A crime must have a victim. You can't say "society" is a victim - prove it! The burden of proof must always rest on the accuser. I can easily produce ten people who would say "I was not harmed in any way by this gentleman's speeding" just as easily as you could produce ten that say "society has been hurt by this fellow who didn't actually hurt any individual human being!". What do you have to go on at that point? Consensus? Where does that lead?
The moral hazard exists in the fact that I have a gun pointed at my face that says I must pay for these things whether I use them or not, and then another gun pointed at my face saying that, if I do decide to use them, I must use them in this specific way, even though nobody actually owns them, and that if I don't conform my behavior to these things over which I have no say, and nobody has a demonstrable moral right to attempt to impose in the first place, it is a "crime".
WTF? I'm having a difficult time finding any meaning in your last "sentence". I
think you are saying that the act of creating a law against the actions of the shooter is the crime, but I'm really not certain. Lets try this one more time. Simple question, requesting simple yes/no answer:
There are many children playing in a public park designed for children. A shooter sets up targets at one side of the park, then proceeds to the opposite side of the park and begins shooting his high powered rifle through the park at the targets. Up until the moment where he accidentally shoots a child, in your personal opinion, is this shooter committing a crime?