri 1y ago
Taking a step back from this case.
In general any legal argument of the form: People will break the law, so there is no point in the law, is bullshit. Imagine any law and you will see how ridiculous it is.
"Making stealing with guns is illegal, people will use facemasks and file gun identifiers"
"Adding security features to money is pointless, counterfeiters can always "
"Adding locks to doors is pointless, if an thief wants to they will picklock it or copy your key"
"making alcohol illegal is pointless, kids can present fake ids or ask their parents..."
murder illegal is pointless
- standardUser 1y agoNot a good analogy because people don't inherently crave firearms as an inescapable aspect of the human condition. They do crave sex, food and, by most anthropological accounts, drugs. When we try to artificially restrict these innate desires we consistently see people reject those restrictions in large numbers, oftentimes leading them to fulfil those needs in worse ways than the ways that were limited. And only the most repressive regimes/social orders are able to (mostly) quell that perpetual rebellion, but those are not systems anyone I know would want to live under. EDIT: And by comparison, most societies get along fine with very limited access to firearms. Only the most repressive manage to enforce bans on unpermitted forms of drugs or sex.