> There are already laws against piracy. Additional laws covering things merely leading up to that act should not be necessary nor desired.

That sounds like entirely sensible reasoning, so you shouldn't find it surprising that the lawmaking process never considered it.

To play the devil's advocate here, since there are already laws against assault and homicide, would you say that there should be no regulation of weapons?

And before you argue that weapons have no purpose except to break other laws, like jailbreaking there are many lawful or sporting uses of swords, firearms, explosives, etc.

I would say that's entirely reasonable. There's no reason to dump on more laws to try and enforce (and poorly I might add) already existing laws.

Yeah, I would be okay with saying that.

We have laws against murder/assault, and we also have laws against making threats and reckless endangerment which I think should cover the other cases of bad things done with guns.

I'll go further and say that DUI laws are also redundant. Of course we don't want people driving drunk, but all we really need is some case law that establishes drunk driving as endangerment.