Laser pointers banned after attacks

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
...
Once Big G starts telling you what you need, they don't stop.


Big G in the US (which in the end is just you and me) started telling people what to do 231 years ago. And we're still one of (if not the) free-est places in the world. A ban on killer laser cannons isn't going to change that.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Hey, ek, I don't necessarily disagree with you ..out of necessity. ...
There are two ultimate solutions. One is to breed and foster better citizens. The other is to enforce restrictions to liberties.
...


Gary, understand and appreciate your point. I'd suggest that we should BOTH 1) do all we can to breed and foster better citizens, AND 2) enforce minimal restrictions, especially upon things and actions that have little or no potential for benefit, and great downside risk for harm. These laser cannons are an almost perfect example of the latter.

Here's a "food for thought" question to test the issue: Should we repeal all restrictions against the murder of other human beings, simply trusting the populace to do the right thing, so that we may preserve maximum freedom to do whatever people want to do??? Our criminal laws severely restrict our ability to beat the poo out of (or eliminate altogether) our obnoxious neighbors and co-workers. Anyone think such laws unduly restrict our freedom of choice?

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
[Here's a "food for thought" question to test the issue: Should we repeal all restrictions against the murder of other human beings, simply trusting the populace to do the right thing, so that we may preserve maximum freedom to do whatever people want to do???


I appreciate the triple question mark which shows your confusion.

Your example and comparison are faulty. Murder is illegal, no matter how it is committed. I don't see you call for a restriction on the ban of any implement that can conceivably be used to commit murder. You are focused on "laser cannons."

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
And we're still one of (if not the) free-est places in the world.

Would you agree that we are significantly less free than we used to be? The slope gets slippery.

Quote:
Should we repeal all restrictions against the murder of other human beings,

Invalid comparison IMHO. You are comparing banning an inanimate object that MIGHT be used for evil, vs. the actual ACTIONS of a living breathing person wronging another living breathing person.

 

[Julian]

Quote:
I'm still waiting for someone to articulate a legitimate use for one of these laser canons that can permanently blind someone in, well, an eyeblink.
Intentionally, permanently blinding someone in an eye blink. That's a legitimate use. Playing around with a laser near your friend and accidentally blinding them is a legitimate use. Since we're apparently not connecting on this, legitimate basically = possible in my book. The pilot of the aircraft could use his fingers to down an aircraft full of innocent people, and the pilot of an aircraft could use his fingers to down his aircraft into a ship of innocent people. The pilot of an aircraft could intentionally or accidentally down an aircraft to kill only himself. Or, the pilot could fly the plane of people (are they all "innocent"? "innocent" of what?) with his fingers. That's a legitimate use. You know how you can prevent the downing of aircraft with laser pointers with "100% effectiveness"? Remove all aircraft. Or just take the wings off. Can you do that with your fingers?

Quote:
EDIT: Oh yeah, it doesn't have to be a dozen, or any particular number. Being able to blind one person, unseen from afar, is bad enough.
I'm glad we (sort of) apparently agree on that.

 

[ekpolk]

Temp, Mori:

No, no, no -- you both missed the real point there. The laser cannon has no beneficial use (despite my "challenge," no one has been able to articulate one...), and can only really be used for destroying others (OK, maybe other things too).

My triple question mark reveals no confusion at all. In fact, murder isn't always illegal at all. If you plead valid self defense, for example, you're admitting that you committed murder, but you're adding that you had a legal justification for doing so.

The distinction you guys are trying to draw is meaningless here. I'm talking about the gov't prohibiting SOMETHING (be it the possession of an item or the commission of an act -- and don't forget, the possession is itself just an "act", just like killing is). The arguments against restricting laser cannons so far have all relied upon a supposition that one gov't restriction will lead to another, and thus, we shouldn't. So we're talking about the RESTRICTIONS, not specifically what's being RESTRICTED. No, I'm not focussed on laser cannons -- that just happens to be the subject of this thread. I'm simply saying that despite my belief in minimal gov't intrusion into private life, I'm very comfortable with banning these particular devices.

But let's turn back to laser cannons. Still, no one has suggested any positive, beneficial use to which one of these devices might be put (killing plane loads of innocent people doesn't count). And which might justify their sale and possession to the public at large.

OK, let's try this counter-example: should Wal-Mart be permitted to sell plutonium to the public? Forget ricin, Plutonium is the most toxic substance on the earth, pound-for-pound. If we're not going to trust the "Big G" to do some regulation, why not open the door to plutonium sales to the public, and just trust everyone to do the right thing? This is probably a better example than my last, since it relates specifically to an object (some plutonium) versus a behavior. And while plutonium has beneficial uses (unlike laser canons), there is no beneficial use for an individual (assuming we're not running home reactors). And arguably, it has a far greater mass killing potential than a laser cannon.

 

[ekpolk]

Originally Posted By: Julian
...Intentionally, permanently blinding someone in an eye blink. That's a legitimate use. Playing around with a laser near your friend and accidentally blinding them is a legitimate use. ...


No Julian, those AREN'T legitimate uses. The first is an intentional crime, and the second would be a reckless crime. Both crimes, not legitimate uses at all. Are you suggesting that deciding to blind the pilot of an airliner, and ultimately killing him and all his passengers, is "legitimate"?

Maybe I missed something in three years of law school, and fifteen years of criminal law practice, but if you can explain how FELONY CRIMES = LEGITIMATE ACTS*, I'm all ears. . .

*excluding, of course, valid self-defense, defense of others, or defense of property.

 

[Gary Allan]

Again, you're confusing freedom (chaos) with liberties. We surrendered freedom for assured liberties. That much we all should agree on. What's happening is the erosion of those liberties out of presumed "necessity".

You're also freely exchanging killing with murder. One can kill someone and not murder them. You also can't carry a murder around with you when you decide to commit one.

"I'm pulling my murder card out of my wallet now!"

or

"I've got two murders in the stash in case I decide to use them".

 

[Julian]

You're thinking like a lawyer (you're forgiven

). Have those same laws always existed? In all places (new and old nations, islands, picnic areas, barren wastelands, war zones) ?

 

[Julian]

Originally Posted By: ekpolk
No Julian, those AREN'T legitimate uses. The first is an intentional crime, and the second would be a reckless crime. Both crimes, not legitimate uses at all.
Sometimes crime pays.

 

[moribundman]

I never said I wasn't for regulation, but consider we live in a country where enforcement of even simple traffic laws is lax, not to say utterly atrocious. The leagl output of laser for sale to the public is already regulated, although import of lasers exceeding restrictions of power output is essentially uncontrolled. Banning won't do anything. If anything, a ban will make the "laser cannon" more attractive and desirable: a must-have item for just those people who you don't want to get their hands on one.

Holography and astronomy would be two peaceful hobby applications for lasers that don't necessarily fall into the relatively low risk Class 1 and Class 2 categories.

Any laser emitting device with output exceeding 5 mW is by legal definition not a "laser pointer." At what point a laser is powerful enough to be called a "laser cannon" I don't know.

PS: Murder is always a crime, killing isn't necessarily one.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
you're admitting that you committed murder, but you're adding that you had a legal justification for doing so.

As Gary stated, you are lumping together murder with killing in self defense. I don't believe the 2 are related.

Quote:
the possession is itself just an "act", just like killing is

Then a person guilty of running someone over with a car should also be charged with possessing and brandishing a weapon where as someone who does not commit a crime with a vehicle should not be? That is the complication. Design and use are 2 very different things.

Plutonium? As you state, it is inherently dangerous. Set it in front of you on your desk and you (and many around you) will die a slow, horrible death. It takes NO ACTION on your part to be dangerous, and the danger cannot be easily directed. The same is basically true for poison gas (as was brought up earlier).

 

[Julian]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Design and use are 2 very different things.
Says you.

I still think my "consumption" and "production" model is best. You will be asstimulated. Resistance is futile.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Julian
You're thinking like a lawyer (you're forgiven

). Have those same laws always existed? In all places (new and old nations, islands, picnic areas, barren wastelands, war zones) ?


Only for the last thousand years or so in common law jurisdictions.

An intentional injury that impairs one's ability to fight offensively or defensively was mayhem. A non martial intentional injury would be a battery.

Both likely exist in some form by statute in all modern jurisdictions.

Criminal use as the sole justification for these devices? I believe you have made the point perfectly.

 

[sprintman]

Gary I have lived in seven countries Phillipines, England, Singapore, Germany, Scotland, Holland, Australia and visited seven others, Switzerland, France, Belgium, India, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Tahiti/Bora Bora, New Zealand. Which one of us is 'green'

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
As Gary stated, you are lumping together murder with killing in self defense. I don't believe the 2 are related.


The intentional killing of another person is murder. It may be justifiable murder by self defense, choice of evils, or some other statutory justification depending on the jurisdiction, but it's up to the defendant to offer evidence the charged murder was justifiable.

Any defense of justification is a tacit admission of the charged offense.

 

[Julian]

Quote:
Criminal use as the sole justification for these devices? I believe you have made the point perfectly
Man, you got me. The only desirable uses of an object for any given person are functions which the majority of their society deems undesirable. I submit myself for cleansing.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: sprintman
Gary I have lived in seven countries Phillipines, England, Singapore, Germany, Scotland, Holland, Australia and visited seven others, Switzerland, France, Belgium, India, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Tahiti/Bora Bora, New Zealand. Which one of us is 'green'


Bt yr livin' 'n Oz now, mate n uoo eat fray ranj cheekn's


..just funning you, sprintman. No aggressive (Ogessif - crock hunter RIP)/offensive intentions here

 

[Julian]

Originally Posted By: Win
Any defense of justification is a tacit admission of the charged offense.
Do you attempt to justify your actions to stop them (or enable them)?

 

[oilyriser]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
You do realize that we already have banned books (some from OZ) that are deemed propaganda and that we aren't allowed to read here due to this type of thinking.


Are you serious? What books are banned in the US now?



Perhaps pilots could simply wear laser safety glasses that filter out the unique wavelength put out by the laser pointers, and they would never have to worry about them again.

The criminals who *want* to take down planes will always be able to obtain laser pointers if they really want to.