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?

The only thing that keeps people from doing crimes is doing time when they get caught. We remove the laws and everyone will do things they wouldn't have even thought of doing before.

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.

By all means, do punish people for harming others. For grievous stuff like rape or murder, lock them up and throw away the key. But victimless crimes have no business being crimes.

I mean, we all commit on average three felonies a day, right? Is that maybe the sign of a ridiculously overlegislated society? Or is that just the price we have to pay to keep people from really going crazy?

Isn't that a small cost to pay for the safety of others? I know I'd want to make sure I'm not selling a gun to a mentally unstable person, and hopefully a background check would prevent that.

Using guns to harm others IS ILLEGAL RIGHT NOW! So if someone uses a gun to inflict harm thye can be prosecuted for it "to the full extent of the law".

Criminals don't hesitate when breaking the law. Law abiding citesens don't hesitate either because they don't break the law.

Universal background checks gets in the way of my property rights and does nothing to stop criminals from committing crimes.

Like, I understand that there shouldn't be a law against reselling drugs, and while there is one, it doesn't prevent people, including the black market from doing so, so I don't see the argument with that one. You can still do it. What's important is that if you give someone an oxy and they go out and hit someone with a car and kill them, you're also responsible. I think that's fair. I would never give anyone a gun that I owned, nor give anyone drugs without staying under my direct supervision... but there are people that do. And there are people that take advantage of others, and keep them addicted and under their control. I think that's wrong too. Should they be allowed to resell? Yeah sure, but there's more than one side of the story.

I should be able to resell something that I own. I agree. But I should also be held liable for something that is done by the person who bought it. Including someone dying because of drugs I sold, or shot by a gun I sold, etc.

I think what I'm trying to say here is that the law doesn't stop people from doing things, but it sure makes people think first before they sell something to someone who might get in trouble with it.

What safety? Last I checked bombs were illegal.

Do I really need to explain what went down a couple days ago?

Limiting what types of guns people can get, or what criteria you must fit in order to get it will change nothing.

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