> Last experiment. Same as above, but you take your foot off the break and drive home without incident, observing traffic signs and not harming anyone or their property. Is that a crime, or a pre-crime?

Its a crime, generally, as soon as you are driving on a public road at above the legal limit.

(And, incidentally, its "brake". "Break" is a word, but not the word you are looking for.)

> If you answered "it's all crimes because you can't drive drunk because there's laws" then you've accepted prosecuting made-up pre-crimes.

All crimes are "made-up", but its not a pre-crime (which is a prediction of a future violation of a criminal law), but an actual defined prohibited act.

> In my opinion, you have to actually do some damage to be a criminal.

You are entitled to your opinion of what should and should not be a crime, but it probably doesn't help discussing those to redefine the word "crime" to mean "thing that EdSharkey thinks should be a crime" and "pre-crime" to mean "actual violation of criminal law that EdSharkey doesn't think should be a crime".

> As I predicted, you are okay with prosecuting victimless crimes

I've described what is a crime, not what should be a crime.

> In any case, we're on a slippery slope conditioning the masses for control.

Maybe, but essentially regulatory, preventive offenses like drunk driving aren't new, so its hard to describe a "slippery slope" based on their existence. I mean, that type of offense has been around in the systems from which the US systems descend longer than the US itself has been around; if its a slippery slope, where is the slipping?

> I wonder what's next, jail time for prohibited speech and later prohibited thoughts?

While there has been some mixed results, I think the long-term trend in the time that regulatory, preventive, offenses have been around has been toward greater protection for speech and conscience, not less. So I don't see those things as likely to be what's next -- though, certainly, they do get proposed from time to time, and have even been enforced. (The use of the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act during the Red Scare, for instance.)

> Am I really entitled to my opinion, though?

Yes.

> It sounds like I probably shouldn't be entitled to an opinion due to my dangerous ideas.

"Sounds like" based on...what actual thing that's been argued in this thread?

> (BTW, you had a run-on sentence there. You probably want to break that up so that others don't nitpick you parenthetically [...])

I don't mind parenthetical corrections, but I think if you go and diagram that sentence out you'll realize that its just long, not a run-on.

Mechanically thinking, you are right. There are drunk driving laws and you probably had a long sentence, not a run-on one.

I wasn't mechanistic in my thinking though, you know what I'm saying? I was making a point, did you grok it?

So if I shoot at you and miss, it's all good, right? No harm, no foul!

> You get liquored up beyond the set legal limit, you get in your car, put the key in the ignition, and start the engine.

Not a crime.

> you put it into gear and keep your foot on the brakes.

A crime.

In the first case you are not driving. In the second case you absolutely, unambiguously are driving.

It's not a crime because you might kill someone, it's a crime because it has been defined as such in legislation. The legislation exists because you might kill someone.

Law is arbitrary because it has to be. And we have picked this arbitrary line because society broadly agrees that this line makes the most sense.

> In my opinion, you have to actually do some damage to be a criminal.

Then I'm very glad you don't have control over the law. I don't want drunk people to drive because I drive on the road, my family drives and travels on the road, my friends drive and travel on the road.

> Not a crime

Afaik most jurisdictions would consider that "in control" of the motor vehicle and thus operating it under the influence of alcohol, and thus a crime.

In Australia I don't think the engine even has to be running, I think keys in the ignition are enough to show "control" and thus charge you.

Correct. If you're drunk in the driver's seat on a public roadway (say, street parking in front of a bar), you're breaking the law. Doesn't matter if the car is parked, or if the engine is even on.

If you want to sleep it off, make sure you're in the passenger seat.

In many US states, being in the car and in possession of the keys while legally intoxicated is grounds for a DUI conviction.

How about these thought experiments:

A) A man walks in the street carrying a shotgun visibly

B) A man walks in the street waving around his shotgun

C) A group of men walk in the street waving around their shotguns and various rifles

D) A man points an unloaded gun at another man (a total stranger) in the street in broad day light.

I would argue all these are crimes because you are terrorizing people, even if you never injured anyone nor had the intention of injuring anyone.

What about a person carrying a weapon do you find terrifying? Does it include police? Does it include other equally deadly things that aren't politicized such as a baseball bat?

Should people be allowed to walk down the street with a suitcase full of explosives? Serious question.

I believe A is legal in many states. Not sure about B, C, D - menacing behavior like that would be disturbing the peace or terrorism as you say.

What decent gun owner would walk around "waving his shotgun"? That sounds crazy, who would do that? Gun owners are people. Like, normal good people - neighbors I would probably trust. Does your view of gun owners differ?

>What decent gun owner.. >Gun owners are people.. >Does your view of gun owners differ?

There was no mention of the decency or otherwise of the hypothetical people, and it didn't read like they where intended as a moral illustration of gun owners in general. Sounds like you have a defensive agenda.

>..menacing behavior like that would be disturbing the peace or terrorism as you say.

So we can observe that some of the hypothetical people, who may or may not be gun owners, who may just be gun borrowers, are probably not, in this case, decent and probably are intending to menace.

Agreed that hypothetical people can be menacing with guns. Go on.

I would rather not discuss my view of gun laws in the US.

The thought experiment was meant to counter the arguments in the parent comment about whether drunk-driving is a crime or merely a "pre-crime".

But going back, do you think drunk driving should be classed as a pre-crime or a crime?

By this argument, police would have to stand there and watch a person get stabbed before doing anything, rather than grabbing the guy running and shouting with a knife.

What if you put a bullet in one chamber of a revolver (leaving the other 5 empty), spin the cylinder, point it at someone's head, and pull the trigger. If no bullet comes out, have you committed a crime?

Yes!