ClassWarrior
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-17-11 10:58 PM
Original message |
Laws against murder are pointless. If a criminal wants to murder s/he will, regardless of the laws. |
|
Edited on Mon Jan-17-11 10:59 PM by ClassWarrior
Why should we take the remedy of murder away from law-abiding citizens? I mean, how can they protect their families against murder, except with murder?
:sarcasm:
NGU.
|
Fumesucker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-17-11 11:00 PM
Response to Original message |
1. With a murder there is an actual physical victim.. |
|
That isn't true with all things we call crimes.
|
Boojatta
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
25. Corpses don't claim to be victims. |
|
They don't even express any dissatisfaction. They set a good example. I think victims of other kinds of crime should stop the whining and act more like murder victims.
|
Fumesucker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-19-11 04:03 AM
Response to Reply #25 |
26. Corpses almost always create a stink if they're not properly tended to in due course.. |
Kali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-17-11 11:29 PM
Response to Original message |
2. eh those laws keep a lot of dumbass snow birds alive |
Odin2005
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-17-11 11:29 PM
Response to Original message |
ClassWarrior
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-17-11 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
4. What's straw about it? |
beevul
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 12:21 AM
Response to Original message |
5. They're useful in prosecuting after the fact. |
|
They're useful in prosecuting after the fact. And there are victims.
The act of owning or possessing on the other hand, is victimless.
Can you think of any rational reason why otherwise lawful people should be prosecuted for owning or possessing a gun or high cap magazine?
|
ClassWarrior
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. That's not the point. The point is, the meme that "criminals are going to do it anyway" is... |
|
...dishonest and irresponsible.
NGU.
|
Statistical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. No that is just your strawman. |
|
Laws are always a balancing act.
The rights of the individual vs the protection of society.
A law on murder is easy solution. It doesn't infringe upon the rights of anyone (as long as exception for self defense is included) thus the "cost" is low. Any benefit (however minimal or dubious) is a net gain.
A law on banning guns for example is not. It does infringe upon the rights of gun owners. This is made worse by the fact that the benefit is dubious (roughly 200 million street guns currently exist in US).
When infringing upon rights the burden of proof is on the government not the individual. Rights can only be infringed with due process. Try reading "strict scrutiny" for starters. The government lacks the AUTHORITY to just do anything even if it might have a net benefit.
|
ClassWarrior
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
11. You're arguing against a strawman, alright, but he ain't my kid. |
|
Who said anything about "banning?"
NGU.
|
Donald Ian Rankin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. Because doing so will reduce the number of people killed by guns. N.T. |
beevul
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-18-11 06:30 PM by beevul
If thats true, demonstrate it. Prove it.
Simply saying it isn't good enough.
|
kctim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 09:28 AM
Response to Original message |
9. "how can they protect their families against murder" |
|
By killing them BEFORE they murder you.
Law-abiding citizens do NOT murder.
|
ClassWarrior
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #9 |
12. Exactly. When murder is outlawed, only outlaws will have murder. And law-abiding citizens... |
|
...will have nothing.
:sarcasm:
NGU.
|
kctim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
14. Spinning pretty hard to try and prove a senseless point |
|
You cannot take "murder away from law-abiding citizens" because they do NOT commit murder. You are falsely, and quite intentionally, trying to equate 'killing in self defense' with 'murder.'
Now, IF you wanted to be honest, you would say 'we should take away the remedy of killing in self defense,' which is what people who live in fear want now.
Sure, you can't logically argue against that, but at least it would be honest and you wouldn't need to hide behind the dumb sarcasm tag to ignore the truth.
|
ClassWarrior
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
15. Are you being deliberately oblique? You can say that NO LAW WORKS because some criminal will... |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-18-11 02:32 PM by ClassWarrior
...break it anyway. I don't care if it's murder, self defense or skipping on library fines.
It's a MAJOR FAIL as an argument against responsible regulation.
NGU.
|
beevul
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
17. What is the criteria? |
|
What is the criteria that defines whether a law "works" or not?
Laws are designed to penalize after the fact.
Laws might be touted or aimed at prevention, but the fact remains, they are designed to punish after the fact.
Thats how laws function.
Laws do not prevent.
|
ClassWarrior
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
19. Laws have no deterrent effect? |
beevul
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
20. Kindly take your words out of my mouth. |
|
Edited on Tue Jan-18-11 08:43 PM by beevul
I said that the nature of laws to penalize after the fact.
I did not say they have no deterrent effect.
I do not subscribe to the lunatic belief that laws prevent anyone except those that obey them, however.
If laws have such a deterrent effect, murder is against the law, and people won't do it, right?
Laws do not prevent those willing to break them. They only prevent those that care to be law abiding.
Laws have - dubious at best - deterrent effect.
You had part of the OP right:
"If a criminal wants to murder s/he will, regardless of the laws."
That much is true.
They are not, however pointless, because they give society a recourse to punish murderers.
You seem to hold the belief that laws primary purpose in existing, is to prevent.
It isn't.
|
ClassWarrior
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
22. "Laws have - dubious at best - deterrent effect." |
|
Consider me corrected. :eyes:
NGU.
|
X_Digger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 09:45 AM
Response to Original message |
10. Please google malum in se , malum prohibitum n/t |
cbdo2007
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 10:03 AM
Response to Original message |
13. There are plenty of people I would have liked to have murdered, but haven't because of the laws. |
slackmaster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 06:37 PM
Response to Original message |
18. The reason I've never murdered anyone has nothing to do with the laws against murder |
|
I don't murder people because murder is wrong.
|
ClassWarrior
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
|
But I'd rather not take my chances without murder laws.
NGU.
|
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 08:47 PM
Response to Original message |
21. Laws have only deterrent effect |
|
There is no way they were ever meant to, or are capable of, meaning by their mere enactment that the prohibited acts will never occur. That is why a punishment is provided.
|
ClassWarrior
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-19-11 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #21 |
27. That's the criterion that some people are trying to promote. A law is no good unless... |
|
...by its mere enactment, the prohibited act will never occur.
That's a strawman.
NGU.
|
Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jan-18-11 10:46 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 11:03 PM
Response to Original message |