Here it comes ...

[44 AMP]

I stand by my belief that laws are designed to allow the government to punish the citizens not to deter criminals from breaking them .

I think you're missing the point. The laws provide for punishment, and it is the fear of that punishment that provides deterrence.

When people "knew" that if they commit murder and get caught they will be hung, or shot, or electrocuted or go to the gas chamber and be executed, some people will not do the crime. Others still will, believing they won't be caught...

When the death penalty was a sure, and certain thing, and when it was carried out relatively soon after conviction (and not 20some years down the road after endless rounds of appeals) I believe that had an effect, one that was different from what we have today.

Unfortunately, that effect is not something we can measure and put into numbers and use in any argument.

Many people argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent, (and by extension other punishments are also not a deterrent) and they are not entirely wrong, just as they are not entirely right, either.

Nothing is a 100% deterrent. Some people will always do the crime, believing they will get away with it. We can count their crimes. We cannot count crimes that are not committed, and without numbers, we are at a disadvantage in a numbers based argument.

One thing I am convinced of, the death penalty has proven 100% effective in "deterring" REPEAT OFFENDERS!

[Doc Intrepid]

You're correct that no one can prove a negative.

But "Deterrence" can be quantified within boundaries that are measurable.

Social scientists can (and have) looked at small-N studies of phenomena such as the "casual overt shoplifting" plaguing drugstores in San Francisco, and the mass event "Smash & Grab" incidents in Los Angeles.

Since they formerly did not occur, and after prosecutors were elected who stated they would no longer prosecute such crimes these types of crimes began to occur frequently, a cause and effect relationship can be identified suggesting that 'whatever deterrent effect the criminal justice system formerly provided, it's absence allowed the criminal behavior to flourish'.

Deterrence clearly worked previously, and its absence just as clearly resulted in 'breakdown in social order'. It may be difficult to quantify in terms of individuals who were previously prevented from behaving in this manner, however, some measure of cause and effect is currently possible.

(It will be interesting to see if crime rates change if DA Gascon gets recalled or otherwise is replaced...)

[Metal god]

No you are missing the point and I know this because the point was mine , I brought this topic up . This was never meant to be a great philosophical debate . This is and has always been ( in my mind ) about anti’s thinking putting more laws on the books is going to some how stop people from shooting other people . Again I stand by my original point , adding new laws will not stop anyone from breaking that law if they choose not to follow it . It may be a deterrent but laws stop nothing . As far as I can tell gun control advocates think passing new laws will actually prevent gun relared crime and they are wrong .

So as I said which started us down this road . We pro gun folks should help explain to anti gun people new gun laws don’t prevent anything so stop writing new laws .

[44 AMP]

We pro gun folks should help explain to anti gun people new gun laws don’t prevent anything so stop writing new laws .

OK, I get your point, and it is a valid one, but....

Explaining reality to people who don't want to listen (or worse, don't care) seldom works.

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and it annoys the pig.."

This old saying is very apt in many situations. Another old saying is

"Locked doors only keep honest people out"

Until and unless you can get people to realize that passing a law does nothing but give legislators something to do, so it LOOKS like they are doing something real and effective, you are just being the pig's music instructor.

And its about the same with any subject there are laws about, all that seems to vary is a matter of degree, and how those laws affect our personal lives.

The non gun owner doesn't give a rip about gun control laws, generally, unless they are an anti-gun person, then they care and want more of them.

One wonders how they would feel if there was a waiting period, background check, extra fees and you could only sell your golf clubs through a licensed golf club dealer... or tennis raquet or what ever sporting equipment they used in their personal lives...

They put a "sin tax' on soda, beer, wine, etc, but not coffee....and the coffee drinkers are all fine with that...point here is, unless its your personal ox that is getting gored, most people don't care. And trying to explain to them why we don't need more laws for things that are already crimes is rarely successful.

Additionally, it seems that in the last few decades, many people immediately going to the extreme end of any issue has become the "new normal" and reasoned discussion of reality is rare, further complicating virtually everything. Calm, rational, voice of reason gets lost in the shouting rants of the extremists, and that only helps the extremists.

There was a reason the founding fathers did not create the US as a democracy, but you'll find very few people today who are even aware of that.
Let alone know what that reason was.

[seanc]

This was never meant to be a great philosophical debate

---> BAH! Famous last words!!

Explaining reality to people who don't want to listen (or worse, don't care) seldom works.

Additionally, it seems that in the last few decades, many people immediately going to the extreme end of any issue has become the "new normal" and reasoned discussion of reality is rare, further complicating virtually everything. Calm, rational, voice of reason gets lost...

Once someone has formed an opinion, they personalize it and it becomes a part of their ego. I'm on the right, so it appears to me that those on the left are ruled by their emotions, not logic (because they are). They think the same about me. It's been proven that those on the left are more ruled by emotional appeals than appeals to logic ("do it for the children!!!"). The left sees the right as ruled by the emotions of hate and bigotry, if the right is assigned any emotions at all. 2A advocates tend to be on the right (tribal thinking) so when we chose to engage in debate with anti-2A people, we can bring the logic, but we have to speak the language of the other side and speak in anecdotes and personal impact, otherwise, we'll never penetrate the out barrier of their egos to reach their logic.