Do laws create victims?

[Halx]

I'm thinking about the gun control debate. Gun control advocates say that with less guns and more restrictions, less people will be harmed by them. Their opposition says that less guns will leave us more vulnerable to those with them. Then with drugs, if they were not illegal, would there be large cartels of criminals supplying them and creating more crime than just the sale and possession? This is beyond the cliche quote of "If _____ is outlawed, only outlaws will _____." I believe the rules that governments put in place to protect us from ourselves only prepare us to fall under the weight of our own humanity.

Caution is good and all. Self preservation is what living organisms are all about. Still, shouldn't these be individual decisions, rather than blanket laws?

Every time a new civil law is proposed, I cringe.

[Willravel]

Speaking as someone who was shot in the calf, I respectfully disagree. Laws are supposed to be about protecting those who can't protect themselves and making it clear what one can or cannot do.

[Glory's Sun]

Originally Posted by willravel

Speaking as someone who was shot in the calf, I respectfully disagree.

Is there anything you haven't done or had happen?


Anyways, blanket laws really serve no purpose except taking away the freedoms that we had. People can say restrict this and restrict that, but the fact will remain that a black market is healthy and strives in the times of great civil burdon.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by guccilvr

Is there anything you haven't done or had happen?

I've never turned 30.
I've never been to South America.
I've never fired a weapon.
That's about it.

[roachboy]

law is a mechanism that delimits socially acceptable behaviour.
it redefines an action and along with that redefines the status of all who are involved in or impacted by such actions.
this is obvious.

the question seems to want to head somewhere else, but it isnt coherently framed: something about "human nature"----whatever that is---inclinines people to do x or y and law somehow runs counter to it.

whatever there is of interest in this turns on what you see this abstraction called "human nature" as entailing.
personally, i think the only constant that seems usable for defining "human nature" is aversion to pain. that's it----everything else is a function of socialization, everything else is a variable.

so the category "human nature" seems to me arbitrary, an aesthetic matter...so what you might prefer to move into the category of a constant is a function of larger-scale views of human beings which i think are mostly aesthetic (what you like, what you dont)--which is maybe psychologically interesting, if the idea is to work out how the person who defines attribute x or y as part of "human nature" sees the world--and maybe from there can be seen as an index of the psychological/aesthetic views that underpin a politics (which is the logical extension of this kind of evaluation).

but i dont understand questions that lean on an unstated conception of "human nature" to be coherent.

to move the debate, i guess the underlying issue is what you imagine the contents might be of this notion of "human nature"....

[sapiens]

Originally Posted by roachboy

the question seems to want to head somewhere else, but it isnt coherently framed: something about "human nature"----whatever that is---inclinines people to do x or y and law somehow runs counter to it.

whatever there is of interest in this turns on what you see this abstraction called "human nature" as entailing.
personally, i think the only constant that seems usable for defining "human nature" is aversion to pain. that's it----everything else is a function of socialization, everything else is a variable.

so the category "human nature" seems to me arbitrary, an aesthetic matter...so what you might prefer to move into the category of a constant is a function of larger-scale views of human beings which i think are mostly aesthetic (what you like, what you dont)--which is maybe psychologically interesting, if the idea is to work out how the person who defines attribute x or y as part of "human nature" sees the world--and maybe from there can be seen as an index of the psychological/aesthetic views that underpin a politics (which is the logical extension of this kind of evaluation).

but i dont understand questions that lean on an unstated conception of "human nature" to be coherent.

to move the debate, i guess the underlying issue is what you imagine the contents might be of this notion of "human nature"....

I agree that simply attributing something to human nature is not a valid explanation. What is "human nature"? How do we determine if something is due to "human nature"? However, I don't see how "human nature" is arbitrary any more than the nature of other animals. Perhaps the way in which the concept is used is arbitrary?

Evidently socialization is independent of human nature or at least only interacts with the human aversion to pain? The concept of "socialization" (or at least it's use) is just as incoherent as "human nature". What is "socialization", specifically? What specific environmental input is acting on the individual resulting in the pattern of behavior we see? What specific psychological mechanisms, sensitive to that input are able to transform the input and generate a coherent response? I have never found explanations of human behavior that invoke socialization, genes, human nature, "our big brains", or "the way you were raised" to be at all satisfying.

Back to the OP: I think that law encourages people to behave in ways they would not in absence of law. If that means that law acts as a restraint of human nature, I don't see the problem. I don't see how laws "prepare us to fall under the weight of our own humanity". You might as easily make the opposite argument: Laws prevent us from falling under the weight of our own humanity.

[Halx]

I'm a big believer in "human nature"
It's something like an impressionist painting.
Upclose, looking at individual cases, people are unique and self-motivated.
From far away, looking at the whole, you begin to notice that things are organized in a fashion that reflects a "nature" that encompasses us all.

You'll find that the "vicious" aspects of "human nature" mostly only come out under adversity, restriction and frustration.

[filtherton]

Unless you're limiting the definition of victim to those who suffer from illegal activity, I'm pretty sure victims existed before laws did.

If you are limiting the definition of victim to those who suffer from illegal activity it's obvious that laws create victims.

[stevie667]

Do victims create laws?

[zakafellida]

About the 2 exemples you gave, if drugs were legalized it would free up some space in the court waiting list and all this but consider many peoples will be less afraid about buying some. But since they would be sold in pharmacies and such, maybe there will be less debt? But if drugs = dependance, then pharmacies would be the primary place where thiefs come? Its hard to say without trying.

As for gun, those that protect are mainly the police and i dont expect they need to have a control. If everyone had a gun, it would be much more of a problem since when you get angry you might do something you dont want to, and consider that the dawson, columbia guys and all made mass killing knowing that he would end up dead. Consider too, that there is more guns in canada (21 deads by gun) then in USA (10k deads by gun), so only guns that have no reasons to be sold should be restricted. A hunting gun wont do much harm and is usefull while a machine gun harms and isn't of any use other then the police.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Victims create themselves.
Laws exacerbate the problem.
Strangely enough, we become the victims of the "law"makers.
Maybe their mothers spanked them?

[cyklone]

I think that without law we would have nothing but chaos and to quote Hobbes, life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Laws allow us to live in harmony and to do that we forego certain freedoms (like rape, revenge, driving while drunk etc). However, given that laws are made by us, they are necessarily flawed and as such have the potential to define someone as a lawbreaker when they are not doing harm. I think that in itself victimises some people. For instance, prostitutes are frequently victimised by the law when their "crimes" actually cause harm to no-one and their profession has been accepted as legitimate by most legal systems throughout the history of the world.
One might say, The law giveth but it also taketh away, but it gives more than it takes.

With reference to your gun control debate, why not just look around you. What other countries have the gun issues that occur in America and they are not less "free" for foregoing their "right" to own guns.

[woohog1]

However speaking about gun laws. My view of guns is that they are a tool. They are a necissary and useful tool, but a tool nonethe less. I grew up with guns and have always had them around. Having said that I do agree that some guns should be restricted. I didn't say banned, I just said restricted. I think that also when people blame guns for killing people that the argument is flawed. I think that the person behind the gun, the one that actually pulled the trigger should be blamed. If I want to kill someone, I can do it, gun or not. However that is not to say that Guns don't make it easier. I just think that they are a tool, same as a hammer or a chainsaw, and yet a hammer isn't banned. I know you all have probably heard this argument before and are sick of it by now. However thats my own opinion and I respect your opinion as well.

[Nimetic]

It's not quite that simple though.

We cannot all be fully informed, 100% clever and 100% alert all the time. So laws such as safe-workplace laws, food labelling, scam-prevention, and so on have a use.

Sure... for my part if I am hit by a falling tree or fall in the water, I would start from the premise that it is possibly my fault. But there is a limit. I do expect certain protections because I know that there are times in the morning and evening when I am going to be liable to make mistakes.

Looking further afield, there seem a range of scams and advertisements that are aimed at the less-informed, disadvantaged or mentally simple members of society. The same people can be seen in the supermarket with a full trolley Coke, chocolates, chips and smokes (no veg).

I ask myself - what sort of society do I want. One in which these people are somewhat protected, or one in which it is fair-game to exploit them.

So with some reluctance I guess - I do support "nanny" laws. Compulsory warnings on cigarettes, basic anti-drug laws, compulsory bike helmets and so on. Should a person be able to sue McDonalds. Dunno on that... maybe that's a step too far. Unless they promote their chips as 'no added sugar'.

Now on gun control - this is more complex. The US is far different I believe than the rest of the world. Anyways, I'm sure you're different to places I've visited (Asiapac) with a far different history, so I'm not really qualified to decide or comment on specifics.

I just saying though that control legislation should not be rejected on purely ideological grounds.

[loquitur]

laws empower bureaucrats. So before you pass a law, think long and hard about how much power to restrict your liberties you're willing to give to civil servants and other government employees.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Laws define victims.
In this they empower themselves.
This doesn't mean they might not be wrong.

[Plan9]

WARNING: INANE BABBLE DETECTED. INANE BABBLE - GO!

"If you trade liberty for safety, you have neither."

Gun example:
When did a gun law ever stop a criminal from having a gun? Never. Too many guns in the states to control them with silly legislation. The same can be said for the war on drugs. Both types of legistlation... gun laws and drug laws... are a little futile. It would be like regulating America's oxygen intake.

Did Clinton's "assault weapons ban" lower crime? No. Gun crimes statistically never involve military style weapons... just cheapo .22 / .25 / .380 / 9mm peashooters.

Everybody is under the illusion that the police are there to protect them. Yes, this is an illusion. The police only effectively do two things: investigate crimes after they happen and make arrests based on their investigations.

Stop depending on the police to protect you. Protect yourself. Most states recognize the need for a concealed weapons permit system. Get one. Even if you don't carry and dislike guns, at least it'll allow law-abiding citizens to maintain their right to protect themselves from those who do not care for laws.

(ends social diatribe)

I'll be damned if I'm reaching for a cell phone when my family or myself is under direct attack by a violent criminal. I might as well hold up a Bible.

......

We are a civilized society, but not a civilized species.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

For the third time in two days, I feel the need to go buy a gun.