Please cite the references if that is real and not just made up.
Bull pucky and you don't have evidence to back that statement up. Gun laws don't keep criminals from getting guns any more than drug laws keep people from getting drugs. Just like prohibition - the prohibition of something only makes sure that the criminals get rich.
Well I do find it interesting that you're jumping on those statements for lack of evidence/fact, but then followed directly with the same thing. You say all that with such certainty. For me, my statements cannot be permitted without attaching citation, yours though can.
If that's your approach, then the research papers compiling the statistics and legislative history are for you to find. I'm just making a post, not writing a book. It's just me throwing in two cents to the original question. Strike that part out if you don't like it's lack of citation, and have no curiosity to investigate it. That's fair, because I'm not really wanting to dig around for it myself.
I don't really have the time or inclination to go into that, and for a forum topic that isn't going to change anything. Any sort of change will come from people only.
Much of my response is really that I think there is some misunderstanding here in what I was writing.
I didn't' say anything about laws stopping criminals. Though who would be a criminal if you had no laws to begin with? XD
But your argument can be applied to any law. Laws don't stop murderers, so why should we even have laws for murder
Also I didn't say anything about drug law. Why would drugs even be compared to guns? That's another stretch. Assuming things are somewhat transitive, because both have legislation written about them. I guess if I'm friends with Bob, and Bob is friends with Carl, that means me and Carl are friends too.
I wouldn't think to make assault rifles I just have to get some bullets and plant them in the ground and water them.
Drugs are not something that can ever be hoped to be controlled in the way our "War on Drugs" idealizes. Despite it's failure, it still is undeniable that access for more sophisticated types of lab synthesized drugs have become more difficult to obtain. I couldn't just find something like DMT if I wanted to tomorrow. All that said, our current approach on drug laws are absurd. They'll continue though for the foreseeable future, because industries have formed around it, and they lobby and create propaganda with great effect.
I do agree, prohibition is naive, but it's not really a matter of sorting that out. Again it's industries colluding with government to perpetuate it. Most people are at least hip to the idea that pot isn't any worse than alcohol.
Our prohibitions do create powerful crime organizations, and thousands of people in Mexico are dying in quite violent and extreme ways for it every year. I would imagine it's only a matter of time before that spills over into America. It'll be interesting to see how those states react (mishandle it), given their tendency to dehumanize and scape goat anyone not of white skin.
Drugs, homicide, whatever. It's not going away because of laws themselves, like a law that says "Don't shoot people". But rather with laws on how we direct our resources, and how we treat things will influence our society. We can influence things for a better outcome. There is really is no solution, but there are (far) less costly alternatives. Smarter ways of doing things. And then... there are things that make money for a small margin of society.
Laws do affect societies. They're constructs of course, but people who act according to their beliefs, their actions translate to our reality. Companies (to some degree these days) mostly operate within the law. If you change laws in smart ways (I keep saying this as though we're in a habit of doing this ^_^) , you can affect their output. I get the feeling you were also implying I'm suggesting an outright gun ban. A gun ban would be bad legislation. Guns or no guns is far too black and white for me.
In an ideal situation, would there be no gun violence if not a single gun existed? XD
Is that achievable? Not so likely when there are more guns than people in this country alone. (Not citing this. Apologizing in advance.)
I can offer an anecdotal story on my end that changed my opinion long ago: When I was in college I was out drinking with a someone I'll call an old associate. He gotten into a seriously heated argument with another person, and some shoving and threats were made. Both we bounced out. I followed to find him, and drove him home. On the way home, he had told me with dead seriousness in fit of rage that if he had his gun with him (the handgun he left at home) he would shut that guy up. The following day I asked if he was serious about shooting that guy, and he said "Yeah, but I was drunk though. I wouldn't do it now." (/facepalm) I asked him why he didn't have his gun with him, and he said "Because it's illegal to carry it around." (/doublefacepalm)
So one belligerent tragedy averted. And some people are like that. They can't handle themselves when they're drunk, but they will consider the law before they get liquored up and leave the gun at home. That sort of thing we have an impact on. The real problem with demonstrating this benefit to people is that you can't prove something would've happened. You can't show people a list of things that were prevented, because they didn't happen. On the opposing end though, you can show a lot of nasty things that did happen, and draw conclusions from that.
We're not going to stop the determined criminal, but why make it easy for them? I'm sure they'll still get their assault weapons, but those will be organized criminals. Not something the general public is likely to cross paths with. The anti-social spree shooter, probably isn't going to have the connections or money to amass a military style arsenal in a society that more tightly controls their weaponry.
Fundamentally I'm not someone who looks at laws as magical thing that stops people from doing what they'll do (I think that's what you were assuming), but I do see them as a way to hold people accountable for transgressions, and a means for society to regulate resources (whether that happens for ill or for better).
But derp, look at me rant for 20 minutes.
