Let’s play the game your way, since you enjoy putting words in people’s mouth so much (which you did, again, with this post).
So you think that if a law can’t 100% completely solve a problem, thoroughly irradiating the behavior in question, we shouldn’t make it? You’re in favor of eliminating all laws that ever failed to entirely solve a problem?
Let me know if you actually want to discuss what’s actually being said. So far for the last half dozen post all you’ve done is make stupid crap up (much like I did above) and pretend that’s what I’m saying.
Mostly. Rather than pass a law that doesn't work, how about we find something that does work and then do that instead? Especially when the law that doesn't work takes rights away from people who are not harming anyone.
The reality is that most of these laws that "don't 100% completely solve the problem" were never intended to solve the problem at all. Rather they were written by someone who saw either a way for government to further intrude into the lives of people or they saw a way for the government to gain more revenue.
And then they sold those laws to people by saying, "It's a first step. Yes, some people will have to give up a few rights but that's the cost when you are wrapping people up in a legal blanky so they will feel safe."
The only just duty that a government has is to protect the rights of it's citizens. If you have to take some rights away to ensure safety, you've failed.
You can can have safety. Or you can can have freedom. Don't count on having both.
Me, I would rather have freedom. How about you?