alt.energy.homepower

no spam wrote:

>>>It is the fear of this punishment which keeps many people from doing
>>>these 'bad' things.
>>
>>If all the laws were suddenly repealed, would you go out and start doing
>>bad things?
>
>
> Depends on what 'bad' is.


"Bad" is immoral crimes against your fellow humans.
Rape, robbery, assault, murder.


> I wouldn't stop wearing my seatbelt nor would I
> start taking stuff that wasn't mine.

And I infer, nor would you commit rape or murder. So it appears that
you won't go out and do "bad" things because you have morality. Thank
you parents for me for raising you right.

Anybody else want to weigh in on this? Which of you will go out and
do rape, robbery, assault, murder if the laws against such acts were
repealed?

> But there are some out there that
> would if the threat of punishment was not there.


Granted, there are some that would do "bad" things without the fear of
"punishment". But how many really? What is the number of those
sitting on that fence?


> Look at the number of
> people who have no problem with taking other people's stuff when the system
> breaks down, such as after a natural disaster.


Was stuff taken from armed citizens protecting their own homes?

(answer: yes. When the 'government' violated constitutional law and
confiscated firearms in New Orleans leaving home owners defenseless.)


>>Do criminals care that there are laws against rape, robbery, assault,
>>murder?
>
>
> Not so much the laws but about the punishment they will, not might, get if
> caught.


Do criminals care that there are laws against rape, robbery, assault,
murder?

The answer is self evident. In spite of laws, the criminals do the crimes.


> But there are people out there who are on the edge who would rob
> you if they were sure they would not get punished.

Would they attempt to rob me if they knew I might be carrying a
concealed firearm?
(Read that as the unconstitutional firearms laws have all been repealed.)


>>Do criminals do crimes in spite of the laws against such crimes?
>
>
> Most criminals are smart enough (barely) to do a cost vs benefit analysis.
> After looking at the US criminal system a large number of them seem to think
> the benefit is worth the risk.

So in that case, your answer is: Yes, criminals do crimes in spite of
the laws against such crimes.


> There are others who look at the data and come to a different conclusion.
> But when thing changes and the opportunity arises they take the chance.


That would be every speeder that fails to follow the posted limit like
it was a religion.


>>It is not fear of punishment, but fear of the armed citizen that stops
>>crime.
>
>
> Is not being shot by a home owner punishment?


No. It is a consequence of a bad choice. It is an IMMEDIATE
consequence to a bad choice...

And keep in mind, a potential criminal does NOT have to be shot to
deter the crime. Simple brandishing of a weapon gives the would be
criminal the choice... Desist and live, attack and die.



>>>If you doubt this look at what happens when this fear is removed.
>>>Looting after a disaster is a perfect example.
>>
>>Look at what happened in the . riots when the shop keepers produced
>>firearms when faced with potential looters.
>
>
> But do you think all those looters had criminal records before the riot? Or
> do you think they were, for the most part, law abiding citizens.

Define what you intend when you say "law abiding citizen" please.