Freedom is ...

[myrkul]

No its not better at all.  You literally don't get it.   Good luck. 

You're right, I don't understand your position. Are you arguing that they will not think (correctly) that their lives are in danger? Or that they will not hurt you to stop that danger? Or are you disputing that it's a bad idea?

Myrkul, I'm sorry for calling you a mental nut-case -- I got a little bit stressed as a result of my views disagreeing with your views.

Accepted. I don't mind a little disagreement, that's how progress gets made. Just try not to get stressed over some random stranger being wrong, and your life will be much calmer for it.

In the example of the gunman randomly waving his weapon around and firing shots, what the potential victims 'think' doesn't alter the likelihood of them getting shot. Sure, they could try to intervene and disarm the madman, and that adds another variable to the story. The gunman could protect himself against retaliation by hiding his gun under a coat, or only shooting while hiding in the boot of a car -- does that somehow make his actions more moral? (No, it doesn't.)

No, it doesn't. But regardless of whether or not they actually have any chance of getting shot (you're shooting over their heads, whatever), it's still a bad idea to make them think you are endangering their lives. It's also a bad idea to actually harm anyone. This, however, is for entirely different reasons, and not particularly relevant. Unless you think that the gunman's intent was to harm, rather than just fire some shots randomly, not caring if anyone gets hurt?

I think you should take a holiday from all that Ayn Rand/Objectivism stuff, and maybe try to gain insight by looking into some completely different perspectives like Buddhism or something like that.

What makes you think I haven't examined Buddhism? In fact, I have examined every philosophy I could get my hands on, over the course of several years.

[Dalkore]

You're right, I don't understand your position. Are you arguing that they will not think (correctly) that their lives are in danger? Or that they will not hurt you to stop that danger? Or are you disputing that it's a bad idea?

Now your trying to change what the discussion was about.  Pretty pathetic.   That will not work.

This scenario was about what was going on in the shooter's mind and that is all.   

[myrkul]

You're right, I don't understand your position. Are you arguing that they will not think (correctly) that their lives are in danger? Or that they will not hurt you to stop that danger? Or are you disputing that it's a bad idea?

Now [you're] trying to change what the discussion was about.  Pretty pathetic.   That will not work.

This scenario was about what was going on in the shooter's mind and that is all.   

If it was, this is the first indication of that fact.

It might be wise to re-quote the original post of the discussion:

It is not a victimless crime.  I could shoot a gun in public, randomly waving it about, and not hit a single person, but it's still a bad idea because the CHANCE of hurting another person was increased due to my actions.  The fact that I didn't actually hit anybody doesn't change anything.

You've got it all wrong. It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone, it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. Same goes for speeding.

Seems like the only discussion about what was going on in anyone's mind is about those he's (potentially) shooting at. The shooter's mind isn't discussed at all. So, who is trying to change the topic of discussion?

[FirstAscent]

You've got it all wrong. It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone, it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. Same goes for speeding.

Creepy.

[hazek]

And you think you're smart enough to live without any government...

I am, but I have my doubts about Dalkore.

I did not misread anything, trying reading again.  

lets try that again:
This is why it's a bad idea:

because others might think their lives are in danger

And this is what happens when you act on that bad idea:

they'll hurt you to stop you.

Ok, your discredited as well.  I am done with this, I feel comfortable that Myrkul and Hazek's lack of common sense on something so basic is proof enough that you do not have the capacity to setup AnCap or any other system in a manner that would be beneficial and safe for the people in it.  I am serious.  I'll just let your comments on this stand and people and judge them all they want.  

Me personally, have enough common sense and compassion to know I would not randomly discharge a firearm in public because I would not want to hurt someone, not because someone might hurt me.  

So let me get this straight: You think that to solve a problem that actually exists of people doing stupid shit and endangering others is best solved by them deciding not to do it because they might hurt someone and if they still decide to do it there should be words on a piece of paper that tell them not to do it?

Can you not see the idiocy of this?

And lets not forget that you indirectly hold the exact same position. You want those words on a piece of paper and men in blue costumes with guns to enforce them which also boils down to "don't do it or these men in blue costumes will hurt you" and not some magical utopian "don't do it cause you might hurt someone".


And damn straight this is selfish, how could it not be when your mere existence is selfish if you are honest with yourself.

[myrkul]

You've got it all wrong. It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone, it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. Same goes for speeding.

Creepy.

It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone, it's a bad idea because these men in blue costumes will hurt you to stop you.

Creepy.

[hazek]

Quite scary that the threat of harm against them is what would stop them from randomly firing a gun in public, not that they might hit an innocent.  Scary.

You merely need to look outside to see all the gory evidence of people doing horrendous things to other people simply because they know they are untouchable. I never said it would take a threat of being hurt to stop me personally from endangering others because I actually care about other people but unfortunately not all people do and you can bet your life nothing other than the threat of violence will stop those kind of people.

And by demanding laws and a police force to enforce them you implicitly agree with me!

The only difference between my view and yours is that I want to reserve my freedom to protect myself. I don't need a police force and their rules and I don't agree to be a subject to their rules without my explicit consent. And I don't consent.

[FirstAscent]

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because these men in blue costumes will hurt you to stop you.

Not creepy.

[hazek]

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because these men in blue costumes will hurt you to stop you.

Not creepy.

That's meaningless because those who know they may hurt others and know that hurting others is wrong wont do it, only those who don't know that or don't know they might hurt others will do it therefor it really is just a bad idea because others will hurt you.

[myrkul]

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because these men in blue costumes will hurt you to stop you.

Not creepy.

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you.

Not creepy.

[FirstAscent]

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because these men in blue costumes will hurt you to stop you.

Not creepy.

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. But if those others aren't up to the task of hurting you, it's also a bad idea because men in blue suits will either hurt you and/or try and put you in jail. Best also if you never had a device in the first place which can kill people in a second from hundreds of feet, and kill many people in a group separated by many feet and at a distance in seconds.

Not creepy.

[myrkul]

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because these men in blue costumes will hurt you to stop you.

Not creepy.

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you.

Not creepy.

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. But if those others aren't up to the task of hurting you, it's also a bad idea because men in blue suits will either hurt you and/or try and put you in jail. Best also if you never had a device in the first place which can kill people in a second from hundreds of feet, and kill many people in a group separated by many feet and at a distance in seconds.

Not creepy.

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. But if those others aren't up to the task of hurting you, it's also a bad idea because men in blue suits will either hurt you and/or try and put you in jail. Best also if those other people never had a device in the first place which can hurt you to stop you.

Creepy.

[FirstAscent]

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. But if those others aren't up to the task of hurting you, it's also a bad idea because men in blue suits will either hurt you and/or try and put you in jail. Best also if you never had a device in the first place which can kill people in a second from hundreds of feet, and kill many people in a group separated by many feet and at a distance in seconds.

Not creepy.

Is it OK for some people to have "a device" "which can kill people in a second from hundreds of feet", but not others?

When regulated and trained and employed for the purpose of enforcing laws, yes. But note that countries with strict and effective gun control do not need their law enforcement members to draw and use their guns as often as those in America do.

[myrkul]

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. But if those others aren't up to the task of hurting you, it's also a bad idea because men in blue suits will either hurt you and/or try and put you in jail. Best also if you never had a device in the first place which can kill people in a second from hundreds of feet, and kill many people in a group separated by many feet and at a distance in seconds.

Not creepy.

Is it OK for some people to have "a device" "which can kill people in a second from hundreds of feet", but not others?

When regulated and trained and employed for the purpose of enforcing laws, yes. But note that countries with strict and effective gun control do not need their law enforcement members to draw and use their guns as often as those in America do.

I notice you say "enforcing laws," and not "protecting the citizenry" or even "keeping the peace." I wonder why that is....

[Dalkore]

You're right, I don't understand your position. Are you arguing that they will not think (correctly) that their lives are in danger? Or that they will not hurt you to stop that danger? Or are you disputing that it's a bad idea?

Now [you're] trying to change what the discussion was about.  Pretty pathetic.   That will not work.

This scenario was about what was going on in the shooter's mind and that is all.   

If it was, this is the first indication of that fact.

It might be wise to re-quote the original post of the discussion:

It is not a victimless crime.  I could shoot a gun in public, randomly waving it about, and not hit a single person, but it's still a bad idea because the CHANCE of hurting another person was increased due to my actions.  The fact that I didn't actually hit anybody doesn't change anything.

You've got it all wrong. It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone, it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. Same goes for speeding.

Seems like the only discussion about what was going on in anyone's mind is about those he's (potentially) shooting at. The shooter's mind isn't discussed at all. So, who is trying to change the topic of discussion?

I never said that and that was not the original discussion.  Maybe I need to quote it for you again because your lack of comprehension skill in context.  I have bolded what you preceded to defend in latter comments.

Hazek  - "It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone (this is being spoken as the shooter), it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. "

Above comment was in response to:  "I could shoot a gun in public, randomly waving it about, and not hit a single person, but it's still a bad idea because the CHANCE of hurting another person was increased due to my actions.  The fact that I didn't actually hit anybody doesn't change anything."

[myrkul]

You're right, I don't understand your position. Are you arguing that they will not think (correctly) that their lives are in danger? Or that they will not hurt you to stop that danger? Or are you disputing that it's a bad idea?

Now [you're] trying to change what the discussion was about.  Pretty pathetic.   That will not work.

This scenario was about what was going on in the shooter's mind and that is all.   

If it was, this is the first indication of that fact.

It might be wise to re-quote the original post of the discussion:

It is not a victimless crime.  I could shoot a gun in public, randomly waving it about, and not hit a single person, but it's still a bad idea because the CHANCE of hurting another person was increased due to my actions.  The fact that I didn't actually hit anybody doesn't change anything.

You've got it all wrong. It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone, it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. Same goes for speeding.

Seems like the only discussion about what was going on in anyone's mind is about those he's (potentially) shooting at. The shooter's mind isn't discussed at all. So, who is trying to change the topic of discussion?

I never said that and that was not the original discussion.  Maybe I need to quote it for you again because your lack of comprehension skill in context.  I have bolded what you preceded to defend in latter comments.

Hazek  - "It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone (this is being spoken as the shooter), it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. "

Above comment was in response to:  "I could shoot a gun in public, randomly waving it about, and not hit a single person, but it's still a bad idea because the CHANCE of hurting another person was increased due to my actions.  The fact that I didn't actually hit anybody doesn't change anything."

Hazek's comment was not being spoken as the shooter. It might be being spoken to the shooter, as evinced by the fact he uses "you" instead of "I" or "me," but it's clearly not being said from the point of view of the shooter. Luv2drnkbr's comment, however, was made from the perspective of the shooter, as evinced by the use of "I," and "my." And he never references his state of mind, or intent.

[Schleicher]

What will the second class citizens do when a sicko gets into a position of power, such as the one overseeing all of those regulated and trained law enforcers.

Most of the law enforcers will simply refuse to follow his orders.

[myrkul]

What will the second class citizens do when a sicko gets into a position of power, such as the one overseeing all of those regulated and trained law enforcers.

Most of the law enforcers will simply refuse to follow his orders.

That's an interesting theory. How has that worked in the past?

[FirstAscent]

What will the second class citizens do when a sicko gets into a position of power, such as the one overseeing all of those regulated and trained law enforcers.

Most of the law enforcers will simply refuse to follow his orders.

That's an interesting theory. How has that worked in the past?

Quite well, given a well thought out government. We learn as much and more from the common cases than the outliers.

[myrkul]

What will the second class citizens do when a sicko gets into a position of power, such as the one overseeing all of those regulated and trained law enforcers.

Most of the law enforcers will simply refuse to follow his orders.

That's an interesting theory. How has that worked in the past?

Quite well, given a well thought out government. We learn as much and more from the common cases than the outliers.

Care to present some of those "common cases"?