Should it be illegal or remain legal for people to sell murder memorabilia?

[Cicero]

So I'm watching the news, and this was a special topic they had. It was saying how people are furious how people can sell serial murderers possessions and memorabilia. Should it be legal or illegal?

I have mixed feelings about it. I think it'd be pretty awesome having a gun owned/used by Al Capone (which a friends dad has), but then again I think it'd not be cool to own something by Charles Manson. But as you know, Al Capone, technically, could be categorized as a murderer. So it'd be hypocritical saying "You can collect Al Capone memborabilia but you can't collect Charles Manson memorabilia."

[CharlieHorse]

I have nothing against it...
Could be good business for collectors.

[Horizon]

I didn't know you could even do that o.o that's just creepy to me... It's almost glorifying the act that the person did... So, no, I don't think it should be legal.

[Abyssal Echo]

I have to agree with the above poster seems creepy to me why you even want any of his or her stuff

[Atonement]

I see a couple problems with making it illegal. First of all, where do you draw the line between murderer, criminal, crime boss, etc.? That's highly problematic. Second, what right do we have to say that something is illegal to sell because someone used to own it? That sounds kind of ridiculous in and of itself. I don't agree that it should happen, but I see no way to stop it. The best way to inhibit it would be to change the culture surrounding violence and murder rather than prohibit the potential glorification. There are other ways to handle the perceived problem.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Anything against the law is AGAINST THE LAW.

[Cicero]

Anything against the law is AGAINST THE LAW.

What?

[Twilly F. Sniper]

What?

I was saying that murder is against the law, and since murder memorabilia was once part of an illegal action selling it should be illegal. I just said it there, but I should've put "involved with" for clarity.

[ImCoolBeans]

I see a couple problems with making it illegal. First of all, where do you draw the line between murderer, criminal, crime boss, etc.? That's highly problematic. Second, what right do we have to say that something is illegal to sell because someone used to own it? That sounds kind of ridiculous in and of itself. I don't agree that it should happen, but I see no way to stop it. The best way to inhibit it would be to change the culture surrounding violence and murder rather than prohibit the potential glorification. There are other ways to handle the perceived problem.

I agree with Addi. People still buy houses that murders have been committed in -- whether the murderer owned the house or just committed the crime there it's still the same principal -- It's not feasible or practical to say "No, you can't buy or live in this house now, the lot must sit empty." Now I understand that buying real estate is different from buying collectable weapons or personal possessions; but it's still justified in the same manner. Making it illegal to do would create too many gray areas areas in law with no concrete answer and would allow law to overstep its boundaries.

[WalkingOnDisaster]

It's an item. Unless you're purchasing a tee-shirt that says "I LOVE MURDER!!!" from these people, I think it'll be okay. A little eerie. But if someone'll buy it, it's their money and their life.

[Jess]

eh I think it shouldn't be illegal. I personally wouldn't do it, and I find it a little creepy that you would, but it's your decision if you want to. Your money, your life.

[CharlieFinley]

Gross, but who cares?

[Cicero]

Gross, but who cares?

The victims families

[Stronger]

The victims families

I don't think it should be illegal, some people, as weird and as creepy as it is, like to collect that stuff but I don't think the victims families will care about that stuff, they would care about closure and all that.

[Cicero]

I don't think it should be illegal, some people, as weird and as creepy as it is, like to collect that stuff but I don't think the victims families will care about that stuff, they would care about closure and all that.

The victims families are the ones who are hating this murder memorabilia.

[Stronger]

The victims families are the ones who are hating this murder memorabilia.

Maybe you're right, but if they are that offend they should bring whoever is selling the items to court or something.

[Cicero]

Maybe you're right, but if they are that offend they should bring whoever is selling the items to court or something.

You state it like its not that big of a deal, and in my city they have brought some to court. There is a news event about it.

I see why they are so offended and they have that right. If a family member was stabbed to death, and you saw something that was apart of the crime scene (such as the weapon or what not) on a web page trying to sell it, wouldnt you be offended?

[Stronger]

You state it like its not that big of a deal, and in my city they have brought some to court. There is a news event about it.

I see why they are so offended and they have that right. If a family member was stabbed to death, and you saw something that was apart of the crime scene (such as the weapon or what not) on a web page trying to sell it, wouldnt you be offended?

I'm talking about those murders that people get hyped up about, some people actually collected that stuff, for whatever reason. Not saying its the right thing to do, but someone do it.

If it was one that happened in NYC, I'd be a bit concerned, I know it sounds like I'm contradicting, but that would be something more or else creepy.

[UTurn]

Why should this be illegal? Not trying to get into a political debate...but honestly, why the hell should the government get involved with, and spend more tax money, on something as trivial as this??

[MisterChicken]

Does it matter if its legal or not? Everything should be legal NO LAWS,wait there is no laws Cops=Hired Thugs, Politician= Career Criminal. Taxes=Stealing,Extortion Laws=Ideas soooo great they Mandatory :>/ We are free to do anything But we been conditioned by Poltricks,Religion,Rich,Banks,Psychopaths,Narcissistic,Power hungry,Brainwashing,manipulation we are free from this if we really think about it dont let them control you :D,

[CharlieFinley]

The victims families

It is occasionally sad but always true that, in America, people being offended is not sufficient for the government restrict the activities of others.

[UTurn]

It is occasionally sad but always true that, in America, people being offended is not sufficient for the government restrict the activities of others.

America is the land of the offended bud. Atl Braves were going to use their old logo (the screaming Indian for those that dont know) for spring training hats, but ended up not doing so because some idiot said it was offensive..

and also laws are made all the time to keep the offended from staying offended.. just saying

[Quiddity]

I think it'd be pretty awesome having a gun owned/used by Al Capone (which a friends dad has), but then again I think it'd not be cool to own something by Charles Manson. But as you know, Al Capone, technically, could be categorized as a murderer. So it'd be hypocritical saying "You can collect Al Capone memborabilia but you can't collect Charles Manson memorabilia."

That wouldn't be hypocritical. You did not specify that you didn't think it would be 'cool to own' something by Al Capone precisely because he is a murderer, so it would not be hypocritical to collect Al Capone's items and not Charles Manson's, because you never specified the reason for the relationship.

Further, let us say you did specify that it wasn't cool to collect from Charles Manson's items because he's a murderer; this still would have nothing to do with collecting from Al Capone's items even if he's considered a murderer, because collecting a murderer's items does not necessarily mean you are collecting them because he is a murderer, only that you happen to be collecting that one's items and he happens to also be a murderer.

[CharlieFinley]

and also laws are made all the time to keep the offended from staying offended.. just saying

Please clarify what you're talking about.

[workingatperfect]

That wouldn't be hypocritical. You did not specify that you didn't think it would be 'cool to own' something by Al Capone precisely because he is a murderer, so it would not be hypocritical to collect Al Capone's items and not Charles Manson's, because you never specified the reason for the relationship.

Further, let us say you did specify that it wasn't cool to collect from Charles Manson's items because he's a murderer; this still would have nothing to do with collecting from Al Capone's items even if he's considered a murderer, because collecting a murderer's items does not necessarily mean you are collecting them because he is a murderer, only that you happen to be collecting that one's items and he happens to also be a murderer.

It's the same in this case, because he's talking about victims of the murderer being offended. Whatever the reason for collecting is, victims of the murderers are still getting offended.

Notice at the end he said, "it'd be hypocritical saying "You can collect Al Capone memorabilia but you can't collect Charles Manson memorabilia." Basically, he's saying that it'd be hypocritical for him to condone selling the possessions of one murderer, but not the other. Not that it'd be hypocritical to want one, but not the other.

[Quiddity]

It's the same in this case, because he's talking about victims of the murderer being offended. Whatever the reason for collecting is, victims of the murderers are still getting offended.

Notice at the end he said, "it'd be hypocritical saying "You can collect Al Capone memorabilia but you can't collect Charles Manson memorabilia." Basically, he's saying that it'd be hypocritical for him to condone selling the possessions of one murderer, but not the other. Not that it'd be hypocritical to want one, but not the other.

And that was what I addressed above. The reasoning that led him to conclude that it would be hypocritical to say that is precisely the issue. It's invalid to take issue with the conclusion and not the premises leading up to it. That was his conclusion; it would be begging the question to attack that, because it is the premises that hold the conclusion up, which is what I went after.

Can't simply say, "This conclusion is false" when he provides reasoning as to why it is not false. Need to address his reasoning, not his conclusion, because the reasoning is what leads to the conclusion. I did not speak of wanting to collect, only of what he said of hypocrisy.

[workingatperfect]

And that was what I addressed above. The reasoning that led him to conclude that it would be hypocritical to say that is precisely the issue. It's invalid to take issue with the conclusion and not the premises leading up to it. That was his conclusion; it would be begging the question to attack that, because it is the premises that hold the conclusion up, which is what I went after.

Can't simply say, "This conclusion is false" when he provides reasoning as to why it is not false. Need to address his reasoning, not his conclusion, because the reasoning is what leads to the conclusion. I did not speak of wanting to collect, only of what he said of hypocrisy.

You did not address that. You addressed reasoning behind wanting items, not behind condoning the buying and selling of items. Also, I never called your conclusion false, I called it irrelevant.

He said it was hypocritical to condone memorabilia of one murderer being sold, but not another murderer, because in either case, someone gets offended. He never mentioned the hypocrisy of wanting one over the other, which is what you were addressing. I simply pointed out that you addressed an issue very different to what he did, or at least what his post implied, as I can't speak for what he meant, only what he said.

[Quiddity]

You did not address that. You addressed reasoning behind wanting items, not behind condoning the buying and selling of items. Also, I never called your conclusion false, I called it irrelevant.

He said it was hypocritical to condone memorabilia of one murderer being sold, but not another murderer, because in either case, someone gets offended. He never mentioned the hypocrisy of wanting one over the other, which is what you were addressing. I simply pointed out that you addressed an issue very different to what he did, or at least what his post implied, as I can't speak for what he meant, only what he said.

Actually, I wasn't addressing anything having to do with 'want'. You can check through my entire post that you quoted, you will not find the word, 'want' even once within it. You seem to be confused with what I actually said, since, what you think I said, even through a control + F search of my post, is not there.

[workingatperfect]

Actually, I wasn't addressing anything having to do with 'want'. You can check through my entire post that you quoted, you will not find the word, 'want' even once within it. You seem to be confused with what I actually said, since, what you think I said, even through a control + F search of my post, is not there.

You're splitting hairs. Essentially, think it would be cool to own = want. They're basically interchangeable. But even so, what you said still wasn't relevant to what he was calling hypocritical. If you had said "ok to own" rather than "cool to own," that would be a different story. But you didn't.

[Quiddity]

You're splitting hairs. Essentially, think it would be cool to own = want. They're basically interchangeable. But even so, what you said still wasn't relevant to what he was calling hypocritical. If you had said "ok to own" rather than "cool to own," that would be a different story. But you didn't.

I was using his words exactly. I didn't want to say, "cool", but he did, so I used it, too.

"I think it'd be pretty awesome having a gun owned/used by Al Capone (which a friends dad has), but then again I think it'd not be cool to own something by Charles Manson." -Cicero

That's why I didn't. If I hadn't used his words exactly, it would have been wrong. So, are we honestly to say that using exactly the same words he did is irrelevant to what he was saying?

Also, I don't see how "It would be cool to own = want".

[workingatperfect]

I was using his words exactly. I didn't want to say, "cool", but he did, so I used it, too.

"I think it'd be pretty awesome having a gun owned/used by Al Capone (which a friends dad has), but then again I think it'd not be cool to own something by Charles Manson." -Cicero

That's why I didn't. If I hadn't used his words exactly, it would have been wrong. So, are we honestly to say that using exactly the same words he did is irrelevant to what he was saying?

Also, I don't see how "It would be cool to own = want".

But he wasn't saying that was hypocritical. He was saying it'd be hypocritical to allow people to collect the possessions of one murderer and not another. Or, since we're getting technical here, it'd be hypocritical to say you "can collect" the items of one and not the other.

And typically, when someone is like "Oh, that'd be cool/nice to own" They're practically saying "I want that." It'd be nice to own a car, but I don't want one?

[Quiddity]

But he wasn't saying that was hypocritical. He was saying it'd be hypocritical to allow people to collect the possessions of one murderer and not another. Or, since we're getting technical here, it'd be hypocritical to say you "can collect" the items of one and not the other.

And that's what I commented on.

I think it'd be pretty awesome having a gun owned/used by Al Capone (which a friends dad has), but then again I think it'd not be cool to own something by Charles Manson. But as you know, Al Capone, technically, could be categorized as a murderer. So it'd be hypocritical saying "You can collect Al Capone memborabilia but you can't collect Charles Manson memorabilia."

My first words to this, "That wouldn't be hypocritical."

Then I detailed as to precisely why it was not hypocritical.

Notice the "So" before the "it'd be hypocritical . . ."?
That "So" indicated that the conclusion of the former was the latter, and that's what I went on.

He said before the conclusion:

I think it'd be pretty awesome having a gun owned/used by Al Capone (which a friends dad has), but then again I think it'd not be cool to own something by Charles Manson. But as you know, Al Capone, technically, could be categorized as a murderer.

To this, I responded:

You did not specify that you didn't think it would be 'cool to own' something by Al Capone precisely because he is a murderer, so it would not be hypocritical to collect Al Capone's items and not Charles Manson's, because you never specified the reason for the relationship.

After that, I took it even further and made an assumption in order to show that even if he was to be even more strict in his statements, he still would not have been committing hypocrisy by his later conclusion. I said:

Further, let us say you did specify that it wasn't cool to collect from Charles Manson's items because he's a murderer; this still would have nothing to do with collecting from Al Capone's items even if he's considered a murderer, because collecting a murderer's items does not necessarily mean you are collecting them because he is a murderer, only that you happen to be collecting that one's items and he happens to also be a murderer.

See what I'm saying?

He proposed a conclusion, based on a few premises, and all I said was that his conclusion was not a consequence of his premises, and I used his premises to show this.

His argument was:

1. I think it'd be pretty awesome having a gun owned/used by Al Capone (which a friends dad has),
2. but then again I think it'd not be cool to own something by Charles Manson.
3. But as you know, Al Capone, technically, could be categorized as a murderer.
__________
4. So it'd be hypocritical saying "You can collect Al Capone memborabilia but you can't collect Charles Manson memorabilia."

And the premises do not get us to that conclusion (line #4), for the reasons I provided earlier.

[workingatperfect]

His argument was:

1. I think it'd be pretty awesome having a gun owned/used by Al Capone (which a friends dad has),
2. but then again I think it'd not be cool to own something by Charles Manson.
3. But as you know, Al Capone, technically, could be categorized as a murderer.
__________
4. So it'd be hypocritical saying "You can collect Al Capone memborabilia but you can't collect Charles Manson memorabilia."

And the premises do not get us to that conclusion (line #4), for the reasons I provided earlier.

I do see what you're saying, but all HE was saying was on the one hand, he's ok with Al Capone stuff, while on the other hand, he doesn't think Charles Manson stuff is ok to own. So he has mixed feeling because even though he thinks it'd be nice to have something of Al Capone's, in the end they both killed people, and in each case, victims will get offended. If one is ok, they both are. If one isn't, they both aren't. Otherwise, it'd be hypocritical.

You said:
so it would not be hypocritical to collect Al Capone's items and not Charles Manson's, because you never specified the reason for the relationship.
When the argument at hand was not the collecting itself, but allowing the collecting to happen.

You made it much more complicated than it was meant to be, and this is really such a silly argument lol. I think we've derailed this thread enough, don't you?

[Quiddity]

I do see what you're saying, but all HE was saying was on the one hand, he's ok with Al Capone stuff, while on the other hand, he doesn't think Charles Manson stuff is ok to own. So he has mixed feeling because even though he thinks it'd be nice to have something of Al Capone's, in the end they both killed people, and in each case, victims will get offended. If one is ok, they both are. If one isn't, they both aren't. Otherwise, it'd be hypocritical.

But that underlined piece is where the problem is. If one is okay, this doesn't mean that the other one is. Similarly, if one is not okay, this doesn't mean that the other one isn't as well.

You said:

so it would not be hypocritical to collect Al Capone's items and not Charles Manson's, because you never specified the reason for the relationship.

When the argument at hand was not the collecting itself, but allowing the collecting to happen.

The argument itself was about what he were to say regarding the collecting, and the only possible way saying something about collecting could ever be regarded as hypocritical is if the collecting itself is the act that would be hypocritical. As he said,

I think it'd be pretty awesome having a gun owned/used by Al Capone (which a friends dad has), but then again I think it'd not be cool to own something by Charles Manson. But as you know, Al Capone, technically, could be categorized as a murderer. So it'd be hypocritical saying "You can collect Al Capone memborabilia but you can't collect Charles Manson memorabilia.

The only way that him saying "You can collect Al Capone memborabilia but you can't collect Charles Manson memorabilia."
could be hypocritical is if the act of collecting one and not the other is hypocritical. That's why I said what I did. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and went to the only possible case where what he said could be hypocritical, and saw that it wasn't, even in that case. See what I mean?

You made it much more complicated than it was meant to be, and this is really such a silly argument lol. I think we've derailed this thread enough, don't you?

I say that it is not derailed until it has crashed into the moon.

[workingatperfect]

But that underlined piece is where the problem is. If one is okay, this doesn't mean that the other one is. Similarly, if one is not okay, this doesn't mean that the other one isn't as well.
But for the purpose of this thread (whether or not collecting murder memorabilia should be legal because it offends victims) it does mean that. If you're going to criminalize the buying and selling of murder memorabilia, you must criminalize it all. You can't make an exception because one was a mob boss and one was a serial killer. They're both murderers, end of story, plain and simple.


The argument itself was about what he were to say regarding the collecting, and the only possible way saying something about collecting could ever be regarded as hypocritical is if the collecting itself is the act that would be hypocritical. As he said,



The only way that him saying "You can collect Al Capone memborabilia but you can't collect Charles Manson memorabilia."
could be hypocritical is if the act of collecting one and not the other is hypocritical. That's why I said what I did. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and went to the only possible case where what he said could be hypocritical, and saw that it wasn't, even in that case. See what I mean?

Ahhh, it took me a minute, but I do see your argument now. I still disagree though. One is a personal preference (the act) whereas one is a matter of legality. It's like saying that outlawing all forms of music except one is hypocritical iff listening to just one form of music is hypocritical. Assuming that music offends people, and that's the reason for it being outlawed.

[xmojox]

Why should this be illegal? Not trying to get into a political debate...but honestly, why the hell should the government get involved with, and spend more tax money, on something as trivial as this??

I couldn't agree more. These things are objects, and the owner of an object is free to sell it if he or she wishes to do so. The only way it could possibly be illegal is if the seller obtained the object less than honestly...but wait...that's already against the law, so we don't need special legislation to address it.

[Yonkers]

abcd