And I will even concede that it should be totally okay for a person who owns a field, to say that it is okay for people to shoot randomly into the field, even if there are crowds of people in the field. Of course it is just as okay for people who own fields to say that if you shoot into the field you will be open to being shot back at and killed. I strongly suspect that people will avoid the killing fields, and the people who go to them understanding the risks involved can shoot at each other all day. If the bloods and the crips want to buy an enormous plot of land and turn it into a free for all gang war territory, let them. However if you own a huge plot of land you should be equally as capable of saying that people who engage in gang wars on your land will be imprisoned. Recently I was convinced that men should be allowed to say in their wills that if they are murdered in cold blood, the murderer should be able to pay a fine to their families and get no other punishment. At first I hated this idea, after all if a man kills an innocent person they are at a statistically greater chance of killing another innocent person. Originally I thought, regardless of the wishes of the murdered victim, the murderer should be punished to protect other innocents who may not want to be killed even if the killer pays a huge fine to their families. However I see now that this takes away a persons self ownership. Indeed a person should be able to sell to a psychopath who wants to kill them the ability to do so, if we deny this right to a person we say that we own them.