There one ever-recurring argument against gun legislation which I'd like to illustrate today:
"Gun laws affect only the law abiding"
There's the "duh" explanation to this, because anybody who'd break these laws would be a criminal. But what about after a crime has been committed? If somebody were to do a drive-by-shooting, he could face some serious charges right? Breaking several federal laws concerning guns, homicide, reckless endangerment
will put you in that position.
No, these people break those laws, because they are not planning on getting caught. They have no intention to stand trial and face punishment for their actions.
Take for example the most recent school shooting in Ohio; at the age of 14 he could not legally buy any type of firearm that accepts primed cartridges. I'm using this wording because I don't know whether he used a rimfire or centerfire weapons, I'm quite convinced he wasn't using blackpowder pistols.
So, he was in violation of several federal laws, but he will -for obvious reasons- not stand trial.
Another person who killed several people killed himself yesterday after an hours long standoff with law enforcement. (Texas Standoff Ends When Suspect Drives Into Lake)
If you're a religious person, you can choose to believe that these people may still face penalty in the afterlife, but there are still plenty of murderers at large who are alive and well
. There are many who are out on parole, probation, or who have made themselves comfortable within the prison system.
This is one of the reasons why I think we should improve our penal system. Prisons are overcrowded with people who do not belong there, and people who are not rehabilitated are cut loose to make place for others. We should keep looking for better investigative tools, it's a true pity that ballistic fingerprinting and microstamping show little promise, but our prison system is ready for a reform.
And our gun legislation? Should we keep legislation which has not been observed to work?