Grandpa mac
Now politics is kinda boring ;)
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 5,249
- Reaction score
- 978
Medication makes for a great analogy. Nobody working on a new cure for a disease realistically hopes to develops a drug that is 100% effective. Pfizer would be ecstatic to discover a new treatment that saves 20% of the patients afflicted with some awful disease. Likewise if universal background checks would save a single life they should be implemented, especially given the trivial burden on a 15 minute background check and maybe working through an FFL (ala sales on Gunbroker.com) which they impose.You are absolutely correct.
And equally, murder laws do not prevent murder, rape laws do not prevent rape, speeding laws do not prevent speeding and drug laws do not prevent drugs from being sold and used.
The purpose of laws is to address consequences for the behavior.
And those that say that gun laws don’t prevent gun killings are correct, but neither do other laws as those crimes are committed every day.
The question remains, should there be laws that address issues or should we as a society throw our hands up and say laws don’t prevent crime so let’s just not have any? Because logically if one takes the position that gun laws do not prevent gun violence, then to be consistent we should just get rid of all those laws relating to murder, speeding, and a host of other societal ills as they too have “failed”.
However I suspect you would disagree with that premise. So what we are left with is a debate on which laws may or not be effective at reducing, not eliminating certain behaviors.