[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1)Wait a second. You are advocating stricter rules involving the possession of a firearm, not the use. Yet, in this example, you are doing the very opposite. I might be willing to listen to stricter rules regarding improper usage of a firearm(though I'm not sure how much stricter we can get), but your example does nothing to gain support for stricter rules regarding the possession of guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I advocate stricter rules on who should be allowed to own a weapon and on how and where that weapon would be allowed to be kept and used. If I have contradicted myself somewhere in this thread I apolagize.

[ QUOTE ]
2)Well...in a mild version, we have that experiment in place: The USA and the UK. Is there any proof that socialized medicine works better than privatized medicine? I would guess not, I don't know for sure...can someone provide evidence

[/ QUOTE ]

But they are not the two societies I described. They are both regulated. The difference is how they are payed for.

[ QUOTE ]
I would certainly argue that most laws that are preventative in nature are frivolous, and typically, disastrous(prohibition, drug laws).

[/ QUOTE ]

OK argue away. Yes some laws are stupid, some have little or no relevance in todays world, but the law is not a static thing, it changes as society changes and the vast majority of laws reflect and protect society.

[/ QUOTE ]

1)My point of contention is that stricter laws regarding improper usage of guns potentially have value, because they punish the infringement of rights. Mere possession of a firearm infringes no one's rights, and hurts no one, so why should this activity be punished? It is only at the moment that the gun is used improperly that it becomes a problem.

2)Okay...fair enough. But, given the anecdotal evidence surrounding efficiency and competency comparisons of private contractors versus government programs(for instance, the Wollman Skating Rink Project in NYC, as recalled in Donald Trump's Art of the Deal ), I would be inclined to believe that private medicine would fare better due to fair market pressures than regulatory ones.

3)Well...frankly...I think we should punish action, rather than prevent it. I think that a drunk driver hurts no one until he slams into someone else. When that happens, punish him severely, moreso than if he was not drunk, because he is shirking his responsibility that is intrinsic to the freedom he has to drink. But, if nothing happens, and he makes it home safely, then no one's freedoms have been impinged. So, leave him alone.