Yes.

This typic of logic confuses me. Because background checks won't stop all crimes, we shouldn't even try?

But...but..isn't that the problem already with the black market wherein doctors are paid off to supply the ne'r do wells with resellable prescriptions, giving an immense amount of power to the people who really shouldn't have it?

Actually, I think it's interesting that in the bombing, people are blaming the bomber, and in shootings people blame the guns.

That being said, guns really didn't do shit to prevent the bombing :D

The governement has no right to regulate my property. Guns are no more dangerous than any other tools.

No law can stop criminals from committing crimes. Oxycodone and all "controlled" substances are sold on the black market regardless of the many laws against it. Bombs are illegal and that didn't stop the Boston bombing.

I shouldn't need a FFL to sell my property toa friend or give it as a gift.

Power to the illegal dealers, you mean? Well, if it weren't only legal with a doctor's prescription there wouldn't be a black market for it, I guess. (Unless there were excessive taxes on them, as is the case with cigarettes.)

So then what's your beef. If the laws can't stop crimes, then do what you want lol.

My only problem is I don't understand this mindset. We should just remove all laws?? It would be utter chaos in the streets.

Bombs being illegal doesn't inherently prevent bombings. Catching the culprit and prosecuting them to the full extent of the law is what makes people hesitate from doing the same thing.

Blame lobbyists for that.

link!

I do find it a silly thing to do, honestly. There was going to be an exemption for transfers of firearms among family members, anyway, and according to surveys of people convicted of gun crimes the most common source for weapons used in crimes is... families and friends. It's pretty similar to how the proposed assault weapons ban targets a lot of scary-looking weapons based on completely arbitrary features that don't at all affect the lethality of the weapon in question, and these weapons are used very, very infrequently in shootings, while handguns - which kill many more people every year - are pretty much left alone.

I think prohibition is pretty much always bullshit from the start since it really only affects people who actually care about the law. But your argument does seem to be a popular one, that if it can even save one life then it's worth it to try. I just don't think that's a very sound basis for any type of legislation. "Well, we're going to restrict your behavior because it might help, although there is zero evidence that it will."

Besides, that kind of hypothetical is a total wash because, of course, you can't prove that the very same legislation wouldn't cause people to be murdered because they couldn't legally obtain the weapon that might have saved their lives. Is the one life worth less than the other?