Do laws deter?

[ATOMonkey]

Holy cow!!!!! . You know this has been discussed since roman times and were still discussing . Let me tell you my pet beeve about all of this . I forget the exact congress that said it , but I believe it was the congress during G.W.'s first term . And the quote is (or really close to it) We worked harder than the last congress and it's evident by us passing 326 new laws and the last congress only passed 112 .

Earlier than that. As Socrates was being put to death, I'm sure there were all kinds of questions in his mind as to the validity of law and government in general.

 

[jsharmon7]

Yes! You're making my point! It isn't because there's an arbitrary law that makes some action a crime, it's because they'll be caught and punished!

I have no idea what you're talking about. You said that laws don't deter people but now you say I'm making your point because you think they do? Speeding is dangerous, so we made a law saying you can't do it. Because of the law people don't speed. Yes, people speed by a little bit because they think they won't be stopped for just going over a little but the spirit of the law is followed. Yes, police can use discretion and say that going over a few miles per hour won't result in a traffic stop but 10 mph over will.

 

[jbombelli]

Perhaps the threat of punishment deters people from committing crimes to a limited extent. But if it was really the panacea some think, we wouldn't have anybody on death row.

MOST people who commit crimes aren't too worried about that because they think they're smart. They think they'll get awa with whatever they're planning, and therefore the potential punishment is not an issue. We could execute people for smoking weed, and lots of people would still do it. We could execute people for jaywalking, and many would just make a point of looking around better before stepping off the curb.

 

[dross]

The laws of physics deter me from flying when I flap my arms.

 

[bigus_D]

Really? Do you think adultery and promiscuity are as prevalent in Islamic countries as here, in the US? To me that's proof that harsh punishment does deter the behavior it punishes. Of course, it will never deter 100%, but it works. Chicago laws are not harsh enough.

OK... let's make adultry illegal in the US and punishable by stoning.

I simply cannot believe I'm reading this crap.

 

[leftsock]

You said that laws don't deter people...

This is true.

Speeding is dangerous, so we made a law saying you can't do it.

Okay, I'll play along with that.

Because of the law people don't speed.

That is not true.

Yes, people speed by a little bit because they think they won't be stopped...

Okay, you just flip flopped from your previous statement. You're arguing my side here: the law doesn't deter crime.

... the spirit of the law is followed.

Spirit of the law? The law doesn't say "travel at a reasonable, safe, and controllable speed," it says "speed limit: 50mph." One either obeys the law, or they don't.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Perhaps the threat of punishment deters people from committing crimes to a limited extent. But if it was really the panacea some think, we wouldn't have anybody on death row.

MOST people who commit crimes aren't too worried about that because they think they're smart. They think they'll get awa with whatever they're planning, and therefore the potential punishment is not an issue. We could execute people for smoking weed, and lots of people would still do it. We could execute people for jaywalking, and many would just make a point of looking around better before stepping off the curb.

Or, more recently, they don't care about laws because they're going to take their own life anyway.

 

[rambone]

Very strict gun laws seem to work great in Japan. Why couldn't we do the same here? Because we are to selfish to give our firearms for the benefit of the greater good.

HA. Why don't you go dig up the supposed stats of how safe Japan is, and I'll go dig up some statistics of how disarmed serfs in authoritarian countries have been butchered on the order of hundreds of millions, in the last century alone. Government genocide. Don't you think the greater good is served better by having a safeguard against wholesale slaughter?

Britain has no freedom and their crime soars. What say you? Eliminate some more of their liberty to save some lives?

Japan, Britain, et al, have no firewall against mass-murder by government, against a dictator that would starve or enslave them. They have given up their freedom for some supposed security. Let them pray that their governments always maintain their best interest at heart, and hope that their countries never get invaded.

Disarmed people are slaves. And people who would confiscate weapons are tyrants. Reading your Collectivist chiding about Americans not sacrificing their souls for the greater good made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. Your views are as scary as any socialist in Washington.

Really? Do you think adultery and promiscuity are as prevalent in Islamic countries as here, in the US? To me that's proof that harsh punishment does deter the behavior it punishes. Of course, it will never deter 100%, but it works. Chicago laws are not harsh enough.

You really have faith in your master don't you? Keep wishing for that Police State, bro. Maybe someday we will stone people to death for dissenting against your totalitarian views.



Too selfish? Is freedom too selfish of a proposition for you to accept? Handing over your property to some scumbag dictator is the humanitarian thing to do, right? BAA! BAAA!!

I bet crime would be pretty darn low if we were all wearing chains in a dungeon somewhere. Maybe we should implement that in Chicago.

​

 

[jsharmon7]

Okay, you just flip flopped from your previous statement. You're arguing my side here: the law doesn't deter crime.

Common sense. Do you want the police to stop everyone who goes 41 in a 40? The safe speed has been determined to be 40 mph, a couple over is still reasonable, 10 over isn't. The police have discretion (common sense) at their disposal. Does the law deter people from breaking the speed limit by even 1 mph? No. Does it deter people from driving at 20 mph over the speed limit? For the majority it does.

I'll play your silly game of black and white absolutes. Does the law 100% deter every single person from ever disobeying any law, anywhere? No it does not, you're correct. But, it does deter a good majority of people from behaving recklessly. Your argument is akin to saying that since chemotherapy doesn't cure 100% of cancer patients then you shouldn't even try it. Or, carrying a gun won't protect you 100% of the time against criminals, so you shouldn't even own one. Nothing in life is guaranteed but there are things you can do to discourage bad behavior and create consequences for those who continue.

 

[jbombelli]

It never ceases to amaze me how many "Americans" would sacrifice their liberties and freedoms, AND MINE, for which our ancestors gave their lives to guarantee to us, over their lily-livered fear that someone out there might abuse those liberties and freedoms.

I am truly ashamed to call them my countrymen. They live as cowards, and hopefully someday they'll die as cowards.

"The price of freedom is blood. The moment we are no longer willing to pay that price, we are no longer free." -- me, 1984-5.

 

[leftsock]

Does the law deter people from breaking the speed limit by even 1 mph? No. Does it deter people from driving at 20 mph over the speed limit? For the majority it does.

It's not the law that deters people from driving at 20mph over the speed limit, it's the consequences that deter people.

The point of recognizing that distinction allows us to understand that we can change the consequences, and doing so will change behavior.

The question was:

I disagree. Laws do, in fact, deter crime.
...
Do you all honestly believe that tougher gun laws would not decrease deaths caused by guns?

Laws don't deter crime (hint: it's the consequences that deter). So, how "tough" are you willing to get to decrease deaths caused by guns?

 

[jsharmon7]

It's not the law that deters people from driving at 20mph over the speed limit, it's the consequences that deter people.

The point of recognizing that distinction allows us to understand that we can change the consequences, and doing so will change behavior.

How do you have consequences if you have no laws? You can't have B before A, somewhere along the line there has to be a law being broken before you can have consequences to fear. Again, you're technically correct in that people fear the consequences but there are no consequences without laws. You're missing the forest for the trees.

I am done with these two threads as I don't think anyone on either side is willing to find a common ground. I understand that we can impose penalties if people injure someone but I still support doing everything we can to discourage dangerous situations. I'm not talking about wrapping everyone in padding and outlawing pointy objects. I'm talking about basic things like speed limits, laws against drunk driving, etc. If you think that's what the founding fathers of our nation were fighting against then you misunderstand your history. Liberty does not equal doing whatever you want at the risk of innocent bystanders. No law will ever eliminate a problem completely, but it does deter a good enough portion of the population to make it worthwhile. Carry on...

 

[Eddie]

OK... let's make adultry illegal in the US and punishable by stoning.

I simply cannot believe I'm reading this crap.

Cool, a little free lovin' followed up with legal marijuana. I'm so down with that.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

What makes something a crime?


We have to understand that, by their nature, laws don't deter crime, laws make crime.

Something is a crime when it is discovered.

We do not have to understand your reasoning of laws by their nature...because in the causal relationship of crime to law, a crime is the causal effect.

How can a crime be committed if there was not a law in the first place?

 

[Jeremiah]

Common sense. Do you want the police to stop everyone who goes 41 in a 40? The safe speed has been determined to be 40 mph, a couple over is still reasonable, 10 over isn't. The police have discretion (common sense) at their disposal. Does the law deter people from breaking the speed limit by even 1 mph? No. Does it deter people from driving at 20 mph over the speed limit? For the majority it does.

For the sake of this argument, who determined what a safe speed is? wouldn't it very for everyone depending on age, level of impairment, vehicle type, condition and state of disreapair? speed limits are arbitrary, if you were using that as an example to make a point, fine, but I sure hope you don't beleive that crap yourself.

I wish I would have bookmarked them, but someone once posted links to a few studies that suggest people drive the speeds they are comfortable with.

and I am pretty sure the national speed limit of 55mph on the interstate ( when it was originally imposed in the 70's ( ?) was simply an attempt to extract better fuel efficiency from cars on the highway during a gas shortage.

 

[leftsock]

How do you have consequences if you have no laws? You can't have B before A, somewhere along the line there has to be a law being broken before you can have consequences to fear. Again, you're technically correct in that people fear the consequences but there are no consequences without laws. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Again, back to the beginning:

Laws do, in fact, deter crime.
...
Do you all honestly believe that tougher gun laws would not decrease deaths caused by guns?

So, how "tough" are you willing to get to decrease deaths caused by guns?

I'm done. If you don't get it by now, you're never going to. Good luck.

 

[dross]

Cool, a little free lovin' followed up with legal marijuana. I'm so down with that.

I wanna party with you, Cowboy.

 

[henktermaat]

This is relevant:

 

[dross]

Pirates get the best booty.

 

[abnk]

Alright, gentlemen. I think, I could have kept this going, but I'd better stop before someone's blood pressure goes through the roof.

I don't believe in a lot of what I have posted in this thread.

To clarify a few things:

1. This thread isn't really about whether tougher guns laws would reduce violent crimes committed with guns.
2. A lot of you took interpreted deter crime as eliminate crime. Saying that the consequences deter, but the law that establishes these consequences does not is discussing irrelevant details as far this discussion goes. Much like saying that freefalling without a parachute does not kill you, it is the landing that does. Either way, if you prefer to use consequences, fine. Consequences drive a lot of human (and all other organisms) behavior.

The point I intend to make is:
Discussing whether tougher guns laws would deter violent/accidental deaths involving firearms is really a moot point. It should not be up for discussion. Saying the we don't support tougher gun laws because they do not work accedes to the point that if they did work, it would be OK to implement them. How about focusing on rights instead of arguments that really aren't the heart of the issue?

Another analogy is when some argue the specifics of what an assault weapon is. They hold that because it is semi-auto, it is not an assault rifle, therefore, OK for a civilian to own. By asserting that, they accept fully autos are rightfully banned. Who cares are the trigger group is set up. Your right to keep and bear arms! Not only some and not others.