Quote from: myrkul on August 21, 2012, 09:20:52 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on August 21, 2012, 09:00:58 PM

In other words, as the high speed driver passes another inattentive slower speed driver, the slower driver can change lanes suddenly and unexpectedly cutting off the high speed driver, and leaving the high speed driver without enough time or traction to avoid the collision.

You make a good point, but in that instance, the accident wouldn't even be the speeder's fault. The speeder was paying attention. The idiot in the other car cut him off. If you honestly think that anyone getting on a highway isn't aware that there are other drivers out there who go faster than the speed limit, you have less brains rattling around in your head than the moron who changes lanes without looking.

I'd argue that fault lies with both in such a situation. I don't think that most people aren't aware that some drivers exceed the speed limit, but that doesn't prevent high speed accidents from occurring every day.

Quote from: myrkul on August 21, 2012, 09:20:52 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on August 21, 2012, 09:00:58 PM

Quote from: myrkul on August 21, 2012, 08:41:46 PM

Of course, to avoid being confused for a criminal, he should make it very clear that this pubic park is about to become a shooting range.

So, given your response, it seems that to avoid being confused for a criminal, the high speed driver should make it very clear that the public road is about to become a high speed race track? Why is it that the shooter 's right to shoot supersedes the children's right to play?

There's no superseding going on here. Those rights can (and on public property, must) co-exist. If you would like to prevent all possibility of a shooter doing some target practice, play at a privately owned park. Likewise, if you want to do some target practice without taking the risk of shooting some little kids, go plink at a privately owned gun range.

I'm impressed with your consistent opinion on the matter and can certainly respect that. Unfortunately I can't agree with your viewpoint. I doubt any amount of conversation will ever bring either of us around to the other's point of view on such a matter. In my opinion, society can collectively own a piece of land, and can through law determine uses for that land that they find acceptable. Perhaps it needs to be a majority, or a super majority, or 95%, but at some level, the local community should be able to protect intended use.

Quote from: myrkul on August 21, 2012, 09:20:52 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on August 21, 2012, 09:00:58 PM

Quote from: myrkul on August 21, 2012, 08:41:46 PM

I am not saying that either person should be able to avoid the consequences of his actions. But to punish someone before there are consequences is like charging you with murder because you might kill someone.

So if I understand this correctly, the law should never be able to prevent risky actions that have a significant chance of injuring others. It should always be acceptable for an individual to decide by themselves how much risk everyone else can be exposed to? I should be legally allowed to increase your risk of death as high as I want, and should be punished until/unless I actually injure or kill you?

Remember that risk is a two-way street. There are very few ways you can greatly increase my risk of death without my implicit consent. If I wish to avoid the risk of speeders on the highway, I should stay off the highway. If I would like to avoid the risk of my children getting shot, I should not let them play on (even temporary) shooting ranges.

Again I respect your opinion, but personally disagree. I feel that it is extreme to say that there are very few ways one person can greatly increase another's risk of death without implicit consent, and even if it is true should I be allowed to choose that level of risk for both of us? Should there be no limit on how much risk I can place you at as long as I'm willing to accept nearly identical risk for myself?