Who Are Gun Laws for?

  When supporters of gun rights suggest that laws restricting those rights suggest they have no value the typical anti-gun supporter suggests you are calling for no laws since people are breaking them they create a false dichotomy. It is because they misunderstand the point of law in the first place. Laws are created to define boundaries of behavior for those who are law abiding. In some cases, those laws are obvious, because they are bad - called malum in se. These are things that are inherently bad - such as murder, rape, assault, etc. malum prohibitum crimes are laws we create to control behavior, generally for the well being of all. For example, in the US we drive on the right side of the road - not because it is immoral to drive on the left, but because we have determined those rules to create a safe driving experience for all of us. Notice we don't spend a lot of time learning malum in se (the bad laws) because they are pretty obvious, but we spend time learning malum prohibitum laws because they are not obvious. Keeping the previous example, we spend time learning the traffic laws - not really to avoid breaking the laws, but to know what they are so we can stay within those boundaries.
  Laws are not designed for those who refuse to obey them. That's what penalties and punishments are for. The obvious reason behind these is deterrence - to make it uncomfortable enough that those who choose not to obey the law would prefer not to be punished. We place greater punishments on those laws that have a more serious impact. For example, speeding does not carry the punishment that murder has.
  This basic foundation is exactly why there are problems with laws restricting gun rights. We have to ask ourselves what the purpose is? If the purpose is for public safety, then there are problems with the theory. The motivating idea here is that restricting guns will somehow minimize more serious crimes. The problem with that line of thinking is that willingly violating moral laws takes someone far beyond the point of violating rules. Violating malum prohibitum laws just break rules while violating malum in se laws break rules and violate obvious moral standards. Creating malum prohibitum laws to stop malum in se laws is like using a fishing net to stop water. It has virtually no impact on the result.
  So then if laws restricting gun rights aren't useful for stopping those who choose not to follow the law, who are they designed for? The law abiding citizen. One then has to ask why we want laws for the law abiding when they are already obeying the law.