Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Could Libertarianism have the solution for gun laws ?

  • 03-06-2010 04:49PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭


    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 ?


«1

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 331 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭UltimateMale


    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 ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    a personal ad from the Savannah Tribune :D
    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭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:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭UltimateMale


    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 ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭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
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    This post has been deleted.

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

    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?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 128 ✭✭UltimateMale


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    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?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 557 ✭✭✭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!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 279 ✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 279 ✭✭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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,485 ✭✭✭Denerick


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 279 ✭✭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.)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 557 ✭✭✭Madd Finn


    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.
    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.

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭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.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 557 ✭✭✭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. :confused:

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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭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. :confused:

    (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

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



Advertisement