just reducing his argument to its absurd conclusion.
we don't need gun laws because they don't stop gun crime.
thus, we don't need murder laws because they don't stop murder crime.
we don't need rape laws becauuse they don't stop rape crime.
hell, arizona might as well strike all the common sense drinking and driving laws they have put on the books. though those laws may have reduced DUI fatalities by 75%, they don't stop them all, so thus they are worthless.
reductio ad absurdum.
To do this more consistently, we need to compare objects to objects and events to events.
Murders and rapes are events, not objects. Rape could be objectified by saying it uses penises. Should we illegalize penises? I would expect some stiff resistance to that proposal. I can't draw a similar analogy with murder because it's a bit more diverse. Murder weapons range from bodies of water to syringes to rumors.
However I suggest that the gun problem is really a shooting problem. This is the event associated with almost 100% of gun-related controversy.
And guess what ... shooting someone outside of fully-defined legal circumstances is seriously illegal.
So talking about shooting laws would even that playing field by recognizing that a gun cannot be a crime; only a shooting can. cn