Question for libertarians

[drkitten]

This is a problem of perspective. People are irresponsible. So what? That's always been true. That means they shouldn't be allowed to have things that they can hurt themselves and others with?

Um,... yes?

That's exactly what that means.

Alcohol is dangerous, people shouldn't have that.

... which is why there are laws regulating the production and distribution of alcohol, and laws establishing responsibilities that people have w.r.t. alcohol. For instance, bars are required to have liquor licenses, and bartenders are required to cut off patrons who have had too much.

Drugs are dangerous, people shouldn't have those.

... which is why possession and sales of drugs are regulated, and it takes five or so years of training to become a pharmacist.

Guns are dangerous, people shouldn't have those.

I'll get back to this.

Cars are dangerous, people shouldn't have those. [/QUOTE}

... which is why possession of cars is conditional on a periodic safety inspection and operation of a car is conditional on having a valid licence, which in turn requires evidence that you can safely operate a car. (And in the event that it turns out that you can't safely operate a car, your license can be suspended or revoked, removing your ability to operate one [legally].)

Knives/swords/axes are dangerous, people shouldn't have those.

See above.

Does that follow?

Seems to. For anyone other than a libertarian nutcase, the idea that people should prescribe their own medicine regardless of whether or not they have any idea what drugs do is self-evidently a stupid one. The idea that anyone should be allowed to drive a car regardless of whether or not they know how is self-evidently stupid.

But somehow, the idea of owning a gun regardless of whether or not you can handle it safely is supposed to be a fundamental right.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Unfortunately none that I can quote directly. However several years ago in Atlanta a local talk show host, Neal Boortz, was discussing how a recent (for the time) study had been manipulated. The sample size of children killed in gun related incidents by including 18-21 year olds.

You realize Neal Boortz is an idiot, right? I'll assume you decided to quote him by accident.

 

[tyr_13]

Um,... yes?



But somehow, the idea of owning a gun regardless of whether or not you can handle it safely is supposed to be a fundamental right.

That's obviously silly, but so is the idea that owning a gun mean's you're dangerous and should have massive restrictions is also silly.

If you think that car licensing is effective, I invite you drive in New York, or *shudder* Ohio. How about Texas? Seems everywhere I go I see people demonstrating that they are unsafe in operation of a motor vehicle, yet they are licensed to do so.

 

[tyr_13]

Wait, did you just say that you don't think people should be allowed to have knives/swords/axes?

Say it isn't so.

 

[Mashuna]

That's obviously silly, but so is the idea that owning a gun mean's you're dangerous and should have massive restrictions is also silly.

If you think that car licensing is effective, I invite you drive in New York, or *shudder* Ohio. How about Texas? Seems everywhere I go I see people demonstrating that they are unsafe in operation of a motor vehicle, yet they are licensed to do so.

So do you think that there should be stricter enforcement of driving licences?

 

[tyr_13]

So do you think that there should be stricter enforcement of driving licences?

Yes. I do believe I said something to that effect in a previous post.

 

[drkitten]

So do you think that there should be stricter enforcement of driving licences?

Absolutely.

But more to the point, I believe not only that there should be stricter enforcement of firearms licenses, but that there should be firearms licenses in the first place (as well as strict enforcement of the licensure requirements).

And this is where I part company with the Libertarians, who demonstrably (citations are upthread) feel that for the government even to question whether or not a person has a use for an armed nuclear weapon or is responsible enough to own it safely is overstepping the government's legitimate boundaries.

Herbwoman points out, for example, that "yes hunting season had the very rare alcohol-related incident but that was sheer carelessness not done out of malice." I'm sure that the people shot in those incidents felt MUCH better knowing that it was sheer carelessness, since wounds inflicted carelessly hurt ever so much less. A better solution, of course, would be to reduce the number of drunks with guns. (Proposed firearm licensure rule #68A : "Handling a gun while drunk is grounds for revocation of license, " just as driving while drunk is grounds for revocation of licence -- and we take the gun/car out of your control BEFORE you actually injure someone.)

If RadioactiveMan feels that his guns are safe, I feel confident that he will be able to show me the steps he's taken to make and keep them so. If he feels that those steps are appropriate for him in order to keep his guns safe, I'm sure he'd have no qualms about making those steps mandatory for all people who desire to own and use guns.

Alternatively, maybe he can't show me the steps that he's taken,.... in which case I feel just as comfortable disregarding his statement that his guns are safe as I do disregarding someone else's self-reportage that "of course, I never drive drunk." And I have no qualms removing his guns from his control until he can establish to a reasonable person's satisfaction that he can and will use them safely.

 

[drkitten]

That's obviously silly, but so is the idea that owning a gun mean's you're dangerous

Are you suggesting that owning a gun does NOT make you more dangerous? If that's the case, then why are people buying guns for self-defense? People want guns because guns make people more dangerous (to the bad guys).

Which is great except that I've never met anyone who can distinguish between bad and good guys with 100% accuracy.

 

[Chaos]

How about basing a theory that gun owners are irresponsible on the observed facts that people are irresponsible and gun owners are people?

You said it better than I could have.

Or to put it another way -- what about owning a gun is supposed to make a person magically more responsible than the rest of humanity?

That is the big question.

 

[tyr_13]

Are you suggesting that owning a gun does NOT make you more dangerous? If that's the case, then why are people buying guns for self-defense? People want guns because guns make people more dangerous (to the bad guys).

Which is great except that I've never met anyone who can distinguish between bad and good guys with 100% accuracy.

Overall, no, owning a gun (legally) does not make you more 'dangerous' if by dangerous you mean more likely to commit violence. If by dangerous you mean more likely to kill someone with a gun, well yes.

By dangerous do you mean potentially dangerous? Then no, because smart people are far more dangerous. Cars are far more dangerous. Gasoline is far more dangerous.

Why are people buying guns if not to be more dangerous? A question that someone who doesn't understand gun culture would of course ask. It is the same reason I have a bow and arrow, and fully functional swords. I like physics. I like shooting, I like slicing bamboo and water bottles, I like archery.

What many people just can't seem to understand is that these 'weapons' aren't just made for killing. Hell, in modern society for many of them it isn't even a secondary function. It is love of machines, physics, skill, and focus, just like any other martial art.

To break it down to just 'good guys and bad guys' is an over simplification on more than one level.

People should have license for guns because guns are dangerous, but you think the same about swords, knives, bows, crossbows, axes, chainsaws too? How about hands and feet? Should I have to register them as well because they are trained to act as weapons as well?

At what point do you trust people? Never? I have to find that short story that takes that to the illogical extreme.

 

[tyr_13]

What about states where you already need those things for a handgun like here in New York?

 

[Kittyclaws]

How about hands and feet? Should I have to register them as well because they are trained to act as weapons as well?

Interesting you should mention this. I did a quick search about the responsibility of the trained martial artist.

"Understand the legalities of deadly force

Depending on the circumstances, almost any form of physical assault can be considered deadly force. In Washington State (RCW 9A.16.010) deadly force is defined as, "the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury."

Other jurisdictions will have similar definitions. In general, any blow delivered powerfully and deliberately to a vital part of the body may be construed as deadly force so long as it can be shown that it was struck with the intention, or predictable likelihood, of killing. Since that is exactly what most of us train to do, we must be prudent in the application of force outside the training hall."

http://www.lwcbooks.com/articles/countervailingforce.html

So while you may not have to register your limbs, you're certainly responsible for any damage they inflict.

Why is the idea of requiring classes, testing, and perhaps ongoing education to obtain a license for a firearm so repulsive? When you got your driver's license, you agreed to obey the rules of the road and subjected yourself to written and skills testing. Understandable, given that you're requesting the privilege of operating a 2000 lb machine that can go 70 MPH. If you want to drive a bigger vehicle, you'll agree to random drug testing and a whole slew of other requirements to get and keep a CDL. Why does gun licensing provoke such a different, often defensive response?

BTW, I personally like guns. Especially the Browning 9mm my friend let me shoot. I don't own one because there's nothing I have worth killing anyone over. (Except my 6 yr old Mac, maybe.)

 

[tyr_13]

Interesting you should mention this. I did a quick search about the responsibility of the trained martial artist.

"Understand the legalities of deadly force

Depending on the circumstances, almost any form of physical assault can be considered deadly force. In Washington State (RCW 9A.16.010) deadly force is defined as, "the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury."

Other jurisdictions will have similar definitions. In general, any blow delivered powerfully and deliberately to a vital part of the body may be construed as deadly force so long as it can be shown that it was struck with the intention, or predictable likelihood, of killing. Since that is exactly what most of us train to do, we must be prudent in the application of force outside the training hall."

http://www.lwcbooks.com/articles/countervailingforce.html

So while you may not have to register your limbs, you're certainly responsible for any damage they inflict.

Why is the idea of requiring classes, testing, and perhaps ongoing education to obtain a license for a firearm so repulsive? When you got your driver's license, you agreed to obey the rules of the road and subjected yourself to written and skills testing. Understandable, given that you're requesting the privilege of operating a 2000 lb machine that can go 70 MPH. If you want to drive a bigger vehicle, you'll agree to random drug testing and a whole slew of other requirements to get and keep a CDL. Why does gun licensing provoke such a different, often defensive response?

BTW, I personally like guns. Especially the Browning 9mm my friend let me shoot. I don't own one because there's nothing I have worth killing anyone over. (Except my 6 yr old Mac, maybe.)

I was aware of that part of the law actually, as most martial arts instructors will inform their students of it the second they can knock the kick back off it's chains. However, having one's body count as a deadly weapon, and having to register one's body as a deadly weapon are very different things.

The reason it is so repulsive is the 'ongoing testing' part when no such thing is required for almost anything else (besides semi trucks). Almost everyone in the area I live drive, it is a given. Most of them don't know the rules of the road, and don't get me started on turn signals. Now that cause a large amount of danger accidentally. Now what if someone wanted to use a car to kill? Freaking easy as hell! And that is if the person doesn't look up how to make gasoline bombs (also easy as hell).

Funny how you mention that you don't own a gun because you have almost nothing worth killing for, yet mention that it is fun to shoot. I don't own my guns for self defense. I have a 10/22 rifle, and a Henry lever action rifle also in .22. They are for 'plinking'. Would I like to own a handgun? Yes, they're fun to shoot. But here in New York it is more than a little runaround to get the permit. Where I live, it is already more than twice as difficult to get a gun permit as it is to get a driver's license. The people start talking about needing stricter gun control and it gets me to thinking, "damnit, I'm never going to get that freaking permit."

Also, there is the principle of the thing as well. It is right there in the Constitution, and while most of us accept some limits and regulation, at some point it is unreasonable. The world is dangerous, get over it. There will always be ways to kill things and until the laws on guns we already have are being used effectively, adding more doesn't do a damn thing to the 'bad guys'.

Now I know some parts of the country don't have fair gun laws, and still let morons shoot stuff into the air. Argue against that, not against legal gun owners being stupid and irresponsible.

 

[FledgelingSkeptic]

Or to put it another way -- what about owning a gun is supposed to make a person magically more responsible than the rest of humanity?

And, yes, I have had firearms training, and I have spent time at both rifle and pistol ranges. Which doesn't mean that I don't recognize that some of my fellow students are and were idiots.

Well since you have firearms training then you KNOW what is, in theory, meant to make gun owners and those who carry concealed weapons "magically" more responsible. Training. We're SUPPOSED to know better. You and I know to follow the four basic rules of gun safety.

Now HOW can I be responsible for what other people do? Can YOU be responsible for what other gun owners do? No. So it comes down to personal responsibility.

Also, if you saw people in your class not following those basic rules then the instructor most likely saw too and knew they were idiots as well. For their part in passing them, greed makes many people stupid.

But I digress. The point of this rambling diatribe is that those classes are there to educate people, as you well know. But there are differing intelligence levels in every education system. So of course there are going to be a few less than intelligent people in every class that do not believe that the basic rules apply to them.

HOWEVER, I have yet to meet someone who has gone through training that is irresponsible with their weapons.

I would love to hear an example from your experiences though.

 

[drkitten]

Well since you have firearms training then you KNOW what is, in theory, meant to make gun owners and those who carry concealed weapons "magically" more responsible. Training. We're SUPPOSED to know better. You and I know to follow the four basic rules of gun safety.

But Libertarians oppose mandatory firearms training.

HOWEVER, I have yet to meet someone who has gone through training that is irresponsible with their weapons.

I would love to hear an example from your experiences though.

I know dozens. A friend of mine in high school got drunk and blasted a hole in his foot with a shotgun. Another friend of mine in college got into hand-loading and decided to see how large a charge he could put in a cartridge. A cousin of mine was into plinking and figured that the beach was a safe spot (because there was "obviously" no one in the ocean -- he could see for miles, but had no idea what the scuba "diver below" flag meant).

Didn't you need to go through training to get a driver's licence, too? But surely that doesn't magically make every driver responsible, which is why drunk driving is a problem --- and why we still have licensure requirements, and we pull the licences of people who continue to drive drunk even after training.

My ideal world would have mandatory gun licensure that includes a mandatory training component and criminalize owning a gun without a valid license. Handling a gun unsafely would be grounds for revocation of license.

My compromise world would involve proof of training before you were permitted to own a gun.

The world the USA lives in doesn't even demand training. Funny how the NRA keeps saying that they're in favor of gun training until someone says "okay, we'll make training a requirement" and then they're against it.

And, of course, the Libertarians don't believe in mandatory anything. Because to them, a gun is a magic wishing stone that mere ownership of will make you smarter, faster, better looking, and more responsible.

 

[tyr_13]

And, of course, the Libertarians don't believe in mandatory anything. Because to them, a gun is a magic wishing stone that mere ownership of will make you smarter, faster, better looking, and more responsible.

Do you get a bulk discount for the number of straw men you create? I'm not exactly a libertarian, but even I don't believe for a second that is what they believe.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So, everybody walks with their own gun?

Sure. This changes the social risk calculus, and may or may not result in beneficial changes. What I can tell you, from our history, is that as the West was settled, most towns and cities began to pass ordnances that limited where one would and could openly wear a gun.

What happen if someone gets drunk, and accidentally shoots someone?

You provide first aid, dial 911, and help them as best you can.

Or, you sit there and watch them bleed to death.

What if a tree-old-year baby manages to get the gun? What if.. ?

What if an earthquake struck Japan, force 7.7 Richter tomorrow morning?

Why is the "three-year-old" (I think that is what you meant) fear scenario the red herring you choose to raise here, Matteo? How often do you think that is an issue? Please consider stastics, and the concept of outliers before you answer the question.

The far more likely risk issue is the one you previously pointed to: drunks screwing about with guns. Funnily enough, most drinking establishments have posted that they don't want guns in there, and here in Texas, we have a law that can, when enforced, put you in jail for a while for carrying a loaded weapon into a gin joint.

It's a reasonably well thought out law, IMO.

The only reason Matteo likes Ron Paul is that Matteo hates the United States, and he supports Paul's policy of a total US withdrawal from world affairs so he won't be bothered by all those Nasty Americans any longer.

Could it be that dubalb has you figured out?

 

[drkitten]

Do you get a bulk discount for the number of straw men you create? I'm not exactly a libertarian, but even I don't believe for a second that is what they believe.

It's in the platform, dude.

"We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition."

If you think that "you can't own a gun unless you take a safety course" isn't a restriction -- well, the Libertarian party disagrees. (Look up the NRA's resistance to mandatory safety courses if you need further citations --- although the NRA is not an explicitly libertarian organization, the LP parrots much of their rhetoric.)

 

[tyr_13]

It's in the platform, dude.

"We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition."

If you think that "you can't own a gun unless you take a safety course" isn't a restriction -- well, the Libertarian party disagrees. (Look up the NRA's resistance to mandatory safety courses if you need further citations --- although the NRA is not an explicitly libertarian organization, the LP parrots much of their rhetoric.)

However, that isn't the argument you constructed that I was referring to in the post you quoted. You said...

And, of course, the Libertarians don't believe in mandatory anything. Because to them, a gun is a magic wishing stone that mere ownership of will make you smarter, faster, better looking, and more responsible.

The part that is most plainly made of straw is of course, "Because to them, a gun is a magic wishing stone that mere ownership of will make you smarter, faster, better looking, and more responsible."

However, the Libertarian party does not speak for all libertarians, and from what I have seen, only caters to the most extreme ones. A moderate libertarian, or put another way, most people with strong libertarian viewpoints, would likely go for moderate restrictions.

If you are referring only to the Libertarian party, please say when you are doing so. That would be like assuming the Liberal party speaks for all liberals, or the Conservative party speaks for all conservatives.

 

[drkitten]

However, the Libertarian party does not speak for all libertarians, and from what I have seen, only caters to the most extreme ones. A moderate libertarian, or put another way, most people with strong libertarian viewpoints, would likely go for moderate restrictions.

Riiiight. And similarly, the Republican party does not speak for all republicans, and George W. Bush doesn't represent the Republican party, but only the nutcase idiot wing.

If you are referring only to the Libertarian party, please say when you are doing so.

I am referring both to the Libertarian Party and to the people who choose to self-identify as Libertarians and thereby announce their support for the Libertarians and their willingness to be identified as such and to be represented by people with the extreme viewpoints.

I stand by my description of both Libertarians and the party they choose to represent themselves.