“An analogy: knowing full well that murders will inevitably occur in a nation of 300 million people, we nonetheless adopt homicide laws and punish violators we manage to apprehend. If, instead, we were to reason — as gun control opponents would have us do with gun restrictions — that homicide laws are inappropriate since they are not perfect deterrents, we'd be stepping over dead bodies as we stroll down the sidewalk.
The best that homicide law or gun restrictions or any prohibition against harmful conduct can do is deter some of the people who would otherwise engage in the prohibited conduct. In fact, though, even a modest measure, like banning the semi-automatic attack rifles used in many of this decade's mass shootings, would, over time, save any number of innocent lives.
The gun lobby's emphasis of the imperfection of gun restrictions is an example of what in formal logic is called a "red herring" argument, in which the speaker's argument deflects attention from the issue at hand. In this case, the issue at hand is whether gun control measures are likely to save some — but not all — of the many lives now lost through gunfire, and the "red herring" is the assertion of the NRA and other opponents of restrictions that many lives will still be lost.” - Prof. Jay Sterling Silver, St. Thomas University School of Law.