An excellent quote

[unixronin]

To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow...  For society does not [successfully] control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals.  Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.

Jeff Snyder

(Emphasis and minor amendment mine.  Originally posted in guns by heypete)

Comments

[juuro.livejournal.com]

In general, laws are patterned after expected behaviour of criminals.
Not only gun-control laws. Most of them.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Indeed. But most of them are written to, as Snyder notes, prohibit criminal behavior ... hm. The problem with discussing it in those terms is that the definitions become circular.

OK, let's try this again:
The majority of law is written, or intended, to prohibit behavior which society finds unacceptable and compel those who would violate the mores of society or suffer the consequences. It is the unacceptable behavior that is prohibited. Most gun control law, however, is written in such a way as to outlaw anything that might potentially be abused in ways unacceptable to society. And the truth is that the reason for this is because allthough gun control is sold to the public as being for the purpose of controlling crime, the truth is it's not about crime, it's about banning the guns, for various motivations. Several high-profile politicians have actually, not always intentionally, actually made public statements to this effect.

Discussing those motivations is probably a subject for another thread.

[juuro.livejournal.com]

With this definition, I have no argument.
I only wanted to point out that the original quote, in my eyes, looked like a generalisation that was a bit too broad for my taste.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It happens sometimes when you're making a statement for a specific audience, unfortunately. I didn't put it even as clearly then as I intended.

Another way to put it, possibly better, is as follows: The main body of law related to things one may own -- vehicles, for instance -- is generally "You may own X, but you may not do Y with it", whereas most gun control law tends to be written on the basis of "You may not own X, because a criminal might do Y with it."
And the truth is that in most cases of gun control law, the possibility of criminal use is being used as a rationale to justify the prohibition of ownership, when it is the prohibition of ownership that is the actual goal, not the prevention of the crime. In fact, gun control advocates have historically tended more to promote ineffective measures than effective ones, because if they did actually succeed in effecting a major reduction in crime, it might weaken their case for the need for more gun control, while as long as violent crime remains high and the gun-related subset of it remains well-publicized, they can continue to argue that more gun control is needed.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

No, we have a ton of laws that are "you may not own X, because a criminal might do Y with it".

Do you want to keep a supply of morphine pills around the house, to use wisely if ever needed? Can't do it.

Do you want to grow marijuana plants for their hemp? Can't do that, either.

How about a little plutonium in a lead jar, for educational purposes? Or some anthrax spores, ditto?

Child pornography? Forget about it.