Mass shootings, etc.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

I think mass shooters especially but all killers are vile scum.

I think they should NEVER be referred to by name.

These vile scum are the targets of many laws about guns. I don't think laws can prevent crime.

I'm okay with having machine guns and anything that can fire more than 60 rounds in one minute restricted to the NFA registry.

I think that the only real control in the world is self-control.
Do you think that laws will prevent crime in more than 1 instance in a thousand?


Please vote and share your thoughts.

8 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Laws stop crime in more than 0.2% (1 in 500) of cases.
	1 (13%)
	Laws guide and inspire self-control but don't stop crime.
	5 (63%)
	Some other opinion shared as a reply.
	2 (25%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[DaleFromWPB]

1. Laws don't prevent crime. They exist only to punish after the fact

This gets tossed around quite a bit, but I think it's generally true.

Once someone has quit caring about the ramifications, they have no reason to not commit the act.

[Decoy of Fenris]

2. Agreed. Laws only establish repercussion, they don't prevent the act.

There's literally only one thing in the world stopping me from going out and "criminal-ing" on a whim, and that's myself. I have my reasons, but in the end, I'm the only one that can stop me. The only thing laws do are say "Okay, you did this, you must be punished."

The notion that laws prevent crime is ludicrously naive and obscenely ignorant.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. I have to agree "The notion that laws prevent crime is ludicrously naive and obscenely ignorant."

I recognize, as others have mentioned, that consequences are generally a deterrent. (We are discussing an objectively evil act, mass murder.) I think most people are deterred principally by innate character to not engage in a mass killing spree. I don't think victimless crimes can be compared with crimes that include innate evil. I don't see how marijuana should even be illegal and think many people agree with me.

When popular support for a law is lacking it is often ignored. For example, I now work in Northeast Philly. I take Academy Road North from the I95 exit past the airport. The speed limit is 25 and I see cops follow people doing almost 50 and do nothing.
Of course I've also seen someone doing 30 while weaving like a rug maker get stopped.

The point here is most folks will avoid evil and stick to neutral or good behavior. Criminals OTOH have evil intent. They are deterred from shooting the clerk and walking out of the 7-eleven with a handful of cash but not in the way you might think. They are deterred from doing while being identifiable. They act at night, wear a mask, exit and leave the area with haste...
In reality they are deterred from actions that may get them caught.

If you have evil intent, a plan, skills, information and resources, you will likely engage in crime. You may or may not be caught. I'm sure there is a fringe that will take advantage of criminal opportunities but I suggest 2 things:
First, that people are innately good.
Second, that the criminals are deterred more by the possibility of a victim turning on them than by the law.

[MarvinGardens]

3. Thought experiment.

How long do you think order would be maintained in your city if there were no law enforcement, I.e. if the police stood down? And let's assume for the sake of this experiment that a de facto law enforcement group (militia, etc.) did not form. How many more people would commit crimes in this scenario, versus in the status quo?

To answer the OP, I answered more than 0.1%. I do not think all crimes are stopped by laws, but I do think they serve as a deterrent. Not just the punishment, but the risk of getting caught factors in. Example: Plenty of folks smoke weed in jurisdictions where it's still illegal, but relatively few of those folks would spark up a doob walking down a busy public street.

[spin]

4. Laws are like the locks on your door. ...

They deter thefts of opportunity and amateur burglars but do little to deter skilled and experienced criminals.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. The topic here is mass murder using a firearm.

If we simplify the topic and ask the direct question, "Do you believe that if murder were not illegal, would the homicide rate go from the current ~ 17,800 per year to maybe 7 or 8 million?"

When I drive by, I don't see anyone blaze up outside the local police district. In that case the law doesn't deter folks from smoking the stuff. It simply makes them cautious about doing it where they may get caught. But that's sort of apples and oranges because murder isn't a victimless crime. Smoke a joint and no one ends up dead or in the ICU.

Laws are far from useless and law enforcement in an orderly society is a requirement. Expecting a law to prevent a crime is a mistake.

ETA: You're in the Atlanta metro, which area? I worked in Atlanta for 2 years. Nice town, lousy traffic.
"What'll ya have?"

[MarvinGardens]

8. I took your poll question too literally.

If we restrict to laws vs. mass murder, I agree with you. I don't think laws deter a determined mass murderer much. They may make it harder for him to get the tools, but then they just use what they can get, like a truck. I do think some murders where a personal beef is involved, are probably deterred by the law, but I don't have a good handle on the percentage.

ATL: Gwinnett. I've been here 4 years, and still haven't quite gotten used to the traffic.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Agreed... Where there's a will, there's a weapon.

I have a friend who lives in Roswell. He used to get up at 5 just to beat some traffic into town. He's on the road now and I think he'd rather have the traffic.

Traffic was the biggest negative. A big positive was being able to order dinner delivered until 2 or 3 AM.

[The Mouth]

5. Laws might stop the very most stupid, insane or impatient of potential mass shooters

But there is a point of diminishing returns. A person with a sufficient intelligence, enough money and having many options as to time and place is going to be pretty much impossible to stop in any area with a high concentration of people utilizing more advanced than stone age technology.

I like guns, I have several. For the enjoyment of target shooting and for situations that, as with my fire insurance policy, I really hope never require use. I think crazy people shouldn't have guns and reasonable background checks are not an assault on my constitutional rights, but subject to the recognition by the law that nothing may be retroactively confiscated (cough, AKS in California)... I think that we should require demonstrated law-abiding citizenship, an understanding of safety protocols and willingness to follow same and competent weapon handling and marksmanship before anyone is licensed to carry in public.

I think that having a revolver on oneself in dodgy areas, or hunting, or being able to defend your domicile in event of temporary collapse of authority is legit, but anyone thinking they need to be carrying or using a semi-automatic rifle with high power shells and a large magazine in an urban area is kinda prima facie demonstrating some mental instability, catch 22 it might be-