The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Well, Here are a couple...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Who defines (see in situ)

Well, Here are a couple...

examples of what I am saying. Maybe you could give me a couple examples of what you are saying so that I may understand your position better.

If you are hunting and a stray bullet misses its target and kills my wife in our bed a mile away, you are responsible for recklessly killing my wife by pointing your gun toward my house and pulling the trigger. It does not matter that your intention was to hit your target or even that you didn't see my house when you shot. You should have known the area that you were hunting and took the precautions necesary to ensure that you were not putting others at risk.

I am against DUI laws but I do believe that it is a reckless act and that deterence comes from punishing those that cause harm through this reckless act. 99.999% of people that drive impaired, do not intend to harm anyone when they set of on their journey. I would even go as far as to say that even if you are not impaired, if you are driving at a speed that does not allow you ample time to stop when my kid runs out in the road, you are responsible for recklessly harming my kid.

I don't believe in victimless crimes but these crimes act as a deterence to prevent crimes where victims are created. If you remove victimless crimes but do not punish people that create victims through their reckless act, then there is no deterence and therefore anarchy.

I guess I'm not alone