Why have any laws at all?

B

BAB

New member
On Hannity and Colmes tonight, it was brought up that we already have 20,000+ gun laws on the books nationwide and that more won't help. The basic argument was that criminals are criminals because they don't obey the law. Alan Colmes then brought up the point that if we (pro-gunners) want to use that argument, then why have any laws at all.

I'm tired tonight, and my mind has already started shutting down for the evening. Therefore, I'm having a hard time coming up with a good rebuttal. But it is something that I'd like to be able to refute should this question be posed to me in the future. So, what would you all suggest as a good response to what Alan said?
 
That makes me wonder when the first gun law was passed by Congress.

Anybody know?

[This message has been edited by sensop (edited March 01, 2000).]
 
I'll take a shot. My theory is that normal laws (murder, rape, theft, etc.) are not aimed at preventing the crime at all, when you get people down to their real beliefs. Takes some badgering to get there. Those laws are really aimed at removing or reforming the criminal after the fact. That's why longer sentences for murder actually help--you aren't preventing the first murder anyone's going to commit but you ARE taking known murderers out of circulation.

The fallacy of gun laws, drug prohibition, knife laws, etc. is that they are passed with impossible intent. These laws are intended to prevent the crime before it happens, which can't be done by taking away an object even if people did obey it. Put simply, gun laws and other forms of "object prohibition" are a class of law all their own--and a particularly useless one at that. Hope that made sense. It's late for me too.
 
Sensop, I believe the first federal gun control law was in the late 1930's. IIRC it was pretty limited, just restricting full-auto ownership.

Gwinny, sounds like you got it right tired or not.

Eric

------------------
Does the "X" ring have to be that small?
 
At the risk of getting this thread moved to the Political Forum, I will point out that the Libertarian Party agrees with you. There are way too many mostly unenforceable laws, most devised as band-aids so that legislators would not have to deal with the REAL problems.

Laws aren't going to fix the world's problems. The only way to do that is social change through education. Prohibition didn't get rid of alcohol, it just created a criminal class of rum-runners that persists today as the Mafia. As we've learned more about the effects of alcohol, and raised awareness about things like drunk driving or fetal alcohol syndrome, people are drinking in a more responsible manner.

As someone said "It may take a million years to change people's minds through persuasion, but that's quicker than you'll do it by force!"


------------------
Dave
Deep in the Florida Swamps
 
yep...we are moving to Legal/Political.



------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
I've been wondering when someone would ask the question about having any laws at all. I have the answer, and it's as simple as can be:
Legislators = lawmakers.

It's their job and if they stopped, they'd have to work for a living. They also believe that they know what's good for us better than we do, so they make more. They'll make criminals of us all before too long.
My 2 cents.
 
There are 2 kinds of laws:

1)Malum in se= evil in itself. An offence malum in se is one which is naturally evil, as murder, theft, and the
like; offences at common law are generally mala in sese.

2)Malum prohibitum=evil because it is prohibited. An offence malum prohibitum, on the contrary, is not naturally an evil, but
becomes so in consequence of its being forbidden; as gambling, parking violations,etc which being innocent before, have become unlawful in consequence of being
forbidden.

Both exist to punish a misdeed or behavior, and hopefully to deter others from doing the "bad deed". However, malum prohibitum, allows for increased authoritarian control and regulation, besides being a revenue generator.....and what TMoney said.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Traditionally speaking, there are generally three crimes which are considered to be malum in se: Murder, theft, and an offense against God. These are the crimes which everyone, from Americans to a New Guinea band of hunter-gatherers, instinctively knows to be a crime.

Malum Prohibitum are generally considered to be a reflection of the society which passes them.

For instance: Kidnapping, Rape, Wife Beating, Child Abuse, and Slavery are not malum in se, rather, they are malum prohibitum, as are all other laws which are not one of The Big Three (Murder, theft and offenses against God)

These are crimes because we, as a society, do not tolerate them. However, other societies may.

LawDog
 
Just answered that very question on another board. This was my response:

There are two types of laws. The first are necessary and designed to set the limits of behavior in society. The people who write them have no illusions that the law will eliminate criminal behavior entirely, but deter them to the greatest degree possible through the threat of enforcement and punishment. Laws against murder and theft are examples.

The second type of law are laws created with the intent of making criminal behavior more difficult. The proponents of these types of laws believe they can eliminate or significantly reduce crime by mandating actions by the general populace to reduce the opportunity for would-be criminals. Punishments for the violation of these types of laws are necessarily less severe, as the acts of breaking these laws aren't by their nature necessarily destructive or immoral. You don't throw someone in prison for failing to use a safety lock, as he did not intend to do harm.

Any objective person would see that the second type of law is much less effective. There are instances when they are necessary and somewhat useful, but only under specific circumstances where uniform enforcement is possible and compliance can be controlled (requiring metal detectors in airports or requiring backgroud checks for retail gun purchaces).

The point being, no one will ever know if you are using a safety lock in your home, and the punishment for failing to do so will likely be small anyway. So the end result is that people who are responsible enough to use safety locks don't need a law to require it, and people who aren't responsible enough to use them won't be coerced by any law into using them.

Think about it. Which would be more effective? Laws mandating harsh punishment for those who commit burglary, or laws requiring everyone to put double deadbolts on their doors? Would the benefits of the second law justify the expense and inconvenience put on the general populace, or would criminals simply start breaking in through windows or resort to robbery?

Many people today think both types of laws are necessary, but seem to rely more on the second type of laws. So to further the above example, they would see any shortcoming of the "Double Deadbolt Law" as proof that they need to mandate electronic window locks and break-proof window glass. When that fails, they will mandate that everyone have guard dogs and fences, and insist that police inspect everyone's home for compliance. The populace would give up more and more freedoms and comply with more and more rules and requirements in exchange for empty promises of lower crime rates. Sound familiar?

Wouldn't it be better, easier and more fair to simply make burglary a more serious crime, increase the punishment, and work harder to catch the people who do it?

Well, guess what catagory gun locks, registration schemes and gun bans fall under? Until the government gets serious about directly prosecuting and punishing those who use guns in crimes, I don't want to hear anything about my responsibility for making gun crime possible. They want to do background checks for gun sales, but refuse to prosecute criminals who illegally try to obtain a gun. Its ridiculous.


------------------
"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" - Patrick Henry
 
The FIRST gun law? Well, it isn't really a LAW, but here's my response:

The Second Amendment to the Constitution.


Horny Toad


------------------
--NRA Life Member--
 
The first federal gun law actually precedes the 1934 NFA ($200 tax on machine guns, short shotguns, and short rifles). I think it was in the 1920s when Congress passed some restrictions on the US Postal Service. If memory serves (and it don't) it banned the US Postal Service from shipping certain guns, maybe handguns. However, I recall my gun smith buddies who, after UPS stopped shipping hand guns over the ground, said they would us the USPS, instead. I am sooooo confused.

I'll have to check on that. Don't hold your breath.

Rick
 
I believe the very first gun (weapon)control law was instituted by the Pope. In the dark ages, knights and other nobles could ride around and rape and pilliage as they pleased. They tended to wear armor or at least chain mail, and therefore were mostly impervious to the arrows of peasants. Then someone came up with the cross-bow. Now the peasants could easily penetrate armor, and the knights were really upset about that. They had the King (England) petition the Pope (in Rome) to ban crossbows. Their reasoning being that it was far too ugly to be used in War. Kinda strange because at this time warfare was an ugly proposition with people having boiling oil thrown on them, and being hacked to death with garden tools, and beaten sensless with a mace. Anyway, the Pope concured and the Cross-bow was banned. The peasants never truly got rid of the crossbow though, and the knights never again had as much fun.
There you have it, the first recorded anti-self defence law. I wish I could remember the King, Pope, and era more accurately. Maybe a history buff could add it .
 
KJM...
Not quite a ban. Pope Innocent II, who, in the Lateran Council of 1139, forbade under anathema the use
of the crossbow, against Catholics and other Christians.

The finality of combat by bow was distasteful to the knight, who was growing more reliant on his
protected status. Entire medieval states, like Flanders in 1120, banned the bow in any form in an
effort to keep the peace. The church, in defense of the knight, passed several laws banning the use of
archery against anyone under the umbrella of church power. The most well known of these was
passed in the Second Lateran Council of 1139, punishing use of archery against Christians by
anathema. 'Deo odibilem ballistariorum et sagittariorum adversus Christianos et catholicos exerceri de
caetero subanathemate prohibemus'. This generally implied that GOD, not the Pope was banning
crossbows (ballistariorum) and handbows (sagittariorum) on pain of eternal damnation.

These laws were just marginally effective, but they were used to justify the injuring, maiming, and
execution of archers for hundreds of years. Take for example the execution of archers after the
battles at Mauron and Crowmarsh. Knights were rarely killed after battle, but archers were often put
to death, often , as in these two cases, by formal beheading. It is no surprise that few if any records
exist of the military archer or his equipment during this early period. That which we know of the
archer in this time comes from descriptions of hunting activities, from what little was written to record
legal proceedings in case of incidents involving archery in the upper class, or from sources outside
feudal Europe.


------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!



[This message has been edited by DC (edited March 03, 2000).]
 
Here is one place to start for your answer: jpfo.org/racecard.htm
If you do a search under "Racist roots of gun control" at this site, you w/turn up many more articles that may be of help.

Any gun confiscation law ("control" if you must) is a betrayal of personal protection rights. I can think of NO reasonable law pertaining to firearms.
--------
"The ridiculous notion that instruments, rather than human beings, are morally culpable seems so deeply imbedded in the psyche of the wimp that no amount of reason may excise it."--Col. Jeff Cooper

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)



[This message has been edited by EQUALIZER (edited March 05, 2000).]
 
Thanks for the history update DC and KJM.

What you bring up reminds me of what was illustrated in beginning of the movie, "Braveheart". That part of the movie turned my stomach. Whether or not it was accurate to the actual characters or more likely just dramatised is anyones opinion. But as far as the movie characters went, they lost my respect and believability for the rest of the movie after that "man" let the king's "lord" carry off his new bride. What a disappointment in an otherwise entertaining flick. That said to say this: A similar scenareo is not so far fetched in the not so distant future in USA at the rate we are losing what we had. We are only a step or two away from total disarmament and gvtntal lawlessness.

robert

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)



[This message has been edited by EQUALIZER (edited March 05, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top