selling raw foods are a felony

milk , raw almonds

even possessing raw almonds

where is it illegal to sell raw food?

are you talking about the REQUIREMENTS involved in order to sell it?

or are you implying its illegal period....?

You are right, having a gun doesn't mean you will never be a victim. But a loaded weapon will always be a better deterent than a new law or harsher penalties.

and a better risk of 'innocent' people being harmed or dying than a new law too,,,,

Cite?

What study are you referring to that illustrates that there are greater risks associated with innocents being harmed by the lawful usage of a defensive firearm?

Cost benefit is the proper analysis so make sure you subtract all of the people who successfully defend themselves from attack without any "innocents being harmed" from the total of accidental injury. If you come up with a huge negative number then you have your answer.

Or are you just assuming? I think you are just assuming.

you asked

"What study are you referring to that illustrates that there are greater risks associated with innocents being harmed by the lawful usage of a defensive firearm? "


my statement was in response to this statement
"But a loaded weapon will always be a better deterent than a new law or harsher penalties.'



the comparison is between a loaded weapon and 'laws'
my conclusion is a common sense one,, unless you know of some study that shows 'laws' have killed more people than bullets,,,,

Laws have more negative impacts than just killing, so does the misuse of firearms.

However that is really not the important question. The important question is how effective is a firearm at deterring crime vs no firearm for protection.
Cost benefit.

Law however is a very different sort of deterrent, it is abstract. Nothing abstract about seeing a firearm and knowing it can be used against you if you attack the person.

There is no greater penalty than death.
Murder is the ultimate crime with the ultimate punishment.
Felony Stalking is a lesser crime than murder, with a lesser punishment.
If you are contemplating murder and willing to accept the possibility of being caught, then why would felony stalking deter you?

It wouldn't, so in actuality it has 0 deterrent factor.
Compare that to the possibility of being shot and killed by a defensive firearm.

Not even close.

Now your position makes perfect sense once you realize that under no circumstances would you arm yourself.
Since that is true, no matter how ineffective the deterrent of a law would actually be, it is better than nothing which is what you are left with given your unyielding decision to go unarmed.

This is true of all Anti2A, anti gun, anti personal responsibility liberals. Where are our moderate liberals who understand personal responsibility and do not want to create feel good laws.

Im not anti gun, I just dont choose to have a gun or allow anyone who can pay for one to have one. Im not anti personal responsibility,,,not even sure where that fits in here actually,

BUT being in jail is a GREAT DETERRENT to causing the death of law abiding citizens. A felony puts people behind bars, keeping the risk of their taking such a citizens life much less likely....

But is it JUST to jail someone who would have never trespassed, or assaulted, or murdered, just becuase they cant get over a relationship in the time span you want? Or if you guys broke up on bad terms and they just want to try to smooth things over, your done, but they are not? Stalking is far too amorphous of a claim, with few tangible characteristics that are not protected by basic rights.

It seems to me there is a wide range of behaviors which are NOT criminal that would be made criminal, or COULD be made criminal by extending such laws and for arguably no deterrent value.

Cost benefit indeed. The cost to society, and justice is too high for the minuscule potential benefit.

The deterrent to murder can be no greater than life in prison, or death row, for premeditated murder, or death/injury from a defensive firearm.

ie it makes no logical sense to support laws with lesser penalties that would criminalize citizens with normal social interactions and run of the mill domestic issues where no one is harmed.

Personal responsibility comes into play when a person wants the government to protect them vs they themselves being responsible for there own protection.

Good to know. I think they misworded the part. As it stands, it means anyone can make any rule into law, if they caugh up the fifty thousand bucks.

I think what they wanted to say was the issue will be debated by the state legistlative bodies, if some money is put up up-front, but the payment guarantees only a deliberation, not a purchase price of the guaranteed and uncontested creation of a possbile new felony.

people need to read their perspective states stalker laws to see if there is a difference between stalking and just wanting to 'smooth things over'.

here is the law for nevada

http://www.baddteddy.com/stalkers/stalker_laws.htm#nevada


its actually odd that in the case of stalking what 'could happen' shouldnt matter, but in cases of copyright infringement what 'could happen' should be a significant deterrent against passing infringement laws,,,,


as stated before, Im all for preventive measure as opposed to reactionary as long as it falls within reason and common sense...

Anyone get that link to work?

Lol, in both cases I am against adding laws, I see no inconsistency in my position. Both are about the injustice that can occur and for little to no deterrent value.

It is easy to understand my perspective. Liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government.

try this one

http://www.baddteddy.com/

I see the site, I am just uninterested in looking around, direct link please to the page.

I found this, which seems more functional.

http://www.ncvc.org/src/AGP.Net/Components/DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=41531

thats true, in the case of stalking your position to not add seems to be based in the idea that its silly to create a law based on what 'could happen'

and in the case of SOPA your position to not add seems to be based in the idea that what 'could happen' is reason enough to not add a law

so, consistent in aversion to laws,

but not consistent in how much weight what 'could happen' should be given

Far too many subjective appeals to reasonableness and appeals to fear for my liking.

Laws like these are exactly the problem with the current state of the US.
This is EXACTLY what I mean when I say no personal responsibility.

Fear is personal. Fearing for your life in an encounter in which you have no control is the ultimate fear.

Personal responsibility enter into the equation when you take charge to gain control over both the situation, and subsequently the fear.

Laws try to facilitate this control via the government, ie you are not personally responsibly for taking control, you are asking the government to take responsibility to take control.

The burden of proof is high for stalking laws becuase of the possibility of injustice and abuse. This creates a situation were in many cases unless an explicit threat has been issued and can be proven the government has no ability to affect control over the cause of the fear.

Depending on someone else (no less the government) to take control of your fear has to be the most desperate, and most ineffective means to that end ever devised.

You will have to explain this better my dear, I want to call it nonsense.

certainly, when I say how much weight, Im referring to how significant a factor it is considered to be

in the case of SOPA law, what COULD happen if the law is passed (Even if not explicitly in the law) seems to be significant enough to not support the law

in the case of Stalking law, what COULD happen (in terms of potential for stalking to progress into more serious or harmful offense) doesnt seem to be significant enough to support the law


IN case one,, POSSIBLE scenarios carry alot of WEIGHT towards your position

in case two....POSSIBLE scenarios dont carry much WEIGHT towards your position

I Think the root of the debate is ones personal position about laws in general

some people prefer survival of the fittest, sink or swim, culture
and consider laws a way of avoiding 'personal responsibility'

others prefer law and 'order' and consider survival of the fittest suitable for animals and not humans, who they hold to a higher consciousness...

I understand both philosophies/points of view

I hold the latter,,,,

I Think the root of the debate is ones personal position about laws in general

some people prefer survival of the fittest, sink or swim, culture
and consider laws a way of avoiding 'personal responsibility'

others prefer law and 'order' and consider survival of the fittest suitable for animals and not humans, who they hold to a higher consciousness...

I understand both philosophies/points of view

I hold the latter,,,,

Wow. So I am a eugenicist becuase I think you should handle your own problems. I am going to ignore that becuase it has nothing to do with my position. I think its a bit of projection from the evolution thread, but whatever . . .

In the OP, she had been assaulted by this guy. She should have armed herself, learned to use a firearm, AND continued to press charges.

In that scenario you have a person taking personal responsibility for there actions, for there own safety, and to seek justice for ACTUAL harms committed against her person and her rights.

In SOPA, I am also for personal responsibility. The person who owns the property, IP, copyrights is responsible for policing there own content, determining that the IP rights have been violated and then seek redress through the system by suing the person they allege is violating there copy rights.

In both cases the opposition to my position wants someone else to be responsible.

In the case of the stalker laws, its the government being responsible for protection from poeple who harrass you, threaten you, and generally wont leave you alone.

In SOPA is it the IP holders who want the responsibility of policing rights violations to be on content sites and not themselves. The punishments are designed to be severe and as such would remove the desire for the content sites to engage in both legal, and illegal uses of copyrighted materials.

Consistent through and through without any vague notions of "weight" of possible scenarios, whatever that means . . . you have still not made that clear.

I am not anti law, I am pro simple clear law.