An Argument Against All Laws?

I’m so tired of this idiot’s reasoning. Essentially, his argument is there is no point in having any laws about anything because people will just break them. Move to Somalia if that’s what you want, Mr. LaPierre.

Most people follow laws. Many people break laws with minor penalties, knowing the penalty is minor (people are perfectly willing to accept the “risk” of a speeding ticket for going 10 mph over the speed limit, but people rarely exceed the speed limit by huge margins because they don’t want to pay the penalty). Many people will also do things they know are wrong (like taking someone to the gun store where they use their background for buying the gun), but if they know it is illegal and there is a stiff price to pay, they may be less willing. Will we ever get all the guns out of the hands of criminals? Nope. Can we get SOME of the guns out of the hands of the criminals and thus reduce gun deaths? Absolutely!

Here’s the thing. The world is not “black and white.” It has shades of gray and colors. Outlawing certain weapons is not the same as taking away everyone’s guns. Performing a background check for every single fire arm sale does not invade people’s privacy or take away their Second Amendment rights. We can take measures that will make the general public less likely to suffer horrific gun violence, but we understand we can’t eliminate it 100%. People can own guns with the hope of protecting themselves. Once in a million times, it may just work. But the vast majority of the time, the weapon won’t be conveniently available, people won’t be able to act quickly enough, or the weapon may be used on the “defender” or stolen.

The world is not black and white. That is why we all have to compromise.