First, I would like to say that this is not an attempt to change anybody’s mind on whom, or for what reasons a person should be prohibited from owning a firearm. I am merely presenting my opinion. If after understanding my premise, and my conclusions, you still disagree, that is your decision; it’s your right. If you understand, and by your understanding choose to expand the boundaries in which you view the discussion, then I have not wasted my time.
Second, I want to reassure you that I am in no way an anarchist. I believe that good and just laws are the basis of civilized society. Further, I believe that it is the responsibility of our representative government to enact and enforce laws that are not only good and just, but also necessary. However, I am fully convinced that our government – at all levels – has over-reached that mandate. Also, although I know it’s not possible, in a perfect world, one law should suffice; “Do no harm.”
So you propose that DUI is no longer a crime; but if that DUI results in vehicular homicide, the perpetrator ought to be charged with second-degree murder (effectively, unplanned murder - 25 years to life in prison).
This is an example of something that doesn't necessarily harm anyone no longer being a crime. However, if it does end up harming someone, the penalty would be only a bit more serious (as a DUI resulting in a death right now would generally result in around 10 years' imprisonment, depending on specifics to the case). Is this italicized statement a correct interpretation of your perspective?
In general, yes, that is a fair assessment of my position. The simple act of driving while impaired, no matter the cause of the impairment, should not be grounds for legal punishment. (For the sake of the bigger discussion, I will forgo debate about what specific penalties I think would be appropriate if/when harm is done.) My basis for this is twofold.
First: In general, I believe that every individual has the right – the freedom - to choose their own actions, as long as those actions are not harmful to others. Notice that I did not say as long as those actions ‘pose no danger’ to others. This is a very important distinction. The mere act of driving a car poses some danger to other individuals, as does the act of maintaining possession of a loaded firearm. Yet, if a person is responsible, and maintains control, these actions are found to be acceptable (as it should be). However, if, while a person is in control of either their car, or their firearm, harm befalls another individual due to their actions, or lack thereof, such actions are (and very well should be) punishable acts, with the term of the punishment based on two criteria: intent to cause harm, and severity of harm caused.
Second: Specifically, I see no substantial difference between various causes of impairment while driving. Use of a cell phone has been shown to impair driving as much as having a Blood Alcohol Content of .08. (Consider this. Right now, it is highly likely that there are substantially more people driving while talking on a cell phone than there are people driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.) And, the level of impairment related to texting is even higher. Reading a map, eating, dealing with unruly children, changing radio stations, casually conversing with passengers, arguing with a spouse, and a myriad other choices made by drivers each cause varying degrees of impairment. And each of these choices is the root cause of many accidents on our roadways every day. Yet, the penalties for impaired driving typically only include the punishment for the use of drugs or alcohol. Looking at the evidence, I have yet to be able to conclude that one particular type of impairment is somehow worse than other types that provide the same tragic results. Yet, this is the leap that one must make in order to support current DUI laws based on an arbitrary BAC level.
So you believe that choosing to drive while intoxicated becomes an abuse of freedom only if something bad happens as a result of the choice you made. If that's true, then you need to explain what happened to make that choice an abuse of freedom. The problem is that can't be done, because it requires you to work backward with one-way logic. An action cannot be changed by it's reaction - it's one way only; Action causes reaction, and the reaction has no effect on the action that caused it.
I believe that you misunderstand my position here. I do not believe that a choice to (fill in the blank) can somehow
become an abuse of freedom. The choice
IS the freedom. The negative effects of making that choice should be considered evidence that a person has made a poor choice; evidence that a person has abused his freedom; evidence that a person must be punished.
Similarly, the result of the choice has no impact on the choice itself, it's simply a reaction to an action. Therefore, the result of the choice can't have any effect on whether or not we call it an abuse of freedom; we can only measure the initial action itself, without regard to the consequence.
Example:
Suppose I throw a hammer into the air ten times. If it hits my coworker in the head just once, my independent choice to throw it that specific time can't automagically become an abuse of my freedom. Rather, if there's even a chance that it could hit him at all, then choosing to throw it even one time is already an abuse of my freedom.
Let me provide a counter example:
Say, in order to determine if what looks like an abandoned hornet nest hanging on a tree near my property line is actually an active nest, I pick up a stick and poke it. In this case, no hornets come out, and the nearby neighbor does not get stung. Therefore, there should be no punishment for my actions, because there was no harm, and no intent to cause harm. Note that the fact that although there was no harm, that does not mean that poking the hornet’s nest was without risk. Neither does it mean that I made a good choice when I decided to pick up a stick and poke a hornet’s nest, although maybe such an action was justified in this case.
But, if I know my neighbor is nearby, and my decision to poke the nest causes him to get stung, the situation changes. In this case, although there was still no intent to cause harm to the neighbor, he was in fact harmed. Maybe the punishment is slight, or even dismissed entirely because the harm is so minimal. But, what if the neighbor dies of anaphylactic shock? And what if I knew he was allergic to hornet stings? And what if I had just gotten in a fight with him because he was flirting with my wife? Each of these changes in the scenario makes a difference in the appropriate punishment, even as the original action of poking a hornet’s nest remains the same.
The point of all this, of course, is to go back and address texasgun's statement in post #127: "if you get caught driving drunk a few times ... you made multiple horrible personal decisions which impact others."
I agreed with texasgun on this point. I am not of the opinion that any decision that does not cause harm is a good decision. Sometimes, when the risk of harm is great, and the reward for the making a particular decision is small, making that decision is a bad choice, even if it works out OK. But, I cannot accept the argument that just making a high risk decision is worth punishment. Everybody must choose for themselves whether the reward is worth the risk. And, everybody must accept the consequences if the results of that decision aren’t what was expected. That is what freedom is.
You agree that this is a horrible decision, yet ask for an explanation as to how that decision effects others. The answer is that it doesn't, but that fact is irrelevant in determining the proper response. Simply making the choice to drive drunk is already an abuse of one's freedom because we know the potential negative outcome, and therefore the individual ought to be reprimanded.
Here is the basic point where we differ philosophically. I don’t believe that the assertion that someone has caused no harm, but should be punished because they have the potential to cause harm, is irrelevant at all. I think that this point is exceedingly relevant. In fact, I believe that this particular point is the basis of our freedom; the cornerstone of our civilization.
Moreover, related specifically to this thread, I believe that this point is clearly the foundation upon which we defend our right to keep and bear arms. We gun owners do not dispute that firearms are dangerous when misused or abused. We do not claim that carrying firearms in public poses no risk. Rather, we assert that we have a right to possess and carry firearms in our homes, cars, and public places, even when the potential for unintended harm is well documented – even when the results of their misuse can be, and often are staggering.
In fact, gun owners typically agree that firearms are carried for the sole purpose of causing harm if and/or when we decide such harm is warranted. And, we even go so far as to insist that our government cannot punish us for making a decision to carry based solely on the clear risks that carrying a firearm poses. Rather, we assert time and again that they cannot make us criminals for simply possessing or carrying such a dangerous item. Instead, we accept the fact that risks exist, and we insist that individuals that cause harm with firearms be punished, unless they can justify their decision to cause harm to a jury of their peers.
What is more fair (or just, if you prefer)? Giving Jon Smith the death penalty because he killed another person on accident; or giving Jon Smith a punishment because he could have killed someone on accident? Which do you think Jon would prefer? Which do you think his victim would prefer?
These are not the only options. Nor are they mutually exclusive. So picking one over the other is impossible. But, I will say this. I believe it is better that ten guilty walk free than to deny liberty and freedom to one innocent.
It's the same reason we spank our children for playing in the street. Would it be better to wait for them to get hit by a car, and then say they deserved it? A person who makes a decision that could harm or kill an innocent and unsuspecting third party needs to have his behavior corrected. It's foolish to wait until the behavior has caused irreparable damage.
Children have a limited frame of reference regarding what is right and wrong, what is good or bad, and what is helpful or harmful. Teaching them these differences is the responsibility of the parent, and I would expect no less.
However, as adult citizens, the government is not our nanny. It is not the government’s responsibility to provide lessons in right and wrong whenever we look like we are about to make a bad decision. Rather, it is the government’s responsibility to enact and enforce laws that are good and just; laws that provide the ability for people to exercise freedom, while also providing for the punishment of those that bring harm to others. And, it is the individual's responsibility to exercise their freedom in a way that does not bring harm to others, and to accept the punishment if they don't.
