No you're adding another layer of protection to society by punishing the use of a firearm in a crime.
Applying your logic we should do away with enhancements for crimes against the elderly, crimes against the young, crimes by fiduciaries, crimes by gang members. All of those enhancements are indicative of situations where societies interests dictate added penalties. That's what I'm after with firearms in crime.If you can't demonize horrible things like rape and murder to the point people don't do it, do you think demonizing one particular method over another is going to work?
Why, yes, now that you ask. It is. If we lower the rate of firearms use in crimes there is less (pardon) "ammo" for further restrictions.And even if it does work, is it some sort of victory to say some number of people were murdered this year, but thankfully not with guns?
Indeed it is. Where is the greater hazard:Is murder more "murdery" if it is with a gun instead of other means? Is it more heinous or cruel?
#1.We're in a busy park and I try to light you up with my wannabe G18 with a 80 round drum vs. walking up and pinching your head off like a zit.
#2.We're in the theater and you're incessantly talking on your phone. I'm a wackjob and decide "That's it! No soup for you!" Is it more dangerous for me to drop a frag in your lap and run vs. quietly looping my belt around your neck; brace my legs against the back of your seat as you flop around like a fresh caught bonefish?
Which of these instances present the greater hazard to society? Which deserves greater punishment?
Greater hazard to society = more punishment and a longer "time out" to reflect on the error of your ways and commit yourself to only thinking pure thoughts. I don't have anything more for you on this subject. Enjoy!I still don't get why using a gun to hurt someone is some sort of +5 evil multiplier on an already criminal act.