All of the gun regulation talk has gotten me to thinking, so let me "fire" off one of my problems with the no-regulation argument. For those "shooting from the hip" that adding more regulations will only inhibit the innocent from rightfully obtaining a gun and that criminals will still get their firearms illegally, I say then why don't we just be honest with ourselves and say that about other forms of regulations? Just a "shot in the dark" with this thought, but if we really believed this scatter shot notion, we wouldn't have drunk driving laws. I mean, if a hard core drinker wants to drive, he or she is going to drive illegally anyway, so do we really need these laws? Only the law abiding citizen would worry about the penalties imposed for drunk driving right? The hard core drunk will still drive illegally while drunk, so why bother having laws then?
And what about all of the drug laws we have. Making drug possession illegal might keep law abiding citizens from going out and possessing them, but hard core drug users sure don't stop getting their drugs illegally. So why the big bang about drug laws? My point blank argument is that although most laws may be circumvented by unethical, immoral or lawbreaking individuals, it does not mean that we as a society should not even bother trying to regulate them with some form of penalty. I mean, I really don't care about drug usage, but I do care about drunk driving. I also care about making it tougher on folks if they are caught driving while intoxicated. So why do we shy away from imposing harsher laws on access to certain guns or the illegal use of them in the commission of a crime? I mean, the kind of argument gun advocates are making miss the target when it comes to basic logic. Obviously, those arguments don't score a bullseye!