Democratic congresswoman shot in Arizona.

[Kasz216]

WereKitten said:

Kasz216 said:

It's not really a matter of a slippery slope arguement, as that in of itself is the problem I have with socialized things.  You need to infringe on peoples rights as a rule just to make the numbers work financially. (And even then....)

It doesn't matter how trivial or pointless a personal freedom is, it's a personal freedom. 

No law should ever be imposed that infringes on anothers right, unless it prevents a direct threat.  Even if it's a freedom that has no advantage to anyone or reason.  Like say, the freedom to stab yourself in the foot.  Not to mention all the cuts it leads to elsewhere.  Not to mention the other cuts.  Like say, not fully funding health and science ventures because all it will do is baloon medical expenses and goverment pensions and goverment social security.

Also, I'm not sure you can call the romanian revolution a legal one.  It afterall did come about thanks to a bunch of illegal rioting.  But in general, weaponry does give regular people leverage in both legal and illegal revolutions and preventing dictatorships... because the case for opression is going to be harder to make because it will be harder.

As soon as there's two people interacting, the concept of personal freedom has to be clarified. Once again, if you stab yourself in the foot on a desrt island, it's your own bleeding and sepsis you're facing. If you stab your own foot on a street in NY you'll probably distress onlookers and grab some time out of some policeman's schedule, some resources in an ER, maybe some time for a psychiatric evaluation. All resources that could be used to fix and prevent actual accidents and unwilling behaviours.

Law is all about defining the fuzzy, overlapping bounduaries of rights, the keyword here being defining - an intellectual human activity. To think that rights exist a priori and the law has to stop on their hard bounduary is a nice, clean, naive thought.

When it comes to arms, I'm pretty sure you don't think citizens should have the right to secretly build explosives in their backyard, just in case they need the expertise for a rightworthy revolution. Because they would endanger their neighbours and kids, for a very questionable payoff. Well, having guns in every home endangers the lives of even the neighbour who doesn't own one: it escalates the risk of a burglar being prone to preemtive violence, it increases the risk of children getting their hands on guns, it increases the risk of a third party being involved into shooting for futile motives.

You may think that it's worth the cost, but you're paying it against the right of a burglar to not be shot in the face while stealing a TV, the right to the safety of your kids, the right to not be killed by a gunshot while walking by the door of a fighting couple. It's not a yes/no discrete situation, a right being adamantly observed or utterly trampled: in a community we assess risks, and we pay with small amounts of our saftey and liberty all the time to gain other new liberties. Tradeoffs is what a community is about - wrinkles on your shirt included.

A) A burgler has no right to not be shot in the face.  If someone is breaking into someone elses house, they've basically forfeited all rights they have by illegally breaking in and threating someones private space.

B) Two people don't intersect until there is actual interaction.  Taking the above example...

1) Distressing people on the street.  A non arguement, as anything on the street could distress people.  Two gay people making out on the street would distress people for example. 

2) Why would it grab time out of a policeman's schedule?  You stabbed yourself in the foot you haven't committed a crime.  If by stabbing yourself in the foot and then you need a policeman to help you to the hospital or something... then you should be charged for use of said policeman since the wound was self inflicted.

3) Resources in the ER.  This is why we pay for medical treatment.  The government shouldn't be paying for someone stabbing themselves in the foot or someones lung cancer who smokes cigarettes.

4) Psyche Evaluation.  Again, this is why we pay for medical treatment.

C) Any resulting action that causes trouble, for example someone being careless with their gun and a kid accidently shoots someone would in fact be a crime of course.  It's neglect letting a kid get ahold of your guns or to store explosives near residential areas.

D) The fact that some people will make mistakes is in fact the "price of freedom." however the right to make mistakes is again a natural freedom that shouldn't be infringed.

E) Heck, gun control laws?  Cigarettes are way more costly to society to them, and are much more likely to effect people due to second hand smoke, including smokers children.   Fast Food is more costly and deadly to society, including defenseless children who grow up on it.  There are numerous things more dangerous and costly to society that we wouldn't think of banning.  Heck the above are more dangerous then someones rights to stab themself in the foot!  Which is in general the problem again with such freedom restricting laws. 

They are mostly arbitrary... look at the ban on violent videogames in some countries for example.  There is no proof of ANY negative effect... and yet...

Politicans don't ban things for public good.  They ban things for popularity's sake.