As a gun owner and a former member of the NRA I have arrived at the opinion that there should be

[ljm2002]

96. "Laws are enacted to deter not prevent"...

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)

...sez you. Yet laws are enacted for both reasons, depending upon the law and the area it addresses. For example, the famous Glass-Steagall law was enacted specifically to prevent things like the 2008 financial collapse. That law worked very well for 50 years or so, until it was repealed, and then all hell broke loose. So it is simply not true that laws are never enacted in order to prevent things.

More to the point, we already have laws in place concerning firearms that are intended to prevent bad things from happening. For example, the required background checks that must be run before someone can buy a gun through a retail outlet. These laws are most certainly intended to prevent, not deter. One can argue about their effectiveness, or why they are or are not effective, but one cannot reasonably argue that their intent is merely deterrent.

Finally: my response is anything but a straw man, as it is directly responsive to the issue that you raise, namely: that criminals ignore laws. It's an argument that is made often in these debates, yet it is circular in nature, since criminals are by definition people who have ignored some law or other. You seem to think it is a compelling argument as to why these particular laws should not be considered; I am merely pointing out that if we accept your logic, then surely it doesn't apply to only your chosen subset of laws.