Who would have ever seen that coming. I mean really, bring a gun to a political event in America and something bad happening, what would have been the odds of that?
Yeah, but it's legal to drink alcohol. But you don't want somebody downing a 40once, while holding a baby doing 70mph down a highway.
(as for why not take a gun into a maternity ward, call me over cautious but anything that could in any way accidentally go off, I (personally) would not want within a few direct feet of my new born baby if I had one. I'm just saying. Accidents will happen, and the best way to prevent accidents, in that scenario, is not to introduce factors were one could occur).
And yeah, I'm sure people can come up with tones of cases where having a gun on you stopped a crime, but others probably could come up with just as many people being shot with their own weapon during the course of a crime too. I'm just saying people making an argument for having them on you automatically equaling the prevention of a crime happening to you is disingenuous. Otherwise states who have the largest pro-gun lobbies would not also be the states with some of the highest gun related crimes.
I'm a practical guy. Just say, I like having me gun because I like having me gun. To me, that's being more honest than giving the I like having my gun because it protects me argument, because if somebody wants to off you, they just have to wait for you to not be paying attention (rarely do people see an attack coming before it actually happens, that's why they are attacks, not announcements).
Of course, I don't want a drunk with a baby driving over the speed limit. But, I don't want a law on the books limiting this. Now, I could try to give a typical libertarian argument, but I don't agree with those. Instead, I prefer to defer to God's Word as the authority and example.
In Scripture, you do not find laws against stupid behavior, even stupid behavior that MAY result in harm to others. Why? Because there are already laws in place covering actual harm.
So, if the drunk with a baby speeding down the highway gets home safely, then great. No harm, no problem.
But, if the drunk gets into a crash and the baby or another person dies, then the drunk is guilty of murder and according to the Law is to be executed.
Now, which is going to be more of a deterrent to me? A law against drunk driving that has a fine or the law that I will be executed if I cause someone to die?
Also, which is more fair? A law prohibiting a stupid behavior because it MIGHT cause harm or a law prescribing harsh and just punishment for harm ACTUALLY caused.
Not to be argumentative, but...isn't that the whole point of a law to begin with? I mean, otherwise, if a law isn't made to stop you from doing something before you do it, they why bother with having any laws to begin with. Not all laws are reactionary, only triggered after something is done.
Even some of God's laws are pro-active and not all post-active.
Let's look at it this way. Every just law has two aspects or views:
(1) Deterrent. The law tells us what is a crime. "You shall not murder". We know the standard and thus know we must not murder.
(2) Punishment. The law tells us what happens when we commit the crime. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." We know that if we murder, we are to be put to executed.
So, we agree. The laws are pro-active in that they are deterrents and they are post-active in that they prescribe the punishment.
But, the question is what are "just laws"? Many of the criminal laws in Scripture are built around "eye for eye". A harm to others is punished through an equivalent harm to self. If I murder, then I am killed. If I steal, then I must restore property. Etc.
Again, when I look at the specific criminal laws, I do not find prohibitions against potentially harmful behavior. Instead, for example in Deut 19, we find the general rule -- a person causing harm by accident is responsible for the loss, but a person causing harm due to avoidable negligence is just as guilty as if they intended the harm. The passage uses the example of a man in the forest cutting down trees and the head of the axe flies off an hit another man who then dies. The first man is not guilty of murder.
So again, is a law against an action that MIGHT cause harm in the same league as a law against an action that ACTUALLY causes harm.
For example, is a law "do not smoke because second hand smoke MIGHT hurt others" in the same league as a law "do not murder"?
How can you apply the rule of justice, "eye or eye", in the case of a potential harm? How do you measure the potential? Isn't the fine for drunk driving purely arbitrary because of the fact it is based on potential action, not actual action?
I hope you are seeing that I advocate just laws; laws that apply to actual actions. It is the laws against potential or against stupidity that I'm not fond of.
(as for why not take a gun into a maternity ward, call me over cautious but anything that could in any way accidentally go off, I (personally) would not want within a few direct feet of my new born baby if I had one. I'm just saying. Accidents will happen, and the best way to prevent accidents, in that scenario, is not to introduce factors were one could occur).
And yeah, I'm sure people can come up with tones of cases where having a gun on you stopped a crime, but others probably could come up with just as many people being shot with their own weapon during the course of a crime too. I'm just saying people making an argument for having them on you automatically equaling the prevention of a crime happening to you is disingenuous. Otherwise states who have the largest pro-gun lobbies would not also be the states with some of the highest gun related crimes.
I'm a practical guy. Just say, I like having me gun because I like having me gun. To me, that's being more honest than giving the I like having my gun because it protects me argument, because if somebody wants to off you, they just have to wait for you to not be paying attention (rarely do people see an attack coming before it actually happens, that's why they are attacks, not announcements).
Reply
In Scripture, you do not find laws against stupid behavior, even stupid behavior that MAY result in harm to others. Why? Because there are already laws in place covering actual harm.
So, if the drunk with a baby speeding down the highway gets home safely, then great. No harm, no problem.
But, if the drunk gets into a crash and the baby or another person dies, then the drunk is guilty of murder and according to the Law is to be executed.
Now, which is going to be more of a deterrent to me? A law against drunk driving that has a fine or the law that I will be executed if I cause someone to die?
Also, which is more fair? A law prohibiting a stupid behavior because it MIGHT cause harm or a law prescribing harsh and just punishment for harm ACTUALLY caused.
Reply
Even some of God's laws are pro-active and not all post-active.
Reply
(1) Deterrent. The law tells us what is a crime. "You shall not murder". We know the standard and thus know we must not murder.
(2) Punishment. The law tells us what happens when we commit the crime. "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." We know that if we murder, we are to be put to executed.
So, we agree. The laws are pro-active in that they are deterrents and they are post-active in that they prescribe the punishment.
But, the question is what are "just laws"? Many of the criminal laws in Scripture are built around "eye for eye". A harm to others is punished through an equivalent harm to self. If I murder, then I am killed. If I steal, then I must restore property. Etc.
Again, when I look at the specific criminal laws, I do not find prohibitions against potentially harmful behavior. Instead, for example in Deut 19, we find the general rule -- a person causing harm by accident is responsible for the loss, but a person causing harm due to avoidable negligence is just as guilty as if they intended the harm. The passage uses the example of a man in the forest cutting down trees and the head of the axe flies off an hit another man who then dies. The first man is not guilty of murder.
So again, is a law against an action that MIGHT cause harm in the same league as a law against an action that ACTUALLY causes harm.
For example, is a law "do not smoke because second hand smoke MIGHT hurt others" in the same league as a law "do not murder"?
How can you apply the rule of justice, "eye or eye", in the case of a potential harm? How do you measure the potential? Isn't the fine for drunk driving purely arbitrary because of the fact it is based on potential action, not actual action?
I hope you are seeing that I advocate just laws; laws that apply to actual actions. It is the laws against potential or against stupidity that I'm not fond of.
Reply
Leave a comment