Guns and freedom

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, by that argument the actual act of shooting doesn't hurt anyone, either. It's when you aim at people that people get hurt.

Thank you for pointing that out David. Pointing a gun at someone can indeed be very hurtful. It's downright terrifying. That was the point you were making wasn't it?

[David Floyd]

Thank you for pointing that out David. Pointing a gun at someone can indeed be very hurtful. It's downright terrifying. That was the point you were making wasn't it?

No. Generally, I don't consider "emotional damage" to be the same as violating someone's rights. Otherwise, we'd have to illegalize divorce and all sorts of things.

However, pointing a gun at someone with the intent to coerce them into doing something should certainly be illegal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Doc... it's Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, isn't it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No. Generally, I don't consider "emotional damage" to be the same as violating someone's rights.

Severe emotional damage is a tort action though.

[David Floyd]

It certainly is. But ask anyone who has been left and they will tell you that divorce inflicts "severe emotional damage". Yet should divorce be illegal?

[monkspider]

I wonder how many people would still oppose gun control if the founding fathers never included the second ammendment?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Divorce is not intentionally designed to inflict emotional damage. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress require different things for recovery. Negligent Infliction of Emotitional Distress requires another charge for it to piggyback upon.

[David Floyd]

I'd still oppose it on the grounds of property rights - and actually in my view the 2nd Amendment is fairly superfluous. Guns seem to be protected under the 9th Amendment and general property rights (not to mention natural property rights).

[Boris Godunov]

It can be argued that divorce will prevent further infiction of emotional distress. That's certainly the way I see it.

[David Floyd]

Divorce is not intentionally designed to inflict emotional damage

Good point, but aiming a gun at someone, or humiliating them, in order to get them to do what you want isn't intentionally causing emotional damage, except in the context that the action was intentional and the likely result of the action was emotional damage.

I know what you're saying, though. My main point is that I tend to stay away from arguments about emotional damage, because that is so hard to measure in terms of actual damage to a person ("waaaa waaaa he called me a bad name" isn't emotional damage, for example).

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by monkspider
I wonder how many people would still oppose gun control if the founding fathers never included the second ammendment?

I'd venture it would be a lot less. The whole coming into existance of the US (including, in part, the second amendment) is a huge factor. Look at us in Canada - we gained our independence in a peaceful way, have no equivalent of the second amendment, and have way fewer guns/debates about gun control. Not to say that we have none of either, just way, way less.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Good point, but aiming a gun at someone, or humiliating them, in order to get them to do what you want isn't intentionally causing emotional damage, except in the context that the action was intentional and the likely result of the action was emotional damage.

That's enough to assert Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

My main point is that I tend to stay away from arguments about emotional damage, because that is so hard to measure in terms of actual damage to a person

Courts have to do it all the time.

[David Floyd]

Courts have to do it all the time.

Not the Court of David. Judge Floyd just tells them to get over it and move on.

Well, actually not, I'm just saying I'm not gonna get bogged down arguing emotional distress because I'm not a psychologist or anything of the sort. I just fail to see "emotional distress" the same as violating one's property rights, for example.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not the Court of David.

Seeing that one of them doesn't exist, I don't care what it would say .

just fail to see "emotional distress" the same as violating one's property rights, for example.

Emotional Distress might cause problems to a mental state of a person. The ultimate property is the person's mind and body.

[David Floyd]

Emotional Distress might cause problems to a mental state of a person.

I suppose, but wouldn't you agree that severe emotional distress is usually the result of some other violation of liberty?

Shouting at someone seems quite unlikely to cause the type of emotional distress you're talking about, wouldn't you say?