OK, let's not charge an intoxicated person with violating a law who shoots at someone but misses because, hey, no one was actually injured. Once again, this is NOTwhat i'm saying. Sorry to make "not" so big, but I want to be sure that people are seeing that I'm NOT saying these things. I don't know how I can state my opinion of this more clearly... but I will try:
1) Without ACTION that ENDANGERS others, charging someone with a crime is BS. In order for a crime to be committed, there must be a victim or property damage.
2) Driving while drunk creates victims because the ACTION of driving while drunk endangers others. However, carrying car keys while drunk doesn't create any victims. Who's in danger if you're carrying keys to your car, but your car is parked in the lot while you're inside the bar?
3) Carrying while drunk doesn't create any victims because no ACTION has been taken. Carrying a gun while drunk is a lot like carrying car keys while drunk. They can only endanger others, thus creating victims, if you decide to use them that way.
4) Pulling a gun on someone, drunk or not, without justifiable cause is a crime.
But people do not take responsibility for their actions. Yes and no. I'll agree that many people try to AVOID responsibility for their actions, but I believe the overwhelming majority end up ACCEPTING responsibility for them. Case and point: Ever get a traffic ticket that you fought, but lost, in court? If not, then just play along with me and say "Yes, Veritas, I have." You may try to AVOID that responsibility, but when you lose and pay the fine, you ACCEPT it. There are going to be exceptions to this rule for those who work through the system and find a way to use it to their advantage (the hot coffee plaintiff, for instance). But let's not legislate the masses into bondage because a few people are irresponsible. How many people have used firearms in an irresponsible manner? The layperson could say, "Many have." But a realist would say, "Many more HAVEN'T". The layperson's solution to "fixing" the problem might be to ban all firearms to keep them out of the hands of the few... thus punshing the rights of the many. I don't mean to sound cold-hearted when I say this... but I believe that American civil liberties are more important than making any special interest group feel warm and fuzzy inside.
If 99.9% of the laws currently on the books were tossed, I think it would not make a wit difference for most people. However, within almost any group there are those that the fear of legal recourse is all that stops them from robbing a store or assaulting another person (or driving drunk, or carrying a firearm while obviously intoxicated). That's just the way it is. Agreed. But in the same token, there are also those who don't give a rats butt what laws are on the books and go about their business anyway. Is the answer to pass more laws that restrict those who abide by them? What does that accomplish when the REAL criminals don't subscribe to the rules of society anyway? The negative of less legislation does not outweigh the negative of more legislation, in my opinion. If I'm going to be subject to crime, I'd rather be subject to crime as a free man.
The issue of "economics" was brought up. Although a valuable science when dealing with things that have a monetary value, the problem with looking at issues through an "economic lens" is really in how what we are dealing with has some "value". I brought economics up. I don't understand this statement, however. Please elaborate. I truly am interested in seeing your perspective.
For example, let's say I am asked to watch my children while my wife does some shopping. During this time, I decide that I really need to run to my office to pick up some work I've left there, so I decide to leave my children (age 6 and 4) at home while I take a quick drive to my office. Upon coming home I am met in the driveway by a very upset (angry) spouse. My comment to her is that, hey, I figured there was only a 1 in 10,000 chance that something would happen, so I decided it was "worth it"... Does she have a right to be angry? Yes. Anyone has the right to be angry about anything.
What is the "worth it" when it comes to HER children's safety... perhaps "one in a million" would be acceptable? Economics, as a science, would quickly do a cost/benefit analysis and at some point find that my trip was "worth it". I don't think my spouse would agree that anything as trivial as a quick run to my office would be "worth it" especially when the the potential exists for her child being hurt or killed. (Especially since I could mitigate the whole issue by just not going until she returns). I'm trying real hard to follow you here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm reading it like this: You're saying that endangering your children (by leaving them unattended) for the purpose of profit is not worth the slim margin that something would actually happen to them? If this, indeed, the point you're making then I say: Duh... I agree. I don't believe human life and money belong on the same playing field.
Likewise, is there a point that carrying a firearm while intoxicated is "worth it". This is an apples to orangutans comparison. First of all, I don't want you to confuse my comments about the economics of government fines with risk analysis. Money can be at risk, but not all risks involve money.
On the subject of carrying while intoxicated, I'm not suggesting that there is any economic benefit to doing so. What I'm saying is that I BELIEVE (my opinion) that many laws, including the law that says you can't carry while drinking, is a means for the government to further legislate (read: CONTROL) the American populace. I do not believe it has anything to do with PUBLIC SAFETY.
Using the car key analogy again... and I'm asking you to please open your mind to this: "If I drink and carry car keys, but do not ever use the car keys, am I a danger?"
Now... simply replace the words "car keys" with "firearm". If your answer changes from "No" to "Yes", then I think we can agree that you're arguing just to argue. The fact that you're merely CARRYING means nothing until you decide to USE.
If public safety, and not firearm restriction, were the true caveat here... then why can people walk out of bars with car keys in their hand? I mean, logically speaking, if keys are in their hand, then a prudent person could assume they intend to use them to start a vehicle. And yet, as the law is written, that person is guilty of NOTHING until they enter the vehicle.
The stark reality is that "overall safety" doesn't seam to be the primary concern. Officers are looking for the easy prey... the people who are weaving, speeding, rolling stop signs, etc. They're not usually looking to see who's leaving the bar with keys in their hand. The reality is that probably 90% or more of the people pulling out of that parking lot have the propensity to create danger, but nearly ALL of them go unchecked by officers.
Now tell me again why someone can leave a bar parking lot in front of a cop and not get pulled over (unless they swerve or something), but you can go to jail, no questions asked, if you blow .07 while carrying a firearm... even if that firearm is unloaded. Please don't tell me it's "safety". It's control.
