Zon: Each person's moral compass points north. North being the right to their own life and by extension, right to their own property. That's why by comparison there is a much smaller ratio of violent crimes and fraud than crimes of vice.
Poppycock. There are fewer violent crimes because they are harder to conceal. Corpses are far more conspicious than bad checks.
It appears that you contend that coercive laws create a greater deterrent to crime than a person's conscience/moral-compass. Following your logic if there was an easy way to hide dead bodies leaving no trace back to the murderer then there would be as many murderers as people that smoke pot.
To knowingly write a bad check in order to get something for nothing is fraud and the victim can take the criminal to court. There's far more people smoking pot than people writing bad checks. Also, many checking accounts have overdrafts. For people that don't have overdraft accounts, the banks charge the accountholder when they overdraw their account. That's business, not a crime. Likewise their are far more people using recreational drugs than there are thieves, get-something-for-nothing bad check writers and other non-violent frauds combined.
Zon: To the violent criminal that has a broen moral compass the gun-toting, north-pointing moral-compass citizen becomes the greatest deterrent to the criminal. Studies have shown that violent criminals in prison said that when they were on the outside they far more feared being confronted by a citizen with a gun than a law enforcement officer with a gun. Again pointing to the moral compass as being a far greater deterrent to crime than coercive laws.
Apparently this "moral compass" is mounted in transparent plexiglass in people's foreheads. How else do criminals know if they are being held at gunpoint by a holy man or a mad man.
Your obfuscation is duly noted. To the criminal a cop is the holy man in which the criminal finds safety compared to being confronted by an armed citizen with a north-pointing moral compass. But of course I already said that in the post you replied to yet you thought it more important that you obfuscate to make your invalid point appear as valid. It's called deception. And you're not very good at it.
On the several occasions I've been held at gunpoint, the moral philosophy of the antagonist was THE LAST DAMN THING ON MY MIND.
Fine. But were you searching your mind for the criminal codes to discern who was violating the law? Are you a criminal? Apparently not because criminals know they are breaking the law and are aware of the differing degrees of risk whether it's a cop or a citizen pointing a gun at them. It is because the criminal knows he is violating the sanctity of human life that causes his acute awareness of who is pointing the gun at him. The criminal's moral compass may be broken but it is still present to let him know that he should fear for his life. IMO where you erred is in being the victim you tried injecting the criminal-mind's broken moral compass into your thinking (it didn't fit so you rejected it.) That unnatural "fit" is why you rejected what I wrote. Think about it. You don't think about the criminal's moral outlook because your moral-compass is pointing north as it should be -- you're in valid self-defense mode because you know you didn't violate anyone's rights. The criminal is in defense mode; defense for his life and he'd rather be up against a cop than a citizen with a gun. Having violated a person's rights the criminal's best defense is to give himself up.
Zon: The violent criminal fears for his life when confronted by a north-pointing moral-compass citizen with a gun. ...Yet by comparison feels safe when confronted by law enforcement officers that enforces the laws.
What color is the sky in your world?
Blue. I suggest you drop the grandstanding rhetoric.
Have you ever met the LAPD or the New Orleans police or a Russian militia? Criminals don't feel safe when confronted by these folks.
I also suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension. Note the words above in bold. They are: "by comparison". I'll reword. The violent criminal fears an armed citizen far more than he fears a law enforcement officer that enforces the laws. Also, I referred to LEOs in general, not specific police organizations or specific militia as you so disingenuously tried to change the context. Or perhaps it was just an innocent mistake you made. Either way it's your problem, not mine. My statement which was a general statement holds valid and is backed up by studies of violent criminals in prison.
Not laws, consequences. You can have consequences without laws.
Following your logic if there was an easy way to hide dead bodies leaving no trace back to the murderer then there would be as many murderers as people that smoke pot.
You betcha. Examples? Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Buchenwald, etc, etc.
Eventually people would start taking countermeasures.
Your obfuscation is duly noted. To the criminal a cop is the holy man in which the criminal finds safety compared to being confronted by an armed citizen with a north-pointing moral compass. I also suggest you brush up on your reading comprehension. Note the words above in bold. They are: "by comparison". I'll reword. The violent criminal fears an armed citizen far more than he fears a law enforcement officer that enforces the laws. Also, I referred to LEOs in general, not specific police organizations or specific militia as you so disingenuously tried to change the context. Or perhaps it was just an innocent mistake you made. Either way it's your problem, not mine. My statement which was a general statement holds valid and is backed up by studies of violent criminals in prison.
The Russian militia are LEO's. In what time period and in what nations was this study conducted?