Do laws deter?

[abnk]

The No Victim, No Crime got me thinking about this. Many posters there seem to have the attitude that no matter what the law, bad guys will do bad things.

I disagree. Laws do, in fact, deter crime. To some this statement may be tantamount to water is wet. Others may disagree.

Statistics show that the number of abortions increased greatly after Roe v. Wade; capital murder rates decreased when states re-instituted capital punishment; etc. Statistics aside, it's basic organism behavior to not repeat punishing behavior, but rewarding behavior instead. How many of you take the chance to drive after a couple or a few beers on New Years Eve? Chance are you'd be OK, but you wouldn't risk getting caught. The law worked. How many of you (including criminals) would risk taking a firearm into the City/County building? You wouldn't because the punishment would be harsh. The regulation worked. Why shouldn't these restrictions be extended?

Do you all honestly believe that tougher gun laws would not decrease deaths caused by guns? Sure, some sociopaths will do what they want to do no matter what, but most sane criminals will be disincentivised if the punishment were hard enough. As a result gun-related deaths should drop significantly. Innocent by-standers (including infants and other minors) would not lose their lives in drive-by shootings, negligent deaths caused by firearms would not happen... I'm sure you follow my drift.

 

[doug1980]

Some Laws do deter, I agree with that. But those people who are capable of murder, rape, etc will not be detered. Tightening up gun laws, in my opinion, will not deter the types of crimminals that make us carry firearms for protection. Instead of making laws that would hinder us that obey the laws, maybe the punishment of the crimes should be more severe. I beleive that would be more effective as a deterent.

 

[lashicoN]

The No Victim, No Crime got me thinking about this. Many posters there seem to have the attitude that no matter what the law, bad guys will do bad things.

I disagree. Laws do, in fact, deter crime. To some this statement may be tantamount to water is wet. Others may disagree.

Statistics show that the number of abortions increased greatly after Roe v. Wade; capital murder rates decreased when states re-instituted capital punishment; etc. Statistics aside, it's basic organism behavior to not repeat punishing behavior, but rewarding behavior instead. How many of you take the chance to drive after a couple or a few beers on New Years Eve? Chance are you'd be OK, but you wouldn't risk getting caught. The law worked. How many of you (including criminals) would risk taking a firearm into the City/County building? You wouldn't because the punishment would be harsh. The regulation worked. Why shouldn't these restrictions be extended?

Do you all honestly believe that tougher gun laws would not decrease deaths caused by guns? Sure, some sociopaths will do what they want to do no matter what, but most sane criminals will be disincentivised if the punishment were hard enough. As a result gun-related deaths should drop significantly. Innocent by-standers (including infants and other minors) would not lose their lives in drive-by shootings, negligent deaths caused by firearms would not happen... I'm sure you follow my drift.

I mean no disrespect, you brought up a topic, and I happen to disagree with just about everything you said.

Abortions probably did go up after Roe Vs Wade. Women who went to coat hanger doctors prior to the law probably often died, thus disabling the chance for repeat business. Once real doctors got involved, women lived on to get more abortions. I'm not being completely serious here, but the same could be said about murderers. The rates dropped off because the state enacted the death penalty. They were finally killing off the idiots they kept letting out to repeat murder.

I would take a concealed firearm into a county/city building if I were asked to go by the state (I have no reason to go there on my own) if they didn't have metal detectors and there was no chance of it being found out. Shootings do occur in gun-free zones and if I'm going to die, I'd rather not waste my death in some defenseless shooting by a criminal.

We already know for a fact that tighter gun laws DOES NOT lower crime rates. In fact, it appears, as of late, that the exact opposite occurs...for the same reason I laid out earlier. When armed citizens defend themselves against muggers/robbers the number of muggers and robbers will drop, thus dropping the number of muggings and robberies.

 

[rambone]

Do you all honestly believe that tougher gun laws would not decrease deaths caused by guns? Sure, some sociopaths will do what they want to do no matter what, but most sane criminals will be disincentivised if the punishment were hard enough. As a result gun-related deaths should drop significantly. Innocent by-standers (including infants and other minors) would not lose their lives in drive-by shootings, negligent deaths caused by firearms would not happen... I'm sure you follow my drift.

You heard it here first, folks. Gun control actually does in fact work.

 

[leftsock]

Statistics show that the number of abortions increased greatly after Roe v. Wade; capital murder rates decreased when states re-instituted capital punishment; etc. Statistics aside, it's basic organism behavior to not repeat punishing behavior, but rewarding behavior instead. How many of you take the chance to drive after a couple or a few beers on New Years Eve? Chance are you'd be OK, but you wouldn't risk getting caught. The law worked. How many of you (including criminals) would risk taking a firearm into the City/County building? You wouldn't because the punishment would be harsh. The regulation worked. Why shouldn't these restrictions be extended?

You're making presumptions that the causes you state had a direct effect on the outcome. 1) Were abortions were counted as accurately before as they were after Roe v. Wade? 2) Were the decrease in murder rates related to the re-institution of capital punishment and not some other factor (maybe a better economy, i don't know)? 3) Maybe the law doesn't deter me from drinking and driving, but the possibility of getting killed in a fiery car wreck does? We have to maintain a skeptical view and consider that, while two items appear to be correlated, one might not cause the other.

Many factors go into the way people make their decisions. Concerning crime and punishment, some factors to consider are the severity of a punishment and the chance of getting caught. A great example is speeding, since everyone does it. The possibility of getting a ticket is relatively low, and the penalty, a few hundred dollar fine, is relatively insignificant. Now, if the police pulled over everyone who sped and executed drivers on the spot, speeding would cease.

How many of you (including criminals) would risk taking a firearm into the City/County building? You wouldn't because the punishment would be harsh.

The punishment is harsh.... but the probability of getting caught is almost guaranteed, since everyone has to pass through a metal detector and have their belonging scanned.

 

[leftsock]

The No Victim, No Crime got me thinking about this. Many posters there seem to have the attitude that no matter what the law, bad guys will do bad things.

I disagree. Laws do, in fact, deter crime. To some this statement may be tantamount to water is wet. Others may disagree.

What makes something a crime?

While there are many basic acts that everyone knows are crimes, such as infringing upon another's life, liberty, or property, many of the crimes that we currently have in our society are only crimes because we have laws written for them. Marijuana is our modern example. Currently, it's illegal to possess marijuana, and it is so because we have a law that makes it that way, but this wasn't always the case. Marijuana laws have flip-flopped between being legal and illegal several times over the past hundred years. So depending on when one lived and possessed marijuana, they may or may not have been committing a crime.

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

 

[Cru]

I personally think that a criminal worried about getting blasted by civilians would be a more effective deterrent than worrying about getting to hand out with fellow gang members in a federal prison resort.

 

[Armed Eastsider]

They might deter some but laws will not truly be effective until the liberals allow us to justly punish those. What I mean is convicted murderers, rapists, child molestors, career criminals and general pieces of sh** who have never contributed to our society in any way should be publicly hanged.

No more serving half your sentence, no more legal technicalities allowing somebody who murders to be convicted of "involuntary manslaughter" or some other bull charge.

Also I truly believe "attempted" murder should not even exist. If you attempt to murder somebody, or almost kill somebody in the act of a crime or whatever the situation, why should you be rewarded and given a much lesser sentence simply because the victim survived?

/end rant

 

[Eddie]

Do you all honestly believe that tougher gun laws would not decrease deaths caused by guns? Sure, some sociopaths will do what they want to do no matter what, but most sane criminals will be disincentivised if the punishment were hard enough. As a result gun-related deaths should drop significantly. Innocent by-standers (including infants and other minors) would not lose their lives in drive-by shootings, negligent deaths caused by firearms would not happen... I'm sure you follow my drift.

I believe that recent history has shown that in cities with tougher gun laws crime and violence actually increased. Look at the mess in Chicago for a prime example.

Laws deter law abiding citizens. Laws do not deter criminals who by their nature commit violations of the law. Harsher punishments have not historically deterred crime.

 

[caddywhompus]

In general, when a crime is committed, the criminal will choose a target that increases his odds for success and safety. People who study this stuff, have asked criminals why they chose their targets. Guys who have attacked cops and weren't just straight out of their minds generally pick the officers who APPEAR weak: their uniform was sloppy, boots unpolished, anything that would suggest they didn't take care of themselves. The officer who looks good in his uniform, remains calm, and projects confidence is less likely to be targeted. When you ask the guys who commit robbery and assault why they didn't choose a specific target, they have been know to say, "cuz that mofo carries a gun everywhere." Laws have their place, but in the case of firearms, tougher gun laws isn't the answer. Responsible gun ownership is.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

Do you all honestly believe that tougher gun laws would not decrease deaths caused by guns?snip.

Yes, because those same statistics you are so fond of clearly show a drastic decrease in crime in areas where gun laws have been relaxed to be closer to Constitutional requirements, and areas with strict and un-Constitutional gun laws are some of the most dangerous in our country.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

There is a military leadership axiom that says: "Never give an order you know won't be obeyed". The more laws enacted because someone cries "DO SOMETHING" about a particular pet peeve, the less respect people have for the law. Speed limits are one good example; income tax law is another. When the law is so complex and voluminous that only lawyers understand it (and that only the parts they study as a specialty) and everyone becomes a criminal in one way or another, people find it easier to disregard the laws they disagree with. It's a slippery slope that's brought us to the brink of governmental tyranny at all levels and it will be hard to turn the tyranny back. I can't think of a single new law (as opposed to a law repealing another law) that we need in this country or that would be good for us.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I'm glad someone brought up the difference between correlation and causation.

On top of that we also need to consider the order of operations.

Many times, laws are the result of popular sentiment and societal norms, not the other way around.

A law just re-inforces what the people are already doing, or what they feel is right.

 

[jsharmon7]

I think some people are getting confused by technicalities in that something can't be a crime without a law saying so, and it's therefore impossible for a law to prevent a crime. If you want to split hairs that's technically correct but not the essence of the argument. What we're talking about is whether enacting a law can prevent victimization (crime).

My stance in the other thread was that there are victimless crimes out there, but a lot of the ones people think of as victimless really aren't, or at least not for long. You can say that drunk driving is victimless if nobody gets into a crash, but it creates a very dangerous situation that has a much higher likelihood of someone getting hurt or killed. Nobody who drinks and drives gets behind the wheel thinking they are going to kill someone. But, a lot of them realize that the likelihood of getting stopped by the police is fairly good. More people are deterred from drinking and driving because of the "getting pulled over" factor than the "I may kill someone" factor. In that regard, I think a law against drinking and driving potentially prevents a lot of victimization because people fear getting stopped by the police more than they fear they will cause an accident. If you were to allow people to drink and drive and only punish them if they cause damage to someone or something I think A LOT more people would drink and drive. Hardly anyone in the general public thinks that anything bad will ever happen to them, it's exactly why those of us who routinely carry guns are in the minority. I think Fargo brought up a good point in the other thread when he said that under the idea of "crimes require a victim" I could pop a shot at you and as long as I don't hit you then no law has been broken. If you disagree with that then explain where you'd draw the line. Why would the danger caused by drinking and driving be acceptable but the danger caused by randomly shooting at people be unacceptable?

 

[ATOMonkey]

You don't have to worry about getting stopped if you take the back roads. Everyone knows that.

 

[OneBadV8]

I think Laws need stricter punishments, and "life in prison" needs to go out the window.

If current punishments detered crime, you wouldn't have repeat offenders or over-crowding (this is another reason against life in prison).

 

[ATOMonkey]

I think parents just need to do a better job parenting.

 

[OneBadV8]

I think parents just need to do a better job parenting.

You mean, that's not what TV and the Public Schools are for?

 

[ATOMonkey]

IMO, parenting is a full time job, literally. If you try to outsource that, you roll the dice with how your kids turn out. That's just one man's opinion though.

 

[dross]

I think parents just need to do a better job parenting.

I agree. There oughta be a law.