The “they’ll get the guns anyway even if illegally” argument is nonsense. By that logic, why bother having laws in the first place?
In many states, as well as federally, smoking pot is illegal. People still do it constantly because they have some sort of access to it illegally. The same applies to pretty much any other product. If there is demand for it, at least a few of those demanding it will get their hands on it somehow.
Any other illegal drug, alcoholic beverages during prohibition, alcoholic beverages to minors today, porn to minors, child porn, etc. is accessible in some way to those who seek it hard enough. The same applies to weapons, especially considering the whole 3D printing situation.
So we should stop regulating child porn, alcohol, etc. because people are going to get it anyway, right? That’s what I’m hearing and it’s fucking stupid.
I never said that. It should all be regulated, but regulation will not ultimately stop every possible instance. It will just keep it down to a minimum of occurrence.
Of course. That’s exactly what all of us who want stricter gun regulations wants and expects. So I don’t understand why anyone argues against it with the “They’ll still get guns illegally” defense and it infuriates me that that defense actually seems to be working, seeing as how there’s been essentially no meaningful legislation or really any steps taken toward the necessary regulation to reduce gun violence/mass shootings for years.
Also, a point - the pro-gun (or should I say anti-regulation) lobby seems to think that those of us who want tougher gun laws expect such laws to completely eliminate these incidents. We don’t, that’s pretty much impossible and we know that. But 50 people dead from a mass shooting or two in a year is a hell of a lot better than hundreds or thousands from dozens of mass shootings in a year.