The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)
theatlantic.com
The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)
#2Feels like a cheap solution, there is countries where guns are very hard to get, and in those countries guns are way less used in crimes compared to USA for example. This will result in even more guns and probably a even bigger problem in the future.
Re: The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)
#3The question posed at the end was interesting. The interviewer said he had asked a number of people associated with horrible shooting sprees like Columbine and Aurora if they would have rather have had a gun, and many say "no." Jonathan Rauch responds with: "Maybe the right question to ask that person was, 'would you have liked someone else ... someone who is comfortable with guns ... to have had a gun in that situation?' ... I think you'd get a different answer."
Re: The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)
#4> "According to a 2011 Gallup poll, 47 percent of American adults keep at least one gun at home or on their property, and many of these gun owners are absolutists opposed to any government regulation of firearms. According to the same poll, only 26 percent of Americans support a ban on handguns."
This amazes me. I wonder how many of those 47% have had training? Or how many regularly practice firing the gun? This is one of the main reasons I'm opposed to people being allowed to own guns. Most probably don't know how to use them and in a situation where the weapon could be useful an untrained person will probably make the situation worse either by shooting another civilian or losing their cool and firing the gun and making a situation worse (e.g. in a robbery where everyone could come out safe if the thief gets the money - but some idiot with their own gun decides they will 'save the day', the thief freaks out and suddenly their are dead people).
Another reason I think guns should be make illegal in the US is the incredibly obvious evidence throughout the world that easier access to guns leads to more gun related crime. Coming from a country where guns are illegal it's very rare to hear or anyone being shot dead. Violent criminals obviously turn to other weapons such as knives but I would rather be up against a man with a knife than a man with a gun.
Re: The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)
#5Feels like a cheap solution, there is countries where guns are very hard to get, and in those countries guns are way less used in crimes compared to USA for example. This will result in even more guns and probably a even bigger problem in the future.
It's in the class of restricting personal liberty in the name of public safety. I don't think you'll get people to move on their positions very easily.
Re: The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)
#6Feels like a cheap solution, there is countries where guns are very hard to get, and in those countries guns are way less used in crimes compared to USA for example. This will result in even more guns and probably a even bigger problem in the future.
Re: The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)
#7I normally might flag something like this, but there's an important point in here that has to do with our relationship to technology.
Guns fill a role in society that allows any person, no matter how weak, to execute deadly force against another. For many, this is the height of idiocy. Why would we allow individuals to have such power?
But technology is doing the same thing that guns do -- it's giving every person unprecedented power over his fellow man. DDOS attacks can bring down banks. Bio-research could unleash a deadly plague. As technology increases, the powers that one person has continue to grow.
So the issue of gun ownership is the same issue as freedom in technology. How much power should one person have? Every time somebody commits a crime on the internet, we're going to hear the same cries: why should individuals have so much power over others?
I don't have a facile or slogan-worthy answer. As a libertarian, I always want to err on the side of empowering individuals. But I can see a powerful argument to continue to take freedoms away from all of us. The issue of gun control was just the first shot fired in the larger war that is now upon us.
Re: The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)
#8I normally might flag something like this, but there's an important point in here that has to do with our relationship to technology. Guns fill a role in society that allows any person, no matter how weak, to execute deadly force against another. For many, this is the height of idiocy. Why would we allow individuals to have such power? But technology is doing the same thing that guns do -- it's giving every person un…
> Why would we allow individuals to have such power?
Who is this "we" that has either the power, right, or wisdom to overrule people on such things?
> So the issue of gun ownership is the same issue as freedom in technology
Wonderfully said.
Power is a zero-sum game. Either I have the right to { own a gun | duplicate a file | mix acid and water in a test tube | print a part on a 3-d printer } or someone else takes that right from me and holds it themself.
There are wonderful deontological arguments as to why it is wrong to take rights away from me (or you, or you, or you), but even at the utilitarian level: why should we expect better outcomes if a right is removed from individual A and given to individual B? Was Germany better off when the Jews and Gypsies had their right to firearms ownership transferred to the state? Was China better off under Mao when individuals had their right to plant, grow, harvest and sell their crops transferred to the state? Was the United States better off when each person had their right to make decisions about alcohol consumption taken away and transferred to the state?
I argue that restricting rights is wrong on both deontological AND utilitarian grounds.
The utitarian argument for these sorts of things tends to be "give me the power, and I'll make better decisions". The incentives don't usually support the fulfillment of that promise.
Re: The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)
#9I normally might flag something like this, but there's an important point in here that has to do with our relationship to technology. Guns fill a role in society that allows any person, no matter how weak, to execute deadly force against another. For many, this is the height of idiocy. Why would we allow individuals to have such power? But technology is doing the same thing that guns do -- it's giving every person un…
> Why would we allow individuals to have such power? Who is this "we" that has either the power, right, or wisdom to overrule people on such things? > So the issue of gun ownership is the same issue as freedom in technology Wonderfully said. Power is a zero-sum game. Either I have the right to { own a gun | duplicate a file | mix acid and water in a test tube | print a part on a 3-d printer } or someone else takes th…
> "Who is this "we" that has either the power, right, or wisdom to overrule people on such things?"
The same "we" that has existed since the beginning of our species, when groups of humans decided to live together.
"We" is an expression of all people - not biased by East or West, Black or White. In all societies the price of living in a group, and enjoying the benefits thereof, are concessions to personal freedom, and the recognition of some authority that is capable of making the decision.
It's also important to note (because it's so frequently confused) that "we" is not necessarily a government. In the absence of a government, "we" will manifest itself in other formats, most frequently tyrannical.
The only way for you to extricate yourself from this (by your implication, malevolent) "we" is to live entirely without dependency on any semblance of society.
Re: The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)
#10I normally might flag something like this, but there's an important point in here that has to do with our relationship to technology. Guns fill a role in society that allows any person, no matter how weak, to execute deadly force against another. For many, this is the height of idiocy. Why would we allow individuals to have such power? But technology is doing the same thing that guns do -- it's giving every person un…
In the past century or so a similar thing has happened at the level of nations. Technology has allowed nations to reach the point where they are capable of causing unprecedented damage to not just other countries, but the world.
Now, maybe MAD works better with nations than it does with individuals, but maybe we've just been getting lucky.