LogFAQs > #932894775

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It stops that particular thief, and thieves deserve that fear.

Laws need to be based on what will actually solve problems and help society, not on what individuals deserve.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because the US is well-known for bicycle thieves shooting victims /s

Have you seen the number of gun owners that insist they need to have a gun to protect themselves from petty thieves whom they can only assume want to murder them as well as steal their TV? The presumption that minor criminals are armed and just itching to escalate to violent crime is practically a central tenet of American culture. Hardly an unthinkable leap of logic, particularly for the "tough on crime" crowd.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

So go further, kill 'em. Don't need that type of garbage, we have enough people of every order that don't steal that we won't miss them.

Shall we take that a step further and apply it to speeders (which I understand you count yourself among because you consider yourself too capable a driver to be beholden to speed limits)? Jaywalkers? People who hang toilet paper under the roll (yes definitely)? Heck, since we're talking about practicality and not letting an obsession with vengeance dictate public policy like a moron, why not take it a step further and execute anyone that stops being able to demonstrate their usefulness to society? We don't need to waste resources training factory workers to do other jobs after they get replaced by robots, just put them down! Retirees? Bullets are cheaper than nursing homes.

Obviously, slippery slope arguments don't mean much in terms of drawing actual conclusions, but if you're going with that logic, you need to have a basis for drawing a line. "It's the law" isn't enough, because laws can be changed, and you need a set of logical principles to guide those changes.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.