Follow
Is there a name for that stupid argument that goes something like, "There's no point in outlawing X because criminals who are intent on breaking the law a will find a way to get X anyway"? As if making X illegal won't make it harder to access, including to would-be criminals?
Yes, this remark is primarily motivated by recent events in the news (USA) but there are so many other things where this sort of argument comes up. I don't mean to say I support every sort of restriction that this is meant to argue against, but it's a poor argument most of the time.
@collectedoverspread The fault of the argument is that 'banning' is expected to do something positive.
@collectedoverspread I'm not sure if it has an official name, other than like "missing the point".
It needs a bit more to be a good argument: it implies that a law won't do X amount of good; ok fine – the obvious thing you need to examine is how much good, <X, *will* it do, then? And weight that against the costs. So it's like just the first part of a coherent argument, at best.