There was something of a stir the other day on the reddits about the argument that "criminals don't obey laws" not being a valid point in the gun control debate. User Frostiken raised the point and I was blown away.
First, it was stated, quite correctly, that the above line of reasoning is an argument against having any laws, not any particular one. While I know people so Libertarian/Anarchist, that they would argue in favor of that point, (not having laws) I am not one of them. OK, so now you have my attention, please continue. (http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1wrfcy/found_in_my_local_paper/cf605d6?context=3)
The example given was for drunk driving. This roughly equates to murder, for our argument. See, it is not illegal to drink. Nor is it illegal to drive. It is not illegal to own a car and drink, or to own booze and drive. It is only illegal to both be drunk, and be driving, simultaneously. This does not inconvenience the law-abiding, but it does allow for the punishment of criminals.
Compare this to the laws about owning firearms and you quickly see that A: murder is already quite illegal, and B: the laws are not put in place to punish criminals, only to hinder the law-abiding. The presumption, much unlike alcohol, is that merely owning a gun makes you a danger to your fellow man. I won't bore you with the details of firearm deaths vs. driving deaths, you can google that. (or click here, that's cool too. http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/firearm-deaths-vs-vehicle-deaths)
All of the gun laws we have are a direct punishment on people who have done nothing wrong. (Paraprhasing u/Frostiken) And bearing in mind that this is for something that is supposed to be a right, unlike driving which is a privilege. Frostiken then listed several analogs of gun laws, expressed as regulating alcohol. I have copypasta-d below in it's entirety.
Banning every alcoholic drink over 35 proof (Hughes amendment)
Banning any alcohol bottle or can that holds more than 360ml (Magazine limits)
Banning mixed drinks that contain more than two alcoholic ingredients (Assault Weapon Ban)
Require a 30 minute 'waiting period' between all purchases of shots (Handgun waiting periods)
In several states including California you'd have to buy a special 'liquor license' that requires you to undergo mandatory training and pay annual fees to the state to be allowed to drink (Licensing)
All bottles and cans in California have a little plastic device inside that blocks the neck or the mouth when you pour it, so you can only drink a little bit at a time (Bullet buttons)
Buying a hip flask would require getting permission from the ATF and a background check and another tax (NFA)
Any alcoholic container with a 'wide mouth' is banned and requires going through the ATF as well (Caliber limits / Destructive devices).
Drinking alcohol near a school is a felony (Gun Free School Zone Act)
Drinking near a road is a felony, drinking pretty much anywhere except your house or a place with a license to serve alcohol is pretty much a felony (Various laws regarding where a firearm can be discharged)
Successfully fight the '7-11 loophole' where 'anyone can buy alcohol face-to-face without showing their ID!' by mandating that you go down to the nearest liquor store before you hand your friend a beer, so that the clerk can verify that he's 21 (Banning private sales)
Vast majority of alcohol made overseas is completely banned because it has 'no recreational purpose' (922(r))
Any alcohol that is imported must have a certain number of ingredients that are sourced from the US. If you make a mixed drink with these with another ingredient that isn't from the US, you're committing a felony (922(r))
If it seems this is a bit ridiculous, it is. It is completely, absolutely ridiculous. Not the example above; the fact that we are allowing the chipping-away of a sacrosanct right, guaranteed not granted, by our constitution. The rights listed there are inherent to being a free people, and therefore can neither be granted, nor removed. We need to remember that.
