Some Problems with Gun Control

-
There are no guns in my home, and there never have been. But I believe there are several mutually reinforcing reasons for skepticism about proposals for gun control.

  1. Gun control measures reduce the popular capacity for armed resistance to tyranny and invasion.
  2. These measures limit opportunities for self-defense against thuggery.
  3. They deny people the benefits of the deterrent effect exerted by the widespread belief that most members of a given population are armed.
  4. They increase people's dependence on state authorities who would otherwise be seen as irrelevant and unnecessary.
  5. They leave state authorities more willing to violate people's rights with impunity.
  6. The implementation of these measures increases the power of the state and provides excuses for state authorities to intrusively surveil people's nonviolent activities, thus compromising privacy and autonomy.
  7. The implementation of these measures involves forcible interference with nonviolent conduct—at minimum the imposition of fines and the confiscation of property, and, if the criminal law is used, the subjection of people to criminal penalties. This is objectionable for the same reason the criminalization of nonviolent conduct generally is objectionable.

Comments

Rog said…
Slightly off topic, but a recent break into to my apartment made me rethink a few of my pro gun assumptions.

The thieves who broke into my apartment and stole (mostly) a ton of electronics, but had I had a gun, they would have no doubt taken that too. (I've been planning on getting one for target practice with friends.)

They rifled through all the places I would have hid it (closet, drawers, etc).

Assuming that we do allow law abiding citizens to have a gun, what legal mandates do we make to make sure that they don't get in the wrong hands?

Rog
May 18, 2014 at 8:04 PM
Unknown said…
I am sorry your apartment was robbed! But as you first noted They are criminals!
So to answer your question what legal mandates do we make to make sure that they don't get in the wrong hands? The real answer is There is no mandates or Bill to stop someone from wanting to do an illegal act! (We have current laws in place that need to be enforce to detour those acts) No extra taxes, paperwork, databases, background checks or even safety measures would help. But doing this would impose on legal firearm holders ….taxes, increased costs, loss of privacy and make them a punitive target through some massive database. And this is the very tip of the issues concerning gun control. (This starts down the path of loss of due process and illegal search & seizure issues for legal citizens) Please think carefully on the decisions you support. There is an endless amount of educational reading on this issue that needs to be done. Happy reading!
November 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians for Redistribution

-
Libertarianism is a redistributive project. That’s another way in which radical market anarchism is rightly seen as part of the socialist tradition. Statists on both the left and the right favor the redistribution of wealth. Libertarians, by contrast, are often assumed to be dead-set against all varieties of redistribution. But it’s important to see that whether this is really the case or not depends on how we answer several questions: Agent : who effects the redistribution? Rationale : what justifies the redistribution? Means : how is the redistribution accomplished? Statist Redistribution For statists, the agent of redistribution is the state. The rationales for redistribution are primarily consequentialist —it’s seen as designed to bring about some favored end-state—though it may also be used to punish the putatively undeserving and to reward the arguably virtuous. The means ? The creation of monopolies, the enactment of regulations, the confiscation of proper...
Read more

Nicholas Lash (1934-2020)

-
I learned a few minutes ago that Nicholas Lash had died earlier today. Nicholas was a brilliant, incisive philosophical theologian who was by far the most formidable member of the Faculty of Divinity at Cambridge during the time I was a PhD student. He was, as far as I'm aware, the first Catholic to hold a chair in the Faculty since the Reformation. (A laicized priest married to a former nun, he was not, like many people with similar profiles, an enemy of his church. He remained unapologetically and obviously Catholic.) Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity at Cambridge and the holder not only of a PhD but also of an earned DD from the university, he was an elegant prose stylist whose work was rarely simple—he sought to remind us repeatedly of the complexity of thought, language, and the human situation—but always stimulating and insightful. He engaged with a broad range of topics and figures—from Newman (the subject of his dissertation and first book) to Marx to William Jame...
Read more

Socialism revisited

-
I'd like to try to tie together and expand my observations re. the great “socialist”/“capitalist” terminological debate that’s been proceeding at C4SS and AAE . “Socialism” as Genus; “State-Socialism” as Species I think there is good reason to use “socialism” to mean something like opposition to: bossism (that is to subordinative workplace hierarchy); and deprivation (that is, persistent, exclusionary poverty, whether resulting from state-capitalist depredation, private theft, disaster, accident, or other factors . “Socialism” in this sense is the genus; “state-socialism” is the (much-to-be-lamented) species. Indeed, using the “socialist” label provides the occasion for a clear distinction between the genus “socialism” and the species “state-socialism.” Thus, it offers a convenient opportunity to expose and critique the statist assumptions many people reflexively make (assumptions that make it all-too-easy for political theory to take as given the presupposition that its subject...
Read more