Re: Personal safety laws

Bama Brian wrote:
> Aaron wrote:
>> Bama Brian wrote:
>> > Aaron wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> >> The world is much more of a gray area than "nanny-state" or "no
>> >> nanny-state." There is such a thing as "compromise" and "balance" in
>> >> laws as in all things.
>> >
>> > Will you then set up checkpoints in every road and check every driver
>> > for inebriation? Is that "compromise"? If it saves just one child...
>> >
>> > Nanny-state laws are tyranny in action. People should be punished for
>> > what they DO, not for what they might do.
>> >
>>
>> No, that isn't what I am suggesting *at all*. You are taking my
>> statements to a fanatical level. When I say "balance" and "compromise,"
>> I don't mean shackle everyone in America and beat them with the law
>> books until blood comes out of their eyes.
>>
>> When did I say that I would support such invasive procedures as
>> checkpoints? I suggest that our road safety laws merely also include
>> behaviors such as driving tired; behaviors that are observable on the
>> road by an enforcement officer. I do *not* support throwing away just
>> cause.
>
> There's a problem with observable behaviors. Everyone has moments of
> inattentivity, which can, and does, trigger police intervention.
> Sometimes the police intervention is set off by little things, such as
> "driving while black".
>
> But I agree that if a car is swerving back and forth on the road - and
> keeps it up - that a cop is justified in pulling it over. Of course,
> some folks are smart enough to pull over when they've got a problem.
> There is no call whatsoever for a cop to cite a driver for "drunken
> driving" when he finds a driver sleeping it off while legally parked.

I would never suggest that someone could be ticketed, arrested, or fined
for sleeping in their car, nor that upon being found in such a state
that an officer might be given the right to test their sobriety. That is
the same as your example of people being arrested in a bar for drinking
and driving when some of them might very well be walking home.

A friend of mine told me a story about another friend of theirs who was
apparently ticketed for *riding his bike* while drunk. Now, I know there
are "public drunkenness" laws (and we can debate the idiocy of said laws
another time), but how is a drunk kid riding his bike home in the middle
of the night a danger to anyone? It is precisely this kind of action
that infuriates me.

>> >> As the argument goes, if I walk into a Kindergarten classroom and
>> empty
>> >> the entire magazine of a Glock 16 without looking, but I hit not
>> >> a
>> soul,
>> >> should I not be punished? Is this not an instance of bad behavior
>> to be
>> >> made an example of?
>> >
>> > Did you see the recent video of the DEA agent who had an "accidental
>> > discharge" with his Glock during a demonstration in a classroom? He
>> > might have been reprimanded after the fact, although I don't know it -
>> > but if it was you or I, we'd be buried under the jail. This is a
>> pretty
>> > clear example of anarcho-tyranny, where the ruling class arbitrarily
>> > decides what laws are valid, and to whom they apply. BTW, the
>> agent did
>> > subsequently sue the TV station that released the video for harm to
>> his
>> > professional career!
>>
>> This is a perfect example of exactly what is wrong with the American
>> government. Abuse of power is repulsive, and our litigious way of life
>> is damaging to everyone.
>>
>> >
>> > But I digress. Your example of discharging a firearm in a
>> classroom is
>> > a Strawman argument. There ARE laws concerning this already,
>> regardless
>> > of the shooter's intent.
>>
>> It isn't a strawman, it's another example of bad behavior with no injury
>> or fatality. My point being that the laws you mention that are in place
>> to protect people against the mindless discharge of firearms (regardless
>> of actual harm done) should be put in place to protect people from
>> mindlessly bad driving (e.g. under the influence of alcohol, or
>> tiredness, or trying to read a book at the same time), even if the
>> driver hasn't hit anyone yet.
>>
>> Before you explode on another fanatical rant, let me be absolutely
>> clear: the drivers punished for these actions shall be discovered by the
>> observation of their behaviors, e.g. weaving back and forth on the road,
>> *not* by some broad-reaching network of government-operated checkpoints.
>
> "explode on another fanatical rant". Do be careful when addressing
> others with emotion-laden phrases. It will help you to lose the
> argument, since such phrases are an indirect form of the Ad Hominem
> argumentative fallacy.

I was emotion-laden. Your last couple of responses have been
significantly less fanatical, if that is any consolation. I am not here
to win an argument, but merely to bring to light some of my own opinions and
encourage open discussion of matters that I think are important to
society.

>
> As to your point of observable behavior, I do agree. But such is the
> case with discharging a firearm in a room full of kids. That, too, is
> observable behavior and is a clear risk to the public safety.

Agreed.

>
> But I draw the line with nanny-state laws that say that because a nut
> case might come into that classroom and cut loose with a .45, then no
> citizen (except careless DEA agents!) can be allowed to carry a firearm
> into a classroom. This is nothing other than the nanny-state at its
> worst protecting us all from something that a citizen MIGHT do.

I support Second Amendment rights and I tend to agree with the basic
idea that if everyone has guns, there will actually be fewer gun-related
fatalities. I do support limited gun control, as I don't believe that
judiciously executed gun control prevents any private citizen from
exercising his Second Amendment rights (and that's another discussion
entirely; gun control in America is frightfully complicated), but I also
support the right of any American to carry firearms for their own
safety. The media has engendered such fear of guns in all of us that I
believe very few teachers, for example, upon being asked if they would
consider carrying a weapon after Columbine, would say Yes.

>
> BTW, despite the laws in place "protecting" Columbine High School, the
> place got shot up pretty badly. In doing so, the shooters violated some
> 21 local, state, and federal laws. But if one or more teachers had been
> armed, perhaps the tragedy would not have been so awful. There is such
> a case on record where a teacher retrieved his firearm from his car and
> faced down a high school shooter - West Virginia, IIRC.

I saw the footage, I read the articles. It is a sad state of affairs
when any teacher has to "face down" any student, both of them armed.
Nevertheless, the outcome is preferable to a multiple murder.

>
> I think we're pretty much together on behaviors that are obviously
> dangerous to others, so long as these behaviors are clearly
> demonstrable. Where we differ is in having laws that restrict freedoms
> for something that someone might do. Such laws too easily become
> anarcho-tyranny, and then full tyranny, all in the guise of public safety.

I can see clear to agree on all points. My primary item of discussion
was on removing the distinctions between various causes of behaviors and
punishing them (the *behaviors*) equally. Tired driving versus drunken
driving was the example I gave.

Public safety is the most often given excuse for the stripping away of
individual freedoms, and in most cases there is no defensible reasoning.

>
> <SNIP>
>
> Cheers,
> Bama Brian
> Libertarian

--
Aaron

"Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems
good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the
rest." -- John Stuart Mill
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Personal safety laws
    ... > Nanny-state laws are tyranny in action. ... behaviors such as driving tired; behaviors that are observable on the ... There is no call whatsoever for a cop to cite a driver for "drunken driving" when he finds a driver sleeping it off while legally parked. ... But such is the case with discharging a firearm in a room full of kids. ...
    (talk.politics.libertarian)
  • Re: Personal safety laws
    ... >>> Out in California, some years back, a sixteen year old driver killed ... It is only possible to pass laws which concern the ... >>>> in which it is the responsibility of every individual to secure their ... I am a huge supporter of better licensing standards. ...
    (talk.politics.libertarian)
  • Re: Rich Ks "Let all students carry guns"
    ... How is that done by the driver? ... Drivers licenses are handed out like S&H green stamps, ... Actually the majority of states now have reasonable CCW laws, ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Driver Licensing not about highway safety
    ... what you claim Driver Licensing tests do isn't what I ... Licensing does NOTHING for highway safety that laws against ... Their sure prosecution for Endangerment if they do is what ...
    (rec.travel.usa-canada)
  • Re: Why is the Driver Automatically the Bad Guy?
    ... driver violates one of the same laws that they habitually ignore, ... Has a bicycle rider ever killed or even injured a motorist by blowing a stop ... I've had a driver threaten ... Had I just blown the stop sign the confrontation wouldn't have ...
    (rec.autos.driving)