Knife bans??

[Hornsby]

No we allow drinking and driving. We do not allow drunk driving.

No, we don't...check the laws where you live. Open bottle is a crime in 40 states plus DC, others restrict open bottle to the passenger. Only in Mississippi can you LEGALLY drive and consume at the same time.

BAC levels of legality are also going down. It's now .08 in most states, and even that is not a line in the sand. A law enforcement officer can arrest below that level if he witnesses driving behavior that indicates the driver is impaired.

[baldgriff]

What he is saying here is that people choose to drink and drive all the time. It only becomes illegal when someone gets caught driving drunk.

You can have all of the drunk driving laws on the books that you want. It still doesnt stop people from committing the crime. Or in some instances committing the crime repeatedly. Just because there is a law does not mean that the action wont occur.

[baldgriff]

just guessing but I think he's referring to the right to live.

Assuming that to be the case - we have laws on our books that deal with the taking of life from manslaughter to 1st degree murder. Similarly we have laws on our books that govern what guns are legal and not legal. Enforce the existing laws.

[Hornsby]

What he is saying here is that people choose to drink and drive all the time. It only becomes illegal when someone gets caught driving drunk.

You can have all of the drunk driving laws on the books that you want. It still doesnt stop people from committing the crime. Or in some instances committing the crime repeatedly. Just because there is a law does not mean that the action wont occur.

That's EVERY LAW ON THE BOOKS! People jaywalk, people break and enter, people commit fraud, people assault others, people do literally thousands of things that are illegal. You can't say that an action is allowed because it happens happen, because it's NOT allowed by law. And there are penalties for every illegal act, from fines, to jail, to prison, to death. And it's illegal the second that they commit said act, NOT when they get caught.

I'm done...it just is too tiring to argue these points.

[heyelander]

You can have all of the drunk driving laws on the books that you want. It still doesnt stop people from committing the crime. Or in some instances committing the crime repeatedly. Just because there is a law does not mean that the action wont occur.

But you're making it sound like it doesn't stop anyone! you say "It still doesn't stop people from committing the crime." Of course it does. Hell, it's probably stopped me a few times. By your argument, what is the point of having any law?

[Sour Masher]

But you're making it sound like it doesn't stop anyone! you say "It still doesn't stop people from committing the crime." Of course it does. Hell, it's probably stopped me a few times. By your argument, what is the point of having any law?

Bald has made this argument many times, and folks have countered with this reasonable response many times. I'm afraid we are just going to hit the same dead end we always do here. Bald's retort will be that laws only stop behavior from the law-abiding. By definition, law-breakers won't follow the laws. He will say laws are meant to punish crimes, not stop them, so more laws won't stop more crimes, they will only punish more people. Someone else will point out that consequences determined by the law affect behavior for many, much of the time, and that if no laws exist, more people would do the things we have laws against. That premise won't be accepted. No opinions will change.

[DMT]

This is why responding to BG at this point is an exercise in futility. He trots out the same illogical arguments and then takes it personal when he gets called out for spouting such ridiculous nonsense.

[baldgriff]

I think this guy says it better than I can.....

[fuhrdog]

I'm done...it just is too tiring to argue these points.

You have made a smart decision.

[Hornsby]

You have made a smart decision.

Thanks, LOL. It's not often I make the right choice, but I feel pretty comfortable with this one.

[baldgriff]

But you're making it sound like it doesn't stop anyone! you say "It still doesn't stop people from committing the crime." Of course it does. Hell, it's probably stopped me a few times. By your argument, what is the point of having any law?

I know Im not making myself clear here and I do apologize that I am not finding the correct words to make my point.

Laws define those things that we as a society deem to be unwanted actions and the penalties for committing them.
They may indeed stop "the law abiding citizen" from committing a crime - I suppose I have to concede that.
However, there are any number of people in our society that dont care about the rules, and will do what they want in spite of there being a law (criminals)
While the law abiding citizen will do what they can to obey the law, the criminal often wont.
So adding laws that may infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizen are not effective, because the people that the law is meant to stop dont care.

[B-Fly]

I know Im not making myself clear here and I do apologize that I am not finding the correct words to make my point.

Laws define those things that we as a society deem to be unwanted actions and the penalties for committing them.
They may indeed stop "the law abiding citizen" from committing a crime - I suppose I have to concede that.
However, there are any number of people in our society that dont care about the rules, and will do what they want in spite of there being a law (criminals)
While the law abiding citizen will do what they can to obey the law, the criminal often wont.
So adding laws that may infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizen are not effective, because the people that the law is meant to stop dont care.

I still think you're missing the breadth of the deterrent impact of laws. Beyond the question of whether one wants to follow the law, there is the deterrent impact of the fear of being caught and getting punished. That impact of a law can reduce the incidence of the targeted behaviors even among those who have no moral compunction to follow the law for the sake of being law abiding. And that deterrent impact is enhanced as penalties and enforcement are enhanced.

[B-Fly]

For example, I have no moral compunction against jaywalking or speeding or smoking weed, but the respective enforcement and potential penalties for those behaviors impact my willingness to risk the penalty of engaging. As a government employee and member of the Bar of NY and NJ, I have perceived the risk of penalties for smoking weed to be material enough such that I have never engaged in that behavior. Meanwhile, the enforcement levels and penalties for speeding and jaywalking are small enough that they don't deter me from speeding or jaywalking. Now I know these three behaviors all rate pretty low on the criminal-mind scale, but even as you move into more serious criminal behaviors, the same calculation around risk of being caught and being punished occurs in the criminal mind and can still in many cases deter the targeted behaviors, up to and including rape and murder. Lord knows how many more people out there would rape and murder if there was little to no risk of being caught and punished. Criminalizing behaviors and enhancing enforcement and penalties for those behaviors has a material impact on the decision making of rational actors - even immoral or amoral actors.

[TranaGreg]

For example, I have no moral compunction against jaywalking or speeding or smoking weed, but the respective enforcement and potential penalties for those behaviors impact my willingness to risk the penalty of engaging. As a government employee and member of the Bar of NY and NJ, I have perceived the risk of penalties for smoking weed to be material enough such that I have never engaged in that behavior. Meanwhile, the enforcement levels and penalties for speeding and jaywalking are small enough that they don't deter me from speeding or jaywalking. Now I know these three behaviors all rate pretty low on the criminal-mind scale, but even as you move into more serious criminal behaviors, the same calculation around risk of being caught and being punished occurs in the criminal mind and can still in many cases deter the targeted behaviors, up to and including rape and murder. Lord knows how many more people out there would rape and murder if there was little to no risk of being caught and punished. Criminalizing behaviors and enhancing enforcement and penalties for those behaviors has a material impact on the decision making of rational actors - even immoral or amoral actors.

agreed, for example, it certainly had an impact on this guy ...

[umjewman]

For example, I have no moral compunction against jaywalking or speeding or smoking weed, but the respective enforcement and potential penalties for those behaviors impact my willingness to risk the penalty of engaging. As a government employee and member of the Bar of NY and NJ, I have perceived the risk of penalties for smoking weed to be material enough such that I have never engaged in that behavior. Meanwhile, the enforcement levels and penalties for speeding and jaywalking are small enough that they don't deter me from speeding or jaywalking. Now I know these three behaviors all rate pretty low on the criminal-mind scale, but even as you move into more serious criminal behaviors, the same calculation around risk of being caught and being punished occurs in the criminal mind and can still in many cases deter the targeted behaviors, up to and including rape and murder. Lord knows how many more people out there would rape and murder if there was little to no risk of being caught and punished. Criminalizing behaviors and enhancing enforcement and penalties for those behaviors has a material impact on the decision making of rational actors - even immoral or amoral actors.

Agreed, look how many people went off when there were no laws in that excellent documentary film called The Purge. Almost hard to believe that was a true story.