Futility arguments misapply evidence about undeterred individuals

Evidence

Using odd logic, Wayne LaPierre extended the futility argument against universal background checks for gun buyers. “My problem with background checks is you’re never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks” (Hunt, 2013). In a companion futility argument, he pointed out that many mass killers obtained their guns in compliance with existing gun regulations. Gun regulations do not prevent mass killings, he argued. … There are several notable problems with this line of reasoning. Semiautomatic, militarized rifles with large ammunition clips are the weapons of choice for quick massacres. Congress refused to renew the ban on these firearms and opposes any restrictions on the capacity of bullet magazines. To evaluate the effectiveness of gun regulations when the main tool of death is exempted is but a token gesture. It is a logical fallacy to argue from evidence that some individuals were undeterred by existing gun regulations that those regulations had no deterrent effect on others. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1295

Categorization

• XREF: This is an instance of disengagement via distortion of consequences — the futility/advantageous-comparison moral disengagement tactic Bandura theorizes. Connects to reader’s vault claims about how ordinary people rationalize harmful policy.
• DEFINE: Futility argument as a rationalization that judge gun laws useless by pointing to offenders who evade them — a general moral-disengagement pattern, useful for pinning down the mechanism.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 1295