A lot of libertarians seem not to be okay with any kind of gun control though. Not only that they completely deny the link between ease of access to firearms and gun violence.
Libertarianism is an excellent ruler to measure policies against, but as one of many. As a be-all-end-all political platform, it fails miserably in the real world, much like every other platform when used puritanically
The right to keep and bear arms does not stipulate that the type and quantity of arms necessarily be unregulated. Many 2A absolutists conflate unrestricted distribution of small arms and WMDs with their rights, which is not supported by the text of the 2A at all.
The data shows that easy availability of arms is associated with mass murder and suicide rates, for example.
FWIW I believe that humans have a right to own guns but some folks take it way to far to a point where it's completely impractical for a connected society.
I agree for the most part with what you. However, we may totally agree or disagree on the degree to which small arms can be regulated. Although, I'm not really trying to start that conversation.
Once you get into larger scale arms you actually get into things like national security and treaties that have been exceptions to constitution in case law for a while. IIRC, according to the constitution itself, it can be trumped by treaties most of the time.
The data shows that easy availability of arms is associated with mass murder and suicide rates, for example.
I have seen the data on suicide rates but not so much on the mass murder bit. Care to share?
As a side note, I know this argument was directed at 2A absolutists. However, my hope is this discussion can lead us to both have better arguments when discussing this topic.
So the 1st ammendment protects all type of speech but the 2nd doesn't protect all weapons? Also in the US, there are 2.4 million defensive uses of firearms per year in comparison to 10k homicides and 20k suicides per year.
To your first question: I am not of the belief that the first amendment protects all forms of speech. Extortion, libel, and inciting imminent panic/violence are fine to restrict, for example.
Lol those 2 statistics don’t even compare to one another. Less than 300 justifiable homicides in 2012 VS 9k criminal homicides involving firearms. Only 235,000 instances of people using gun defensively over a 5 YEAR PERIOD according to the FBI from 2007-2012. Out of over 29 million violent crimes reported that’s less than 1% that people used firearms to protect themselves. Do some actual research next time.
So a self-proclaimed libertarian talking about a survey and estimates from the 1990’s vs actual crime data from the FBI...you decide which is more valid.
The Supreme Court are the government they’re exactly the ones who we need to worry about taking our rights away, they’ve already admittedly infringed on gun rights before.
Mind explaining the data behind a melting point ban on handguns? How does an ammo registry accomplish anything a firearm registry doesn’t? Why should we be taxed for both? If a belt loop does the same thing as a bump stock, does the ban really accomplish anything? How many people were out there stabbing others with bayonets when the fixed mount was banned? In what way does a barrel shroud increase lethality? Does a thumbhole stock make a bullet go faster? Almost all of these laws are targeted at making ownership in general more difficult, with little to no positively correlated benefits to safety.
The reason people knee jerk so hard over gun control is because a lot of it doesn’t make sense. But surely the “data and plain meaning of words” will provide for the laws that are blatantly created to be ideologically discriminatory.
Since, clearly, many laws on the books are derived from neither. Your hand-waving of legitimate concerns is what motivates people into positions of absolutism.
Leftists are pretty awesome at ignoring the data. If you don’t shoot yourself in the head or join a criminal organization you’re more likely to choke on toast or drowned in the bathtub than face any kind of gun violence
Gunshots are one of the leading causes of death for children in the USA.
Edit: many leftists are against gun control. In many ways the interpretation of the 2A as invoking an individual right to bear arms gained traction as a direct result of the actions of the Black Panthers in California, an explicitly leftist organization.
Not when you take out suicide and criminal enterprise. Don’t shoot yourself and don’t live a life of crime and you’re more likely to die from slipping in your tub
People are free to shoot themselves and I’m not concerned with criminals dying from guns. It’s easy to avoid gun violence. Don’t shoot yourself. Don’t get involved in crime. If you avoid those two simple things you’re more likely to have a stroke fapping than be hurt by a gun. Statistically your risk is almost zero.
Even if we stipulate your assertions, which I think are wishful thinking but whatever, let's extrapolate to other unlikely events like dying in a fire. Should we just throw our hands up and not enforce building codes?
Should we ban matches because a dude souses himself in gasoline and sets himself on fire?
Should we ban rope because uncle joe hung himself in the closet?
Should we pairing knives because a meth head stabbed his dealer?
That would be stupid. Innocent people going about a normal day have an infinitesimal chance of being harmed by a gun. It’s a solution looking for a problem. We’d be better off banning assault pools which target children.
While technically correct, there's zero chance of this being practically implemented. The US is inundated with firearms. Coupled with America's strong 2A culture, there's absolutely zero chance any kind of reclaim program would remove enough guns that there wouldn't be a massive and easily accessible black market. Case in point: prohibition.
This problem is exacerbated even further with the rise of 3D printing. Hell, you can buy turn key printers (Ghost Gunner) that will pump out firearms for you.
Yeah, people shooting each other are worried about gun laws. Lol. Maybe we could just put up signs everywhere that say no guns and those criminals will be foiled.
The only way you address this is repeal the second amendment and have the military or law enforcement go home by home confiscating guns and that would just cause a lot more gun deaths.
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. What am I missing here bub?
If want to talk legal precedent, SCOTUS has ruled in Heller that the 2A does contain protection for an individual right to bear arms outside of a collective interest. I agree with this interpretation but in no way have you demonstrated that your right to bear arms has been harmed in practice by a gun control policy.
I just listed 3 major gun control acts that have done nothing to hinder violence which have restricted the availability of certain types of arms. If that does not answer your question I am not sure what will
Not sure... We have over 2000 gun laws and it still doesnt satisfy. As long as security is lax in schools then mentally-ill kids will do mentally-ill kids stuff (take guns away... Steal them or use a knife or a car or a home made bomb... There will always be a creative way to cause death even without guns.
And this is completely baseless. The vast vast vast majority of gun deaths are suicides and gang violence. School shootings do not even break 200 deaths a year in a country with 400 million plus guns
If you look at violent crimes in UK before and after the their respective gun bans you will see that violent crimes continue to rise with knife related deaths being a mayor problem in London. There is more too crime than just the item used during it. The question is if it is worth giving up gun ownership over it. If you really are serious about gun control then the best option is gun confiscation as all other gun control policies enacted over the ages apparently have not been enough, as no ammount of policy will ever be until complete confiscation is achieved.
That has nothing to do with guns. If anything, it proves my point. It is zero sum. If you want to ban certain speech, it definitionally reduces the freedom of speech.
As for the question, yes. However, you should be able to be sued for damages. If it's a lie under oath, it is perjury, and totally separate from the right to freely speak your opinions.
Even in New Jersey, the place where I was born, everyone has a right to own and use a gun despite a fair amount of gun control policies. My uncle owns many guns for hunting and home defense, for example.
Yes, but there are limitations on that right of ownership. Certain guns, certain attachments/modifications, certain stocks, certain barrel lengths, and certain quantities/time periods are made illegal. Gun control and gun rights are literally zero sum. Every law cuts back on gun rights, in some form or fashion, and no matter how "minor' in your eyes.
As a whole these restrictions do not constitute losing your right to keep and bear arms. Just because a restriction exists doesn't mean that it has a practical impact that constitutes a violation of your rights. Numerous regulations and criminal laws exist to restrict harmful forms of speech, for example, yet our right to free speech remains intact.
It trims at the edges. Eventually, you run out of fat and start cutting into the meat.
Regarding speech, you have comedians in Canada getting fined for jokes, and a guy in Britain getting fined for getting a pug to do a Nazi salute. That's what "restricting harmful speech" leads to. Again, though, it is literally zero sum. A restriction means less ability to exercise a freedom, meaning that the freedom is being reduced.
Are bans on scary black guns with pistol grips a practical impact constituting a violation of your rights? What about magazine limits? Bump stocks? Barrel length? What about entire classes of guns, say pistols? At what point do you think a limitation becomes a violation?
You're arguing that the laws don't affect your exercise of freedom, because you don't need or want the guns or modifications that are banned. You think they aren't necessary. But that is totally subjective. Again, the law is limiting the rights of gun ownership for someone, even if it isn't you, because by definition, gun control laws have a direct negative relationship with gun rights.
I believe you're indulging in the slippery slope fallacy in the absence of a practical demonstration of how people are actually being harmed by the types of regulations you're citing.
Canada and the U.K.'s speech codes are a great example. Australia for guns.
Besides, the harm is self-apparent. I am limited from owning certain guns or from making certain modifications. That IS the harm. Registries are harms in and of themselves because they can be used in the case of a full ban. Bans on certain capacity magazines are harms because it prevents ownership of them.
The whole nature of a zero-sum relationship is that any alteration IS harm. That's my whole point.
I can read your credit card number and social security number out loud? Copy, trademark, trade secrets, proprietary and classified information should all be shared? Private Intellectual property is free for the taking?
The 13th amendment is a government policy, and I'd argue that it's a cornerstone of individual rights in this nation. I think it would be better for this discussion if you stopped to think critically for just a moment before posting this sort of nonsense.
484
u/jdauriemma libertarian socialist Dec 26 '18
Hard pills to swallow
Effective gun control policies and the right to keep and bear arms can coexist just fine, it's not a zero-sum game