Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Most of those who favor big-government solutions for all problems want to be judged on their ( stated) intentions, and never on the results.
Restrictive guns laws are but one example. As Brian has continually pointed out CT already HAS among the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Did those restrictions help? Evidence would suggest they did not. Whether they promoted an easy target is arguable, but laws did not stop the killing.
What evidence is there that laws stop bad behavior? Writing bad checks is illegal--and still people do it. Robbing banks is illegal, and still people do it. Identity theft is illegal, and people still do it. Public drunkenness and public urination are illegal, and people still do those things, too.
Sometimes laws do have the desired effect. Marijuana use is illegal, and always has been wherever I have lived, and for that reason, alone, I have refrained from it. But I am a law-abiding citizen. There are still people who use (illegally) Marijuana all over this country. Laws do not generally stop law-breakers from doing what they decide to do.
I wonder how much society would change if we erased all laws from the books--law abiding/ caring for others--like all of us here on PP--would continue to behave pretty much as we do. The law-breakers would continue to behave as they do.

Passing laws will not make bad people act like good people.

Originally Posted by jplinville

As the saying goes, "Locks don't keep people out, they only keep honest people honest". Laws, regulations and punishment only keep honest and law abiding people, honest and law abiding.

Originally Posted by davidmash

That does not seem to make any sense. If laws etc are the only thing that keep s law abiding people law abiding then in reality they are not law abiding people because only the laws are doing it so then law ... are making crooks obey the law. Good people do not need laws to tell them what is god or bad. Only bad people would need that. If the laws etc disappeared the bad people would run amok far more so then they already are. Stands to reason that if the laws are keeping bad people in check then more stringent laws might do a better job.

Originally Posted by Botnst

I would say that it is a balance. You and Walgamuth are correct in that a network of laws, tightly enforced, offers the greatest possible security.

The most free people have very poor security, indeed. They must provide their own.

Somewhere between is probably where we all wish to be.

For me, making laws to catch people doing something who have not harmed anybody is an infringement. I completely understand that mine is a minority view and I accept that.

But it doesn't change my belief or opinion nor does it infringe (yet) on my belief that I should articulate what I believe, even when it is unpopular.

Originally Posted by davidmash

Perhaps I am missing something but would you rather have a law in place that prevents you from being killed or one that is in place that will prosecute the person who just killed you?

I am trying to present ideas that I think would help prevent the person from getting a gun to kill you, if it fails we can still prosecute but I'd like to prevent your death if at all possible.