After watching the Gilbert Arenas situation I wonder where is the victim and who is the victim and if there is a victim can they show harm?

How can there be a crime with no victim? I understand it broke the law but perhaps the law is faulty. Laws have changed before and will change in the future.

How much are crime without victims costing the taxpayer? Why should I have to flip the bill for 3 squares and housing for a multi-millionaire when there is no victim?

ever heard of a deterrent?

There are always two victims in such cases, the actual victim and the state. He broke the social contract with the state and will be punished for doing so. You should read some Rousseau.

...same as traffic tickets for speeding, seat belt violations, etc where there is not accident....

sjmvsfscs08 wrote: There are always two victims in such cases, the actual victim and the state. He broke the social contract with the state and will be punished for doing so. You should read some Rousseau.

I disagree with Rousseau.

I already covered that it is the law but perhaps the law is wrong?

There is no victim the state is not a victim here as no harm was done to the state. The state was disobeyed but it is certainly no victim.

wkfan wrote: ...same as traffic tickets for speeding, seat belt violations, etc where there is not accident....

I would ask what potential harm is there in carrying a gun? What potential harm is there in speeding?

I can see where firing a gun is potential harm but just being in possession of one carries no potential of harm.

wkfan wrote: ...same as traffic tickets for speeding, seat belt violations, etc where there is not accident....

Well seat belt violations are an abomination. So there.

BCSbunk wrote:

wkfan wrote: ...same as traffic tickets for speeding, seat belt violations, etc where there is not accident....

I would ask what potential harm is there in carrying a gun? What potential harm is there in speeding?

I can see where firing a gun is potential harm but just being in possession of one carries no potential of harm.

Speeding and carrying a gun are always a potential for harm. the purpose of a gun is to cause harm or the threat of harm, which in most instances, is a crime. i mean, plaxico was just in possession of a gun...until it went off in his pants. the faster you drive in a car, the higher the odds you will lose control of your vehicle. therefore the public(or state) is the victim.

Glory Days wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:

wkfan wrote: ...same as traffic tickets for speeding, seat belt violations, etc where there is not accident....

I would ask what potential harm is there in carrying a gun? What potential harm is there in speeding?

I can see where firing a gun is potential harm but just being in possession of one carries no potential of harm.

Speeding and carrying a gun are always a potential for harm. the purpose of a gun is to cause harm or the threat of harm, which in most instances, is a crime. i mean, plaxico was just in possession of a gun...until it went off in his pants. the faster you drive in a car, the higher the odds you will lose control of your vehicle. therefore the public(or state) is the victim.

Please show how the state is a victim.

Victim an unfortunate person who suffers from some adverse circumstance
a person who is tricked or swindled

How is the state a person or are you redefining victim to suit your argument?

Storing a gun in a locker is not the same as carrying a loaded gun.

We have conceal carry in Ohio now so is it dangerous and you are against conceal carry?

Why does a license make it right and not having one make it wrong.

Do not appeal to the law I am questioning whether the law is correct so by stating the law, that is not answering the question.

The purpose of a gun is to cause harm?????

BCSbunk wrote: After watching the Gilbert Arenas situation I wonder where is the victim and who is the victim and if there is a victim can they show harm?

How can there be a crime with no victim? I understand it broke the law but perhaps the law is faulty. Laws have changed before and will change in the future.

How much are crime without victims costing the taxpayer? Why should I have to flip the bill for 3 squares and housing for a multi-millionaire when there is no victim?

It would be a stupid waste of money to prosecute him more than a hefty fine, in my view.

Let the NBA suspend the idiot for a year; that's a much better punishment.

derek bomar wrote: ever heard of a deterrent?

As my friend the Fonze used to say, "Exact-a-mundo!"

BCSbunk wrote: Please show how the state is a victim.

Victim an unfortunate person who suffers from some adverse circumstance
a person who is tricked or swindled

How is the state a person or are you redefining victim to suit your argument?

because people speeding and committing other crimes cause damages and cost the state millions which comes from you, the taxpayer. would you rather every time a crime is a committed, a random citizen is selected to goto court and sit there as a victim?

Storing a gun in a locker is not the same as carrying a loaded gun.

no, but who has a gun without bullets? basically a paper weight then. thats why the law says no guns.

We have conceal carry in Ohio now so is it dangerous and you are against conceal carry?

Why does a license make it right and not having one make it wrong.

haha really? thats what licenses do. they show that you are qualified/certified to do things. like drive, carry a gun, be a lawyer, be a doctor, be a police officer. it means that person went through the proper training and background checks to be able to carry concealed, which is a serious responsibility and shouldnt be taken lightly. and no i am not against conceal carry.

The purpose of a gun is to cause harm?????

You are right, i forgot, guns also help people put on make up.

september63 wrote:

derek bomar wrote: ever heard of a deterrent?

As my friend the Fonze used to say, "Exact-a-mundo!"

When have any punishment methods meant as deterrents worked?

All the drug laws...don't work.
Seat belt law...doesn't work
Laws against murder...we're 5th on the murder list in the world and 24th per capita so those are working well.

Laws and the corresponding punishments should do just that, punish the offender. Pretending that harsher punishment for something will make someone else not do that is misguided. Punishments should be what we think is fair for the infraction, not what we think will deter others from doing the same.

So people should be able to do whatever they want until somebody gets hurt?

BORIStheCrusher wrote: So people should be able to do whatever they want until somebody gets hurt?

Using "hurt" in a more generic sense than just physical harm, generally yes. The exceptions would be where the action is so reckless as to greatly increase the odds of harm, even though harm has not yet occurred (i.e. drunk driving).

queencitybuckeye wrote:

BORIStheCrusher wrote: So people should be able to do whatever they want until somebody gets hurt?

Using "hurt" in a more general sense than just physical harm, yes.

I agree.

The argument follows that many "victimless" crimes actually have numerous indirect victims and thus fall within the regulatory reach. The trick is figuring out which indirect victims are too far away from the direct harm, or only suffer minimal harm, so as to avoid regulation. E.g., prostitution may not have a direct victim (in an abstract sense), but it can negatively affect society by leading to the breakdown of marriages, the spread of STDs, the increase in redlight districts, the harm from human trafficking, etc. Are these negative effects bad enough to warrant regulation of the individual act, even though that act may not have an immediately identifiable direct victim (again, assuming no coercion and such)?

BCSbunk wrote: What potential harm is there in speeding?

Lowered reaction times, increased likelihood of accidents, exponentially increased harm in accidents that do occur.

It's prophylactic--most of the time, speeding doesn't hurt someone. But people speeding results in more accidents that are more dangerous. So we limit it to reduce those accidents.

If I fire a gun in the air on NYE, odds are very good that no one will get hurt. But occasionally someone will get killed by the falling bullet, and so it may make sense to prevent people from doing it. Theoretically, legislators look at the likelihood of harm times the magnitude of harm and compare it to the average enjoyment derived from the activity. Then they balance the equities and determine whether society benefits from regulation. In practice, special interest groups get up in arms and lobby hard, resulting in the law change.

fan_from_texas wrote:

BCSbunk wrote: What potential harm is there in speeding?

Lowered reaction times, increased likelihood of accidents, exponentially increased harm in accidents that do occur.

It's prophylactic--most of the time, speeding doesn't hurt someone. But people speeding results in more accidents that are more dangerous. So we limit it to reduce those accidents.

If I fire a gun in the air on NYE, odds are very good that no one will get hurt. But occasionally someone will get killed by the falling bullet, and so it may make sense to prevent people from doing it. Theoretically, legislators look at the likelihood of harm times the magnitude of harm and compare it to the average enjoyment derived from the activity. Then they balance the equities and determine whether society benefits from regulation. In practice, special interest groups get up in arms and lobby hard, resulting in the law change.

yeah what he said.

Glory Days wrote:
Speeding and carrying a gun are always a potential for harm. the purpose of a gun is to cause harm or the threat of harm, which in most instances, is a crime. i mean, plaxico was just in possession of a gun...until it went off in his pants. the faster you drive in a car, the higher the odds you will lose control of your vehicle. therefore the public(or state) is the victim.

While I agree with you, I only agree to a degree. The purpose of a fun is not so black and white as you portray it.

Not everyone that carries a weapon or gun do so to use as something harmful or to threaten to inflict harm. Some use for protection (Law enforcement, homeowners, business owners, etc.). Some use for hunting purposes, some are recreational shooters. Not everyone toting a gun around is doing so with the intent to harm or threaten someone.

That is why I agree with laws of registering weapons and having licenses for them. You can then distinguish who is carrying them around with bad intent and who is not.

dwccrew wrote:

Glory Days wrote:
Speeding and carrying a gun are always a potential for harm. the purpose of a gun is to cause harm or the threat of harm, which in most instances, is a crime. i mean, plaxico was just in possession of a gun...until it went off in his pants. the faster you drive in a car, the higher the odds you will lose control of your vehicle. therefore the public(or state) is the victim.

While I agree with you, I only agree to a degree. The purpose of a fun is not so black and white as you portray it.

Not everyone that carries a weapon or gun do so to use as something harmful or to threaten to inflict harm. Some use for protection (Law enforcement, homeowners, business owners, etc.). Some use for hunting purposes, some are recreational shooters. Not everyone toting a gun around is doing so with the intent to harm or threaten someone.

That is why I agree with laws of registering weapons and having licenses for them. You can then distinguish who is carrying them around with bad intent and who is not.

haha well not exactly black and white, but close. even when used as protection and for hunting, it is used to cause harm. whether the good guy or the bad guy uses a gun, its used for harm or threat of harm. when you pull a gun for self defense, you are going to use the gun to stop the threat to you. recreational or target shooting would be the only exception.