NationStates Jolt Archive

I have an internal problem with my ideology. I am a passionate, radical libertarian who often flirts with anarcho-capitalism. I hold individual freedom as the highest, and objectively superior priority. In particular I see economic freedom as being the single most critical area for a society. Political freedom is something of an afterthough (perhaps because of my disdain for statism, or perhaps because is typically follows economic freedom anyhow).

So what is the problem? Gun control. To be consistent with my own philosophy, I should advocate over the counter firearms. I advocate over the counter abortions, drugs, ecosystems, and whatever else. But guns? My problem lies in that I am quite content with heavy gun control. I personlly do now want a gun, and Australia is a better place without being inundated by them. To pull all stops on gun control would definitely be an objective backward step for life in Australia. I don't mind idiots being armed with credit cards, it is a good thing. But once you arm idiots with the power of death and life, things get shitty. Example: USA.

However, restricting weapon access directly conflicts with the principles that I uphold, forming stark hypocrisy. I like the notion of un control in practiclity, but I hate it in theory. I feel inclined to grit my teeth and be logically consistent with myself and espouse liberal gun laws. The bargain I have made, I suppose, is that the benefit to the economy will ultimately add up as favourable. Plus, I suppose the adverity caused by guns will stimulate further technological progress.

What are your positions? More importantly, why do you hold them? What are the actual benefits of inundating an uninundated society with firearms?

You say these things because you don't know the joy of owning an AK-47. :D

The fewer number of guns, the better. There is no reason to own a gun to protect yourself if no one else owns one, and the chance of an accident occurring is nil. The NRA is correct (if redundant) when it says, "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them." But right now, outlaws already have guns. So do four-year-olds.

...It's hardly about flooding a place with firearms...

*looks around* I'll wait for this thread to get to the good part.

I have an internal problem with my ideology. I am a passionate, radical libertarian who often flirts with anarcho-capitalism. I hold individual freedom as the highest, and objectively superior priority. In particular I see economic freedom as being the single most critical area for a society. Political freedom is something of an afterthough (perhaps because of my disdain for statism, or perhaps because is typically follows economic freedom anyhow).

So what is the problem? Gun control. To be consistent with my own philosophy, I should advocate over the counter firearms. I advocate over the counter abortions, drugs, ecosystems, and whatever else. But guns? My problem lies in that I am quite content with heavy gun control. I personlly do now want a gun, and Australia is a better place without being inundated by them. To pull all stops on gun control would definitely be an objective backward step for life in Australia. I don't mind idiots being armed with credit cards, it is a good thing. But once you arm idiots with the power of death and life, things get shitty. Example: USA.

However, restricting weapon access directly conflicts with the principles that I uphold, forming stark hypocrisy. I like the notion of un control in practiclity, but I hate it in theory. I feel inclined to grit my teeth and be logically consistent with myself and espouse liberal gun laws. The bargain I have made, I suppose, is that the benefit to the economy will ultimately add up as favourable. Plus, I suppose the adverity caused by guns will stimulate further technological progress.

What are your positions? More importantly, why do you hold them? What are the actual benefits of inundating an uninundated society with firearms?


you have just entered the political epiphany that libertarians usually find themselves in

you have just realized that, despite all your heroic talk of "freedom this" and "freedom that", you just stumbled upon the greatest freedom of all

and that is

THE FREEDOM TO LIFE


You see, many liberal initiatives, though they may SEEM socialistic, and thus nondemocratic or nonfreedomish to you, are actually very much democratic and profreedom

you see, things like universal healthcare, stronger unions, stricter gun control, higher taxes for MORE social services, tighter business regulations (so that corporations are ACCOUNTABLE for what they put in their food and production thereof, etc.), all of these things are aimed at PROLONGING our lives and making society a safer and healthier place, so that we can ENJOY the RIGHT and FREEDOM of life

NO ONE, i repeat, NO ONE should be able to exploit humanity and the right to life in the name of garnering a monetary profit

it is, to put it simply, undemocratic

maybe this is bad for me to say but if your gun is in a place a four year old can get to, or you haven't taught your kids to leave them alone then thats your fault. i shouldn't be punished because someone else is to stupid to keep there guns out of their kids hands. My parents taught me at a young age what a gun is and not to touch them, and if i did they would beat me senseless (well you know what i mean)

I have an internal problem with my ideology. I am a passionate, radical libertarian who often flirts with anarcho-capitalism. I hold individual freedom as the highest, and objectively superior priority. In particular I see economic freedom as being the single most critical area for a society. Political freedom is something of an afterthough (perhaps because of my disdain for statism, or perhaps because is typically follows economic freedom anyhow).

So what is the problem? Gun control. To be consistent with my own philosophy, I should advocate over the counter firearms. I advocate over the counter abortions, drugs, ecosystems, and whatever else. But guns? My problem lies in that I am quite content with heavy gun control. I personlly do now want a gun, and Australia is a better place without being inundated by them. To pull all stops on gun control would definitely be an objective backward step for life in Australia. I don't mind idiots being armed with credit cards, it is a good thing. But once you arm idiots with the power of death and life, things get shitty. Example: USA.

However, restricting weapon access directly conflicts with the principles that I uphold, forming stark hypocrisy. I like the notion of un control in practiclity, but I hate it in theory. I feel inclined to grit my teeth and be logically consistent with myself and espouse liberal gun laws. The bargain I have made, I suppose, is that the benefit to the economy will ultimately add up as favourable. Plus, I suppose the adverity caused by guns will stimulate further technological progress.

What are your positions? More importantly, why do you hold them? What are the actual benefits of inundating an uninundated society with firearms?

Heh welcome to the world of the grownups, please leave your idealogy at the door, come in take a comfy seat, would you like tea or coffee?

The fewer number of guns, the better. There is no reason to own a gun to protect yourself if no one else owns one, and the chance of an accident occurring is nil. The NRA is correct (if redundant) when it says, "if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them." But right now, outlaws already have guns. So do four-year-olds.

People die from accidents with knives, cars (by the truckload), pots and pans, and cans of paint. Yes, guns can be dangerous if misused or abused. I don't see that as a valid argument for their control or ban - though it is a good argument for requiring gun safety training, just as most areas require car training before the issue of a licence.

As for "There is no reason to own a gun to protect yourself if no one else owns one", well frankly that's straight out bullshit. I could protect myself from a single man about my own size; but if a 6'6" muscleman who wants to rip my head off comes at me, then unless he's incompetent, he probably WILL rip my head off. And I've had Marine hand-to-hand training. Give him a buddy and I'm likely completely screwed.

Unless I have a gun. In that case, I have a chance. Give an 80 year old a pistol and she can shoot a home invader that could kill her with one punch. Anyone who is faced with the situation of being outnumbered or outmuscled needs a gun to protect themselves.

making something that is designed to kill easily available is retarded to me.

sometimes people need protecting from themselves. people can't see the hidden costs and problems arising from using a demerit good - such as starting smoking, or taking heroin. the government needs to step in and stop people hurting themselves before they start. the same applies with gun control. the government needs to stop society harming itself, and people harming each other, before they start. and the way to do that is to restrict access to guns. if government's first duty is to safeguard the safety of its people, then that includes safety from themselves and hidden dangers, as well as outside powers and the like.


admittedly its a lot more difficult/complicated in the US with the prevailance of guns already so high.

maybe this is bad for me to say but if your gun is in a place a four year old can get to, or you haven't taught your kids to leave them alone then thats your fault. i shouldn't be punished because someone else is to stupid to keep there guns out of their kids hands. My parents taught me at a young age what a gun is and not to touch them, and if i did they would beat me senseless (well you know what i mean)
What would you need a gun for? I suppose if you hunt a rifle would be necessary, and I can understand that, but you don't shoot deer with a handgun.

According to the CDC, 5,285 children died from gun violence last year (this includes accidents as well as murders). Only 153 died in Canada the same year. I hate it when people make Canada look like the Promised Land we should all try to achieve, but I think it highlights a point: there is nothing you can do to make absolutely sure that children will not get guns unless there are no guns available.

Unless I have a gun. In that case, I have a chance. Give an 80 year old a pistol and she can shoot a home invader that could kill her with one punch. Anyone who is faced with the situation of being outnumbered or outmuscled needs a gun to protect themselves.
Or accidentally shoot some one that isn't a threat. Whatever happened to mace/pepper spray/any other number of non-lethal deterrents?

Besides, it is not the governments place to provide everything for people on a silver platter.
Then what is the government's job?

you have just entered the political epiphany that libertarians usually find themselves in

you have just realized that, despite all your heroic talk of "freedom this" and "freedom that", you just stumbled upon the greatest freedom of all

and that is

THE FREEDOM TO LIFE


You see, many liberal initiatives, though they may SEEM socialistic, and thus nondemocratic or nonfreedomish to you, are actually very much democratic and profreedom

you see, things like universal healthcare, stronger unions, stricter gun control, higher taxes for MORE social services, tighter business regulations (so that corporations are ACCOUNTABLE for what they put in their food and production thereof, etc.), all of these things are aimed at PROLONGING our lives and making society a safer and healthier place, so that we can ENJOY the RIGHT and FREEDOM of life

NO ONE, i repeat, NO ONE should be able to exploit humanity and the right to life in the name of garnering a monetary profit

it is, to put it simply, undemocratic

Bull. If you can't defend yourself you are not free. The government can take away those services on a whim and there is not a damned thing you can about. Besides, it is not the governments place to provide everything for people on a silver platter. People should work for what they want, not demand like a toddler.

making something that is designed to kill easily available is retarded to me.

sometimes people need protecting from themselves. people can't see the hidden costs and problems arising from using a demerit good - such as starting smoking, or taking heroin. the government needs to step in and stop people hurting themselves before they start. the same applies with gun control. the government needs to stop society harming itself, and people harming each other, before they start. and the way to do that is to restrict access to guns. if government's first duty is to safeguard the safety of its people, then that includes safety from themselves and hidden dangers, as well as outside powers and the like.


admittedly its a lot more difficult/complicated in the US with the prevailance of guns already so high.

I cannot agree with you in any way. You are making the basic assumption that government knows better than the individual, and is beneficent to the individual. The evidence is that government is both fundamentally stupid and malevolent. That's why we need less of it.

Unless I have a gun. In that case, I have a chance. Give an 80 year old a pistol and she can shoot a home invader that could kill her with one punch. Anyone who is faced with the situation of being outnumbered or outmuscled needs a gun to protect themselves.

give the people who really do need guns access to them, and you give the people who will use them "irresponsibly" access to guns as well.

in my mind, best thing to do is to restrict it all.

i wouldn't want to live in a society where i felt i needed a gun to protect myself. i can understand that in the States, and i'm just glad its not like that over here.

People die from accidents with knives, cars (by the truckload), pots and pans, and cans of paint. Yes, guns can be dangerous if misused or abused. I don't see that as a valid argument for their control or ban - though it is a good argument for requiring gun safety training, just as most areas require car training before the issue of a licence.
Cars, pots and pans, and cans of paint were not specifically created to hurt people. Guns were.

As for "There is no reason to own a gun to protect yourself if no one else owns one", well frankly that's straight out bullshit. I could protect myself from a single man about my own size; but if a 6'6" muscleman who wants to rip my head off comes at me, then unless he's incompetent, he probably WILL rip my head off. And I've had Marine hand-to-hand training. Give him a buddy and I'm likely completely screwed.

Unless of course, he has a gun.
Also, gun training is useful, and I would rather have a trained nation of gun owners than an untrained nation. But when the situation is stressful enough, even training isn't perfect. Look at all the police who shoot someone thirty times when he was unarmed: some of these situations are the police abusing their power, but lots of times the officer simply panics, and his training doesn't prevent him from making a serious mistake.

making something that is designed to kill easily available is retarded to me.

sometimes people need protecting from themselves. people can't see the hidden costs and problems arising from using a demerit good - such as starting smoking, or taking heroin. the government needs to step in and stop people hurting themselves before they start. the same applies with gun control. the government needs to stop society harming itself, and people harming each other, before they start. and the way to do that is to restrict access to guns. if government's first duty is to safeguard the safety of its people, then that includes safety from themselves and hidden dangers, as well as outside powers and the like.


admittedly its a lot more difficult/complicated in the US with the prevailance of guns already so high.

No. People do NOT need protecting from themselves. People know smoking is harmful, I know it, I smoke, and know other drugs are harmful. It is their choice what they put in their bodies. Governments have no damn right coddle its citizens and protect them from themselves. People are capable of looking after themselves, without interferance from government.

No. People do NOT need protecting for themselves.
In that case, say good-bye to the military.

/snipYour position on firearms is inconsistent. If you allow over the counter heroin, you'd might as well allow over the counter guns. After all, someone could always poison the city's water supply with a large enough amount of heroin.

Or accidentally shoot some one that isn't a threat. Whatever happened to mace/pepper spray/any other number of non-lethal deterrents?

They have their place, and if any of them were highly effective, I'd strongly support their use instead. But I've seen someone take pepper spray (bear concentration) and carry through to flatten the sprayer. Mace is for wimps - after I took Tear Gas training, I could operate at 95% efficiency after being maced in both eyes.

Tasers are another matter, and I support their use. But most places they're more restricted than guns are.

Then what is the government's job?

That is a good question. Is government even necessary? All it seems to do is entrench power for itself. It seems like a parasitic entity, leeching off the citizens of every nation.

But, I'll assume you think that there should be a government, and want a straight answer.

The government's job is securing the borders and protecting people from outside threats, not treating its citizens like children. People can fend for themselves, let them do so!

In that case, say good-bye to the military.

Oops, I meant to say protecting from themselves.

there is nothing you can do to make absolutely sure that children will not get guns unless there are no guns available.

In other words:

there is nothing you can do to make absolutely sure that children will not get guns

Unless of course, he has a gun.
Also, gun training is useful, and I would rather have a trained nation of gun owners than an untrained nation. But when the situation is stressful enough, even training isn't perfect. Look at all the police who shoot someone thirty times when he was unarmed: some of these situations are the police abusing their power, but lots of times the officer simply panics, and his training doesn't prevent him from making a serious mistake.
That's always a defining characteristic of the pro-gun agenda examples. When a defenseless person is attacked, the attacker never has a gun. But soon as people start arguing against guns, they break out "if was outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!" The outlaws in their examples seem to be the exception without any guns.

Mace is for wimps - after I took Tear Gas training, I could operate at 95% efficiency after being maced in both eyes.
So you are saying Marines and Cops are the ones attacking people? I think we have a problem with the people supposed to be protecting us from the bad guys.

I cannot agree with you in any way. You are making the basic assumption that government knows better than the individual, and is beneficent to the individual. The evidence is that government is both fundamentally stupid and malevolent. That's why we need less of it.

i disagree. the government has the experience of others who may have used the demerit good. experts. research.

an individual making a decision on their own will most likely not take these factors into account in making their decision to consume the demerit good.

thus the government does know better in some circumstances.

there are then two routes to take. one is to leave the decision ultimately up to the individual, but perhaps to attempt to educate the individual about such hidden costs (and i'm not just talking pecuniary costs here), to try and discourage him. this is what i personally promote with smoking, marijuana, LSD, shrooms, ecstacy. but when the cost to the individual becomes too great, such as is the case with heroin, causing innumerous health problems, sometimes death, social breakdown, crime, and all manner of other things, then discouraging consumption is not enough to protect the individual. banning the substance is required. its the same thing for guns in my mind, only on a larger, sociological scale.

The government's job is securing the borders and protecting people from outside threats, not treating its citizens like children. People can fend for themselves, let them do so!If people can fend for themselves then why do they need protection from outside threats?

The government's job is securing the borders and protecting people from outside threats, not treating its citizens like children. People can fend for themselves, let them do so!
You mean people can't defend themselves from outside threats? Why not? It's working for the Tamil Tigers. Try again.

Cars, pots and pans, and cans of paint were not specifically created to hurt people. Guns were.

Yes. They're weapons. I have no problem with that.
It actually makes me wonder why you do. They're inanimate objects, after all. Any moral impulse associated is what you bring with you.

Unless of course, he has a gun.

Then, we'd be equal. I'm pretty quick; I've got a chance. If it's muscle vs. muscle, then either the better skilled or the larger WILL win. The gun gives the weaker person a chance.

Also, gun training is useful, and I would rather have a trained nation of gun owners than an untrained nation. But when the situation is stressful enough, even training isn't perfect. Look at all the police who shoot someone thirty times when he was unarmed: some of these situations are the police abusing their power, but lots of times the officer simply panics, and his training doesn't prevent him from making a serious mistake.

That is true. But I'd rather risk that than disallow people the power to defend themselves effectively.

If people can fend for themselves then why do they need protection from outside threats?

Well, I think they should.

You mean people can't defend themselves from outside threats? Why not? It's working for the Tamil Tigers. Try again.

Thus the pointlessness of government, as I stated in the rest of the post you quoted.

People are capable of looking after themselves, without interferance from government.

some people are. some aren't. and its those people for whom the government is required.

i wouldn't call looking after the welfare of citizens "interference"

Thus the pointlessness of government, as I stated in the rest of the post you quoted.

Your argument and conclusion are tenuous at best and absurd in the most likely.

So you are saying Marines and Cops are the ones attacking people? I think we have a problem with the people supposed to be protecting us from the bad guys.

The guy who took the Pepper Spray hadn't had Tear Gas training. My point was that these "chemical restraints" simply aren't reliable - they might work, they might not.

A gun works. You hit the target, and unless he's hyped on PCP, he's going down.

Then, we'd be equal. I'm pretty quick; I've got a chance. If it's muscle vs. muscle, then either the better skilled or the larger WILL win. The gun gives the weaker person a chance.
Unless the attacker has a gun and who would be just as likely to shoot you as kick your ass if it looks like you are pulling a weapon and making yourself a threat to them. Putting guns in everyone's hand increases the chance of a simple mugging, robbery, etc will turn into a murder one way or the other.

The guy who took the Pepper Spray hadn't had Tear Gas training. My point was that these "chemical restraints" simply aren't reliable - they might work, they might not.
I was specifically replying to your Mace statement. Try again.

A gun works. You hit the target, and unless he's hyped on PCP, he's going down.
So you should shoot anyone that looks like a threat? I can already feel the death count of completely innocent, menacing looking people sky rocketing.

Your position on firearms is inconsistent. If you allow over the counter heroin, you'd might as well allow over the counter guns. After all, someone could always poison the city's water supply with a large enough amount of heroin.

That would take a shit load of heroin and a lot of water inspectors looking the other way.

That would take a shit load of heroin and a lot of water inspectors looking the other way.

why are there water inspectors in a laissez faire society?

Putting guns in everyone's hand

And, just a moment here; your more feasible alternative would be?

And, just a moment here; your more feasible alternative would be?
Hmm, not putting guns in everyone's hands?

I always chuckle a little when I see that implication of protecting themselves from the government. The idea of them holding off a professional, well equipped army (something they also advocate) with their rifle and righteous rage. "You'll have to come in here and get me if you want me to receive universal healthcare, you heathens!"

It's down right adorable.

Well, I think they should.You think they should fend for themselves or they should have government protection from outside threats?

That would take a shit load of heroin and a lot of water inspectors looking the other way.Certainly, but it could be done. A building's water supply could be poisoned much more easily.

why are there water inspectors in a laissez faire society?
An equally good question is why is there a coordinated water system.

I always chuckle a little when I see that implication of protecting themselves from the government. The idea of them holding off a professional, well equipped army (something they also advocate) with their rifle and righteous rage. "You'll have to come in here and get me if you want me to receive universal healthcare, you heathens!"

It's down right adorable.

i never get the oft-seen paranoia over the government either.

some people are. some aren't. and its those people for whom the government is required.

i wouldn't call looking after the welfare of citizens "interference"

Looking after the citizens welfare...is that what you call not allowing people to choose for themselves? Not allowing people the chance to defend themselves? Banning everything that some people disagree with?

Your logic:

Guns harm people, so ban them.

Pillows can also harm people, so pillows should be banned.

why are there water inspectors in a laissez faire society?

What the hell?

Gee, maybe so the entire country doesn't die when something goes wrong with the water supply.

Hmm, not putting guns in everyone's hands?

Ooh, wait, I can do you one better. Using bionic dragonflies to intercept bullets and stop people from being shot.

I have an internal problem with my ideology. I am a passionate, radical libertarian who often flirts with anarcho-capitalism. I hold individual freedom as the highest, and objectively superior priority. In particular I see economic freedom as being the single most critical area for a society. Political freedom is something of an afterthough (perhaps because of my disdain for statism, or perhaps because is typically follows economic freedom anyhow).

So what is the problem? Gun control. To be consistent with my own philosophy, I should advocate over the counter firearms. I advocate over the counter abortions, drugs, ecosystems, and whatever else. But guns? My problem lies in that I am quite content with heavy gun control. I personlly do now want a gun, and Australia is a better place without being inundated by them. To pull all stops on gun control would definitely be an objective backward step for life in Australia. I don't mind idiots being armed with credit cards, it is a good thing. But once you arm idiots with the power of death and life, things get shitty. Example: USA.

However, restricting weapon access directly conflicts with the principles that I uphold, forming stark hypocrisy. I like the notion of un control in practiclity, but I hate it in theory. I feel inclined to grit my teeth and be logically consistent with myself and espouse liberal gun laws. The bargain I have made, I suppose, is that the benefit to the economy will ultimately add up as favourable. Plus, I suppose the adverity caused by guns will stimulate further technological progress.

What are your positions? More importantly, why do you hold them? What are the actual benefits of inundating an uninundated society with firearms?


you need to turn in your "passionate, radical libertarian" card.

thats OK, most libertarians really arent radical libertarians but rather are a moderate, rational libertarians.

there is more to freedom than the freedom to make money.

What the hell?

Gee, maybe so the entire country doesn't die when something goes wrong with the water supply.
And who would these water inspectors be? The private industry wouldn't voluntarily let in water inspectors and their own inspections wouldn't be terribly trustworthy. But having the government do it would be intervention in the economy.

You think they should fend for themselves or they should have government protection from outside threats?


I think people should fend for themselves, and states should be dismantled and abandoned.

Ooh, wait, I can do you one better. Using bionic dragonflies to intercept bullets and stop people from being shot.

Brilliant. Take a sensible conclusion and metaphorically compare it to a completely absurd conclusion therefore making the first conclusion look absurd. Bravo.

I think people should fend for themselves, and states should be dismantled and abandoned.

And perhaps left on doorsteps in baskets, for others to care for and raise as their own.

you have just entered the political epiphany that libertarians usually find themselves in

you have just realized that, despite all your heroic talk of "freedom this" and "freedom that", you just stumbled upon the greatest freedom of all

and that is

THE FREEDOM TO LIFE


You see, many liberal initiatives, though they may SEEM socialistic, and thus nondemocratic or nonfreedomish to you, are actually very much democratic and profreedom

you see, things like universal healthcare, stronger unions, stricter gun control, higher taxes for MORE social services, tighter business regulations (so that corporations are ACCOUNTABLE for what they put in their food and production thereof, etc.), all of these things are aimed at PROLONGING our lives and making society a safer and healthier place, so that we can ENJOY the RIGHT and FREEDOM of life

NO ONE, i repeat, NO ONE should be able to exploit humanity and the right to life in the name of garnering a monetary profit

it is, to put it simply, undemocratic
I don't give a fuck about democracy, and don't endorse positive rights like the 'right to life' you are describing (not the right to be alive, but rather the obligtion for others to keep you alive at their own detriment). You think you could take this one uncertainty and turn around my entire ideology? You condescending fool, what do you think I am, a two year old?

Your logic:

Guns harm people, so ban them.

Pillows can also harm people, so pillows should be banned.

God this is stupid and it makes whoever repeats it look stupid.

Guns don't paint rainbows and, only if modified and used improperly, kill things.

No, guns kill things. It is their primary purpose. It is in fact what you want the gun for, so to try and pull this, "Well, a pillow can kill someone," bit it insults your own intelligence and your intelligence should be offended. Don't do that to your intelligence-it allowed you to tie your shoes and maw at a keyboard in words and sentences, it's been good to you. Don't do it like that.

Have a honest debate. You know what a gun does, is meant to do, you know what you want it for. Be honest about it. Stop trying to compare guns to pillows.

Brilliant. Take a sensible conclusion and metaphorically compare it to a completely absurd conclusion therefore making the first conclusion look absurd. Bravo.

What conclusion? "not give people guns" Oh, yeah, that's profound. Can I get a 'How'?

Looking after the citizens welfare...is that what you call not allowing people to choose for themselves? Not allowing people the chance to defend themselves? Banning everything that some people disagree with?

Your logic:

Guns harm people, so ban them.

Pillows can also harm people, so pillows should be banned.

that's hardly my logic. if you boil it down to its essence, yes, guns harm people so get rid of them. but knifes harm people too, as do cars. but those two serve other purposes. a gun's only purpose is as a weapon, and yes i certainly would restrict people's choice when it comes to allowing lethal weapons to be widely available.

i am aware its a slippery slope between wanting to protect people and using that power to ban all kinds of things and take away other freedoms. but that certainly isn't what i am advocating, nor would i want the government to restrict my choice (or 'freedom') in other (less lethal) matters.


as for defending yourself, the idea is to prevent assailants having the weapons, not prevent the innocent from defending themselves.

if you had better welfare policies over there maybe your disadvantaged wouldn't need to turn to crime and violence? ;)

what do you think I am, a two year old?

Well. >_>'

And who would these water inspectors be? The private industry wouldn't voluntarily let in water inspectors and their own inspections wouldn't be terribly trustworthy. But having the government do it would be intervention in the economy.

That's right.

A country that wants to do well would not have water inspectors.

Cholera can't be that bad right?

You know what a gun does, is meant to do,

Alright, you don't like it, new tack then. Why do I care?

i disagree. the government has the experience of others who may have used the demerit good. experts. research.

Yep. And then they make decisions based on whether it'll play well in the paper or make them money or get them reelected. The good of the electorate is a distant fourth.


an individual making a decision on their own will most likely not take these factors into account in making their decision to consume the demerit good.

thus the government does know better in some circumstances.

there are then two routes to take. one is to leave the decision ultimately up to the individual, but perhaps to attempt to educate the individual about such hidden costs (and i'm not just talking pecuniary costs here), to try and discourage him. this is what i personally promote with smoking, marijuana, LSD, shrooms, ecstacy. but when the cost to the individual becomes too great, such as is the case with heroin, causing innumerous health problems, sometimes death, social breakdown, crime, and all manner of other things, then discouraging consumption is not enough to protect the individual. banning the substance is required. its the same thing for guns in my mind, only on a larger, sociological scale.

Yet, it was government intervention that made Heroin common in the first place.

A century ago, Heroin was only used as an extreme, medical grade pain relief medication; even then it was uncommon, as straight Morphine was both easier to get and safer.
The abused version of opiates was just that: Opium, smoked. You cannot overdose on smoked Opium - you'll fall unconscious long before. There is no injection, so, no blood transfers and thus disease transfers. It was cheaper, and much less addictive too.
But Opium smoke has a very distinctive smell. People went to Opium dens in order to partake, and a good den looked after it's customers.

In the 1920s every Opium Den in the US was shut down by government crackdown. Users still wanted their highs, though - and eventually, they got them. Heroin is a vest-pocket commodity, much easier to hide.

Government "knew better". Government "made the choice for us". Government has so far fucked over seven generations with this War on Drugs CRAP and likely will continue to do so for ANOTHER seven generations.

Government cannot be trusted to potty train itself, much less make decisions that actually matter.

What the hell?

Gee, maybe so the entire country doesn't die when something goes wrong with the water supply.

so the government is protecting its citizens from potential harm?

good.

Ok, fuck it, I just had an epiphany. I support over the counter guns for the same reason I support over the counter drugs. The gene pool needs some chlorine. It isn't nice, but life wasn't supposed to be. We didn't get to where we are by living in a utopia, and we sure as hell aren't going to get where we are going by doing the same. *Ask the cabbie "Where are we going anyway?"*

Alright, you don't like it, new tack then. Why do I care?

Because you'll miss your daughter terribly after she's killed by some other jackass cowboy's stray bullet?

Ok, fuck it, I just had an epiphany. I support over the counter guns for the same reason I support over the counter drugs. The gene pool needs some chlorine. It isn't nice, but life wasn't supposed to be. We didn't get to where we are by living in a utopia, and we sure as hell aren't going to get where we are going by doing the same. *Ask the cabbie "Where are we going anyway?"*

...I suppose that's a fair reasoning.

Okay, thread over, go home! nah, not really, you can continue.

Because you'll miss your daughter terribly after she's killed by some other jackass cowboy's stray bullet?

...I have a daughter? Damn, I should be better informed, I was hoping for a son.

Yep. And then they make decisions based on whether it'll play well in the paper or make them money or get them reelected. The good of the electorate is a distant fourth.And big business cares more for the people?

Ok, fuck it, I just had an epiphany. I support over the counter guns for the same reason I support over the counter drugs. The gene pool needs some chlorine. It isn't nice, but life wasn't supposed to be. We didn't get to where we are by living in a utopia, and we sure as hell aren't going to get where we are going by doing the same. *Ask the cabbie "Where are we going anyway?"*

And yet the more civilized and civil society has gotten the speed in the advancement in society has been exponentially quicker...it's remarkable what humans can accomplish if they don't have to stand at the mouth of the cave fending of sabertooth tigers with a stick or on the porch fending off raiders with a shotgun...really frees up some time.

And yet the more civilized and civil society has gotten the speed in the advancement in society has been exponentially quicker...it's remarkable what humans can accomplish if they don't have to stand at the mouth of the cave fending of sabertooth tigers with a stick or on the porch fending off raiders with a shotgun...really frees up some time.

Uhh...:confused:

Yep. And then they make decisions based on whether it'll play well in the paper or make them money or get them reelected. The good of the electorate is a distant fourth.
well that's an issue with democracy now, isn't it?



Yet, it was government intervention that made Heroin common in the first place.

A century ago, Heroin was only used as an extreme, medical grade pain relief medication; even then it was uncommon, as straight Morphine was both easier to get and safer.
The abused version of opiates was just that: Opium, smoked. You cannot overdose on smoked Opium - you'll fall unconscious long before. There is no injection, so, no blood transfers and thus disease transfers. It was cheaper, and much less addictive too.
But Opium smoke has a very distinctive smell. People went to Opium dens in order to partake, and a good den looked after it's customers.

In the 1920s every Opium Den in the US was shut down by government crackdown. Users still wanted their highs, though - and eventually, they got them. Heroin is a vest-pocket commodity, much easier to hide.

Government "knew better". Government "made the choice for us". Government has so far fucked over seven generations with this War on Drugs CRAP and likely will continue to do so for ANOTHER seven generations.

Government cannot be trusted to potty train itself, much less make decisions that actually matter.


i agree that the government makes mistakes. any organisation does. but that doesn't stop the rationale behind what i say being true (to me)

and the US government isn't my government, just for note.


if your dog poops on the carpet once, is it because the dog is incapable of doing the right thing? must the dog always poop on your carpet? no. the dog made a mistake, but is still capable of doing it right.
government may be flawed (and different governments to different levels), but they're better than no government.

though perhaps we should get off the subject of democracy and heroin in a thread about guns ;)

...I have a daughter? Damn, I should be better informed, I was hoping for a son.

Daughter, son, brother, mother, sister, father, girlfriend, boyfriend, best friend, etc. Check all that apply.

Unless the attacker has a gun and who would be just as likely to shoot you as kick your ass if it looks like you are pulling a weapon and making yourself a threat to them. Putting guns in everyone's hand increases the chance of a simple mugging, robbery, etc will turn into a murder one way or the other.

Maybe. Or maybe we'll see fewer muggings, robberies, etc. Most criminals are weak and stupid - they prey on our willingness to be victimised. Fewer victims, fewer criminals.
And, I, for one, cheer when I hear about a criminal getting himself killed. Here's to a better world without him in it!


I was specifically replying to your Mace statement. Try again.

Weak. My reply covered both aspects quite clearly, and I do not generally repeat myself.


So you should shoot anyone that looks like a threat? I can already feel the death count of completely innocent, menacing looking people sky rocketing.

You do so like putting words in my mouth that I never typed.

And big business cares more for the people?

Why would you assume that?

Daughter, son, brother, mother, sister, father, girlfriend, boyfriend, best friend, etc. Check all that apply.

*shrug* and I'll be pretty pissed at palm trees when a coconut does them in, what's up?

And yet the more civilized and civil society has gotten the speed in the advancement in society has been exponentially quicker...it's remarkable what humans can accomplish if they don't have to stand at the mouth of the cave fending of sabertooth tigers with a stick or on the porch fending off raiders with a shotgun...really frees up some time. Yeah, but look at what said 'civilised' societies busied themselves with, killing other 'civilised' societies, and finding the best ways to do so. They jumped from killing a couple of megamarsupials to fending off 3000 persians with elephants and sticks, to huddling frantically in basements peering out at the sky for falling cannisters of explosives. A friend of mine posited that the solution to WMDs is planetary expansion. I think he is right. Once we have mars, we can nuke the shit out of earth.

*shrug* and I'll be pretty pissed at palm trees when a coconut does them in, what's up?
Ah, the shark defense. I here this retarded nonsense from surfers all the time.

"Oh dude, you could like totally get hit by a bus."

Yes, but that likely hood exists. But the buses main function isn't to hit me, or hit anything. Right now I have a near 0% chance of being eaten by a shark. If I go in the ocean on a device that makes me look like a seal, that chance goes up considerably. The sharks only purpose is to eat things. The fact that it eats me 'accidently' is barely consequential.

At least with the surfers they are advocating something fun that's not meant to harm anything.

Maybe. Or maybe we'll see fewer muggings, robberies, etc. Most criminals are weak and stupid - they prey on our willingness to be victimised. Fewer victims, fewer criminals.
Why are you speaking in hypotheticals about an already existing situation?

And, I, for one, cheer when I hear about a criminal getting himself killed. Here's to a better world without him in it!
I assume you cheer equally as loud when a robber shoots the guy he was robbing. You know, to be fair.

Ah, the shark defense. I here this retarded nonsense from surfers all the time.

"Oh dude, you could like totally get hit by a bus."

Yes, but that likely hood exists. But the buses main function isn't to hit me, or hit anything. Right now I have a near 0% chance of being eaten by a shark. If I go in the ocean on a device that makes me look like a seal, that chance goes up considerably. The sharks only purpose is to eat things. The fact that it eats me 'accidently' is barely consequential.

At least with the surfers they are advocating something fun that's not meant to harm anything.

And my chances of getting shot? I don't think the bus cares what its function is when it squashes you.

Yeah, but look at what said 'civilised' societies busied themselves with, killing other 'civilised' societies, and finding the best ways to do so. They jumped from killing a couple of megamarsupials to fending off 3000 persians with elephants and sticks, to huddling frantically in basements peering out at the sky for falling cannisters of explosives. A friend of mine posited that the solution to WMDs is planetary expansion. I think he is right. Once we have mars, we can nuke the shit out of earth.
And curing polio, expanding crop output to feed larger groups of people, extending life expectancy, etc. etc.

well that's an issue with democracy now, isn't it?

If only that were true. Every OTHER form of government has the good of the people even FARTHER down the list.





i agree that the government makes mistakes. any organisation does. but that doesn't stop the rationale behind what i say being true (to me)

and the US government isn't my government, just for note.


if your dog poops on the carpet once, is it because the dog is incapable of doing the right thing? must the dog always poop on your carpet? no. the dog made a mistake, but is still capable of doing it right.
government may be flawed (and different governments to different levels), but they're better than no government.

though perhaps we should get off the subject of democracy and heroin in a thread about guns ;)

Unfortunately, you're right that we do need some form of government. But you made my point in your first sentence: "i agree that the government makes mistakes. any organisation does."

When government makes a mistake it harms everyone. When an individual makes a mistake, he generally harms only himself.

Government, historically, is defined by it's mistakes. The best governments have been those that not only made fewer mistakes, but have had the opportunity to make fewer mistakes.

In any instance where individual rights and powers are concerned, such as gun control, I would prefer that government not get the chance to mess it up.

And my chances of getting shot? I don't think the bus cares what its function is when it squashes you.

Is in direct relation to the number of bullets flying around.

That math is easy.

And curing polio, expanding crop output to feed larger groups of people, extending life expectancy, etc. etc.
All built on the blood of 'barbarians'. Everytime.

Unfortunately, you're right that we do need some form of government. But you made my point in your first sentence: "i agree that the government makes mistakes. any organisation does."

When government makes a mistake it harms everyone. When an individual makes a mistake, he generally harms only himself.

Government, historically, is defined by it's mistakes. The best governments have been those that not only made fewer mistakes, but have had the opportunity to make fewer mistakes.

In any instance where individual rights and powers are concerned, such as gun control, I would prefer that government not get the chance to mess it up.

fair enough. i just don't trust people not to make all the wrong choices either. frankly i trust the government more, at least in this issue of gun control. as has been pointed out, at the simplest level no guns = safer. even if its carried out by a flawed organisation, i'd rather that than allow another person to decide my fate so easily.

Is in direct relation to the number of bullets flying around.

That math is easy.

Really? I mean, how much space does a bullet normally travel through, how many are there, are they distributed evenly or concentrated in certain areas, where would a path intersect with mine...

I dunno where to begin.

Why are you speaking in hypotheticals about an already existing situation?

But it isn't. Many places severely restrict weapon ownership; I live in one. Yet, I am not appreciably safer.


I assume you cheer equally as loud when a robber shoots the guy he was robbing. You know, to be fair.

No. It is not a fair world.

All built on the blood of 'barbarians'. Everytime.

Polio. Really.

Well, when you really want to look at something through a specific prism...

Really? I mean, how much space does a bullet normally travel through, how many are there, are they distributed evenly or concentrated in certain areas, where would a path intersect with mine...

I dunno where to begin.

Start with another math concept-

Obtuse.

But it isn't. Many places severely restrict weapon ownership; I live in one. Yet, I am not appreciably safer.


i live in a country that does. i think i'm safer. i feel safer. i bet there are statistics out there that say i'm not, but here i have never been mugged, shot at, been held at gunpoint, or robbed. our house was burgled one time, but they hardly took anything and the police were pretty good about it.

in fact the only time i've been a victim of crime was in america.

Start with another math concept-

Obtuse.

Hmm, how would that apply? Realy though, you lost me. You started going on about "Weeell, buses aren't supposed to kill you, so that's irrelevant". Somesuch like that, I'm foggy on the details.

i live in a country that does. i think i'm safer. i feel safer. i bet there are statistics out there that say i'm not, but here i have never been mugged, shot at, been held at gunpoint, or robbed. our house was burgled one time, but they hardly took anything and the police were pretty good about it.

in fact the only time i've been a victim of crime was in america.

Well, I've never been <list>. So we call it even then?

fair enough. i just don't trust people not to make all the wrong choices either. frankly i trust the government more, at least in this issue of gun control. as has been pointed out, at the simplest level no guns = safer. even if its carried out by a flawed organisation, i'd rather that than allow another person to decide my fate so easily.

Then it comes down to a matter of: who do you trust? But consider this: my way, I am not asking you to trust anyone or anything beyond your own conscience. Your way, you are asking me to trust the government, an institution we both agree, has erred before and will likely err again.

Which of us is asking the more?

Then it comes down to a matter of: who do you trust? But consider this: my way, I am not asking you to trust anyone or anything beyond your own conscience. Your way, you are asking me to trust the government, an institution we both agree, has erred before and will likely err again.

Which of us is asking the more?

i see it differently. i'm asking you to trust one entity to make one decision. you're asking me to trust millions of entities to make what amounts to millions of decisions. on the face of it, i don't trust those millions to make the right decision (eg. not to shoot) every time. but at least i can work to make my single entity (government) make the right choice.

i think this difference in our reasoning goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay deep.... :P

i live in a country that does. i think i'm safer. i feel safer. i bet there are statistics out there that say i'm not, but here i have never been mugged, shot at, been held at gunpoint, or robbed. our house was burgled one time, but they hardly took anything and the police were pretty good about it.

in fact the only time i've been a victim of crime was in america.

Fair enough. My experience is the opposite - In the US I was never the victim of crime. In Australia, I have been bashed twice and robbed at gunpoint once.

To be fair, the police caught all five criminals involved. But I would still have preferred to be able to defend myself.

I think I object to the statement that the U.S. is shitty compared to Australia thanks to looser regulations on firearms.

Our average murder rates are higher, yes. But our invasive crime rates are very low, at least compared to Europe (I'm afraid I don't have the statistics for Australian crime). Furthermore, the distribution of crime/murder does not match so nicely with the different levels of gun control throughout the states. Compare Texas to New York.

Polio. Really.

Well, when you really want to look at something through a specific prism...
Yes, polio. Medical developments were made possible only by the militarism of the societies that allowed them to 'sit on top' long enough to develop medecine. In fact, polio was invented in the US post-WWII economy, right after the USA nestled itself comfortably on top of the world. It wasn't developed in Poland.

Fair enough. My experience is the opposite - In the US I was never the victim of crime. In Australia, I have been bashed twice and robbed at gunpoint once.

To be fair, the police caught all five criminals involved. But I would still have preferred to be able to defend myself.Hahaha, seriously?

Yes. They're weapons. I have no problem with that.
It actually makes me wonder why you do. They're inanimate objects, after all. Any moral impulse associated is what you bring with you.

True, they are inanimate objects. But certain inanimate objects allow my moral impulses to be transferred into reality more readily than others.:)

Hmm, how would that apply? Realy though, you lost me. You started going on about "Weeell, buses aren't supposed to kill you, so that's irrelevant". Somesuch like that, I'm foggy on the details.

You're ignoring the relevance of the device being meant to kill, and since you want it so you can kill, that either makes you colossally stupid or obtuse. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Either way, to continue on would be too akin to giving a hand job and I have a rental car to return.

The thing is I'm not even really that against guns, I've fired some and it was a good time. There are places that have guns and it's not the issue it is in the US or other places.

It's not the guns so much themselves but instead this bullshit cowboy fetish that's the problem.

I don't see any problem with having to wait to own a gun or to have to check first to see if you're off your nut or even to require training-like the extensive training a bus driver has to go through so that they're not ramming into people every day...

i see it differently. i'm asking you to trust one entity to make one decision. you're asking me to trust millions of entities to make what amounts to millions of decisions. on the face of it, i don't trust those millions to make the right decision (eg. not to shoot) every time. but at least i can work to make my single entity (government) make the right choice.

i think this difference in our reasoning goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay deep.... :P

I think you're right.:D I wish more people like you were IN government - maybe we'd get a few less errors!

You're ignoring the relevance of the device being meant to kill, and since you want it so you can kill, that either makes you colossally stupid or obtuse. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Either way, to continue on would be too akin to giving a hand job and I have a rental car to return.

The thing is I'm not even really that against guns, I've fired some and it was a good time. There are places that have guns and it's not the issue it is in the US or other places.

It's not the guns so much themselves but instead this bullshit cowboy fetish that's the problem.

I don't see any problem with having to wait to own a gun or to have to check first to see if you're off your nut or even to require training-like the extensive training a bus driver has to go through so that they're not ramming into people every day...

Heehee, you have me mistaken for someone else, that happens far too often to me. :D

And my chances of getting shot? I don't think the bus cares what its function is when it squashes you.

Pretty good if you have a gun and the guy robbing you has a gun and you make like you're going to pull a gun.

Pretty good if you have a gun and the guy robbing you has a gun and you make like you're going to pull a gun.

Okay, in that scenario, it's not a possibilty to be ignored. Then the chances of being in such a situation?

Hahaha, seriously?

Quite seriously. I was mugged in Sydney, the guy had a little .22 revolver; the police told us later he was off his face on smack. I was bashed in Kalgoorlie after I beat a guy in an arm-wrestling competition (not by the guy - the three blokes who came after me lost a packet betting against me). The last one was a BIG aboriginal guy who didn't like Americans, and that was here in Perth.

At least with the one guy I was able to fight back - 3 on one is mug's odds.

I think I object to the statement that the U.S. is shitty compared to Australia thanks to looser regulations on firearms.

Our average murder rates are higher, yes. But our invasive crime rates are very low, at least compared to Europe (I'm afraid I don't have the statistics for Australian crime). Furthermore, the distribution of crime/murder does not match so nicely with the different levels of gun control throughout the states. Compare Texas to New York.
The US is the only place where a person would choose being shot over being robbed given the choice.

All built on the blood of 'barbarians'. Everytime.



"Civilization is built on conquest abroad and repression at home."

Jared Diamond.

i see it differently. i'm asking you to trust one entity to make one decision. you're asking me to trust millions of entities to make what amounts to millions of decisions. on the face of it, i don't trust those millions to make the right decision (eg. not to shoot) every time. but at least i can work to make my single entity (government) make the right choice.

i think this difference in our reasoning goes waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay deep.... :P

haha

Do you think government actually, deep down, cares what you think? Cares about you? The government only cares about keeping itself in power and getting wealthy.

To believe otherwise means they have you.

haha

Do you think government actually, deep down, cares what you think? Cares about you? The government only cares about keeping itself in power and getting wealthy.

To believe otherwise means they have you.
This is an instance of using words without actually considering their meaning.
What is "the government"? The elected president? The military-industrial complex? A chemist working for the EPA? The guy who lives next door and works on the city council? The idea that they are in some vast conspiracy is stretching plausibility.

i live in a country that does. i think i'm safer. i feel safer. i bet there are statistics out there that say i'm not, but here i have never been mugged, shot at, been held at gunpoint, or robbed. our house was burgled one time, but they hardly took anything and the police were pretty good about it.

in fact the only time i've been a victim of crime was in america.

This may surprise you but the vast majority of Americans have never been shot at, mugged, or held at gunpoint.


Banning guns does not make people suddenly safer. The number of people killed in accidental gun violence is very small, even less than the number of people that die in swimming pools, so get a little perspective.

Guns are not, by their very existence, causing thousands of people in the US to suddenly drop dead.

Banning guns do not make them suddenly disappear either and I laugh (in a dark morbid sense) whenever people decide more controls and restrictions will somehow make everything better. The majority of guns used in crimes were not legally purchased by the wielder.

This is an instance of using words without actually considering their meaning.
What is "the government"? The elected president? The military-industrial complex? A chemist working for the EPA? The guy who lives next door and works on the city council? The idea that they are in some vast conspiracy is stretching plausibility.

The politicians backed with the power of the military.

I don't give a fuck about democracy, and don't endorse positive rights like the 'right to life' you are describing (not the right to be alive, but rather the obligtion for others to keep you alive at their own detriment). You think you could take this one uncertainty and turn around my entire ideology? You condescending fool, what do you think I am, a two year old?

Okay, first of all, get yourself back on your meds and calm the fuck down

no one is trying to turn around your entire ideology or otherwise


YOU made mention that you are struggling with a particular part of your own closed minded political philosophy. You cannot blame anyone else for that. So grow up.

Now, saying you don't give a fuck about democracy shows just exactly how many functioning brain cells you really do have. I don't know what a Libertarian means where you come from, but where I'm from, it's understood that in order to have ANY initiatives that your average Libertarian would like to see accomplished, it must be done within a DEMOCRATIC setting, otherwise your notions of ECONOMIC FREEDOM and such forth would be moot.

Moving on.

Secondly, you OBVIOUSLY have a problem with allowing people the capability of needlessly TAKING THE LIVES of other people, as evidenced when you claim that "things get shitty" when it comes to gun violence (namely, death). THEREFORE, I concluded that you must have some form of reverance to the RIGHT TO LIFE. Otherwise, you're just a raving lunatic with no real political insight or reasoning, since you're guilt over lives taken by the barrel of a gun have no relevance for your value on life.

Thirdly, it is almost comical that you make reference that there's a difference between "the right to be alive" and "the obligtion for others to keep you alive at their own detriment." Tell me, exactly what's the difference? For to honestly state that you agree that people have the right to live, but then deny that steps should be taken to ensure their longevity and, well, life in general, it's hypocritical and naive at best. It clearly shows a lack of any real contemplation on this particular subject on your part.

So before you go getting offended and rude, perhaps you should re-evaluate your own particular beliefs in greater detail than what's hand fed to you by politicians and magazines.

And yes, with that subintelligent ranting and raving of yours, that's exactly what I think you are, a fucking two year old.

So what is the problem? Gun control. To be consistent with my own philosophy, I should advocate over the counter firearms. I advocate over the counter abortions, drugs, ecosystems, and whatever else. But guns? My problem lies in that I am quite content with heavy gun control. I personlly do now want a gun, and Australia is a better place without being inundated by them. To pull all stops on gun control would definitely be an objective backward step for life in Australia. I don't mind idiots being armed with credit cards, it is a good thing. But once you arm idiots with the power of death and life, things get shitty. Example: USA.

However, restricting weapon access directly conflicts with the principles that I uphold, forming stark hypocrisy.

You bring up an interesting point. I am an anarchist, personally, and I vehemently oppose gun control because I oppose state intervention in general. Also, I don't think a lack of gun control worsens crime in America: one of the only things Michael Moore and I can agree on is that there is something culturally wrong within America, in that this nation doesn't have close to the amount of guns in, say, Canada, yet we have an unsettling large amount of crime in comparison.

Firstly, I cannot identify the glitch in American culture that results in our comparitively higher crime rate, and I doubt that anyone could. In "Bowling for Columbine," Moore muses how our violent history may have something to do with it, but EVERY nation and culture has a violent history somewhere.

Secondly, I would argue that guns are NECESSARY for keeping the government in check (although I would obviously prefer them out of the picture COMPLETELY). There are pro-gun control advocates who make the defeatist argument that "guns can't compete with America's military, if worse came to worse," but this logic is, just as I described before, DEFEATIST and surprisingly naive. Naive because (to use an example) guerrilla warfare remains one of the most effective battle tactics known to this day, with guerillas successfully accomplishing coups on a regular basis. Sure, this type of thing is typically exclusive to third world nations, but there is no reason why this would be an impossible feat in America: normal Americans outnumber the "representative" snakes by millions.

Finally, anarcho-capitalism isn't even compatible with ANARCHISM. It assumes that people will willingly agree on a thing (the dollar, in America's case) as being of value. Therefore, anyone who decides that, say, an OAK LEAF is more valuable than the nation's relative currency will only end up poor, homeless, and truly stripped of the right to choose.

Cars, pots and pans, and cans of paint were not specifically created to hurt people. Guns were.


Only if you paint with an extremely broad brush can you come to the conclusion that guns were designed to hurt people. Once you start to examine each individual product, though, you rapidly find that many guns were designed for no such purpose. The Smith and Wesson Model 41, for instance, is designed for the sole purpose of providing a precision instrument to competitive marksmen. Or, perhaps we should discuss the Henry AR-7, a breakdown rifle whose sole purpose is for use in emergency survival situations, where hunting small game is an absolute necessity for survival.

What about heirloom firearms? There are countless thousands of old rifles and firearms in the United States. The Single Shot Springfield Armory Model 17 .22 caliber rifle that my parents own, for example. My grandfather received it for his thirteenth birthday, in the middle of the depression. His family had scraped and saved for months to afford such a ostentatious gift, and the meaning that it has has not been lost over the generations since.

More than that, these are not the only firearms whose design purpose does not include the killing of human beings, only two examples of many, many different options.

Only if you paint with an extremely broad brush can you come to the conclusion that guns were designed to hurt people. Once you start to examine each individual product, though, you rapidly find that many guns were designed for no such purpose. The Smith and Wesson Model 41, for instance, is designed for the sole purpose of providing a precision instrument to competitive marksmen. Or, perhaps we should discuss the Henry AR-7, a breakdown rifle whose sole purpose is for use in emergency survival situations, where hunting small game is an absolute necessity for survival.

What about heirloom firearms? There are countless thousands of old rifles and firearms in the United States. The Single Shot Springfield Armory Model 17 .22 caliber rifle that my parents own, for example. My grandfather received it for his thirteenth birthday, in the middle of the depression. His family had scraped and saved for months to afford such a ostentatious gift, and the meaning that it has has not been lost over the generations since.

More than that, these are not the only firearms whose design purpose does not include the killing of human beings, only two examples of many, many different options.

I meant the invention of firearms, not all specific guns. You're right, not all guns are created to hurt people. But that is why the first proto-gun was created, to hurt someone else.

...It's hardly about flooding a place with firearms...

*looks around* I'll wait for this thread to get to the good part.

These threads NEVER get to the good part.

What would you need a gun for? I suppose if you hunt a rifle would be necessary, and I can understand that, but you don't shoot deer with a handgun.

According to the CDC, 5,285 children died from gun violence last year (this includes accidents as well as murders). Only 153 died in Canada the same year. I hate it when people make Canada look like the Promised Land we should all try to achieve, but I think it highlights a point: there is nothing you can do to make absolutely sure that children will not get guns unless there are no guns available.

Actually, you can shoot deer with a handgun. See here:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/deer_gear.htm
http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections/Illinois/Handgun_Deer_Hunting_Regulations_Announced_09220312.html
http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/2001/oi010102.html
http://sports.expertvillage.com/videos/deer-hunting-handgun.htm

Also, there is something you can do to prevent your kids from getting access to your firearms. It's called a firearms safe, and my nieces and nephew don't know the combination to my brother in law's safe, therefore they can't get access to the firearms. It also helps that my brother in law has already talked to them about firearms safety (if they find one while out in the woods or wherever, don't touch it and get an adult).

Or accidentally shoot some one that isn't a threat. Whatever happened to mace/pepper spray/any other number of non-lethal deterrents?

Less lethal deterrents don't always work to stop the threat.

give the people who really do need guns access to them, and you give the people who will use them "irresponsibly" access to guns as well.

in my mind, best thing to do is to restrict it all.

i wouldn't want to live in a society where i felt i needed a gun to protect myself. i can understand that in the States, and i'm just glad its not like that over here.

I don't have a firearm to make me feel safe, I have it because I enjoy target shooting. Also, since my firearm is a long gun (rifle), it's not something I'd be able to carry with me everywhere I go (and for some strange reason, the USPS frowns on its workers coming to work armed).

I meant the invention of firearms, not all specific guns. You're right, not all guns are created to hurt people. But that is why the first proto-gun was created, to hurt someone else.

The origin of firearms is an irrelevant event that occurred over a millennium ago in Song Dynasty China. It is of no importance to the modern gun control debate, in any other form than as an emotional appeal.

Actually, you can shoot deer with a handgun. See here:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/deer_gear.htm
http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections/Illinois/Handgun_Deer_Hunting_Regulations_Announced_09220312.html
http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/2001/oi010102.html
http://sports.expertvillage.com/videos/deer-hunting-handgun.htm

Also, there is something you can do to prevent your kids from getting access to your firearms. It's called a firearms safe, and my nieces and nephew don't know the combination to my brother in law's safe, therefore they can't get access to the firearms. It also helps that my brother in law has already talked to them about firearms safety (if they find one while out in the woods or wherever, don't touch it and get an adult).
I'm sure you can shoot deer with a handgun, but that's not why people buy them, unless they're significantly cheaper than hunting rifles.

And like I said before, if there are going to be guns, there should be gun training. But accidents can still happen. Children have been known to not listen to their parents, and while the gun in the house may be secure (which I applaud), guns in the woods, like in the scenario you brought up, are still accessible.

Finally, not all gun owners are as intelligent as your brother-in-law. They might not have a firearms safe, or if they do the children may know the combination.

The origin of firearms is an irrelevant event that occurred over a millennium ago in Song Dynasty China. It is of no importance to the modern gun control debate, in any other form than as an emotional appeal.
If guns are not for wounding other things, what are they for?
Sport? Yes, I can see that. But that still depends on the fact that guns can make holes appear in things far away, whether it be a target, a deer, or a person.

I don't believe gun control solves anything. Basically by doing that you allow the criminals (Who will ALWAYS find ways of getting weapons) to their devices to get them, leaving the law abiding citizens without protection.

God this is stupid and it makes whoever repeats it look stupid.

Guns don't paint rainbows and, only if modified and used improperly, kill things.

No, guns kill things. It is their primary purpose. It is in fact what you want the gun for, so to try and pull this, "Well, a pillow can kill someone," bit it insults your own intelligence and your intelligence should be offended. Don't do that to your intelligence-it allowed you to tie your shoes and maw at a keyboard in words and sentences, it's been good to you. Don't do it like that.

Have a honest debate. You know what a gun does, is meant to do, you know what you want it for. Be honest about it. Stop trying to compare guns to pillows.

Actually, a firearm's primary purpose is to propel a bullet at great speed. It's a bullet that's designed to kill (except for a wadcutter, which is designed as a slow speed target bullet that cuts neat little holes in paper, making it easier to determine the target's score).

:D

<snip>

Very interesting post there. I am also Australian and am extremely happy with the amount of guns in Australia (AFAIK, I've literally never seen one in real life).

As far as your ideological contradiction, here is an idea: instead of trying to adhere to one over-arching ideology such as libertarianism, why not just make up your mind individually on each specific issue?

If guns are not for wounding other things, what are they for?
Sport? Yes, I can see that. But that still depends on the fact that guns can make holes appear in things far away, whether it be a target, a deer, or a person.

The game of darts isn't any different. It is derived from the medieval practice of throwing small arrows at targets that was common amongst soldiers. Darts were originally designed to be lethal, but now they serve a sporting purpose.

I don't see how guns are all that different in their origins.

The game of darts isn't any different. It is derived from the medieval practice of throwing small arrows at targets that was common amongst soldiers. Darts were originally designed to be lethal, but now they serve a sporting purpose.

I don't see how guns are all that different in their origins.

AFAIK, people with darts don't go on throwing sprees.

AFAIK, people with darts don't go on throwing sprees.

you've clearly never been to LA ;)

The right to self defense is the most basic and fundamental right.

The right to keep and bear arms is what secures the right to self defense, so it is equally indispensable.

Guns don't cause people to kill each other, culture does. The USA is not the only country where the citizens are free to own weapons, and the problems with violent crime in the US are not mirrored in other countries with similar rights.

AFAIK, people with darts don't go on throwing sprees.

Neither do the vast bulk of gun owners, especially those of limited availability or precision pieces. You don't go out and drop $5-600 on a Model 41, and then go start trying to grease your classmates. Hardly.

I have an internal problem with my ideology. I am a passionate, radical libertarian who often flirts with anarcho-capitalism. I hold individual freedom as the highest, and objectively superior priority. In particular I see economic freedom as being the single most critical area for a society. Political freedom is something of an afterthough (perhaps because of my disdain for statism, or perhaps because is typically follows economic freedom anyhow).

So what is the problem? Gun control. To be consistent with my own philosophy, I should advocate over the counter firearms. I advocate over the counter abortions, drugs, ecosystems, and whatever else. But guns? My problem lies in that I am quite content with heavy gun control. I personlly do now want a gun, and Australia is a better place without being inundated by them. To pull all stops on gun control would definitely be an objective backward step for life in Australia. I don't mind idiots being armed with credit cards, it is a good thing. But once you arm idiots with the power of death and life, things get shitty. Example: USA.

However, restricting weapon access directly conflicts with the principles that I uphold, forming stark hypocrisy. I like the notion of un control in practiclity, but I hate it in theory. I feel inclined to grit my teeth and be logically consistent with myself and espouse liberal gun laws. The bargain I have made, I suppose, is that the benefit to the economy will ultimately add up as favourable. Plus, I suppose the adverity caused by guns will stimulate further technological progress.

What are your positions? More importantly, why do you hold them? What are the actual benefits of inundating an uninundated society with firearms?

You speak from the position of a person who does not require a gun. If you were a hobbiest it would be one thing - but imagine if the neighborhood you lived in was a high-crime area or near one. Or - what if just one time in your life you found you wished you had a gun. That experience alone can change your entire outlook on gun control.

Just like abortion - gun control advocates are easily to say they are against it if they have never needed one.

I'm sure you can shoot deer with a handgun, but that's not why people buy them, unless they're significantly cheaper than hunting rifles.

And like I said before, if there are going to be guns, there should be gun training. But accidents can still happen. Children have been known to not listen to their parents, and while the gun in the house may be secure (which I applaud), guns in the woods, like in the scenario you brought up, are still accessible.

Finally, not all gun owners are as intelligent as your brother-in-law. They might not have a firearms safe, or if they do the children may know the combination.

Shooting deer with handguns is more challenging, as you have to get in closer, and make a better shot than with a rifle.

I agree that firearms training should be sought before the purchase of a person's first firearm. Not only would the person learn the correct way to safely handle and store a firearm, it would also mean going to the range (which I like a lot :D). BTW, the NRA has a childrens firearms safety program that should be encouraged to be used, for anyone that has kids and either owns is thinking of owning a firearm (the Eddie Eagle program, IIRC).

Lastly, I don't see why people can't regularly change the combination on their gun safes (to prevent their kids from knowing it). I don't have kids, but I do it anyways on mine.

Neither do the vast bulk of gun owners, especially those of limited availability or precision pieces. You don't go out and drop $5-600 on a Model 41, and then go start trying to grease your classmates. Hardly.

IN the interests of full disclosure:

Seung Cho put down a fair bit more than $600 before he went off to 'grease' his classmates.

I always found it rather interesting, when I lived in the States, that many Americans would tell me it was their second amendment right to bear arms. In fact many often quoted "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to me. The thing that always amused me was that quite a few did not know the full quote; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Now call me a naive, literalist Liberal commie if you will, but to me that reads that you may keep and bear arms if you are part of an organised and regulated militia. Now I'm by no means an expert on the law of my own country, let alone the American legal and political system, but the way it was explained to me by an old friend, was that all US militia fall under the control of the National Guard (National Defense Act of 1916). Now I may be stretching a point here, but does that not mean that only those in the military, National Guard (and various of the law enforcement agencies as approved by Gov't) are allowed to bear arms? Personally I like the system used here in Britain and in other first world countries, I feel safer even in Nottingham than I do anywhere in the US.

Depends on the country.

I always found it rather interesting, when I lived in the States, that many Americans would tell me it was their second amendment right to bear arms. In fact many often quoted "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to me. The thing that always amused me was that quite a few did not know the full quote; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Now call me a naive, literalist Liberal commie if you will, but to me that reads that you may keep and bear arms if you are part of an organised and regulated militia. Now I'm by no means an expert on the law of my own country, let alone the American legal and political system, but the way it was explained to me by an old friend, was that all US militia fall under the control of the National Guard (National Defense Act of 1916). Now I may be stretching a point here, but does that not mean that only those in the military, National Guard (and various of the law enforcement agencies as approved by Gov't) are allowed to bear arms? Personally I like the system used here in Britain and in other first world countries, I feel safer even in Nottingham than I do anywhere in the US.

No, your interpretation is quite clearly wrong, and the writings of the framers will show you to be quite far from a literalist. The framers intended the Second Amendment to be an individual right, guaranteeing the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether they were in any sort of militia, organized or otherwise. Countless arguments by the framers would support this viewpoint, and their support for having an armed citizenry is not even remotely concealed.

Furthermore, if you automatically feel safer merely because you are not in the US, and merely because we have more extensive gun rights, than I would argue that you are quite paranoid.

As a side note, by law all male citizens of the United States between the ages of 18 and 45 are members of the unregulated militia, a force that can be called upon in times of dire national emergency.

Depends on the country.

Which is quite true. I would feel that it would be entirely foolish for the sudden introduction of firearms into British society to occur. There is virtually no history of private ownership amongst common people, with the ownership of firearms historically being restricted to the military and the aristocracy. It is not a culture that would be able to integrate firearms properly, and prudence would demand that the status quo be maintained.

THE FREEDOM TO LIFE
Actually, no. Hurting someone is already a crime and would be even under anarcho-capitalism.

Personally, I used to be all about outlawing guns. But I saw the contradiction as well, plus I learned more about gun ownership (for a while I wanted to get into sports shooting, so I talked to people).

Ultimately the people who are most likely to use a gun to intentionally hurt someone wouldn't care much about a law telling them not to have a gun, that's the unfortunate truth.

We also know that you're more likely to be shot by your own gun than by someone else's - by buying a gun and keeping it at home you're taking a statistical risk that you or your family will get hurt. But that's a personal decision.

Don't get me wrong, I find most of the US' gun culture ridiculous. I find the idea that a handgun can protect you from government or make for an effective militia ridiculous. I think in 90% of cases, a big, well-trained guard dog is a better bet than a gun to protect your house and your belongings. And when you're out on the street, I would only trust a well-trained and experienced gun owner to be able to use his concealed firearm to prevent being robbed. More likely the robber will just surprise the victim and steal the gun as well as everything else.

But ultimately if someone thinks they need a gun, I don't think I can tell them not to. I would want as much transparency in the market as possible, and as long as there's a license system for driving there should be one for gun ownership as well. But outlawing a good because of the potential externalities associated with owning or using it is a dangerous path to go down.

There is little connection between gun control and gun related crime. If guns where to disapear overnight, there would be a knife crime epidemic.

People see guns as a problem, but crime is crime. Social/economic/other problems lead to street crime, it's just a convinience for street criminas to use a gun.

Almost every adult male in Switzerland has access to an assault rifle, but people are not shooting each other up there since they have no need to.

Lastly, I don't see why people can't regularly change the combination on their gun safes (to prevent their kids from knowing it). I don't have kids, but I do it anyways on mine.
Because you're an intelligent, reasonable person. Unfortunately, not every is that careful.

Actually, no. Hurting someone is already a crime and would be even under anarcho-capitalism.

Personally, I used to be all about outlawing guns. But I saw the contradiction as well, plus I learned more about gun ownership (for a while I wanted to get into sports shooting, so I talked to people).

Ultimately the people who are most likely to use a gun to intentionally hurt someone wouldn't care much about a law telling them not to have a gun, that's the unfortunate truth.

We also know that you're more likely to be shot by your own gun than by someone else's - by buying a gun and keeping it at home you're taking a statistical risk that you or your family will get hurt. But that's a personal decision.

Don't get me wrong, I find most of the US' gun culture ridiculous. I find the idea that a handgun can protect you from government or make for an effective militia ridiculous. I think in 90% of cases, a big, well-trained guard dog is a better bet than a gun to protect your house and your belongings. And when you're out on the street, I would only trust a well-trained and experienced gun owner to be able to use his concealed firearm to prevent being robbed. More likely the robber will just surprise the victim and steal the gun as well as everything else.

But ultimately if someone thinks they need a gun, I don't think I can tell them not to. I would want as much transparency in the market as possible, and as long as there's a license system for driving there should be one for gun ownership as well. But outlawing a good because of the potential externalities associated with owning or using it is a dangerous path to go down.

i fully agree with you

i don't necessarily think that handguns should be banned, but I do think that there should be restrictions placed upon them

and when you really take a good hard look at the kind of people around you, strict regulations don't seem like such a bad idea :)

Neither do the vast bulk of gun owners, especially those of limited availability or precision pieces. You don't go out and drop $5-600 on a Model 41, and then go start trying to grease your classmates. Hardly.
Well you don't need that $5-600 for a Playstation 3 or new cheap computer if you are going to jail for a long time.

You speak from the position of a person who does not require a gun. If you were a hobbiest it would be one thing - but imagine if the neighborhood you lived in was a high-crime area or near one. Or - what if just one time in your life you found you wished you had a gun. That experience alone can change your entire outlook on gun control.

Just like abortion - gun control advocates are easily to say they are against it if they have never needed one.
There was an excellent article in I believe Slate the other day about some women who was raised in Texas around guns - she knew how to shoot, had a CC license and carried one with her all the time. There was a gun in every nook and cranny. Then she moved to New York for years and came to the conclusion that you didn't need a gun around you at every second of the day. When she went back to Texas the absurd gun culture seemed just like that - absurd.

What are your positions? More importantly, why do you hold them? What are the actual benefits of inundating an uninundated society with firearms?

Things aren't controlled at random. There hasn't been a business regulated before someone in that business abused the public or their workers. There has seldom been regulation before those using a product abused the privilege. If there were no problems with gun owners there would be no regulation. The more any group refuses to regulate themselves, the more their members abuse others, the more regulation.

On the other hand, any product that the users don't abuse that privilege the less regulation. In the US, guns were obviously seen as a problem from the very beginning as the constitution calls for them to be "well regulated".

Well you don't need that $5-600 for a Playstation 3 or new cheap computer if you are going to jail for a long time.

If you're dead set on doing something that is going to get you sent to jail a Saturday Night Special will fit the bill. The Raven Arms MP-25, for example, can be purchased for as little as $60 new.

The argument I was making was that there are guns whose purpose is clearly not killing other human beings, and the Model 41 is just such a firearm.

*snip*

The easy answer to your dilemma is through property rights. If there is a benefit to restricting gun access, it will be done through restrictive covenants. Kind of like how certain apartment buildings won't allow their tenants to own firearms, but on the scale of a privately-owned city or the like. And there would still be restrictions on what you can bring onto other people's property, like how you cannot bring firearms into a bar. It's just that such control won't be done unilaterally through a monopoly on jurisdiction; it has to be consensual.

I'm not sure how much of this applies to your flavor of libertarianism, since you do not wholly reject the state and likely believe in public ownership of population centers, but that is a problem that comes from mixing libertarianism with other ideologies and not in libertarianism itself.

Funny thing is that where I live, everyone and their dog owns at least a couple guns, and yet gun violence is extremely rare here. The last time someone was killed in a bit of drug related gun violence, it was on the front page for a week, because those kind of things don't happen here more than once or twice every 5 or so years. Something tells me that it's not the guns themselves that are the problem.

The argument I was making was that there are guns whose purpose is clearly not killing other human beings, and the Model 41 is just such a firearm.
So they can't fire bullets and are only collector's pieces?

So they can't fire bullets and are only collector's pieces?

No. The Smith and Wesson Model 41 is a precision pistol designed for the sole purpose of competitive marksmanship. It fires a small caliber round, requires regular maintenance and is certainly not a Raven Arms MP-25. It is the pistol that I rent when I target shoot.

I always found it rather interesting, when I lived in the States, that many Americans would tell me it was their second amendment right to bear arms. In fact many often quoted "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to me. The thing that always amused me was that quite a few did not know the full quote; "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Now call me a naive, literalist Liberal commie if you will, but to me that reads that you may keep and bear arms if you are part of an organised and regulated militia. Now I'm by no means an expert on the law of my own country, let alone the American legal and political system, but the way it was explained to me by an old friend, was that all US militia fall under the control of the National Guard (National Defense Act of 1916). Now I may be stretching a point here, but does that not mean that only those in the military, National Guard (and various of the law enforcement agencies as approved by Gov't) are allowed to bear arms? Personally I like the system used here in Britain and in other first world countries, I feel safer even in Nottingham than I do anywhere in the US.

The US DOJ says that firearms ownership is not a militia or state right, but an individual right (this is a copy of the DOJ page: http://www.gunshowonthenet.com/usdoj2ndamend.html).

Let me share two little anecdotes here, what you all take out of them is up to you.

My Tae-Kwon-Do master had a friend, a businessman, who worked in New York City. His friend had a license to carry a gun and always carried it under his suit jacket. One day a man confronted him with a gun, demanding his wallet(or whatever he was carrying of value), when my master's friend put his hands up in the air, the man with the gun saw the weapon under his jacket and shot him.

Quite a time ago, my father got a job as a security guard in some mall and was offered the option of carrying a gun. My father declined and his reasoning was that carrying a gun would only give any potential attackers a weapon to use against him, since in most cases people stealing from a mall are not weilding any sort of sidearms.

Let me share two little anecdotes here, what you all take out of them is up to you.

My Tae-Kwon-Do master had a friend, a businessman, who worked in New York City. His friend had a license to carry a gun and always carried it under his suit jacket. One day a man confronted him with a gun, demanding his wallet(or whatever he was carrying of value), when my master's friend put his hands up in the air, the man with the gun saw the weapon under his jacket and shot him.

Quite a time ago, my father got a job as a security guard in some mall and was offered the option of carrying a gun. My father declined and his reasoning was that carrying a gun would only give any potential attackers a weapon to use against him, since in most cases people stealing from a mall are not weilding any sort of sidearms.

One of your anecdotes is a curiosity, the other is entirely irrelevant.

Because you're an intelligent, reasonable person.

Thank you. :D

Unfortunately, not every is that careful.

That is unfortunate. That's why I encourage people that are interested in owning firearms to attend a class that can teach them safe handling practices. The NRA instructor that taught the class I attended couldn't stress enough the importance of always keeping safe firearms practices.

making something that is designed to kill easily available is retarded to me.

sometimes people need protecting from themselves. people can't see the hidden costs and problems arising from using a demerit good - such as starting smoking, or taking heroin. the government needs to step in and stop people hurting themselves before they start. the same applies with gun control. the government needs to stop society harming itself, and people harming each other, before they start. and the way to do that is to restrict access to guns. if government's first duty is to safeguard the safety of its people, then that includes safety from themselves and hidden dangers, as well as outside powers and the like.


admittedly its a lot more difficult/complicated in the US with the prevailance of guns already so high.


So basically what you're saying is "Hey Government, will you arbitrarily decide what I have a right to own, to do, hey while you're at it, tell me what to think too!" Thanks, but no thanks, licensing for guns and here's the kicker, proper education on the use and avoidance of misuse is the best policy in my opinion. As with any substance or item, it can be misused, but to have the government ban the item in question is way too 1984ish for my tastes.

The easy answer to your dilemma is through property rights. If there is a benefit to restricting gun access, it will be done through restrictive covenants. Kind of like how certain apartment buildings won't allow their tenants to own firearms, but on the scale of a privately-owned city or the like. And there would still be restrictions on what you can bring onto other people's property, like how you cannot bring firearms into a bar. It's just that such control won't be done unilaterally through a monopoly on jurisdiction; it has to be consensual.

I'm not sure how much of this applies to your flavor of libertarianism, since you do not wholly reject the state and likely believe in public ownership of population centers, but that is a problem that comes from mixing libertarianism with other ideologies and not in libertarianism itself.


Ah, the "lets return to feudalism" argument.


What feudal baron worth his salt lets his subjects/peons/chattel own weapons anyway?

Ah, the "lets return to feudalism" argument.

So I guess all those private urban developments all over the country are evil cesspools of repression, uh? Quite honestly, I'd rather live in a privately owned community than continue to live in a publicly owned one, what with all the graft and corruption and special interest spurred policies. But I suppose you enjoy being the host organism of whatever demagogue with a nice smile is in office.

What feudal baron worth his salt lets his subjects/peons/chattel own weapons anyway?

The same reason that skill in weapons was so widespread in the middle ages; so they can defend themselves from whatever miscreants there are. And, since that would lower insurance rates on violent crime, which would increase his capital value, the private-owner would do it out of self-interest.

The same reason that skill in weapons was so widespread in the middle ages;
Some one has been playing too many fantasy games.

Some one has been playing too many fantasy games.

Every gentleman knew how to handle a weapon in the Middle Ages, and people needed to know how to handle a weapon to fend off real dangers such as Vikings; even monks had to arm themselves. If you're going to insult someone, please at least try to be factual.

Definitely too many fantasy games.

So I guess all those private urban developments all over the country are evil cesspools of repression, uh? Quite honestly, I'd rather live in a privately owned community than continue to live in a publicly owned one, what with all the graft and corruption and special interest spurred policies. But I suppose you enjoy being the host organism of whatever demagogue with a nice smile is in office.



The same reason that skill in weapons was so widespread in the middle ages; so they can defend themselves from whatever miscreants there are. And, since that would lower insurance rates on violent crime, which would increase his capital value, the private-owner would do it out of self-interest.


Why bother with any of that when you could just say "no weapons, peons" and then kill anyone who wont work for free, like they used to do when they had "privately owned cities" in practice, ie, feudalism.

Also, skill in weapons was the business of the upper crust, the mounted warrior elite. No-skill weapons like crossbows and especially guns are what gave the common man his freedom from those whose might previously made them right.

Every gentleman knew how to handle a weapon in the Middle Ages,

Problem A: Very few people would have been considered as part of the 'gentlemen' group.

Problem B: Standard people did not use military weapons. Maybe a wood axe or a small knife but even that wasn't well honed combat skill, it was small scale, repetitive skill.

and people needed to know how to handle a weapon to fend off real dangers such as Vikings; even monks had to arm themselves. If you're going to insult someone, please at least try to be factual.

So.... The Vikings managed to pillage all around and through Europe?

Problem A: Very few people would have been considered as part of the 'gentlemen' group.

Problem B: Standard people did not use military weapons. Maybe a wood axe or a small knife but even that wasn't well honed combat skill, it was small scale, repetitive skill.



So.... The Vikings managed to pillage all around and through Europe?

Indeed, gentleman referred to something -> a member of the uber-exploitive upper class.

SCA nonsense aside, arms and armor were for the 'old money' of the medieval world, being a proficient warrior was the badge of the upper class, with there being no mistake that the arms were to be used against the serfs if they wouldn't do as they were told.

Which is one of the reasons why the battle of Agincourt (is that the correct name?) went so badly for the French: Even though they were having to go through a bottleneck and in muddy terrain they still followed the code of chivalry and charged forth to get (a.k.a kidnap them) to the other nobles. They were extremely shocked that the peasents would actually fight them.

Problem A: Very few people would have been considered as part of the 'gentlemen' group.

Problem B: Standard people did not use military weapons. Maybe a wood axe or a small knife but even that wasn't well honed combat skill, it was small scale, repetitive skill.

I never said that everyone was a war master. I said that everyone had some proficiency in some weapon, even if it was an axe or a knife.

So.... The Vikings managed to pillage all around and through Europe?

INCLUDING Vikings. I never said they were the only things. If you want to speak with me, then please stop twisting my words.

Why bother with any of that when you could just say "no weapons, peons" and then kill anyone who wont work for free, like they used to do when they had "privately owned cities" in practice, ie, feudalism.

If that's how you think all feudalism ran like this, then you are truly ignorant. Read some de Jouvenel instead of spouting nonsense- for much of its early history people were quite secure in their rights, with the king's power being under the precepts of private law instead of manufacturing public law like every modern. The only time that it really approached anything like this was when power was being centralized, but that was when there was a transition from feudalism to the central state. Publicly owned cities are nothing but a web of deception by which greedy politicians plunder everything they can get their hands on while masquerading under the "will of the people."

Also, skill in weapons was the business of the upper crust, the mounted warrior elite. No-skill weapons like crossbows and especially guns are what gave the common man his freedom from those whose might previously made them right.

But most everyone had some skill in some kind of weapon, even monks. Not necessarily a sword or the like, but a weapon of some sort.

Definitely too many fantasy games.

Definitely nothing intelligent to say. Definitely.

I never said that everyone was a war master. I said that everyone had some proficiency in some weapon, even if it was an axe or a knife.



INCLUDING Vikings. I never said they were the only things. If you want to speak with me, then please stop twisting my words.



If that's how you think all feudalism ran like this, then you are truly ignorant. Read some de Jouvenel instead of spouting nonsense- for much of its early history people were quite secure in their rights, with the king's power being under the precepts of private law instead of manufacturing public law like every modern. The only time that it really approached anything like this was when power was being centralized, but that was when there was a transition from feudalism to the central state. Publicly owned cities are nothing but a web of deception by which greedy politicians plunder everything they can get their hands on while masquerading under the "will of the people."



But most everyone had some skill in some kind of weapon, even monks. Not necessarily a sword or the like, but a weapon of some sort.



Definitely nothing intelligent to say. Definitely.

A) The only analogue in history to a "privately owned city" is a feudal land holding where the serfs are at the mercy of the 'private owner,' ie, the feudal lord.

Not until the fourteenth century and the plague did the common man have any sort of leverage over his overlords, and only then on account of his newfound scarcity (vis a vis the plague) and easier to use weapons.

It is inane to claim that because a dirt farmer could fend a bobcat off with a stick that he was 'proficient in some weapon,' he had a perhaps 1% chance of winning against a warrior with any real 'prowess,' something which was achieved by being to the manor born, trained from youth and throughout adulthood, and practiced with expensive armor and weapons.

An armored chevalier could kill almost any number of peons, up until weapons analogous to guns were developed.

Quite seriously. I was mugged in Sydney, the guy had a little .22 revolver; the police told us later he was off his face on smack. I was bashed in Kalgoorlie after I beat a guy in an arm-wrestling competition (not by the guy - the three blokes who came after me lost a packet betting against me). The last one was a BIG aboriginal guy who didn't like Americans, and that was here in Perth.

At least with the one guy I was able to fight back - 3 on one is mug's odds.
Thats crazy. I don't even know someone who has been mugged, and I live in inner sydney (very close to Kings Cross no less). Do you have a habit of scratching your face with your middle finger or something? :P

Okay, first of all, get yourself back on your meds and calm the fuck down

no one is trying to turn around your entire ideology or otherwise I wasn't bothered so much about that, it was the intense implicit condescension you held that left me with the sole option of giving you the big finger.

YOU made mention that you are struggling with a particular part of your own closed minded political philosophy. You cannot blame anyone else for that. So grow up. Actually, I made mention that I was struggling with a particular part of an otherwise complete and superior philosophy. I didn't blame anyone for that, rather I told you to fuck off when you decided to jump at the opportunity my honest provided to make a thinly veiled plug of your own conceited ideology. I didn't ask for that, and you know it. Thats why you got the finger.

Now, saying you don't give a fuck about democracy shows just exactly how many functioning brain cells you really do have. You delusion that it is worthing giving a fuck over shows how naive you are. Democracy is fucking you in the A-hole as we speak. I don't know what a Libertarian means where you come from, but where I'm from, it's understood that in order to have ANY initiatives that your average Libertarian would like to see accomplished, it must be done within a DEMOCRATIC setting, otherwise your notions of ECONOMIC FREEDOM and such forth would be moot. Other way around; Economic freedom secures political freedom. Also note that the second thing I noted was my love-affair with anarcho-capitalism- an ideology best described as pure uncompromising libertarianism.

Moving on.

Secondly, you OBVIOUSLY have a problem with allowing people the capability of needlessly TAKING THE LIVES of other people, as evidenced when you claim that "things get shitty" when it comes to gun violence (namely, death). My concern was in my own safety, not for the lives of strangers. THEREFORE, I concluded that you must have some form of reverance to the RIGHT TO LIFE. Incorrectly, we have seen. Otherwise, you're just a raving lunatic with no real political insight or reasoning, since you're guilt over lives taken by the barrel of a gun have no relevance for your value on life. pure dribble.

Thirdly, it is almost comical that you make reference that there's a difference between "the right to be alive" and "the obligtion for others to keep you alive at their own detriment." Tell me, exactly what's the difference? For to honestly state that you agree that people have the right to live, but then deny that steps should be taken to ensure their longevity and, well, life in general, it's hypocritical and naive at best. It clearly shows a lack of any real contemplation on this particular subject on your part. I'm beginning to question whether this is worth the effort. If you can't tell the difference between not killing someone, and paying for them to live as long as they can, you are lost. I maintain the notion of negative rights. That is rights that do not require the affirmative action of others. Property rights, for example. I reject positive rights, which require something of others, such as the 'right' to education.

So before you go getting offended and rude, perhaps you should re-evaluate your own particular beliefs in greater detail than what's hand fed to you by politicians and magazines. Ironic for you to say that.

And yes, with that subintelligent ranting and raving of yours, that's exactly what I think you are, a fucking two year old. Evidently, thus my disdain for your hopeless conceit. Run along back to the children's table, the adults are talking.

Actually, no. Hurting someone is already a crime and would be even under anarcho-capitalism.

Personally, I used to be all about outlawing guns. But I saw the contradiction as well, plus I learned more about gun ownership (for a while I wanted to get into sports shooting, so I talked to people).

Ultimately the people who are most likely to use a gun to intentionally hurt someone wouldn't care much about a law telling them not to have a gun, that's the unfortunate truth.

We also know that you're more likely to be shot by your own gun than by someone else's - by buying a gun and keeping it at home you're taking a statistical risk that you or your family will get hurt. But that's a personal decision.

Don't get me wrong, I find most of the US' gun culture ridiculous. I find the idea that a handgun can protect you from government or make for an effective militia ridiculous. I think in 90% of cases, a big, well-trained guard dog is a better bet than a gun to protect your house and your belongings. And when you're out on the street, I would only trust a well-trained and experienced gun owner to be able to use his concealed firearm to prevent being robbed. More likely the robber will just surprise the victim and steal the gun as well as everything else.

But ultimately if someone thinks they need a gun, I don't think I can tell them not to. I would want as much transparency in the market as possible, and as long as there's a license system for driving there should be one for gun ownership as well. But outlawing a good because of the potential externalities associated with owning or using it is a dangerous path to go down.
Thanks, Neu. It took 134 posts to get this. This is probably the reason that you are one of the few people I have never met that I respect. Such a refreshing lack of BS when it comes to you.

A thought I had:

Yes, you can have any gun you want and can pay for. But, you have to do the dance. Train and license. Register the guns, register the ammo, implement smart trigger technology. Put out an all-call to gun owners to come in and get their guns retrofitted with smart triggers. Rescind all other gun control laws including weapons bans.

Those bullets will literally have the name of the person that sent them ballistic on them. With smart trigger technology, nobody but the person that bought the gun could shoot it, so law enforcement would have the perp dead to rights.

Don't talk to me about the technology being too complicated and expensive. It's down to a question of a biometric reader built into the trigger.

Something I noticed (slightly on/off topic). There are TWO, yes, TWO movies coming out in the next few months whose subject matter involve crime victims lashing out and going vigilante. Jodie Foster and Kevin Bacon. Instant movie genre? Makes one think, what's up with that?

Almost every adult male in Switzerland has access to an assault rifle, but people are not shooting each other up there since they have no need to.

Gun crime in Switzerland is relatively rare (last I heard) because the government there actively goes to the trouble of engineering a society wherein widespread firearms ownership and use are safe. A society widely noted for being up to its ears in firearms also has significant and strong regulation of the same.

The Swiss Armed Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland) is the cornerstone of the operation. Compulsory military service that helps create a society familiar with, and trained in the operation of, firearms. Yearly mandatory training keeps skills and attendant responsibility up. Naturally, sport and other shooting activities and culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Recreational_shooting) help contribute to the creation of a responsible society.

All of the above is coupled with regulations including buying permits, carrying permits, age limits, criminal background checks, and record keeping of firearm and ammunition sales in certain situations ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland )

This is why the Swiss are so awesome concerning this particular topic. Lots of firearms. Mandatory national service and government regulation. Little violent crime. The position of every faction of the gun control debate in the United States -- "lots of guns means lots of violence," "lots of regulation means no guns" --- can be blown away simply by saying "Switzerland."

I frickin' love that.

Switzerland did the "well regulated Militia" thing the way it should be done.

Thats crazy. I don't even know someone who has been mugged, and I live in inner sydney (very close to Kings Cross no less). Do you have a habit of scratching your face with your middle finger or something? :P

No, nothing like that. Just unlucky, I guess.

there is exactly one, entirely reliable way, to keep weaponry out of undesirable and unreliable hands, and that is simply to not manufacture it!

this is both do-able, and infinitely desirable.

=^^=
.../\...

Almost every adult male in Switzerland has access to an assault rifle, but people are not shooting each other up there since they have no need to.
How many shootings in America are done with assault rifles or any other large firearms? Only those done by dedicated people with a different purpose or complete loonies. Shootings are done with easily concealable and drawable handguns.

How many handguns are there in Switzerland? And Switzerland's laws on the sale of ammo and guns would put the NRA up in arms. To cite Switzerland is really quite ironic.

Gun crime in Switzerland is relatively rare (last I heard) because the government there actively goes to the trouble of engineering a society wherein widespread firearms ownership and use are safe. A society widely noted for being up to its ears in firearms also has significant and strong regulation of the same.

The Swiss Armed Forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland) is the cornerstone of the operation. Compulsory military service that helps create a society familiar with, and trained in the operation of, firearms. Yearly mandatory training keeps skills and attendant responsibility up. Naturally, sport and other shooting activities and culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Recreational_shooting) help contribute to the creation of a responsible society.

All of the above is coupled with regulations including buying permits, carrying permits, age limits, criminal background checks, and record keeping of firearm and ammunition sales in certain situations ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland )

This is why the Swiss are so awesome concerning this particular topic. Lots of firearms. Mandatory national service and government regulation. Little violent crime. The position of every faction of the gun control debate in the United States -- "lots of guns means lots of violence," "lots of regulation means no guns" --- can be blown away simply by saying "Switzerland."

I frickin' love that.

Switzerland did the "well regulated Militia" thing the way it should be done.

Switzerland also has a vastly smaller and homogenous population with people who will actually respectfirearms, which is all but dead in America.

Switzerland also has a vastly smaller and homogenous population with people who will actually respectfirearms, which is all but dead in America.
Not to mention tons of government controls which would cause the NRA to start a lynch mob.

How many handguns are there in Switzerland?


Apparently, the SIG P220 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_P220) is standard issue for officers and medical personnel in the Swiss armed forces. I don't know a specific number, but I'd assume that they aren't uncommon.

Switzerland also has a...population with people who will actually respectfirearms, which is all but dead in America.

Basically my point.

Basically my point.

But the population of Switzerland is larger than that of the United States?

Apparently, the SIG P220 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_P220) is standard issue for officers and medical personnel in the Swiss armed forces. I don't know a specific number, but I'd assume that they aren't uncommon.
Well considering Switzerland has a smaller population than New York City, I wouldn't put it extremely high unless they have a lot of officers and medical personal proportionate to everyone else.

A thought I had:

Yes, you can have any gun you want and can pay for. But, you have to do the dance. Train and license. Register the guns, register the ammo, implement smart trigger technology. Put out an all-call to gun owners to come in and get their guns retrofitted with smart triggers. Rescind all other gun control laws including weapons bans.

Those bullets will literally have the name of the person that sent them ballistic on them. With smart trigger technology, nobody but the person that bought the gun could shoot it, so law enforcement would have the perp dead to rights.

Don't talk to me about the technology being too complicated and expensive. It's down to a question of a biometric reader built into the trigger.

Something I noticed (slightly on/off topic). There are TWO, yes, TWO movies coming out in the next few months whose subject matter involve crime victims lashing out and going vigilante. Jodie Foster and Kevin Bacon. Instant movie genre? Makes one think, what's up with that?

And who's going to pay for all these upgrades? What about the people that take others to the range, to teach them how to shoot? Also, how would you handle all the people that manufacture their own ammunition?

there is exactly one, entirely reliable way, to keep weaponry out of undesirable and unreliable hands, and that is simply to not manufacture it!

this is both do-able, and infinitely desirable.

=^^=
.../\...

Except that some people currently manufacture their own firearms. It's not exactly rocket science. And what would your plan be, to get all the firearms out of private citizen's hands (including criminal hands)?

But the population of Switzerland is larger than that of the United States?


Well considering Switzerland has a smaller population than New York City...


I'm not sure that population size is really that important a factor. A group of people with the necessary skills and responsibility are perfectly safe around firearms whether they are 300 million or just enough to fill a room.

Of course, the necessary measures to create such skill and responsibility are probably easier to implement in a smaller population. But that's really true of pretty much everything, so it doesn't really say anything in particular about this specific case.

I'm not claiming that the population of the United States can be changed overnight simply with the passage of some laws, anyway.

...I wouldn't put it extremely high unless they have a lot of officers and medical personal proportionate to everyone else.


Again, I don't have any specific numbers. I am assuming that the nature of compulsory military service means a relatively high number (edit: per capita, of course) of such personnel in comparison to other countries with voluntary/professional military services. Thus the assumption is extended to a relatively high number of associated personal weapons.

I think people should fend for themselves, and states should be dismantled and abandoned.You realize that this would result in people coming together to help each other, right?

if you had better welfare policies over there maybe your disadvantaged wouldn't need to turn to crime and violence? ;)This is true, but so is the converse: if we had better welfare policies, perhaps people could buy guns without using them for criminal acts?

That's right.

A country that wants to do well would not have water inspectors.

Cholera can't be that bad right?Government-mandated water inspection runs countrary to laissez faire beliefs.

haha

Do you think government actually, deep down, cares what you think? Cares about you? The government only cares about keeping itself in power and getting wealthy.

To believe otherwise means they have you.Does the average businessman care about what you think?

There are pro-gun control advocates who make the defeatist argument that "guns can't compete with America's military, if worse came to worse," but this logic is, just as I described before, DEFEATIST and surprisingly naive. Naive because (to use an example) guerrilla warfare remains one of the most effective battle tactics known to this day, with guerillas successfully accomplishing coups on a regular basis. Good point. The insurgency in Iraq is one example of ill-equipped people defeating a better equipped and trained force.

Good point. The insurgency in Iraq is one example of ill-equipped people defeating a better equipped and trained force.

Haha, no.

The Cong on the other hand...

You realize that this would result in people coming together to help each other, right?


Yeah like in darfur and haiti.

Good point. The insurgency in Iraq is one example of ill-equipped people defeating a better equipped and trained force.
http://www.warshipsifr.com/media/armsCache.jpg
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/meast/06/05/iraq.main/story.bunker.arms.mil.jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/c/cb/300px-MktSwp4.jpg
http://www.forscom.army.mil/pao/front/images/0715pix/cache2sml.jpg
http://www.warroom.com/homeofthebrave/Weapons%20cache.JPG
http://www.ausa.org/dispatches/Cache1.jpg
http://newsblaze.com/pix/2006/0803/pix/university-cache.jpg
http://www.oregonlive.com/images/weblogs/oregon_cache.jpg

Ill-equipped, perhaps. But certainly better equipped than an "armed populace".