Should we strike down laws against robbery?
How about rape?
Should arson be legalized?
Should local governments stop prosecuting drivers impaired by drugs or alcohol?
What about those who consistently drive without proof of their ownership of a vehicle or ability to drive it? Should we simply sunset those laws requiring registration and licensing?
Of course not to all ove the above, right? The idea of not having a law, ordinance, prohibition or regulation because of the existence of people who would break such laws, ordinances and regulations is patently absurd. But one of the oft-offered gunhumper arguments against any effort at gun safety laws is indeed an absurd argument against any and all laws. Specifically, we shouldn't implement universal background check, gun registration or other reforms because criminals won't obey those laws. This is yet another argument that really only highlights the brainlessness that passes for logic in ammosexual and circles. By gun-nut thinking, the almost 80,000 rapes that occurred in 2013 is prima facie confirmation that laws against rape should be repealed. Criminals don't obey such laws, so the laws the laws themselves are useless.
To 2A freaks, regulations around guns must bear the burden both of being perfect and of being enforced perfectly, something no thinking person expects out of any other law on any books. They argue that universal background check must show a sufficient probability of stopping all mass shootings, all gang shootings, all domestic gun violence, all gun trafficking and all straw purchases before it should be even considered. They deem existing gun laws to have failed because firearm-related crimes still exist. Of course by such a yardstick, virtually every law, every prohibition every regulation and every ordinance ever conceived has been a massive failure as there is always someone willing to flout any particular law. But the stunning speciousness and intellectual bankruptcy of the "criminals-will-break-the law-so-let's-not-have-the-law" argument is apparently beyond the intellectual grasp of the gun nut crowd. Or perhaps they understand perfectly well how nonsensical such arguments are but hope to compel agreement with them anyway through repetition.
Or maybe the line of thinking behind such an argument is even less complimentary to firearm fetishists. I've seen the argument made here on the Vine that gun registration requirements should not be considered because while criminals would ignore them, such requirements would only inconvenience law-abiding gun owners. That's really the crux of the issue isn't it? Ammosexuals are not the least bit interested in any measure that would even slightly inconvenience them in their efforts to acquire, own, or carelessly manage any firearm they want or transfer ownership of that firearm to whoever they want. They don't want the accountability and responsibility that should be part and parcel of the exercise of second amendment rights, certainly not if there are criminals who would ignore those measures. Rights without responsibility is indeed the very core of the gunhumper mindset. A mindset truly worthy of contempt.