Senate Republicans and Democrats reach background checks deal

[Beet]

Hopefully a magazine amendment can be added.

Hopefully it'll pass the House.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Do you think criminals will obey the law?" No strawman there. Do you think murderers will obey laws against murder? No? Let's just repeal all laws against murder, then. Let's repeal all laws against terrorism, theft, rape, etc.

Anything that makes it harder for someone who shouldn't have a gun to have a gun will make us safer. People, even criminals, often commit crimes because of opportunity. The higher the costs associated, the less likely they'll do it. The easier it is, the more likely. Hence, laws that make it harder for irresponsible people to get weapons will deter some of them from getting them, yes.

[Beet]

Gun extremists love argumentation by label. Will "black market" types obey the law? With the definition of "black market" being a market outside the law. Hence the argument really comes down to "people who don't obey the law, won't obey the law." This is hardly even a coherent thought, let alone the decisive argument against life-saving laws.

[Beet]

Gun extremists love argumentation by label. Will "black market" types obey the law? With the definition of "black market" being a market outside the law. Hence the argument really comes down to "people who don't obey the law, won't obey the law." This is hardly even a coherent thought, let alone the decisive argument against life-saving laws.

It won't stop the illegal firearms market. It's just easier and less dangerous to leave criminals alone and go after those who willingly submit to the government.

There you go again. An illegal firearms market is by definition illegal. You labelled it yourself as illegal. Every law ever written is subject to the same criticism that it doesn't stop illegal disobedience of it.

There is nothing voluntary about this law, otherwise it wouldn't be a law. If you don't follow it, there will be punishment. Hence it's not about people who "willingly" submit, it's about all people, whether they're willing or not. They'll all have to go through a background check as enforced to the best of the law's ability. It's amazing when the gun extremists claim that the solution to gun crime is to better enforce existing laws, and then argue against measures like this which are designed precisely to better enforce existing laws.

[Beet]

Gun extremists love argumentation by label. Will "black market" types obey the law? With the definition of "black market" being a market outside the law. Hence the argument really comes down to "people who don't obey the law, won't obey the law." This is hardly even a coherent thought, let alone the decisive argument against life-saving laws.

It won't stop the illegal firearms market. It's just easier and less dangerous to leave criminals alone and go after those who willingly submit to the government.

There you go again. An illegal firearms market is by definition illegal. You labelled it yourself as illegal. Every law ever written is subject to the same criticism that it doesn't stop illegal disobedience of it.

There is nothing voluntary about this law, otherwise it wouldn't be a law. If you don't follow it, there will be punishment. Hence it's not about people who "willingly" submit, it's about all people, whether they're willing or not. They'll all have to go through a background check as enforced to the best of the law's ability. It's amazing when the gun extremists claim that the solution to gun crime is to better enforce existing laws, and then argue against measures like this which are designed precisely to better enforce existing laws.

Well to be fair, he's arguing (I think) that there shouldn't be any regulations on guns, not that existing ones should be enforced.

What's the difference? The logic of his argument is that there shouldn't be any laws at all, because by definition, people who successfully evade a particular law aren't obeying it. Calling it an argument is charitable because it's really a tautological statement disguised as an argument.