Could Libertarianism have the solution for gun laws ?

UltimateMale

Libertarian’s are continually posting how state interference in the free market causes inefficiency and waste etc. So in light of the shootings in Cumbria and the fact that the British govt. has introduced some of the tightest gun laws in the world in response to Hungerford, Dunblane etc. Once again those of us who argue that govt. legislation and interference though not perfect, is quite often needed in society are proving wrong. Maybe it’s time that the UK and other countries govt. legislation regarding the ownership of firearms is dropped and the Libertarian philosophy of the total “free market” should be allowed to regulate the ownership of guns instead ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

simplistic2

Who knows what might happen in a libertarian society ? But the very worst thing that can be done is give all the guns to a bunch of murderers and give them the legal right to use force against you.

Valmont

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I had an interesting discussion with a man in Anchorage about gun control. When I asked him if he thought that the risk of a mass murder was enough of an incentive to strictly control firearms, he pulled up his shirt and pointed to the revolver in his waistband and said "I'm armed and I can tell you that most of these fine people are too; any mass murderers wouldn't get very far in this town". That phrase has stuck with me.

UltimateMale

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't know why you have gone on about blackmarket guns, the guy who did the killings in Cumbria had legally held firearms, he has no previous convictions.

In practically most countries, the individual always has the right to defend himself, his family, and his property from attack. As such, the state has legitimate rationale for preventing every Tom, Dick and Harry from obtaining weapons for whatever purpose they like be it target shooting, criminality, family feuds or mental issues.

So could you tell me how the nirvana of the Libertarian free market could do it better than govt. interference ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

The legally acquired firearms were a .22 calibre rifle and a shotgun. It is very important to note this fact because gun regulations could never cover these firearms. Shotguns and .22 calibre rifles are standard farming tools. They are used to control crows, foxes and other farming pests. I know many people in Ireland with these guns. This goes to show you that gun regulations are completely useless in preventing this sort of attack if regular day to day firearms are used.

scallioneater

Valmont wrote: »

The legally acquired firearms were a .22 calibre rifle and a shotgun. It is very important to note this fact because gun regulations could never cover these firearms. Shotguns and .22 calibre rifles are standard farming tools. They are used to control crows, foxes and other farming pests. I know many people in Ireland with these guns. This goes to show you that gun regulations are completely useless in preventing this sort of attack if regular day to day firearms are used.

If there were no regulations, then the guy could of had sniper rifles, hand grenades, a tank? How many more people would have been killed if the guy had unlimited ammunition and more efficient weapons. Gun controls are a way to reduce the harm that guns cause in society. I live in a place that has fewer gun controls than Ireland and it is way more dangerous. People don't stop for anything and a guy almost took out a swat team last year using his AK 47. Instead he only killed four armed police men before they got him. People are killed by their own guns all the time over here. The logic is simple. Less guns = less dead people.

ei.sdraob

a personal ad from the Savannah Tribune

To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last.

I was the guy with the black Burberry jacket that you demanded I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend. You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I hope you somehow come across this message.

I'd like to apologize. I didn't expect you to crap in your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. It was not cold, but I was wearing the jacket for a reason that evening. My girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber Model 1911 .45 A CP pistol for Christmas, and we picked up a shoulder holster for it that evening. It's a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head, isn't it? I know it probably wasn't fun walking back to wherever you'd come from with that brown sludge flopping about in your pants. I'm sure it was even worse since you left your shoes, cellphone, and wallet with me. I didn't want your buddies to come help you try to mug us again.

I called your mother, or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, and explained your situation. I bought myself and four other people in the gas station a tank full of gas on your credit card. The guy with the big motor home took 150 gallons and was extremely grateful! I gave your shoes to a homeless guy over by Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with the cash in your wallet. I threw the wallet in a pink "pimp mobile" parked at the curb after I broke the windshield and side window out and keyed the driver side.
I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell phone. Ma Bell just shut down the line, and I've only had the phone for a little over a day now, so I don't know what's going on with that. I got in two threatening phone calls to the DA's office and one to the FBI with it. The FBI guy was really pissed and we had a long chat (I guess while he traced the number).

I'd like to apologize for not killing you, and instead making you walk back home humiliated. I hope you'll reconsider your choice of path in life. Next time you might not be so lucky. - Alex

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

UltimateMale

Valmont wrote: »

The legally acquired firearms were a .22 calibre rifle and a shotgun. It is very important to note this fact because gun regulations could never cover these firearms. Shotguns and .22 calibre rifles are standard farming tools. They are used to control crows, foxes and other farming pests. I know many people in Ireland with these guns. This goes to show you that gun regulations are completely useless in preventing this sort of attack if regular day to day firearms are used.

Well I think if you were to compare the number of deaths in tightly regulated Britain to the number of deaths form guns in say states in America that have lax guns laws, guess which would have the much lesser gun deaths ? So much for Libertarian principles of the " free market " as the solution fo reverything :rolleyes:

UltimateMale

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You've gone on with the strawman tatic and waffled about blackmarket guns and still not told us as in the OP why " UK and other countries govt. legislation regarding the ownership of firearms is dropped and the Libertarian philosophy of the total “free market” should be allowed to regulate the ownership of guns instead ? "

As dreadful as the murders in Cumbria have been, no matter what legislation their will always be someone to break it. This is the first time such an incidence has occured since the British govt. tightened gun legislation since Dunblane 1996 and I myself would have thought, though not perfect, it still has been effective.

But since your a Libertarian, could you tell me how the "free market" can do it better ?

ei.sdraob

UltimateMale wrote: »

Well I think if you were to compare the number of deaths in tightly regulated Britain to the number of deaths form guns in say states in America that have lax guns laws, guess which would have the much lesser gun deaths ? So much for Libertarian principles of the " free market " as the solution fo reverything :rolleyes:

so

how does Switzerland fit into your picture


its interesting how a psycho uses a gun, the gun is blamed not the psycho
the concept of responsibility is something that is sorely missing in society nowadays

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

UltimateMale

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so

how does Switzerland fit into your picture


its interesting how a psycho uses a gun, the gun is blamed not the psycho
the concept of responsibility is something that is sorely missing in society nowadays

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well I don't know what Swiss legislation on guns, but knowing their efficentcy I'd say it's pretty tight.

No govt. legislation can possibly prevent a loony from going biserk, but like I've asked in the OP, can the Libertarians tell me how the "free market" can do it better ?

Simples.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'd just steal one from the local state owned army barricks.

UltimateMale wrote: »

You've gone on with the strawman tatic and waffled about blackmarket guns and still not told us as in the OP why " UK and other countries govt. legislation regarding the ownership of firearms is dropped and the Libertarian philosophy of the total “free market” should be allowed to regulate the ownership of guns instead ? "

As dreadful as the murders in Cumbria have been, no matter what legislation their will always be someone to break it. This is the first time such an incidence has occured since the British govt. tightened gun legislation since Dunblane 1996 and I myself would have thought, though not perfect, it still has been effective.

Would it be a distraction to drag in all use of violence in a society including the state. If Britain was a Libertarian society then a grand total of 0 soldiers would have died in active combat since 2000. The Brazilian chap would still be alive and 7/7 probably wouldnt have happened.

It is a reasonable assertion to make that if anyone could buy a gun that there would be more accidental deaths, and in cases where someone might go on a stabbing spree, yes now they would have access to guns. But then we will never know about all the good people that hae been threatened, robbed etc. that have been turned into victims by the state as they are not allowed defend themselves with weapons.

If your logic is that the state should regulate to minimize deaths in a society by taking personal freedoms away, why not start threads on why currently we do not outlaw being drunk, physically limit car speeds, make smoking illegal, banning fast food, Limit motor cycle speeds to that of bicycles. Surely this would make society better?

UltimateMale

silverharp wrote: »

why not start threads on why currently we do not outlaw being drunk, physically limit car speeds, make smoking illegal, banning fast food, Limit motor cycle speeds to that of bicycles. Surely this would make society better?

I think if you were to visit the relevant forums you would indeed find discussions on these worthy topics, though not neccessarily started by me. This thread is about gun control and how the Libertarian utopia of the free market could possibly limit deaths and injuries better than tight govt. control. I'm afraid I would find it difficult to start a thread discussing every possible harmful issue in society, but if you wish to by all means do.

UltimateMale

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

" I have answered your question. " No you haven't. Once more the scared cow of the Libertarian "free market" is slain.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

UltimateMale wrote: »

I think if you were to visit the relevant forums you would indeed find discussions on these worthy topics, though not neccessarily started by me. This thread is about gun control and how the Libertarian utopia of the free market could possibly limit deaths and injuries better than tight govt. control. I'm afraid I would find it difficult to start a thread discussing every possible harmful issue in society, but if you wish to by all means do.

Well, like I said above if you take the deaths caused by the state, then less people would die in a Libertarian society then a democracy that engages in wars on war (I mean terror) wars on drugs etc.

Secondly, how do you measure an injury or death versus the trauma of a preventable robbery or rape, or the smaller annoyances that farmers or sports shooters have to put up with to keep to the rules?

Madd Finn

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so

how does Switzerland fit into your picture

Are Swiss people allowed to walk around their city centres carrying loaded firearms?

I don't think so.

Yes, the Swiss have a large popular militia and all (or nearly all) able bodied males have to serve in the army for a few weeks every year. And they keep their service weapons at home. But that does not mean they pack their pistols into their pants when heading out for dinner at the local schnitzel shop in anticipation of the crazed/drugged/immigrant/Islamist/welfare recipient (delete according to prejudice) assailant who is just waiting to attack them.

But the implications of the "pro-choice" gun people's argument is that not only should you have the "right" to do this, it should also be your "duty".

Otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

After all, what's the point of giving Grandpa the right to arm up to defend his house if he's not sleeping with a Magnum in his bedside locker to be ready for the exact moment when the nasty burglar comes creeping into his house?

Your Magnum .44. Don't go to the bathroom without it!

pagancornflake

Madd Finn wrote: »

But the implications of the "pro-choice" gun people's argument is that not only should you have the "right" to do this, it should also be your "duty".

Otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

After all, what's the point of giving Grandpa the right to arm up to defend his house if he's not sleeping with a Magnum in his bedside locker to be ready for the exact moment when the nasty burglar comes creeping into his house?

Correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of your superfluous rhetoric, but I have identified a principle of legitimate arms use based on its utility; right must lead to duty for a citizen to protect themselves, and there is no point in giving the citizen the right if they are not going to treat it as a duty to defend themselves.
Whats the point in giving the state police or military the right to arm up to defend your house if they arent going to be stationed near it constantly in order to utilize this right to its fullest potential? The same principle of sub optimal utility applies to all parties, not just the citizen.

Looking at this pragmatically, the police and military cannot protect the citizen at all times, nor do these services always operate with due process clause, resulting in a delayed, and often insufficient response.

The state must respect the rights of your assailant as much as it must protect you, and I for one do not see the service and all of its tenets as sufficient for my protection. Nor do I much care for state faculties to be the only ones with unfettered access to weaponry. While I may be a socialist, I value the citizens reservation of the right to democratically decide to dissolve a government, by force if necessary.

Denerick

The Swizz have an extremely regulated arms system - the level of buraucracy and home intrusion involved would make even the most ardent Libertarian cry.

The truth is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. The problem is that people with guns kill people a lot easier than people without guns.

pagancornflake

Denerick wrote: »

The Swizz have an extremely regulated arms system - the level of buraucracy and home intrusion involved would make even the most ardent Libertarian cry.

The truth is that guns don't kill people, people kill people. The problem is that people with guns kill people a lot easier than people without guns.

Nice and simply, that is the problem. The issue here ( as DF pointed out) is that people who want guns to kill people (or threaten to do so) are going to get them one way or another, and the people that those people want to kill are much more likely to be killed if they do not have guns. Perhaps people who kill people with guns would be prompted to rethink their motives or priorities if it was apparent that the people they wanted to kill with guns also had guns and could just as easily kill the people who want to kill people with guns?

Denerick

pagancornflake wrote: »

Nice and simply, that is the problem. The issue here ( as DF pointed out) is that people who want guns to kill people (or threaten to do so) are going to get them one way or another, and the people that those people want to kill are much more likely to be killed if they do not have guns. Perhaps people who kill people with guns would be prompted to rethink their motives or priorities if it was apparent that the people they wanted to kill with guns also had guns and could just as easily kill the people who want to kill people with guns?

The US has one of the highest gun ownership levels in the world (If not the highest) and its murders 16,000 of its own people every year. Hardly an endorsement of mass gun ownership.

pagancornflake

Denerick wrote: »

The US has one of the highest gun ownership levels in the world (If not the highest) and its murders 16,000 of its own people every year.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion. Numerous studies conducted by criminologists Kleck and Sayles have shown conclusively that "crime victims who defend themselves with guns are less likely to be injured or lose property than victims who either did not resist, or resisted without guns. This was so, even though the victims using guns typically faced more dangerous circumstances than other victims. The findings applied to both robberies and assaults" (Journal of Quantitative Criminology March 1993; Tark and Kleck "Resisting Crime" Criminology November 2004.)

In order for your point to have any relevance, you must show that easy civilian access to guns correlates with a higher rate of violent crime. A study conducted by John Lott based on FBI crime statistics collected before and after the introduction of tighter gun control laws in the 90's suggests the opposite (Lott, John R.Jr., More Guns, Less Crime-- Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws(1998), The University of Chicago Press, Chicago Illinois, pp. 50-122) The high gun death statistics in the US suggest only that assaults have lethal outcomes for the criminals concerned.

This does not worry me in the slightest, nor do I have any sympathy. You will also find that most of the victims of gun death in the US had existing criminal records.

Just one more thing to add, just to reaffirm DF's point about the lack of effect that gun control laws have on people obtaining guns illegitimately, the most thorough analysis of the impact of gun control laws, by Kleck, covered 18 major types of gun control and every major type of violent crime or violence (including suicide), and found that gun laws generally had no significant effect on violent crime rates or suicide rates. (Kleck and Patterson, Journal of Quantitative criminology September 1993.)

Madd Finn

pagancornflake wrote: »

Which is irrelevant to the discussion.

No. It's central to it. It's the most basic prima facie evidence AGAINST ultraliberal gun ownership laws.

pagancornflake wrote: »

The high gun death statistics in the US suggest only that assaults have lethal outcomes for the criminals concerned.

This does not worry me in the slightest, nor do I have any sympathy. You will also find that most of the victims of gun death in the US had existing criminal records.

The cynicism of this argument is disgusting. Or at least to this wishy washy euroweenie. You are implying that the vast majority of shooting victims in the US had it coming to them because they were already criminals anyway. Tell that to the bereaved families of Columbine and Virginia Tech.

Look. It's a matter of degree and consensus. The right to own a firearm is not absolute for any individual because guns are dangerous things and can kill or maim other people around them. So we have a right as a democratic society to impose limits on who may own and use firearms and under what circumstances.

People who want to own firearms to hunt and fire at inanimate targets on a shooting range are not doing any harm to anybody else, if they are doing things properly, and should be allowed to indulge their legitimate pursuits. But society as a whole is perfectly entitled to impose the restrictions that it does.

For the most part these are common-sense safety restrictions that most sensible shooters have no problem with anyway: gun safes, keeping firearms and ammunition separately, not being allowed to transport LOADED weapons to the field or the target range etc etc.

It's only the paranoid wimps who think that everybody is out to get them and that they must be allowed walk down to the shops with a pistol packed who complain about these.

pagancornflake wrote:

While I may be a socialist, I value the citizens reservation of the right to democratically decide to dissolve a government, by force if necessary.

This argument always cracks me up. It tends to be made by people, usually American gun nuts, (strange for a Socialist but I do welcome unstereotyped diversity!) who will bristle in indignation at the merest verbal slight to those things they hold dear but nevertheless insist that they should be granted the means to indulge in armed insurrection at the drop of a hat.

What little faith in democracy they have. We have elections to get rid of the government if we don't like them. You don't need everybody to have an AK to ensure that. At least, not here.

silverharp

Madd Finn wrote: »

Look. It's a matter of degree and consensus. The right to own a firearm is not absolute for any individual because guns are dangerous things and can kill or maim other people around them. So we have a right as a democratic society to impose limits on who may own and use firearms and under what circumstances.

All you are doing here is explaining the "is" , are you basically saying that anyone that is pro abortion or pro liberalisation of drugs laws for instance is wrong because our democracy says its wrong. Political phiosophers going back to Kant have disagree with this position.

Madd Finn

silverharp wrote: »

All you are doing here is explaining the "is" , are you basically saying that anyone that is pro abortion or pro liberalisation of drugs laws for instance is wrong because our democracy says its wrong. Political phiosophers going back to Kant have disagree with this position.

???

"Immanuel Kant was a real piss ant who was very rarely stable."

Consensus is a perfectly reasonable basis for law.

In fact, it's the democratic basis for law.

I don't care what the feck Kant thinks.

(thread title "could libertarianism have the solution for gun LAWS?")

silverharp

Madd Finn wrote: »

???

"Immanuel Kant was a real piss ant who was very rarely stable."

Consensus is a perfectly reasonable basis for law.

In fact, it's the democratic basis for law.

I don't care what the feck Kant thinks.

(thread title "could libertarianism have the solution for gun LAWS?")

you have a loose definition of consensus. 40% electing a government to do whatever it wants for 4 year intervals is not consensus. If 75% to 90% of a population agreed a position on something that would be getting into the realms of consensus

Madd Finn

silverharp wrote: »

you have a loose definition of consensus. 40% electing a government to do whatever it wants for 4 year intervals is not consensus. If 75% to 90% of a population agreed a position on something that would be getting into the realms of consensus

How many hairs do you want to split here? In the case of elections, the wider consensus is not the 40% who vote for the government but the consent of the 60% who do not nevertheless to allow that government to rule because of their faith in the process that will give the population the opportunity to remove it again within an agreed maximum time.

Let's talk about consensus as it applies to gun laws.

The American consensus, hotly disputed by a significant minority, is that it is a basic right for the ordinary citizen to be able to walk down the high street bearing a loaded firearm. All the hair splitting about "concealed carry" doesn't change that basic fact. That is the default position in America and it's what sets it apart from all other normal democracies.

I will stand corrected but I challenge you to find me one other normal democracy which affords the same rights to its citizens.

Don't say Switzerland. In that famous picture of the militia man doing his grocery shopping with his sub machine gun on his back, the gun is clearly not loaded. No magazine. That weapon is for the defence of his country, not for his personal defence against unlikely assault from a mugger or maniac.

Don't say Israel. At the risk of diverting this down the cul de sac of a Middle Eastern discussion, I will just state that it does not exist in a normal environment because a significant minority of those living within its jurisdiction question its right to exist in its present form. And it is also officially at war with several of its neighbours.

Even in countries with strong hunting traditions, like Canada and Finland, where there are a lot of personally owned firearms, you do not see people walking around "packing heat".

johnnyskeleton

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, it can't absolutely prevent it, but it can try to restrict it as much as possible. Your argument is that the government has difficulty enforcing the law, so they shouldn't even try. Yet somehow in magical Libertarianland somoene who kills someone in self defence will be lauded as a hero and someone who would be a criminal in the real world is too busy making highly efficient widgits to worry about committing violent acts.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If my old granny, so to speak, had a gun, do you think that would prevent her from being shot by someone trying to rob her? However, having an effective police force might just prevent that robber from obtaining a gun in the first place and/or might allow him to be aprehended after the deed instead of getting away with it scot free because your only defence is your colt 45. Plus, what if my old granny loses her mind and decides to shoot up the local bingo hall?

Libertarianism is predicated on everyone being fundamentally decent to each other. Maybe some day we will get to that place where resources are infinite and everyone gathers together in orgies in well maintained public venues. But until that happens you have to accept reality. Are you seriously, as in not just internet talk but in your daily life, a believer that if everyone was armed it would be better than very few people being armed?

johnnyskeleton

Valmont wrote: »

This goes to show you that gun regulations are completely useless in preventing this sort of attack if regular day to day firearms are used.

Yet somehow if there was a free for all it would prevent this?

johnnyskeleton

ei.sdraob wrote: »

a personal ad from the Savannah Tribune

Someone tried to rob me so I robbed them back is all very humourous for an article in a paper, but it hardly forms the basis of a modern civilised society? In fact, it's as close to barbarism as you can get, the only difference being a slight restraint while waiting for the other guy to attack first.

pagancornflake

Madd Finn wrote: »

No. It's central to it. It's the most basic prima facie evidence AGAINST ultraliberal gun ownership laws.

You have failed to explain how this is the case in light of the studies I cited in my previous post and the inferences I made based on them (the existing criminal trend and its effect on the high gun death statistics). You made no rebuttal to this, nor any effort to expand on how you see gun ownership as a cause for the crime which would be a requisite for this high level of deaths in the first place.
My point stands; loose gun ownership laws have a negligible effect on gun deaths and gun suicides in the US (see the Kleck reference I made in the last post), and can only be seen as a detrimental force in the respect that the existing rate of violent crime is made more serious when criminals have possession of firearms. However, as previously stated, victims who would be the victims of violent crime anyways were "less likely to be injured or lose property than victims who either did not resist, or resisted without guns." Journal of Quantitative Criminology March 1993; Tark and Kleck "Resisting Crime" Criminology November 2004.

This seems to me to negate the argument I outlined above. America has an existing high crime rate, gang crime especially.

Madd Finn wrote: »

The cynicism of this argument is disgusting. Or at least to this wishy washy euroweenie. You are implying that the vast majority of shooting victims in the US had it coming to them because they were already criminals anyway. Tell that to the bereaved families of Columbine and Virginia Tech.

Had it coming to them? Care to supply a quotation from me to that effect? My point is that the vast majority of gun deaths in the US were due to inter criminal activity, not law abiding citizens. They didn't have it coming to them, they did it to themselves by immersing themselves in criminal activity. I have no sympathy for them precisely because of this. Do not try to misrepresent my stance and sentiments.

Madd Finn wrote: »

Look. It's a matter of degree and consensus. The right to own a firearm is not absolute for any individual because guns are dangerous things and can kill or maim other people around them. So we have a right as a democratic society to impose limits on who may own and use firearms and under what circumstances.

Agreed.

Madd Finn wrote: »

People who want to own firearms to hunt and fire at inanimate targets on a shooting range are not doing any harm to anybody else, if they are doing things properly, and should be allowed to indulge their legitimate pursuits. But society as a whole is perfectly entitled to impose the restrictions that it does.

Agreed. Also, society is perfectly entitled as a whole to allow gun ownership for personal protection. It works both ways.

Madd Finn wrote: »

It's only the paranoid wimps who think that everybody is out to get them and that they must be allowed walk down to the shops with a pistol packed who complain about these.

Or paranoid wimps who live in a country riddled with gang crime stemming from a massive working underclass who live below the poverty line, leading to a homicide rate seemingly unaffected by gun regulation.

Madd Finn wrote: »

This argument always cracks me up. It tends to be made by people, usually American gun nuts, (strange for a Socialist but I do welcome unstereotyped diversity!)

Im American by birth, so I think its in my blood xD

Madd Finn wrote: »

What little faith in democracy they have. We have elections to get rid of the government if we don't like them. You don't need everybody to have an AK to ensure that. At least, not here.

Its nothing to do with a lack of faith in democracy, it is to do with a lack of faith in the system of dissolution which supports it.

Avgas

Interesting discussion....keeping it all at the level of political theory.... surely Libertarians must admit of some limits to freedom with regard to arms?

An example:

I mean why stop at guns? Personally, I have a fondness for mortars. Its a bit odd I grant you and I'm no harm to anyone...honest! So why can't I have a nice 81mm mortar in my garden? If somebody tries to steal my car.....I can respond with more effective fire than a sissyboy pistol?

My point: Libertarianism falls within its own terms of reference by failing to realize that the grant and exercise of any freedom beyond rational and socially negotiated bounds can as easily restrict those fundamental freedoms `(life, security) of others and one cannot assume a catallaxy of market 'hiden hand' virtue will sort out the problem of your friendly neigbourhood mortar hobbyist.

In short all societies need proper gun control laws regulated by an effective state. How restrictive, when, who, what, where, and how...are details to be negotiated based on circumstances/facts, etc.

By the way the US Constitution mentions the right to bear and carry arms as part of a well regulated militia...something unfashionable these days....and something overlooked by US Supreme Court recent verdicts.....

imme

ei.sdraob wrote: »

so

how does Switzerland fit into your picture


its interesting how a psycho uses a gun, the gun is blamed not the psycho
the concept of responsibility is something that is sorely missing in society nowadays

So do we want a society where guns are commonplace?
What´s the point of this?



Some of the posts on this thread really make me wonder about people posting on here.:rolleyes:

BluePlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well that certainly doesn't sound anything like Libertarianism to me!
Rather it sounds like the heavy hand of big government with their intrusive mandates again.
:rolleyes:

firefly08

Hi all, I hope no one minds me (a) replying to a slightly old thread, and (b) quoting & replying to practically everyone at once...having a slow day and this thread contains a lot of stuff I want to answer...

In practically most countries, the individual always has the right to defend himself, his family, and his property from attack

If all goes well, we'll soon join that list.

Well I don't know what Swiss legislation on guns, but knowing their efficentcy I'd say it's pretty tight.

Is that intended as your explanation of why murder rates are so low there? In that case, since the UK has even tighter laws, their murder rate must be even lower, right? erm, hang on a sec...

The problem is that people with guns kill people a lot easier than people without guns.

By that same logic, people with guns are killed a lot less easily that those without. Or am I missing something in the above argument?

The US has one of the highest gun ownership levels in the world (If not the highest) and its murders 16,000 of its own people every year. Hardly an endorsement of mass gun ownership.

Seriously, you're going to have to do better than that if you want to make a case against mass gun ownership. It is not disputed, even by our own vehemently anit-gun government, that the regulated private ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens contributes nothing whatsoever to crime (and yes the private ownership of guns is regulated in America).

What little faith in democracy they have.

Most of them would resent the accusation that they have any faith - even a little - in democracy To many people, government is an evil - a necessary evil, to be tolerated, suffered, as it were...but never trusted. Just a different viewpoint to what most people have here. Doesn't make them nuts, IMO. Maybe I'm just nuts too?

If my old granny, so to speak, had a gun, do you think that would prevent her from being shot by someone trying to rob her?

Excellent point. How old is your Granny?
http://www.kvoa.com/news/82-year-old-fights-off-attacker/

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/sep/18/mom-comes-sons-aid-shoots-burglar/

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/nyregion/09wheelchair.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1157807266-eddRk21aOT886zM89idH/A&oref=slogin

OK, I admit that last one was only 56 years old, don't know if she's a granny - but she is in a wheelchair.

This was a few seconds research; I assure you I could do this all day and never run out of examples of "unlikely" sorts using firearms to protect themselves. There is a terrible myth that only the highly trained elite can successfully use firearms for protection...if you realized the level of competence and training that many armed police officers had you'd be shocked. In America, much higher levels of training are available to the public.

However, having an effective police force might just prevent that robber from obtaining a gun in the first place

Great idea - I don't suppose you know how to achieve this, by any chance? I know of one or 2 police forces that would love to hear from you in that case...I mean, can you name one free democratic country where anything remotely like this has ever been managed by the police?

So do we want a society where guns are commonplace?

Do you think there is any such thing as a free, democratic country where they're not? I'd like to hear of an example. Guns are commonplace in Ireland, in the UK, in France, in the Netherlands. They are probably not commonplace in China, Burma, Iran, and other places like that, however.

Hazlittle

Brittan broughtht in more restrictions on guns and crime went up. Only areas in America that have mass shootings are the areas with tight restrictions.


Good men dont need laws and bad men dont follow them.

Seriously people need to do their research.

http://irishlibertyforum.org/forum/topic.html?id=114

firefly08

I wanted to include this in my original post BTW, but could find the link at the time:

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/glock-the-gangsters-favourite-gun-to-be-banned-from-ireland-next-year-1544708.html

Quote:

A source close to the minister stressed today: "This is not a measure to tackle gangland crime. It's a totally separate issue.

"The Minister understands there is no connection between gangland crime and legally held handguns. But he is concerned about the proliferation of handguns in society. There are nearly 2,000 legally held handguns, and in a year's time there could be 5,000."