Laws against murder are pointless. If a criminal wants to murder s/he will, regardless of the laws.

[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]

1. With a murder there is an actual physical victim..

That isn't true with all things we call crimes.

[Boojatta]

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]

26. Corpses almost always create a stink if they're not properly tended to in due course..

[Kali]

2. eh those laws keep a lot of dumbass snow birds alive

[Odin2005]

3. Unrec for strawman.

[ClassWarrior]

4. What's straw about it?

NGU.

[beevul]

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]

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]

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]

11. You're arguing against a strawman, alright, but he ain't my kid.

Who said anything about "banning?"

NGU.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Because doing so will reduce the number of people killed by guns. N.T.

[beevul]

16. If thats true...

If thats true, demonstrate it. Prove it.


Simply saying it isn't good enough.

[kctim]

9. "how can they protect their families against murder"

By killing them BEFORE they murder you.

Law-abiding citizens do NOT murder.

[ClassWarrior]

12. Exactly. When murder is outlawed, only outlaws will have murder. And law-abiding citizens...

...will have nothing.

:sarcasm:

NGU.

[kctim]

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]

15. Are you being deliberately oblique? You can say that NO LAW WORKS because some criminal will...

...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]

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]

19. Laws have no deterrent effect?

:rofl:

NGU.

[beevul]

20. Kindly take your words out of my mouth.

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]

22. "Laws have - dubious at best - deterrent effect."

Consider me corrected. :eyes:

NGU.

[X_Digger]

10. Please google malum in se , malum prohibitum n/t

[cbdo2007]

13. There are plenty of people I would have liked to have murdered, but haven't because of the laws.

[slackmaster]

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]

23. I agree.

But I'd rather not take my chances without murder laws.

NGU.

[treestar]

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]

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]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.