• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Question for libertarians

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.

That is right, the Republican party does not speak for all republicans, and George W. Bush doesn't represent the average republican.

But this breaks down even more when one considers that libertarian, on top of being the name of a party, is a political ideology. Republican is a party, not an ideology. Sure it has an ideology, but it is not one.

The four ideologies normally used in scaling modern political ideologies are conservative opposite liberal (right and left), and libertarian opposite totalitarian (up and down interchangeably).
 
Last edited:
[..]
What if an earthquake struck Japan, force 7.7 Richter tomorrow morning?

I hope it does not.
But, earthquakes are unavoidable, having 100000000 people in the US walking with guns is not.

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 statistics show, as far as I know, that the number of deaths by shooting in the US are far lower than, say, in Japan (or other countries where it is more difficult to get a gun).
Guess what will happen if everybody will be allowed to have a gun and walk with it..

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.

What if you get drunk and leave your gun in the car?
And, after, you go back to the car drunk and get the gun?

Could it be that dubalb has you figured out? ;)

Dubalb and others here are not interested in a rational conversation.
Let`s hope you will not follow his footsteps..
 
Being drunk in the car is still far more dangerous than being drunk with a gun. Durr.
 
Being drunk in the car is still far more dangerous than being drunk with a gun. Durr.

Attempted murder is far more dangerous than attempted burglary.

That's not an argument for burglary or a reason to decriminalize attempted burglary.
 
Your argument is basically, "People are stupid, guns are dangerous because of how powerful they are, therefore, people should not have guns."

Well, people are stupid. Cars are dangerous, so people shouldn't have cars.

People are stupid, the vote is powerful, therefore, people shouldn't have the vote.

People are stupid, speech is powerful, therefore, people shouldn't have speech.

At what point is the idea of freedom worth some danger? Someone said that owning a gun doesn't 'magically' make one responsible enough to own one, but conversely, it doesn't make one magically irresponsible either.

I pointed out earlier how in a society where people are not trusted with cars without being professionals could very will go without cars.

Why, in the equation, drunk in car = attempted murder, and drunk with gun = burglary does it make sense that there should me more restrictions on guns than on cars?
 
Your argument is basically, "People are stupid, guns are dangerous because of how powerful they are, therefore, people should not have guns."

Well, people are stupid. Cars are dangerous, so people shouldn't have cars.
[..]

I have never said that people are stupid.
Moreover, you missed the point I was trying to make.
 
Apparently I did. I thought it was, "But you can prevent private citizens from going out with guns, while you can not prevent them from going out with cars."

But you can prevent them from going out with cars.
 
You can't prevent people from having firearms in this country, not realistically.
 
But Libertarians oppose mandatory firearms training.

**So do some Democrats and some Republicans. I'm just talking about people in general here.


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).


**Obviously you know a few mentally deficient people. Again I'm talking about my own personal experiences here. *I* don't drink alcohol except once a year I'll have one or two beers at DragonCon at a friend's party I attend. But I won't be carrying my pistol there.


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.


**Again, I'm discussing my personal experiences. As for the Libertarian stance, it's about personal responsibility and there is DEFINITELY not enough of that. Remember when Paris Hilton went to jail?? She freaked out the first time and they let her out. How is THAT the least bit making someone pay the penalty for their mistakes?
If people are going to screw up then let them pay the penalty. But lets not go overboard with laws here. People generally know what's right and what's wrong.
Your friend who shot himself in the foot paid the penalty of losing half his foot. Your college friend probably died or at the very least lost a hand. And your cousin either shot someone or outright killed them. For that, there are jail sentences. Those were all examples of stupidity so even WITH the laws you have in mind, those incidents probably STILL would have happened.
Stupid is as stupid does, to quote Forrest Gump's mother and no amount of legality is going to change that. Unless of course the government starts mandating minimum IQ's to continue living.




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.

Handling unsafely would be grounds for revoccation IF SOMEONE SEES IT. Who actually WATCHES for things like that though?? No one agency can be everywhere.


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


**To carry a concealed weapon you MUST show proof of training with your application or you won't even be considered. A state certified gun instructor runs the test and you MUST prove proficiency in order to pass.




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.


**Whether people have training or not...whether there are LAWS or not, there is still going to be stupidity because that's just how some human beings are. The laws you propose wouldn't, in all likelihood, kept any of your friends/cousin situations from happening because that was all just stupidity on their part. Unfortunately stupidity is one thing that just can't be legislated.
 
But you can prevent them from going out with cars.


Have you ever watched the show "Cops"? There are a good number of people who are pulled over on a regular basis for driving without a license or driving on a suspended license. If someone is determined to do something, then no law is going to prevent it from happening.
 
You can prevent them from going outside their house unarmed.
You can not prevent them from going outside their house without a car.

Sir, with all due respect, this is outright moronic. You are saying it is easier to enforce a ban on weapons than a ban on driving? That is insane.

Look at any person, can you tell if they are armed? Generally no. Now look at another person, are they operating a motor vehicle? You can easily tell that! Cars are large and difficult to produce. Weapons are everywhere and small (normally).

Let me also point out that making something illegal doesn't make that thing impossible, only illegal. How ineffective we are at enforcing traffic laws and regulations should illuminate this nicely.
 
Have you ever watched the show "Cops"? There are a good number of people who are pulled over on a regular basis for driving without a license or driving on a suspended license. If someone is determined to do something, then no law is going to prevent it from happening.


This isn't really a valid argument; just because some people will commit murders no matter what is no good reason for either decriminalizing murder or against trying to make murder as difficult as possible.
 
[/QUOTE=drkitten]
My compromise world would involve proof of training before you were permitted to own a gun.


**To carry a concealed weapon you MUST show proof of training with your application or you won't even be considered. A state certified gun instructor runs the test and you MUST prove proficiency in order to pass.[/QUOTE]

Well, that's nice.

I wasn't talking about carrying a concealed weapon, now, was I?

I was talking about OWNING A GUN, whether you intend to carry it or not, whether you intend to conceal it or not.

No training, no ownership.

And the NRA (and the Libertarian party) disapprove of the current requirements that you mention; they don't like the idea that the state certified gun instructor should be able to veto your right to carry.

So, even here, you've illustrated that you disagree with the Libertarians.




Whether people have training or not...whether there are LAWS or not, there is still going to be stupidity because that's just how some human beings are.

That's no reason not to make it more difficult for stupid people to do harmful things.

No lock can possibly keep all burglars out --- but people still buy locks for their doors.

The laws you propose wouldn't, in all likelihood, kept any of your friends/cousin situations from happening because that was all just stupidity on their part.

Sure it would have. If they couldn't get guns, they couldn't have done stupid things with them. My friend who is into hand-loading hasn't ever done anything involving plutonium -- because he can't get the stuff. If plutonium were available at every sporting goods store, he probably would have.

You can't misuse what you don't have in the first place.
 
You can't misuse what you don't have in the first place? People shouldn't have things that are dangerous? How about we start a short list of things that are dangerous and you can tell us why those don't fit your criteria for needing training and testing before owning?

Kitchen knives, axes, chainsaws, gasoline, propane, grills, oven ranges, candles, smokes, bows, bikes, sleds, paint, WD-40, florescent tubes, laser pointers, high power lights, electric boxes, electric outlets, blenders, microwaves, skies, pools, chairs, ladders, rope, screwdrivers, power tools, crowbars, compressed CO2, knife hand....

I name all these things because people often kill themselves and others with them. They are all dangerous, and usable as weapons.

The dangers of guns are way overblown when you consider the dangers of life in general. I'm not saying that people shouldn't get training for guns, not at all. But this focus on them is getting to the point of irrational fear. I mean, sorry to say this drkitten, your friend would have likely found something else that explodes to mess with. He/she would have done something stupid with another object. Stories are nice, but I know someone who died from a bungee cord. Damn, I forgot to add those to the list.
 
I always try not to mess with nobody.
The point is.. would anybody with a gun on his hip try to mess with me?
Probably not that much more than if they didn't have a gun. It comes down to the individual.
America managed to survive the wild west period rather nicely when quite a few wore handguns openly.

You give me a hundred of easy shots on that..
Seriously, the more the guns that everybody is allowed to hold, the more lickely the occurence of such incidents, right?
Sure. It happens with cars also. The greater the number of cars the higher the number of auto related death. It's simple statistics.

It comes down to what you are willing to suffer in order to have what you want. Does our desire for cars justify or warrant the number of deaths due to auto accidents? I mean there is public transportation available in almost all areas. Would we save more lives by taking the bus or subway rather than drive?

You are doing a good job, in order to show me your side of things.
As for gun safety, how would do avoid to have the 8-year-old son of a proud gun-owner taking his father`s gun from the desk and try to play at Rambo?
Easy. The father would take precautions to keep the child from getting to and using the gun. There are gun safes, trigger locks, barrel locks, keeping the ammo and gun separate, and educating the son in one form or another.

I was rasied with guns and I never had an incident with a gun in my youth.



There was a shoot out when guns were allowed to anyone (in the Wild Wild West)
In realty that was a very rare occurance. The movies tend to exaggerate.

I live in Texas. There are alot of gun owners here. Including me. I own a 9mm Browning and a 7.62 MAK-90.
The 9mm is for protection. (I live outside of city limits. It takes the law quite a bit of time to get out to where I live.)
The MAK-90 is for pleasure. It's fun for target practice and good for scaring off the coyotes. (My wife raises a few goats.)
But for exercise I'm into archery. Very few bow and arrow related deaths.

Anyhoos. There are alot of gun owners but no shoot outs amoungst the general populations. The only shoot outs that have been in my neck of the woods has been between the law and drug runners. And the drug runner are going to have wether gun are illegar or not.

In Japan and Italy there are far fewer people who die being shot.
Please, do not ask me to post the link, I have no time
But it does happen.

But that is exactly the point.
It is difficult (impossible?) for a psucho to kill 30 people with a knife.
But, if you give him two guns?
Becomes much easier
Certainly. That why guns were invented. Much more efficient than knives for killing. The point was also that if someone who had a gun was in the vacinity of the psycho, could have shot the psycho before he caused more deaths.
 

Back
Top Bottom