RANT ON. This is not an invitation to an argument, I just want to get it off my chest.
Locked doors don’t stop thieves, but we lock our doors anyway. Why? Because it reduces the chances.
Car alarms don’t stop car thefts, but we have alarms anyway. Why? Because it reduces the chances.
Once upon a time, people wanted to do something about the huge number of casualties from drunk driving. They called for stronger laws. People opposed argued laws won’t stop drunks from driving. But we strengthened the laws anyway, increased the penalties, lowered legal intoxication limits… And no, it didn’t stop all drunk driving, but incidents of and accidents caused by drunk driving PLUMMETED. The number of victims went down. Yes, there are still victims, but there are a lot less than there used to be. And THAT’S the idea.
The purpose of criminal laws is not to stop all crime. That’s impossible. Even though we have laws against theft, rape, assault, fraud and so on, those crimes still happen. But we don’t get rid of the laws. Stiffer laws may not deter all criminals, but they deter some. And THAT’S the idea.
If the fact that criminals will break a law is a reason to not have a law, then we shouldn’t have any laws at all. But when laws are well crafted, well targeted, and not full of loopholes, we know from history they can and do reduce the chances of crimes happening, or it least the number of times they happen.
We can’t stop all tragic incidents. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do everything we can to stop some of them. We can’t save all victims, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do everything we can to reduce the number of victims.
Apply this to whatever current event you will.