I must say that this entire discussion has been..... interesting.
If you wish to continue, I ask only that you ascribe to me the best of intentions and take part in an honest, reasoned conversation and I likewise will do the same. I rarely see things in terms of "winning v losing"... expecially not in a discussion about which I have no pre-concieved notion of what view is right or wrong... or even if after some level of agreement there even is a "right or wrong".
The reason that I did not ask if "fear" could be a part of a definition of "harm" is because I was wondering what YOU considered as "harm". You used the word, and in that use must be an
operational definition.
For example, some may argue that "harm" only includes physical aspects... I hit you, you are "harmed". But if I only stand there and call you names, no "actual" harm takes place... am I correct?
But then, I posed the situation where I commit some public property damage... no physical damage to anyone, but definitely damage to inanimate objects such as a flag, pole, etc. So if YOU (or anyone else) believe I have caused "harm" in my scenario, then I need to know that and, if so and we can concede that point,we have expanded harm to include this attribute, too.
Going further... although one may believe that the Antis are full of b.s when they say they have :fear"... let's say they do hold this
belief. For argument's sake, can't we at least pretend that they honestly do consider "fear" or "belief of physical injury" part of the equation... and then discover if that is valid?
So, indulge me by returning back to the question: Is fear a "harm"? If you think it MAY be in some situations, then that information is helpful for the discussion too. I really do want to know...
So, in a nutshell:
Is physical damage to a human harm... (I think we have answered this one in the affirmative, but if you don't think so, we can go back)
Is property damage harm... seems arguable...
Is "fear" a "harm"... perhaps arguable, too. Perhaps we could call it a belief... ie a belief someone will cause one of the two aforementioned acts which may constitute harm. You decide.
So, in essence, can the
exercise of a person's rights (let's limit it to those listed in the US Bill of Rights for now) be infringed/punished/limited? I think you have answered with a yes to the physical damage... but can the other two notions (property damage and a "belief that either physical damage and property damage are imminent or probable") regarding harm be added?
Isn't the last one where the issue really lies... we see the wearing of a firearm as something that is a right but the anti's see it as an indication that either injury or death is immenent or at the very least, probable?
Isn't this belief in an increased probability of death or injury also ostensibly why the state makes drunk driving illegal, why the state makes assault illegal, and why some claim that yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal... that the probability of harm is raised to such a degree that the law must step in and limit the EXCERCISE of some right?
Remember, by admitting that this is the ostensible reason that the government feels it necessary to make laws (protect individuals from a probable harm), I AM NOT saying I agree with this line of reasoning... just asking if it could be argued that the "probable harm"( ie a belief) is used to support such laws, correctly or not.