Reply #34: The "should we abolish laws against X" canard again [View All]

Theft, assault/battery, robbery, murder, etc. are all actions that directly inflict harm upon an unwilling victim. That is why these actions are criminalized, in the hopes of some measure of deterrent effect. Possession of a firearm, or certain types of firearm, and carrying one in certain areas does not directly inflict harm upon an unwilling victim. Gun control measures do not directly protect anyone; their purpose, at least ostensibly, is to make it difficult to impossible for the people who are inclined to commit violent crimes to acquire a tool that makes committing those crimes easier, but they cannot, in and of themselves, make it difficult to impossible to commit violent crime.

If, as you yourself acknowledge, the existence of gun control laws doesn't stop violent criminals from acquiring firearms, then what is their purpose, except to disarm those who are not inclined to commit violent crime? How do they improve public safety? How do they improve the common interest?