Comment: The argument is logically wrong

(See in situ)

The argument is logically wrong

"People who steal guns do not submit to background checks."

"...people who steal guns do not submit to rules about stealing. But we still have them."

If you look closely, Jon is actually comparing two incompatible things here. A background check (if implemented) would be a required behaviour, while the laws regarding stealing are meant to prohibit that behaviour.

You can't claim that just because we have laws that prohibit an unwanted behaviour, and criminals break them, it means that other laws which require a "wanted" behaviour make sense.

I invite you to fill in the blanks on your own:

"People who [commit a crime] do not [proposed regulatory action]."

"People who [commit said crime] don't follow the laws that prohibit [said crime], but we still have those laws. Therefore [proposed regulatory action] makes sense."

It's pseudo-logical nonsense.