Bad Cases Make Bad Laws

[Modbert]

Did we continue to have an epidemic of school shootings after Columbine? Why, yes, I believe we did. It's funny how you can shoot people with guns that don't fall under the heading of "assault weapon", huh?

So yeah, I think I can state with some certainty that AWB didn't prevent school shootings. If you'd like to submit some sort of evidence showing that AWB prevented even ONE school shooting, feel free. In fact, if you'd like to submit some evidence that AWB accomplished ANY of the things we were told we had to have it to accomplish, I'd love to hear it.

Yes, because much like bans on guns, murder laws do not work against those who are truly committed to going through with something.

You are a complete moron if you can't see how poor of a example you're using.

As for the law, I don't like it, but you have no idea whether it prevented any school shootings or not. It's impossible to tell.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, while I'm at it, I would also like to point out that the AWB, which we were told we HAD to have after Columbine to prevent such a thing from happening again, wouldn't even have stopped Columbine itself from happening, which I'd say is pretty good proof that it did nothing for its stated goals.

 

[Father Time]

No, because to be like saying, "Murder laws don't prevent murders", it would have to be UNTRUE. AWB did nothing to prevent school shootings, but murder laws DO prevent murders.

You leftists just can't ever wrap your mind around the idea that some things aren't all or nothing, can you?

And how do you know AWB did nothing to prevent school shootings? Oh wait, that's right, you don't.

Did we continue to have an epidemic of school shootings after Columbine? Why, yes, I believe we did.

Well we still have rape and murder even after those have been banned, clearly those laws are bad laws and should be repealed.

You're not a psychic and you cannot say with certainty that those laws didn't deter a single school shooter.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Did we continue to have an epidemic of school shootings after Columbine? Why, yes, I believe we did. It's funny how you can shoot people with guns that don't fall under the heading of "assault weapon", huh?

So yeah, I think I can state with some certainty that AWB didn't prevent school shootings. If you'd like to submit some sort of evidence showing that AWB prevented even ONE school shooting, feel free. In fact, if you'd like to submit some evidence that AWB accomplished ANY of the things we were told we had to have it to accomplish, I'd love to hear it.

Yes, because much like bans on guns, murder laws do not work against those who are truly committed to going through with something.

You are a complete moron if you can't see how poor of a example you're using.

As for the law, I don't like it, but you have no idea whether it prevented any school shootings or not. It's impossible to tell.

It is quite true that no law ever prevents ALL of any sort of crime. One difference between murder laws and AWB is that murder laws were NEVER marketed as having that ability, and AWB was. Laws against murder are passed with much more realistic, sensible goals in mind.

As for this being a poor example, YOU chose it. I didn't.

As I said, it wouldn't even have prevented the school shooting that allegedly prompted it, so I think it is pretty safe to say it didn't prevent any others. I also think that when one is judging whether or not a law is bad, it's a definitively telling point when it's "impossible to tell" if it did what it was supposed to do. Any law with unmeasurable goals and unmeasurable results is, by definition, bad law.

 

[Father Time]

Did we continue to have an epidemic of school shootings after Columbine? Why, yes, I believe we did. It's funny how you can shoot people with guns that don't fall under the heading of "assault weapon", huh?

So yeah, I think I can state with some certainty that AWB didn't prevent school shootings. If you'd like to submit some sort of evidence showing that AWB prevented even ONE school shooting, feel free. In fact, if you'd like to submit some evidence that AWB accomplished ANY of the things we were told we had to have it to accomplish, I'd love to hear it.

Yes, because much like bans on guns, murder laws do not work against those who are truly committed to going through with something.

You are a complete moron if you can't see how poor of a example you're using.

As for the law, I don't like it, but you have no idea whether it prevented any school shootings or not. It's impossible to tell.

It is quite true that no law ever prevents ALL of any sort of crime. One difference between murder laws and AWB is that murder laws were NEVER marketed as having that ability, and AWB was. Laws against murder are passed with much more realistic, sensible goals in mind.

As for this being a poor example, YOU chose it. I didn't.

As I said, it wouldn't even have prevented the school shooting that allegedly prompted it, so I think it is pretty safe to say it didn't prevent any others.

Well it's not a sure thing. Perhaps it did deter a school shooting we'll never know for sure unless someone comes forward.

I also think that when one is judging whether or not a law is bad, it's a definitively telling point when it's "impossible to tell" if it did what it was supposed to do. Any law with unmeasurable goals and unmeasurable results is, by definition, bad law.

Exactly, but even then we can't say for certain it did absolutely nothing.

 

[Father Time]

Just to make it clear I think the AWB was bad law and I highly doubt it stopped any school shootings but I don't know that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just to make it clear I think the AWB was bad law and I highly doubt it stopped any school shootings but I don't know that.

You know that it didnt stop school shootings where people used guns not covered by the AWB. Like Columbine itself. And VA Tech.
The AWB didnt do anything productive. There is no evidence it did. The CDC, which is pretty pro gun control, finally admitted it didnt do anything to reduce crime. It couldn't have, the way it was formulated. But it was sold that way. ANyone who opposed it was obviously in favor of school shootings. That was the rap. Similar to Sarbox. Similar to offshore drilling today.
We need a 6 month moratorium on any proposed legislation. That would probably help.

 

[George Costanza]

California's Three Strikes Law is a bad one, based on a knee-jerk reaction to violent crime without totally thinking the new law through. As it has stood since 1995, our Three Strikes law says that if you have two strikes, ANY FELONY thereafter is punishable by life with a minimum of 25 years, i.e., life (in California, no one ever gets paroled on an indeterminate life sentence).

When the law was first enacted, they actually gave defendants life sentences for such things as possession of a small amount of drugs, stealing a candy bar from a market with a prior theft convcition, etc. About 5 years into it, with a new D.A. in office, they backed off on that, and now life sentences for innocuous triggering felonies rarely, if ever, are given.

But the damn law has not been changed and today, technically, a person can still get life for petty theft with a prior with two strike priors lurking in the background. Everyone (including myself) pretty much agrees with every aspect of the Third Strike law except that portion of it which allows a life sentence for any felony. What they need to do is change it so that, in order for a life senctence to apply, the third felony conviction must also be a strike - not just "any felony."

But guess what - our beloved, REPUBLICAN governmor (Ah-Nold Schwarzenrneger) shot that initiative down last election with a series of misleading and untruthful television ads, and the law remians unchanged.

Another example of bad cases making bad laws - Megan's Law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

California's Three Strikes Law is a bad one, based on a knee-jerk reaction to violent crime without totally thinking the new law through. As it has stood since 1995, our Three Strikes law says that if you have two strikes, ANY FELONY thereafter is punishable by life with a minimum of 25 years, i.e., life (in California, no one ever gets paroled on an indeterminate life sentence).

When the law was first enacted, they actually gave defendants life sentences for such things as possession of a small amount of drugs, stealing a candy bar from a market with a prior theft convcition, etc. About 5 years into it, with a new D.A. in office, they backed off on that, and now life sentences for innocuous triggering felonies rarely, if ever, are given.

But the damn law has not been changed and today, technically, a person can still get life for petty theft with a prior with two strike priors lurking in the background. Everyone (including myself) pretty much agrees with every aspect of the Third Strike law except that portion of it which allows a life sentence for any felony. What they need to do is change it so that, in order for a life senctence to apply, the third felony conviction must also be a strike - not just "any felony."

But guess what - our beloved, REPUBLICAN governmor (Ah-Nold Schwarzenrneger) shot that initiative down last election with a series of misleading and untruthful television ads, and the law remians unchanged.

Another example of bad cases making bad laws - Megan's Law.

And this has TWO benefits: one, it gives you the chance to take erroneous swipes at Republicans because Schwarzenegger calls himself one (of course, I could call myself the Queen of England . . .), and two, it lets you totally avoid addressing the example given.

 

[George Costanza]

And this has TWO benefits: one, it gives you the chance to take erroneous swipes at Republicans because Schwarzenegger calls himself one (of course, I could call myself the Queen of England . . .), and two, it lets you totally avoid addressing the example given.

Just what is it you think I am trying to avoid? Are you talking about the "example given" in the OP? Actually, there were THREE examples given in the OP and I agree that all three of them are good examples of bad cases making bad laws. All I was trying to do in my post was mention yet another example of bad cases making a bad law - the Three Strikes Law as enacted in California.

You can claim that Arnold is "not a Republican" all you want. That's your opinion. Like it or not, he is governor of our Fair State and he generally makes rulings that most Republicans around here agree with. But then, neither my post, nor this thread, is about the governor of California.

You seem like you are looking for a fight where none exists. Wanna play doctor instead?

 

[xotoxi]

September 11th Terrorist Attacks. Result: Cannot have fingernail scissors in carry-on bags.

 

[boedicca]

Did we continue to have an epidemic of school shootings after Columbine? Why, yes, I believe we did. It's funny how you can shoot people with guns that don't fall under the heading of "assault weapon", huh?

So yeah, I think I can state with some certainty that AWB didn't prevent school shootings. If you'd like to submit some sort of evidence showing that AWB prevented even ONE school shooting, feel free. In fact, if you'd like to submit some evidence that AWB accomplished ANY of the things we were told we had to have it to accomplish, I'd love to hear it.

Yes, because much like bans on guns, murder laws do not work against those who are truly committed to going through with something.

You are a complete moron if you can't see how poor of a example you're using.

As for the law, I don't like it, but you have no idea whether it prevented any school shootings or not. It's impossible to tell.

All those gun control laws were especially effective in Chicago this weekend:

It has been a violent weekend in Chicago: in a 30 hour period, 25 people were shot, and one man died from his injuries.

The fatal shooting happened early Sunday in the 5100-block of S. Laflin.

Darius Murphy, 19, died after he was shot in the head.

Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis said nearly half of the shootings appear to be gang-related.

He said there are no suspects in any of the cases.

At least 25 shot, 1 killed in weekend violence | abc7chicago.com

 

[boedicca]

And how do you know AWB did nothing to prevent school shootings? Oh wait, that's right, you don't.

Did we continue to have an epidemic of school shootings after Columbine? Why, yes, I believe we did.

Well we still have rape and murder even after those have been banned, clearly those laws are bad laws and should be repealed.

You're not a psychic and you cannot say with certainty that those laws didn't deter a single school shooter.

Specious. Murder and rape are volitional acts of that harm another which are performed by an individual.

Owning a gun harms no one.

 

[The Rabbi]

The distinction is that laws against murder aren't necessarily to prevent murders but to punish murderers. No civilized society can survive without criminalizing something like that.
These laws are all in a class of "we do X to prevent Y." It isn't the act itself that is necessarily bad but what it MIGHT lead to.
So murder is bad in itself (malum in se)
But drilling in the Gulf is not bad in itself but will probably become illegal just because we want to prevent something else that is bad (malum in prohibitum). Lots of zoning laws work this way too btw.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And this has TWO benefits: one, it gives you the chance to take erroneous swipes at Republicans because Schwarzenegger calls himself one (of course, I could call myself the Queen of England . . .), and two, it lets you totally avoid addressing the example given.

Just what is it you think I am trying to avoid? Are you talking about the "example given" in the OP? Actually, there were THREE examples given in the OP and I agree that all three of them are good examples of bad cases making bad laws. All I was trying to do in my post was mention yet another example of bad cases making a bad law - the Three Strikes Law as enacted in California.

You can claim that Arnold is "not a Republican" all you want. That's your opinion. Like it or not, he is governor of our Fair State and he generally makes rulings that most Republicans around here agree with. But then, neither my post, nor this thread, is about the governor of California.

You seem like you are looking for a fight where none exists. Wanna play doctor instead?

Actually, I'm claiming that Schwarzenegger is not representative of Republicans in general, and therefore does not lend himself to "See, Republicans SUCK!" generalizations. SCHWARZENEGGER sucks, which is a wholly individual thing. And he's the governor of YOUR state, which is wholly your problem. Perhaps you should try living in a real state, with REAL Republicans. I'm just saying . . .

 

[The Rabbi]

And this has TWO benefits: one, it gives you the chance to take erroneous swipes at Republicans because Schwarzenegger calls himself one (of course, I could call myself the Queen of England . . .), and two, it lets you totally avoid addressing the example given.

Just what is it you think I am trying to avoid? Are you talking about the "example given" in the OP? Actually, there were THREE examples given in the OP and I agree that all three of them are good examples of bad cases making bad laws. All I was trying to do in my post was mention yet another example of bad cases making a bad law - the Three Strikes Law as enacted in California.

You can claim that Arnold is "not a Republican" all you want. That's your opinion. Like it or not, he is governor of our Fair State and he generally makes rulings that most Republicans around here agree with. But then, neither my post, nor this thread, is about the governor of California.

You seem like you are looking for a fight where none exists. Wanna play doctor instead?

Actually, I'm claiming that Schwarzenegger is not representative of Republicans in general, and therefore does not lend himself to "See, Republicans SUCK!" generalizations. SCHWARZENEGGER sucks, which is a wholly individual thing. And he's the governor of YOUR state, which is wholly your problem. Perhaps you should try living in a real state, with REAL Republicans. I'm just saying . . .

Schwartzenegger was a great republican governor. Right up until inauguration day.

 

[mudwhistle]

It's the logical result of Big Government types always seeking a pretext to expand the scope of government power - and cynical career politicians who are always ready to exploit a news sensation for their personal gain.

Seems every industry Obama wants to take over he just demonizes them for months before he does. He did it with GM and Chrysler,...AIG, The Fed, Goldman Sachs, he did it with insurance companies so he could eventually take over the health insurance industry. Single-payer soon to follow.

Now he's bringing a lawsuit against BP....he's shut down drilling....next comes new regulations against the oil industry....so he and the Dems in Congress can take it over.

Hello Venezuela.

I've been talking about the bum-rush on Big oil since last year that was gonna take place this summer.

Now we're seeing it unfold.

 

[George Costanza]

Just what is it you think I am trying to avoid? Are you talking about the "example given" in the OP? Actually, there were THREE examples given in the OP and I agree that all three of them are good examples of bad cases making bad laws. All I was trying to do in my post was mention yet another example of bad cases making a bad law - the Three Strikes Law as enacted in California.

You can claim that Arnold is "not a Republican" all you want. That's your opinion. Like it or not, he is governor of our Fair State and he generally makes rulings that most Republicans around here agree with. But then, neither my post, nor this thread, is about the governor of California.

You seem like you are looking for a fight where none exists. Wanna play doctor instead?

Actually, I'm claiming that Schwarzenegger is not representative of Republicans in general, and therefore does not lend himself to "See, Republicans SUCK!" generalizations. SCHWARZENEGGER sucks, which is a wholly individual thing. And he's the governor of YOUR state, which is wholly your problem. Perhaps you should try living in a real state, with REAL Republicans. I'm just saying . . .

Schwartzenegger was a great republican governor. Right up until inauguration day.

Actually, he isn't all that popular with many people in CA these days, regardless of their voter registration. Most of us are just sitting around, tapping our toes until November.

And who is the front runner for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination? You guessed it: Governor Moonbeam! (Jerry Brown)

Ah, I love California . . .

 

[Father Time]

Did we continue to have an epidemic of school shootings after Columbine? Why, yes, I believe we did.

Well we still have rape and murder even after those have been banned, clearly those laws are bad laws and should be repealed.

You're not a psychic and you cannot say with certainty that those laws didn't deter a single school shooter.

Specious. Murder and rape are volitional acts of that harm another which are performed by an individual.

Owning a gun harms no one.

Did I ever say we should ban guns?

All I'm saying is you can't say with absolute certainty that the AWB, as ineffective as it was, didn't stop anyone.

 

[Father Time]

And this has TWO benefits: one, it gives you the chance to take erroneous swipes at Republicans because Schwarzenegger calls himself one (of course, I could call myself the Queen of England . . .), and two, it lets you totally avoid addressing the example given.

Just what is it you think I am trying to avoid? Are you talking about the "example given" in the OP? Actually, there were THREE examples given in the OP and I agree that all three of them are good examples of bad cases making bad laws. All I was trying to do in my post was mention yet another example of bad cases making a bad law - the Three Strikes Law as enacted in California.

You can claim that Arnold is "not a Republican" all you want. That's your opinion. Like it or not, he is governor of our Fair State and he generally makes rulings that most Republicans around here agree with. But then, neither my post, nor this thread, is about the governor of California.

You seem like you are looking for a fight where none exists. Wanna play doctor instead?

Actually, I'm claiming that Schwarzenegger is not representative of Republicans in general, and therefore does not lend himself to "See, Republicans SUCK!" generalizations. SCHWARZENEGGER sucks, which is a wholly individual thing. And he's the governor of YOUR state, which is wholly your problem. Perhaps you should try living in a real state, with REAL Republicans. I'm just saying . . .

You think CA isn't a real state?

Listen sweetheart our state's been around for more than half a century before yours finally showed up.