Ah! You hit the nail on the head.
Laws aren’t there to prevent every single crime. Unfortunately, that’s imposible. Even with a complete ban on guns, I’m sure a clever criminal could manage, even if he has to make that weapon himself. Sure. But could the many who manage right now could do the same? Probably not. But maybe quite a few will be caught before the crime escalates. If stricter control were in place, could this guy bypass it to get a couple of guns? Probably. But chances are he would get caught before he managed to acquire a whole arsenal of assault weapons and even grenades (which shouldn’t be available to anyone outside military service, hello?).
And brings me to the second part, some laws allow us to punish a criminal for something lesser before he has a chance to commit a greater crime. As in this case. If the 2nd Amendment was even more free-for-all, the police couldn’t have done anything against this man and who knows what atrocities he was hoping to commit with those?
And to use the same comparison that’s being ignored from the other side... if an immigrant manages to cross a wall and fool border patrol, does that mean we shouldn’t strengthen barriers and border patrol? If one illegal immigrant is stopped at the border because of harsher security, would they be saying it’s worth it? I’m sure they will. So why if strict gun control could stop ONE shooting that’s not enough to consider it? To put it this way, Trump’s “wall” will not stop every single illegal, especially since most illegals enter the country legally and then overstay. They don’t go around swimming the Rio Grande or crawling through tunnels, that’s the minority. But they obviously think a wall will be a deterrent for enough people to make it worth the expense, right? Well, why doesn’t that same logic apply to gun control? Stricter laws may not stop every single criminal, but if it’s a deterrent for some, then why isn’t it worth it?
I can tell you because I saw it with DH and my sons, that some of the visa form questions sound beyond stupid. “Are you coming to the U.S to commit an act of terrorism?”, “are you planning to commit a crime in the U.S?”. Well, duh. Who will answer “yes” to these questions even if they ARE planning to do it a crime or a terrorist act in U.S soil? Obviously those questions aren’t meant to catch potential terrorists, they’re meant to add more crimes to the accusations if and when they are caught in a criminal act. Lying in the visa application is perjury and a federal offense. So should immigration just delete these questions because they don’t really catch potential terrorists?
ReadingRainbow wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 2:15 pm
Lexy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 2:07 pm
Momto2boys973 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2019 1:58 pm
And again... does that mean then that stricter laws shouldn’t be put in place so that it’s not that easy breezy for criminals to break them?
So why build a wall? Or invest on border patrol? Or have the concentration camps? Illegal immigrants will find a way to sneak in, anyway, right? So let’s not bother with making it harder, let’s just tolerate it and get it over with.
New Jersey is definitely one of the top states with strictest gun laws. Yet Newark, Camden and Atlantic City are ridden with crime. I don't have a solution but you are not going to stop criminals from getting guns.
If those gun laws didn’t exist, would they be able to charge him with the same criminal offenses?
If those gun laws can help put him away for life... isn’t it a good thing they exist, even if they didn’t stop him from acquiring the weapons?
עמ׳ ישראל חי 
