Discuss.

[kitchen_kink]

Y'all know that I'm deeply conflicted on the whole gun thing. I don't like them and think that their proliferation has bad results, yet I understand the desire and right to be armed. I also cheer when I watch victims in films (usually women) turn around and shoot their aggressors.

Yet I also think that gun control is good, that waiting periods are good, that anyone who needs a gun NOW RIGHT NOW probably shouldn't get one right now.

And then there's this article (thanks greendalek):

If your job makes you fear gunfire from people who are not violent criminals, and if you routinely do things that you think might make the “common man” want to blow your damn head off, maybe what you’re doing isn’t good. (Personally, I avoid doing things that might make the average Joe want to kill me.) The reason tyrants are afraid of armed citizens is because tyrants do things which sometimes make people want to shoot them. (Duh.)

Leaving off the usual stylistic bluster that I think makes most Libertarian writers sound like paranoid, insane assholes and hurts their credibility tremendously...whattaya think?

Comments

[network.livejournal.com]

The 'common man' thinks that gay people are scary and threatening. I don't trust those people with guns. Period.

1. Gun education is enough to keep stupid things from happening, and to keep legal weapons out of the hands of stupid people.

2. Our nations gun problem comes mostly from unlicensed weapons in the hands of those most likely to use them.

So yeah, I'm divided too. I think we're doing our best right now as a nation to regulate fairly, and it's sad fact that people die from gun abuse, but hey, that's what they do! Kill stuff!

I honestly don't see this as a solvable problem, and we shouldn't spend any more time trying to curb gun violence by attacking the implement itself. It's a totally lost battle already, given the amount of contraband firearms in circulation.

[dilletante.livejournal.com]

i waver in my thoughts about this. mostly along the lines you've described...

tools have accident rates associated with them. some, like guns and cars, are prone to particularly damaging accidents.

to reduce the death/dismemberment rate associated with a particular tool, you can either reduce the accident rate, or reduce the proliferation/usage of the tool.

so in europe the price of gas is inflated by taxes, and there's much less of a road-trip culture than in the u.s. over here our car usage per capita is high. but this means that a lot of people die in car accidents. we could impose strict licensing requirements-- training-- to cut t down the accident rate, but we don't wanna. but it turns out that lethal car accidents are highly correlated with drinking, especially in younger people. so we have this baroque drinking-age scheme whose only real justification is that it somewhat reduces the number of young adults who drive after drinking alcohol, and hence cuts down on the death rate from cars.

i guess in some sense it means that as a culture, it's more important to us to be free to drive than free to drink. maybe that's something. :)

but there's the same problem with guns. in europe they tend to reduce the proliferation of the tool, though not as subtly as with cars. here in the u.s. we've... well, done nothing, actually. we could impose strict licensing requirements but we don't wanna.

i'm neither philosophically in favor of "gun control" nor convinced that in practice it could be made to work here-- as you point out, there are a lot of guns already in circulation. but it has the virtue of being an approach to the problem.

[rednikki.livejournal.com]

I personally wouldn't be surprised if someone came in here and shot us all one day - we have had to let go a lot of guys for doing things like hiding tools in an effort to prolong the job(!) I don't think that means building the Central Artery Tunnel is evil.

I think Dogbert put it best:

[deadwinter.livejournal.com]

Dogbert: "I think people should have all the weapons they want. However I get to keep all the ammo. I wouln't trust any of you goobers with anything more dangerous than string"

Dilbert: "What about Charlton Heston?"

Dogbert: "I'd keep the string away from him"

Re: I think Dogbert put it best:

[dietrich.livejournal.com]

That's awesome.

That and Chris Rock's idea that each bullet should cost $5,000.

"I wanna blow your fucking head off!...But I can't affohd it, man. You LUCKY, you hear me??"

[darxus.livejournal.com]

I have nothing against licensing, or requiring training, in fact. Hell, used poorly, bad things can happen. But I'm rather upset that in most of the Boston area, only criminals can carry guns. For example, in Boston proper, and Cambridge, you can't get a carry permit ("Class A ALP" (all lawful purposes)). In Massachusetts, it's up to the city police chief to decide who's allowed to carry.

Cops aren't accountable for your personal safety, only you are. So you should be allowed to have the means to protect yourself.

I also object to the fact that you're not allowed to even carry pepper spray in this state without a license. However, those are easier to obtain.

[darxus.livejournal.com]

FYI, in Massachusetts, one of the requirements for a carry permit is "Proof of completing approved course in safety and use of pistols/revolvers. (NRA, Massachusetts state certified instructor)".
So even with the requirement of state approved training, you still can't get a carry permit if you live in Boston.

Lots more info here: http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/massachusetts