Does the existence of any Gun Law prevent or stop the action of breaking it?

Favorite Answer

Gun laws like any other laws are like a padlock. They are made for honest people. If any kind of law would stop crime, there would be no crime because there is a law against....Show more

It may help--whether it is worth the price is another matter. It really depends on the law. Kim pointed out the obvious--it does control the actions of law abiding citizens, so changing laws changes how legitimate sellers and owners operate. I actually have a suggestion in the last paragraph, but I have to babble about why I think it's the best compromise first.

The 'preventing people from breaking it' argument is only valid in deciding whether my first sentence is true or not--would the new gun law actually prevent bad things from happening, or would it just make things more difficult for people following the law--basically, is the amount of control you get worth the price? The idea that gun laws don't stop criminals is on the right track until it is taken to the extreme. If we had no laws against murder, murders wouldn't be criminals--so even though murder still happens, it probably happens less because it is illegal.

Most of what I would like to see I do see already, at least in my state. There are short waiting periods for handguns, so you can't get mad at someone, buy a gun and kill them today. It would be nice if they got rid of that requirement for registered gun users (if you already own a pistol, there is zero reason to slow you down when you buy a second one), but there aren't any/many of those registered users unless you count CCPs. You already need a background check to buy guns at stores and gun shows. There is the 'private sale loophole', but that's so rarely used by criminals that it almost seems like a waste to make everyone do a check any time they transfer a gun.

If the government does feel it would be wise to have more background checks, they would also be wise to put a few bonuses in for gun owners. First, if you hold a valid CCP, you should be able to skip the check and any waiting periods--if you have committed a crime since you got the CCP, your CCP should be invalidated--your background check could simply be a check to be sure your CCP is still good. This gives a voluntary registry of gun owners rather than a required registry, without tracing every single gun out there, and without raising the cost of every gun by $50 or whatever the background check will cost. At the same time it allows gun owners to do their thing with very little interference from the government, it stops people new to guns from getting them unless they allow someone to check whether they are a criminal or insane. Also, if they want to close the private sale loophole, they should make the background checks publicly available so the public can run them--a gun store should not need to put their name on a deal between two other people....Show more

That's a circular argument because you can't break a law that doesn't exist. So the answer would have to be YES, because a certain fraction of law-abiding citizens will not break the law simply because the law is there. Of course laws cannot physically stop anyone in the act of breaking them, they would need to be enforced.

Why are gun laws unique in this case? Don't answers apply to all laws?...Show more

Gun control laws are more than simply establishing punishments for certain things. Laws direct how buyers, sellers, and overseeing agencies should act. Of course laws are only worth anything if people follow them, but a law that directs the ATF to act in cases where it currently doesn't could have a major impact, for example, without establishing any new punishments....Show more

Gun laws that require fingerprints to purchase the gun have caused major reductions in criminal gun use.

The fast and furious gun operation failed because the bad guys did not break any laws. For the agents, it was like wanting to give a speeding ticket, and not being able to because there is no speed limit....Show more