View Full Version : Can safety be legislated?
So as the current anti-guns/invest in mental health discussion continues to rage (and most likely won't be dying down at least this month) I have been thinking more and more about our country's expectation of safety (and also fairness in all aspects of daily life but let's just focus on safety for the moment) for all citizens.
Is it possible to keep the citizens of this (or any) country safe? A fairly broad question with a whole slew of variables but the absolute simple answer is: No. It's is an absolute impossibility. From the day we are born until the day we die we face life threatening hazards at every turn. The newly born may not survive to reach their new home because of multiple medical hazards they are exposed to in the hospital. They may be in a car accident on the way home. Their safety is uncertain.
As we age the dangers become more copious. Playground accidents, exposure to household chemicals, electrocutions, abductions, etc... Our teenage years add the dangers of drinking, drugs, gangs, more types of accidents, sports injuries resulting in death or disability, etc...
And in addition to all the normal accidents associated with simply living, we run the risk of crossing paths with those intent to do harm to others. Forget about the cause for a moment. There simply exist in the world a great many people who wish to injure or kill their fellow man. Their reasons are myriad.
There are risks too numerous to mention and they vary from region to region, state to state, country to country. A farmer may never be at risk for a mugging in his life like an urbanite, but neither is the city dweller at great risk from livestock or farm implements.
My point here is that it is an absolute impossibility to legislate the people on one city block into safety let alone an entire nation. Which is why, as I've watched the Sandy Hook tragedy become distilled down into a guns versus mental health issue, I've had to just sort of shake my head in bewilderment again.
My family used to own intermediate care facilities for the mentally ill in the 70s and 80s. These were apartment buildings that would typically house 15-20 individuals with significant enough mental disease that they couldn't care for themselves but who, with the proper care and supervision, could lead relatively productive and comfortable lives. They were able to go out in public, this was not a locked down setting. And our staff made sure they received all their medications, that their medical needs were taken care of, and that their food and clothing needs were always provided for.
In the late 80s it was decided that these type people were healthy enough that they should be able to dwell on their own unsupervised. No amount of lobbying, arguing, or contacting of politicians could reverse this progressive plan to reintroduce these individuals back into society. And so these people are now free to live wherever they choose and are able. Supervised they posed no sort of threat to anyone. Unsupervised...?
I tell that story to give some of my background. I have grown up with the type of individual that shot all those poor kids at Sandy Hook. I am also here to tell you that psychiatry and psychology are the most tenuous of diagnostic practices. If you put the same patient in three different rooms with three different doctors you will get three different psychiatric diagnoses. Unless we are ready to start imprisoning people before they commit crimes, then limiting the rights of those who may or may not have mental disease is a dangerous slippery slope. Who gets to decide the cutoff point as to the severity of illness limiting rights? Is the soccer mom taking a mild anti-depressant a risk? You bet. How many kids have been suffocated, drowned, or killed in some other fashion by them? A lot is the answer. But how do you limit the rights of an otherwise normal population of women to avoid the tragedies of a very few?
Knee-jerk legislation to fund mental illness research is as ridiculous as legislating more gun control. It will make a certain segment of society feel better but ultimately is not going to do any more to ensure the safety of the citizens of the United States than gun control is. All that will occur is that the rights of a very large population will be limited to avoid a few fringe individuals. I'm not talking about the criminally insane here. Safety is an illusion.
At the end of the day WE are responsible for our safety. Not the government (other than national defense). WE must guard against the dangers waiting to steal the lives of the infants. WE must educate our children against the dangers waiting for them as they grow. WE must explain over and over again to our teens why they are not as invincible as they think they are. And WE must be constantly on guard for our own safety. Asking the government to provide it in any form is simply an exercise in futility and a recipe for further loss of liberty.
Put it this way, is it possible to with nothing more than a stroke of a pen legislate violence out of existence? The answer is an emphatic no.
You touch on a good point regarding the challenges faced by behavioral science fields and specifically that of psychology or psychiatry. Contemporary violence risk assessment methodologies have come a long way but they are still in their relative infancy in terms of development and utility. Its hard enough to use clinical or actuarial methods to make an informed prediction as to which individual is at high risk for committing future acts of violence, sexual or otherwise as it is.
It is a very slippery slope indeed but that is something the general masses and politicians either fail to understand or simply choose not too because afterall, when something bad happens neither group voices any opposition to further curtailing our liberty under the irrational guise of public safety and community welfare. Like most everything further government intrusion only makes things worse.
I agree though that De-institutionalization certainly hasn't helped matters either under some circumstances.
brushy bill
01-06-13, 18:14
delete
Safety is legislated successfully all around you. Take a look at seatbelt laws, the Nader pin, OSHA, etc.
Morality is also legislated. Trust me, there would be a lot more rapes and murders if it was legal.
However, no legal system is perfect. Mistakes, accidents, and crimes will always happen because there will always be morons and criminals.
Safety is legislated successfully all around you. Take a look at seatbelt laws, the Nader pin, OSHA, etc.
Morality is also legislated. Trust me, there would be a lot more rapes and murders if it was legal.
However, no legal system is perfect. Mistakes, accidents, and crimes will always happen because there will always be morons and criminals.
Actually you have just proven my point. Seat belt laws, OSHA, etc... may decrease injuries but they do not prevent them. Workplace accidents and car accidents result in serious injury and fatality all the time in spite of regulations.
"There would be a lot more...if..." also proves my point. Laws against murder and rape don't prevent them. The government cannot guarantee any citizen's safety by virtue of passing legislation.
Actually you have just proven my point. Seat belt laws, OSHA, etc... may decrease injuries but they do not prevent them...
No, they actually prevent them. There are plenty of people who walk away from accidents with zero injury because they were wearing a seatbelt. Thus, an injury was prevented. The government is not trying to prevent all bad outcomes with these laws. Instead, the goal is to prevent a sufficient number to justify the intrusion on personal liberty.
Now, if you want to debate the ethics of self-determination in a free society that is fine. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that we are a free society. Especially when producer's tax dollars pay the costs of EMTALA-mandated care for uninsured consumers who wreak their car without a seatbelt or motorcycle without a helmet. Once I get to walk through the ICU and unplug the vents on all of the freeloaders, well, THEN we can do away with safety laws.
No, they actually prevent them. There are plenty of people who walk away from accidents with zero injury because they were wearing a seatbelt. Thus, an injury was prevented. The government is not trying to prevent all bad outcomes with these laws. Instead, the goal is to prevent a sufficient number to justify the intrusion on personal liberty.
Now, if you want to debate the ethics of self-determination in a free society that is fine. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that we are a free society. Especially when producer's tax dollars pay the costs of EMTALA-mandated care for uninsured consumers who wreak their car without a seatbelt or motorcycle without a helmet. Once I get to walk through the ICU and unplug the vents on all of the freeloaders, well, THEN we can do away with safety laws.
They prevent some, they do not prevent all and that is exactly the point. My point wasn't whether or not morbidity and mortality rates can be decreased through regulations. They can. They can not, however, make the morbidity and mortality rates zero. And until those rates are zero then you can not make the statement that the regulations have made people safe. Safer, perhaps, but not safe.
I know you love to play the semantics game but repeatedly stating that the sky is actually robins-egg doesn't make it any less blue.
How you got on to whether or not we live in a free society I'm not sure.
Safety is legislated successfully all around you. Take a look at seatbelt laws, the Nader pin, OSHA, etc.
Morality is also legislated. Trust me, there would be a lot more rapes and murders if it was legal.
However, no legal system is perfect. Mistakes, accidents, and crimes will always happen because there will always be morons and criminals.
And by definition anyone who follows the laws is NOT the problem.
Laws don't stop people from engaging in robbery, rape and murder. Laws simply prescribe consequences.
I completely disagree that there would be more rape and murder if it was legal. If the ONLY thing stopping a person from killing or raping is a "law" then that person IS a murderer or rapist by nature and he is simply waiting for the opportunity.
The only thing that would change is new opportunity.
Is it possible to keep the citizens of this (or any) country safe?
First off, how safe?
100% security doesn't exist.
Secondly, Security and Liberty oppose one another. Slide the scale toward one, and it subtracts from the other. Being that I'm an adult and I accept the responsibility of providing my own security, I'll take 3/1 mix of liberty to security. I don't want anarchy, so a little security in the form of LEOs is fine.
So they can't make anyone or anything 100% safe, and I wouldn't want them to if they could, because it would come at the cost of liberty.
They prevent some, they do not prevent all and that is exactly the point. My point wasn't whether or not morbidity and mortality rates can be decreased through regulations. They can. They can not, however, make the morbidity and mortality rates zero. And until those rates are zero then you can not make the statement that the regulations have made people safe. Safer, perhaps, but not safe.
I know you love to play the semantics game but repeatedly stating that the sky is actually robins-egg doesn't make it any less blue.
How you got on to whether or not we live in a free society I'm not sure.
I'm not playing semantics. I am stating that the state and local government often has the authority to regulate your behavior to make you safe, more safe, safest, or however you would like to call it. Often those regulations are effective when they involve simple actions such as wearing a seatbelt or helmet. When laws attempt to regulate more complex activity such as regestering people with mental illness, the return on safety declines and the expense on liberty increases. Like you, I object the federal government getting involved in any of these activities unless it is an enumerated power in the Constitution. I brought up a free society because laws written to make you more safe, often require that you sacrifice some liberty in the process.
And by definition anyone who follows the laws is NOT the problem.
Laws don't stop people from engaging in robbery, rape and murder. Laws simply prescribe consequences.
I completely disagree that there would be more rape and murder if it was legal. If the ONLY thing stopping a person from killing or raping is a "law" then that person IS a murderer or rapist by nature and he is simply waiting for the opportunity.
The only thing that would change is new opportunity.
I agree that an important aspect of laws is that they provide a means of deterrance. However, they also set a moral code and compass for the ordered society. The same can be said about the family as a microcosm of society. The laws of my house set the moral code for my family that I hope will be followed long after I'm able to deliver the consequences. ;)
Safety is legislated successfully all around you. Take a look at . . . OSHA, etc.
Why has there been such an increase in disability claims as of lately?
Moose-Knuckle
01-07-13, 03:26
Make no mistake about it, gun control has never been about or will ever be about "safety".
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-07-13, 04:27
Doctors kill more people than guns! (Had to do it JayDoc ;) )
These events are so random that the left uses govt action to address the issue. Since the chance of being killed by a drunk driver or shot by an AS is so low, they get to claim to everyone not killed that the govt and the pol saved them from the danger- even if the people's risk didn't change.
SOMETHING had been done and now people feel safer. That is always their rallying cry- something has to be done- especially before all the facts are known and real solutions can be offered.
If something happens that people don't feel safe, obviously the answer is another govt program or law.
I heard on a thread that they are thinking of strengthening the gun-free zone laws around schools.... Yeah, that'll do the trick.
They prevent some, they do not prevent all and that is exactly the point. My point wasn't whether or not morbidity and mortality rates can be decreased through regulations. They can. They can not, however, make the morbidity and mortality rates zero. And until those rates are zero then you can not make the statement that the regulations have made people safe. Safer, perhaps, but not safe.
I would argue that you are also guilty of playing the semantics card. Safer but not safe; therefore people can't be safe?
You honestly believe that if all legal consequences resulting from the crime of robbery were in all 50 states suspended, there would not be more robbery?
So tens of thousands of people would not the very first minute of the laws suspension, start walking out of stores without paying, start holding up banks, start raiding every Ferrari and Lamborghini dealership in the country, and so on? Seriously?
So you're essentially saying that most people are scumbags, kept in line only by their fear of arrest and imprisonment. Take away that fear, and most would go hog wild and abandon any morals they might've kept.
I'm not sure I believe that.
You honestly believe that if all legal consequences resulting from the crime of robbery were in all 50 states suspended, there would not be more robbery?
So tens of thousands of people would not the very first minute of the laws suspension, start walking out of stores without paying, start holding up banks, start raiding every Ferrari and Lamborghini dealership in the country, and so on? Seriously?
Depends on if it's in an area where people have retained the right to conceal carry and self defense. :D
Why has there been such an increase in disability claims as of lately?
Fraud, waste, and abuse.
Do you really think that the workplace safety laws passed in the past 50 years have made no change in the injury rates?
The safety equivalency argument is a red herring. Take for instance the automobile safety laws. The ones on cars themselves do not effect anyone's liberty. Nader pins and air bags and crumple zones all go about their business of protecting vehicle occupants without intrusion. Seatbelt laws impact our liberty, but to what extent? We can't dance while driving? If you want to get jiggy with it on the freeway, all you have to do is unbuckle and risk at most, a citation (legally).
Gun control laws on the other hand have a significant liberty impact. When you tell an entire class of law abiding citizens that they can't have the same self-defense tools that law enforcement have to protect themselves, you've created a class system. I've yet to see a single government agency that regulates the use of seatbelts for citizens, but .gov employees are exempt in .gov vehicles. Yet this is exactly what they do with LE firearms. Why is that?
It's because they recognize the need for such firearms to effectively perform their mission. They ADMIT that these firearms are needed and desireable. Yet they want to deny the public access to the same. This then becomes more about population control than safety. They demand that safety have primacy over liberty, but without actually improving safety. This is the false promise of gun control.
I might have a little more empathy for gun control advocates if what they propose would be effective in ensuring the safety of the populace. It cannot be proven that one single life will be saved by implementing such. Worse yet, it detracts from focusing on any measures that might actually work, to a degree.
My liberty isn't up for barter when the result is no more safety, and quite possibly less in the trade. :mad:
The safety equivalency argument is a red herring. Take for instance the automobile safety laws. The ones on cars themselves do not effect anyone's liberty. Nader pins and air bags and crumple zones all go about their business of protecting vehicle occupants without intrusion. Seatbelt laws impact our liberty, but to what extent? We can't dance while driving? If you want to get jiggy with it on the freeway, all you have to do is unbuckle and risk at most, a citation (legally).
Gun control laws on the other hand have a significant liberty impact. When you tell an entire class of law abiding citizens that they can't have the same self-defense tools that law enforcement have to protect themselves, you've created a class system. I've yet to see a single government agency that regulates the use of seatbelts for citizens, but .gov employees are exempt in .gov vehicles. Yet this is exactly what they do with LE firearms. Why is that?
It's because they recognize the need for such firearms to effectively perform their mission. They ADMIT that these firearms are needed and desireable. Yet they want to deny the public access to the same. This then becomes more about population control than safety. They demand that safety have primacy over liberty, but without actually improving safety. This is the false promise of gun control.
I might have a little more empathy for gun control advocates if what they propose would be effective in ensuring the safety of the populace. It cannot be proven that one single life will be saved by implementing such. Worse yet, it detracts from focusing on any measures that might actually work, to a degree.
My liberty isn't up for barter when the result is no more safety, and quite possibly less in the trade. :mad:
Good post.
Now some are doubting whether legal ramifications in the form of lengthy prison sentences make society safer via deterrence? You mean all this time we've been fooling ourselves into thinking so?
You get to learn a little something new each day here. Fantastic.
montanadave
01-07-13, 10:24
So you're essentially saying that most people are scumbags, kept in line only by their fear of arrest and imprisonment. Take away that fear, and most would go hog wild and abandon any morals they might've kept.
I'm not sure I believe that.
That is a central tenet of many religions. Without the threat of damnation and eternal suffering in hell, we'd all just sin ourselves silly.
Now some are doubting whether legal ramifications in the form of lengthy prison sentences make society safer via deterrence? You mean all this time we've been fooling ourselves into thinking so?
You get to learn a little something new each day here. Fantastic.
It is indeed difficult to understand some of these positions, and I suspect it is due to the limitations inherent in written communication. Personally, I believe that laws reduce crime and accidents thru two mechanisms: 1) deterrence via the fear of punishment and 2) by setting moral standards of behavior and establishing a moral compass. Criminal laws operate primarily through the first channel, while civil laws draw heavily on the latter mechanism. For example, certain societies allow a husband to stone their wife for adultery. Is it no surprise that these societies hold women and girls in an inferior light to males?
I always get a kick out of cliche statements such as "you can't legislate safety or morality." Sure you can. Society simply has to decide how much liberty it will sacrifice for any incremental benefit, and what level of unintended consequences it will tolerate from said laws. GTG had several examples where states have enacted laws with minimal impact on liberty, but a great return on improved safety.
It is indeed difficult to understand some of these positions, and I suspect it is due to the limitations inherent in written communication. Personally, I believe that laws reduce crime and accidents thru two mechanisms: 1) deterrence via the fear of punishment and 2) by setting moral standards of behavior and establishing a moral compass. Criminal laws operate primarily through the first channel, while civil laws draw heavily on the latter mechanism. For example, certain societies allow a husband to stone their wife for adultery. Is it no surprise that these societies hold women and girls in an inferior light to males?
I always get a kick out of cliche statements such as "you can't legislate safety or morality." Sure you can. Society simply has to decide how much liberty it will sacrifice for any incremental benefit, and what level of unintended consequences it will tolerate from said laws. GTG had several examples where states have enacted laws with minimal impact on liberty, but a great return on improved safety.
I think there's something to be said for laws and morality effecting the overall safety of people. Regardless of whether it was legal or not, I'd find trespassing on someone not trespassing against me to be abhorrent. Doesn't matter if it's theft, assault, rape, murder or whatever. If I don't want it done to me, why would I do it to someone else? But not all men are created equal, despite what some would have us believe. Some men (and women) are morally relativistic and carry within them the propensity to do ill towards their fellow man. Many of these people also happen to be cowards. Laws and the condemnation of their fellow man suppress them in their urges. These are the ones who will only do bad acts if they're 100% certain they won't get caught. I'd say that makes up 80% or more of common criminals.
The point here is that among those that would wantonly kill their fellow man with a gun, exactly 0% of them fall in that category. They are not by nature, common criminals. These are truly predatory creatures for which laws hold no sway. Neither do the moral codes of their fellow man. What exactly is a gun law to someone who plans to murder someone? Nothing. That, is why gun laws are not worth considering.
montanadave
01-07-13, 12:54
you are either woefully misinformed, or you are being deliberately dishonest.
What? I can't be both? :D
I should know better than to toss my two cents in on any topic where religion is even a tangential issue.
We have different points of view. I'm content to just leave it at that. We all tread our own path to understanding on such fundamental concerns and arrive (hopefully) at a position which provides us strength, comfort, and direction.
One of my worst faults is being inappropriately flippant in my remarks (those less charitable might simply characterize me as an insufferable smart ass), particularly when the topic at hand involves sensitive or closely held beliefs. Mea culpa.
It is indeed difficult to understand some of these positions, and I suspect it is due to the limitations inherent in written communication. Personally, I believe that laws reduce crime and accidents thru two mechanisms: 1) deterrence via the fear of punishment and 2) by setting moral standards of behavior and establishing a moral compass. Criminal laws operate primarily through the first channel, while civil laws draw heavily on the latter mechanism. For example, certain societies allow a husband to stone their wife for adultery. Is it no surprise that these societies hold women and girls in an inferior light to males?
I always get a kick out of cliche statements such as "you can't legislate safety or morality." Sure you can. Society simply has to decide how much liberty it will sacrifice for any incremental benefit, and what level of unintended consequences it will tolerate from said laws. GTG had several examples where states have enacted laws with minimal impact on liberty, but a great return on improved safety.
Agree completely. Obviously like any other community firearm associations have their various personalities, this regardless of the common fundamental interest. You accept that going in, yet sometimes when you read these posts...
The only way I see to ensure 100% safety is to take away all freedom, freewill, thought, rights(god given and otherwise), freedom of movement, etc...
Drug everyone into a stupor and lock them in to a room. There, 100% safety and security.
Oh, whose going to do this? The gov of course. They would never take advantage or abuse this power over the people.
You might as well try to legislate evil and crazy. It's just not going to happen and America exist as the country many fought and died for.
You honestly believe that if all legal consequences resulting from the crime of robbery were in all 50 states suspended, there would not be more robbery?
So tens of thousands of people would not the very first minute of the laws suspension, start walking out of stores without paying, start holding up banks, start raiding every Ferrari and Lamborghini dealership in the country, and so on? Seriously?
I said laws don't STOP people, otherwise there would be no robberies.
Since it is without question that if the laws were not in fact there, there would be more robberies, then it is accurate to say that the laws do deter, i.e. stop, some people from committing robbery. This is not even honestly debatable.
Nuance is difficult over the internet.
What I'm saying is IF a person is intent upon robbing or raping, the existence of a law saying it is wrong will NOT stop them.
And if a person is deterred from stealing by the simple existence of a "law" then those people aren't really your problem.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.