...
And from what piece of cloth did you weave that obligation from? Apart from being a practical impossibility, that is...we've already demonstrated that the passing of a law doesn't "protect" anybody, it only provides basis in the legal system for recourse for victims or punishment for perpetrators. Like a lock which only keeps the basically honest that way but does virtually nothing against the thief.
how many more would die without the laws against drunk driving, those numbers have fallen a lot. the harsh penalties help keep us all safer
laws against smoking in public places, protect everyone from secondhand smoke and the bad health effects from it.
Well, maybe, maybe not...
For the period of 1995-2005 (last data reported I could find) total alcohol-related deaths from NTSA figures averaged 17,150 annually. A regression line through the data shows that the slope of the line is
-35 +/-42 -- that is, the uncertainty in the slope is greater than the magnitude of the coefficient itself at the one-sigma level -- it isn't significant statistically. Or, in other words, the annual fluctuations in numbers are larger than the tendency for an actual decrease over time.
Consequently, it seems that at best the law has reached an impasse where no measurable improvement is being made despite ever-harsher laws.
This one is pretty easy to avoid on your own if you're so inclined to do so...I'm against those rules against owners of establishments outlawing legal actions by some. If you don't want to partake, fine, that's your pergogative and if you can convince sufficient others, the proprietor will undoubtedly change his policy to recover business. If not, so be it.
But, my point wasn't that we should do away with laws but that laws are really only for dealing with a situation _after_ a person has already taken an action. Passing more laws doesn't change fundamental behavior for a large segment of the population who are the ones who are breaking the law in the first place. The desire to control any and all behavior of whatever level of deemed malevolence to inconvenience is a propensity of many it seems, but should be resisted as unwarranted excursion into our basic liberties for one and as being mostly ineffectual for the latter.
anti smoking laws are largely to protect the employees, who need a job but can get ill from second hand smoke.
The state has no obligation to protect you from anybody. The cops can sit at the donnut shop while you are beaten to death and your wife is raped and nobody can do shit. The courts have repeatedly found no obligation to provide police protection to any particular individual, only to society at large. That translates to the state doesn't have to do shit for you. If you think the state is going to protect you all I can say is lotsa f****ng luck hope you don't find out the hard way how wrong ya are.
What happened to the drunk-driving stiffer legislation argument? :)
As for the anti-smoking, that was a ploy/tactic used in getting them passed, certainly. My opinion is the employees do have choice in where they choose to work and the same market forces should prevail -- if the employer can't find help for the reason stated, they can make do w/ what they do get or change their policy.
Again, my whole purpose is to try to raise awareness against the practice of trying to legislate everything away with the false hope that creating a law against something will make that something disappear. These are just examples...
Smith
We keep our guns in a locked safe. We don't permit children in our home. Leave us alone.
Cindy Hamilton
well certinally if in the case of tobacco taxes are raised enough while laws are passed making it illegal to smoke in any public place, less smoking will occur...............
I keep my guns locked up also. I take them out regularly and teach my children how to use them properly and safely. Proper gun control is teaching your children how to use them safely, how to hit what they aim at, and when to shoot and when not to shoot. *That* is how you prevent accidents. Education, not laws, rules, and regulations.
That was long ago proven to be a fallacy. KIds who have been "taught to use guns safely" tend to think they know what they are doing, but they are too young to have the necessary judgement. Education in tis case, only gives a false sense of competency.
CWM
Interesting assertion, but I don't beleive it. Got any supporting evidence or a cite, or are you just making this up?
Deal with it. No, I can't give you a cite, as it was many years ago. I know what I know. Prove me wrong.
CWM
I do not believe this was ever proven to be a fallacy. As I child I was taught to use a gun safely, and my own children know how to use a gun safely. It is the responsibility of the adult to keep guns from children that are not old enough to have the necessary judgement to use a gun safely, just as it's the responsibility of gun owning adults to teach children gun safety. And lastly, if the education gives a false sense of competency, the education itself was faulty. Proper education does not give a false sense of competency.
Education, not laws, rules, and regulations.
still leaving the guns accesible, one of their friends might even kill your son or daughter, by accident.
kids just dont have the necessary judgement
Have you any data like I found from the NTSA on alcohol-related traffic deaths to substantiate that wishful thinking as well? :)
Do you not see the irony in government (at all levels) becoming more and more dependent on the tobacco revenues while at the same time saying they're against tobacco usage? Label cynical, but I see it as disengenuous at best, duplicitous in fact.
The point remains laws such as these are bound to fail to have the promised benefits of mass changes in public behavior. Think prohibition for the model.
Agreed. Leaving guns accessible is foolish. That is why I lock mine up.
Leaving knives and hammers accessible is foolish. They might cut themselves, or hit their sibling on the head like they saw bugs bunny do. I don't see people locking those up. And more kids are hurt by knives and hammers then guns. Maybe we need to stop discussing guns, and talk about how we can protect kids from knives and hammers.
There are many other things in the house that are dangerous. It is impossible to totally protect kids from all dangers, so we do the best we can and exercise reasonable measures to do so.
Define "kids". There comes a point where kids do indeed have the necessary judgment. Until then, it is the responsibility of the gun owner to train them and keep the guns where they can't get to them.
It has to do with how politicians think. If they pass laws, then they have the appearance of caring for the people and taking action. They don't really think about whether the laws work or not. Actually, I think that some do and know that their laws won't do much - but they enact them all the same. For fear of becoming a broken record - education works 1000 times better then laws do.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.