No victim, no crime?

[dross]

So, next time you are at Eagle Creek and are downrange switching targets its cool if I go hot and light you up just so long as I don't hit you, right? I mean, no one's property rights are being violated and I didn't actually shoot you.

I don't think you have thought through what your new absolute principle does to ATTMEPTED murder/rape/theft/robbery etc.

Joe

I don't think anyone is saying that a willful or negligent act should be legal as long as no one is harmed. If I try to kill you but miss my shot, there is definitely a victim. If I shoot downrange while others are there and I know about it, I'm negligently endangering their lives. These things are crimes.

If I go 85 in a 75, that's not necessarily a criminally dangerous act, though it could be depending on other circumstances.

 

[rambone]

So, next time you are at Eagle Creek and are downrange switching targets its cool if I go hot and light you up just so long as I don't hit you, right? I mean, no one's property rights are being violated and I didn't actually shoot you.

I don't think you have thought through what your new absolute principle does to ATTMEPTED murder/rape/theft/robbery etc.

Joe

Why on earth would Attempted Murder suddenly be legal?

Attempting to victimize someone should be punished. Minding your own business should not be punished.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Most attempted murder cases actually involve some form of assault, and then intent of the act is used to define it as attempted murder or not.

Taking a shot at someone is rarely defined as attempted murder, unless you can be proven to be willfully trying to kill the person.

This is done by establishing means and motive to the crime.

Also, just because some actions wouldn't be illegal, such as shooting "near" someone, it doesn't mean that action is without consequence.

If you're shooting near me, even if it's just as a prank, then I can shoot you dead, because I had a reasonable fear for my life. This is the essence of self defense. Someone doesn't have to break a law or land a round on you before you can make them DRT.

 

[Fargo]

It is amazing what is coming out of the woodwork here...

Dude, you neg rep me for pointing out the absurdity of the logical conclusion of your argument?



Try the below for tips to help coping.

Midol - for Relief of your Menstrual Symptoms

Joe

 

[ATF Consumer]

Dude, you neg rep me for pointing out the absurdity of the logical conclusion of your argument?



Try the below for tips to help coping.

Midol - for Relief of your Menstrual Symptoms

Joe

How can one be a dude and require Midol?

 

[rambone]

Dude, you neg rep me for pointing out the absurdity of the logical conclusion of your argument?

You really didn't point out anything. You used a false example to try and poke holes in the premise of this thread.

No, you can't shoot at people in a system of properly limited government. Just like you can't shoot at a person's house, just like you can't molest children.

Any more bogus arguments to try and justify unlimited government?

P.S. You can still be a victim of a crime without having bullet holes in you.

 

[Fargo]

How can one be a dude and require Midol?

That seems to be a question only you can answer...

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Dude, you neg rep me for pointing out the absurdity of the logical conclusion of your argument?



Try the below for tips to help coping.

Midol - for Relief of your Menstrual Symptoms

Joe

Ah, whining about negative rep. I saw no absurd logical conclusions except in your posts wherein you detail your absurd fear of freedom, and others' similar posts.

 

[Fargo]

Ah, whining about negative rep. I saw no absurd logical conclusions except in your posts wherein you detail your absurd fear of freedom, and others' similar posts.

Yeah, cause the below is going to work out so well:

Shooting in the direction of another's property is endangering others, but that is not where the crime has fallen, it is violating the property space of the individual that should count.

Yup, endangering innocent others with a firearm should not be a crime UNLESS you interfere with their property? G'luck with that.

Speed should not have anything to do it...damage to person or property is all that should matter. I really don't care what level of sobriety or how fast someone is driving...it is the punishment for the damage that should count...all the other factors are reason to lesson the punishment and that is wrong in my book.

Yeah, once again it makes no difference how many innocents you endanger, nothing should be done until you run one over.

Here is a fabulous idea: why don't you all get together and start your own society where you can get as drunk as you want while driving as fast as you want while you shoot at whoever you want on your own property.


I think that will solve all your problems, DARWIN STYLE... Heck, you'll have killed each other off so fast that there won't even be anyone left to try or incarcerate you.

Joe

 

[Fargo]

No, you can't shoot at people in a system of properly limited government.

Yes you can, dammit, ATF Consumer told me I could. I just have to make sure I do it on my own property or at the range:

Originally Posted by ATF Consumer
Shooting in the direction of another's property is endangering others, but that is not where the crime has fallen, it is violating the property space of the individual that should count.

Joe

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Fargo, I think you fail to realize that you can't make it illegal to be dangerously stupid. All you can do is make the destructive results of dangerous stupidity illegal & punishable.

Honestly, if it were illegal to be dangerously stupid, everyone who voted for McCain or Obama in 2008 should be prosecuted.

 

[Fargo]

Fargo, I think you fail to realize that you can't make it illegal to be dangerously stupid.

Ummm, the Indiana Code begs to differ. Drunk Driving, Criminal Recklessness with a Firearm, etc are all still illegal....

 

[Indy317]

Again, make that obnoxious drunk accountable for his actions, pay for damage and so on...no need to penalize others that can control themselves while being drunk. If victim-less crimes are removed from being crimes, enforcing other laws would be what we would want the police to do anyway...right?

If people could wonder out drunk without any fear, they would do so on a constant basis. I good % have no money, no insurance, nothing...but yet the victim is supposed to "make that obnoxious drunk accountable for his actions, pay for damage and so on." I didn't know so many window repair companies and auto body repair shops took food stamps.

 

[dross]

Fargo, I think you fail to realize that you can't make it illegal to be dangerously stupid. All you can do is make the destructive results of dangerous stupidity illegal & punishable.

Honestly, if it were illegal to be dangerously stupid, everyone who voted for McCain or Obama in 2008 should be prosecuted.

Well, I voted for McCain, so I guess I'm dangerously stupid.

Damn, I was shooting for dangerous and mysterious, with a charming devil-may-care demeanor that's irrisistible to the ladies. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

Seriously, I get your position on the sameness of the two parties. I've always shown respect for that position, and while you might not agree, my reasons for choosing what I see as the lesser of two evils are anything but stupid.

Statements like that make enemies out of friends.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Well, I voted for McCain, so I guess I'm dangerously stupid.

Damn, I was shooting for dangerous and mysterious, with a charming devil-may-care demeanor that's irrisistible to the ladies. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

Seriously, I get your position on the sameness of the two parties. I've always shown respect for that position, and while you might not agree, my reasons for choosing what I see as the lesser of two evils are anything but stupid.

Statements like that make enemies out of friends.

Both paths lead to fiscal irresponsibility & unnecessary war. Sounds pretty dangerous to me...

Perhaps I should have instead said, "Honestly, if it were illegal to be dangerously stupid, everyone who wholeheartedly voted for McCain or Obama in 2008, expecting the results to include prosperity & liberty, should be prosecuted."

Anyhow...people make stupid & dangerous decisions all of the time. Should people be prosecuted for negligent discharges of their firearms in their homes even if it just burrows into the crawl-space or goes through the wall but doesn't kill anyone or damage a neighbor's property? Fargo's argument seems to say that they should be prosecuted because of the POTENTIAL for harm.

 

[rambone]

Yes you can, dammit, ATF Consumer told me I could. I just have to make sure I do it on my own property or at the range:

Yeah well we are debating laws that do not yet exist. Sorry you got confused.

I contend that shooting at a person is still victimizing them. Just like holding a knife to someone's throat - and not cutting them - is still victimizing them.

Hope this clears it up for ya. Or you can keep taking your best shot at defending Big Government.

 

[ATOMonkey]

If people could wonder out drunk without any fear, they would do so on a constant basis. I good % have no money, no insurance, nothing...but yet the victim is supposed to "make that obnoxious drunk accountable for his actions, pay for damage and so on." I didn't know so many window repair companies and auto body repair shops took food stamps.

If people could carry a gun without any fear, they'd be shooting up the streets and blah blah blah blah....

Society doesn't need a law to determine what is proper behavior. In fact, many of the laws we have are the RESULT of societal norms, not the other way around.

 

[Fargo]

Yeah well we are debating laws that do not yet exist. Sorry you got confused.

I'm not confused at all, ATF is the guy who said it was OK.

I contend that shooting at a person is still victimizing them. Just like holding a knife to someone's throat - and not cutting them - is still victimizing them.

Cool, I definately agree. Once again, it is ATF who says he doesn't unless you somehow violate their property rights.

Hope this clears it up for ya. Or you can keep taking your best shot at defending Big Government

Nothing needs clearing up. I still think ATF's principle is wrong when taken as an absolute. "Victim" is relevant but not the sole decider of the legality of an action. I agree we are over-legislated but superimposing this absolute "actual victim" requirement isn't the solution.

Convincing people to take responsibility for themselves is the ONLY solution to achieving de-legislation.

The funny thing is that I kinda sympathize with libertarians insofar as I'm a "keep the government out of things" kind of guy.

Where we drastically diverge is that they seem to think that the absence of law is what makes society better. I think that a society can get away with fewer laws only if the people in that society make themselves better, ie behave responsibly and morally.

IMO, with the exception of the conquered, people generally get precisely the government they deserve. Those who will not rule themselves will inevitably be ruled by other.

Libertarians seems to usually miss that part about ruling themselves first before getting rid of laws. ATF does this by thinking that extreme punishment will actually alter behavior rather than having to change the hearts/minds of the people.

ATF's position is actually frighteningly authoritarian.

Joe

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Where we drastically diverge is that they seem to think that the absence of law is what makes society better. I think that a society can get away with fewer laws only if the people in that society make themselves better, ie behave responsibly and morally.

I believe that our strict laws & the innumerable intrusions of our government are the reasons our society's morals & senses of responsibility are breaking down. As more & more laws were passed & as public schools w/out necessary parental involvement were created, our society's morals steadily declined. A society which only behaves for fear of punitive action isn't a very healthy one.

IMO, with the exception of the conquered, people generally get precisely the government they deserve. Those who will not rule themselves will inevitably be ruled by other.

Libertarians seems to usually miss that part about ruling themselves first before getting rid of laws.

I think I missed your entire point here. Are you saying that if we don't set up an iron-fisted government, that one will be created against our will anyhow? So, you're for strict authoritarianism?

 

[rambone]

I'm not confused at all, ATF is the guy who said it was OK.

Cool, I definately agree. Once again, it is ATF who says he doesn't unless you somehow violate their property rights.

Well before Congressman ATFConsumer & I sit down and draft this legislation, we will be sure to get on the same page regarding these things.

So are you saying you agree with the version of this idea that I have presented?

Nothing needs clearing up. I still think ATF's principle is wrong when taken as an absolute. "Victim" is relevant but not the sole decider of the legality of an action. I agree we are over-legislated but superimposing this absolute "actual victim" requirement isn't the solution.

Right now "victim" remains undefined.

Convincing people to take responsibility for themselves is the ONLY solution to achieving de-legislation.

Have you considered the possibility that the only way people are going to rise up and become self-sufficient, responsible, and non-dependent people is if we repeal the web of nanny-state laws?

It is precisely that web of laws that has turned our country into a bunch of sheep. Some of them defend Big Government without even realizing it.

We survived without these ridiculous laws before, and we can do it again.