Guns, Control, and Liberty
I bought a new gun this week. It is a modern gun with a full-capacity magazine. It was a private sale, with no paperwork and no registration. People do this every day across America. In most places, it is perfectly legal to do this, despite what you may see on TV and the web.
This scares many people for some reason.
Why do so many people have a paranoid busybody attitude about such things? Why do police and politicians exhibit a pathological desire to harm innocent people in the name of protecting them? How are their monopolized police with no obligation to protect or defend anyone (even if they can be called at all) even worthy of the title, "first responder?"
If you face an emergency, you are the first responder. Why should you be barred access to the means to respond? It is already obvious that we cannot rely on the police. Numerous court decisions have held that police have no obligation to protect anyone, even when violent people violate court-issued restraining orders. Gun-free school zones haven't stopped school shootings. When schools are attacked despite active police patrols, we have seen the officers retreat and wait for backup instead of stopping the shooter. Then they are exonerated. There are numerous stories of people calling the police only to be shot themselves when the cops arrive.
At the library, we have fire extinguishers in case we need to respond to fire. We have first aid kits and Automated External Defibrillators in case we need to respond to medical emergencies. While I don't support library-issued sidearms or a glass case of rifles marked "open in case of emergency," it seems absurd that many people are barred by law or corporate mandate from carrying a gun. An armed victim has more chance than one who is unarmed. It is true that statistics may support the assertion that people who own guns for self-defense face higher death rates, but which factor came first? Why does no one in the news media mention the plummeting violent crime rates as firearms have proliferated and states have relaxed restrictions on the concealed carry of weapons?
Whenever there is a great public outcry on any matter, begin by asking which position supports individual liberty most. Set aside the hand-wringing emotion-fuelled pleas for more laws and regulations. I can control my new gun just fine without your meddling. I have no intention to violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else; and declaring my purchase or ownership "illegal" only harms me while protecting no one. If you fear me or my gun, either you are irrational, or you fear that I may defend myself against your trespass. In either case, grow up and take responsibility for yourself instead of trying to usurp control over me.
Image credit - Not my gun. A review of what I actually bought may be forthcoming eventually, though.
Nice! If I ever have money again I have a few guns on my wish list.
Same here. Right now, I have to invest every penny I have on my new business, but once I have cash to spare, I'm going to finally add some nice single-shot rifles to my collection.
Thompson-Center Encore or Contender. One receiver. Just add new barrels in the caliber you desire.
I prefer private sales too. In Texas all you need is to make sure you sell to a Texas resident. 👍
Posted using Partiko Android
Really, that shouldn't even matter. Government's lines on the map don't grant special rights.
exactly.
it is better to have a gun, and not need it, than to need a gun, and not have it.
"...I can control my new gun just fine without your meddling. I have no intention to violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else; and declaring my purchase or ownership "illegal" only harms me while protecting no one."
So can I, control my guns if I owned one, and well might one day, and millions of others and who by all means have and should have a gun if they so wish. I would want to reserve that right. This article seems reasonable until it is critically examined. The questions I have is:
Why are proposals to simply perform a background check implicitly equated to banning guns or making gun ownership by law abiding citizens "illegal"?
In the past 12 years we have heard whinings and wranglings about someone taking guns away but in that time pretty much no guns have ever been taken away and instead ownership is at an all time high. Could it be some psychological link between those who feel like that right is been threatened when all outcomes show the opposite and some that recognize that human fear and exploit it or even sow those fears either to enrich themselves or use it to psychologically enlist the same people to the same ideological cause politically to gain votes?
If I as a gun owner have a right to protect myself and can, but do have a job I go to, should I be happy that the violent teen next door that has been in and out of institutions and ties cats together by their tails in the neighborhood has guns and exercises it in the backyard? All while I leave my kids at home sometimes so I can provide for them? Should I be happy they can avail themselves of a private sale? Or any other mental case? Where should the line be drawn? Am I a busy body to want to have only balanced law abiding citizens around my home having guns? Or driving cars around me? Or the kids in school my kids go to be mandated to be immunized from measles or any other harm that could be passed?
The point is that these issues are not as represented in this article at all. We all wish human liberty were absolute but they are not wherever we have shared resources and environment. If I lived in some homestead in Alaska would anyone check my gun rights? Or ask for my driving license when I drive my ATV around or on my ranch? Now that would be encroaching on liberty to the extreme. And a guy was once arrested from inside his house, even after it was established that he lived there, for been angry and rude and some normally in the liberty crowd cheered it.
Yes there are people on the extremes that want no one to have guns but they are in the minority, and there are extremes who would want side arms placed along school hallways just like fire extinguishers, (from this article clearly you don't go that far) also in the minority. And then maybe those less extreme allowing anyone to just buy or get guns from private sales, and perennially being worked up over some focus on someone taking their guns or making gun ownership illegal. In fact, as was demonstrated in NZ, its when there are no reasonable limits then greater chances of outrageous things happening, which then leads to some overreacting and going too far on the control side.
this is very simple,
it's none of anybody else's business whether I have a gun or not.
If I am a felon that is not supposed to have one, that will be revealed when I commit the crime I would commit regardless...because I am a felon with no self-control.
Then again, take a look around, gun charges against felons are dropped all the time by the same people who howl and froth at the idea that non-criminal citizens should not get politician and banker permission and oversight to own weapons.
The US government has a terrible track record in defining felony, and has consistently infringed on numerous rights through enforcing bad laws and performing poor paperwork. More importantly though, no right should be subject to government permission. Not speech, not marriage, and not gun ownership.
Many firearm models and features are illegal right now, and people are "felons" if caught in certain areas with the "wrong" magazine or stock. Trump's administration arbitrarily declared bump stocks "illegal," and demanded that people destroy or surrender their property without compensation. That is confiscation and infringement. It is more than just political rhetoric.
My liberty isn't up to your consent. Neither is anyone else's. If your neighbor is dangerous, deal with your specific neighbor, don't demand more power for corrupt government officials over others. You say we need "reasonable limits," but who decides what is reasonable? Not the people who claim a territorial monopoly in violence, that's for sure.
Thanks for the response. My last comment on this: The US government is nothing but a collection of people like you and I or someone that someone knows that we hire and fire at points to represent us collectively. It will never be perfect but is the way we agreed to run our community. To reject its authority is simply a rejection of the community and its laws. To reject it is also anyone's God given right. So anyone can walk away from that community and agreement. Why live in a community and with a government you don't agree with? Anyone can do the extent of liberty we want the right way and not the lazy way, like this guy below. I would do this if and when my kids leave home and I want to live with no more rules.
(From comments in https://steemit.com/steem-engine/@aggroed/scotbot-launch-time-to-make-your-own-custom-token-powered-by-proof-of-brain-on-steem)
Same for consent in a shared communities. My pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness should not infringe on yours and vice-versa. But it can and so we find reasonable rules to draw the boundaries. Those that have committed violent crimes or have medically diagnosed issues that prevent them from having guns are not allowed to by statute. I cannot blast my music loud at 1000 decibels at 2am while your children are sleeping because it makes me happy, because then I clearly infringe on your right to be happy. So the neighborhood I live in made that rule. If I don't like it, I have the liberty to move elsewhere. But some will always want to be part of a community but not its rules.
As far as "deal with our specific neighbor", what would that mean? A wild west? So I should find one to go live in if that's what I wanted. And would dealing with that neighbor be before or after said neighbor, or any individual for that matter, has completely foreclosed on your ability to be happy forever after they God-forbid sent your children back to their maker? There won't be any remedy or recourse you or anyone would have that could reverse or cure that. I believe that's why there's the need for the rules; even if some will keep breaking or trying to break it.
You conflate government and society. There is no representation. There is no "we" and no agreement in politics. Democracy is a myth used by the political class to justify their predatory behavior. Government monopolies guarantee waste and abuse. The premise of modern theories of government based on popular elections have no more inherent legitimacy than does the Divine Right of Kings.
I cannot rightly claim the authoritynto govern my neighbor. I cannot tax his property or exchanges. I cannot demand that he apply for my license before exercising his rights. All of these are obvious. How can I delegate to some third party a right I do not have?
I recommend this essay to further explore this line of thought: A Letter to Grover Cleveland, by Lysander Spooner
This is a super complex problem that all the different sides can back up with statistics and data. Yes, there are some instances where you and your loved ones might be safer with you having a firearm, but I'm sure there are instances where there is far more danger because you do. No one can control their temper 100% of the time, nor completely prevent others from getting their weapons. I'd also be curious to see how useful a handgun is against a school shooter armed with assault rifles. I also don't blame the police for not running in guns blazing, it seems incredibly short-sighted.
I have no problems with your gun, or conceal carry, but you can't really blame people for wringing their hands and crying out for change when children in schools are being butchered in huge numbers. You have to admit the US can't keep going as it's going.
I can drive a car safely without getting road rage. I don't drive drunk. The same applies with handling guns. You trust people to drive tons of steel at insane speeds every day. You are familiar with the risk. It doesn't concern you. I suppose you would argue that government licenses offer a measure of protection, but really, that means nothing. people drive without licenses all the time. people with licenses drive poorly. Government wants to generate revenue and flex authority first and foremost, not ensure safety. A license is permission to do something that is otherwise illegal. Why has government declared so many things illegal? Because people believe in the mythology of politics, not because there was real necessity.
To my knowledge, there have been no school shootings with assault rifles in the US. None. Zero. An AR-type rifle is just a semi-automatic carbine made from modern materials. It may look like a military assault rifle, but it operates differently and has different internal components. It cannot fire multiple rounds from a single trigger press, a defining characteristic of machine guns and assault rifles. Legislating on appearances is stupid. But I also oppose the bans on machine guns, so that remains a moot point.
A handgun is very suitable for self-defense against someone with a rifle indoors. It can be carried at all times, and kept concealed until need arises. It is ideal for close range self-defense. A 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP loaded with hollow-point ammunition has ample power to reliably stop an assailant without significant risk of over-penetration endangering others. A rifle or shotgun would be preferable, but a handgun would work if they were not forbidden by law. Really, the ban on guns in schools only ensures a free fire zone for those with ill intent. And it is painfully obvious that police cannot be relied upon to aggressively respond to school shootings. The first responders are always those in the emergency.
Ah sorry, I don't know much about guns so wasn't aware of the difference between machine guns and the semi-automatic guns.
So, why don't you support the ban on these sorts of guns? The Las Vegas shooter caused the death or injury of 851 people... I doubt he would have been able to injure or kill as many people in a car.
People don't oppose cars because they're so useful. People use cars all the time safely.. it's not at all a fair comparison... even unlicensed people aren't trying to kill anyone. What's even the point of a semi-automatic weapon if not to kill hoards of people? And how is anyone okay with that?
I totally believe that you're a safe gun owner... but you can't guarantee that everyone who gets their hands on a gun is.
I've moved from Australia from the US, and trust me, there is definitely something way more sinister about the US government. So I totally agree it's out to flex rather than ensure safety. The fact that a Kinder Surprise is illegal and a handgun isn't... insanity. The whole pharmaceutical thing is bizarre in this country.
This data doesn't convince you that something should change?
True. Many people are unaware of the difference. And that confusion allows bad laws to be imposed with majority approval. Yellow journalism and political propaganda don't help at all.
The Las Vegas shooter did a terrible thing, but actual machine guns and assault rifles are available on the black market. Would more laws imposing arbitrary restrictions on peaceful people have stopped him? No. And the bump stock ban declaring thousands of innocent people "felons" was a stupid response.
People are used to cars, but cars are objectively far more dangerous than guns. So it's not a fair comparison at all, but not in the way you think, and that is the point.
You cite "gun-related deaths," but that is blatant cherry-picking of the data. Violent crime rates have plummeted in the US since the earlyn1990s before the Clinton-era ban on scary-looking guns and continued after that law sunsetted. Crime rates are primarily associated with the black markets arising from government prohibitions and impoverished inner cities where sociopolitical and economic turmoil is directly caused by government impositions. Blaming the guns is nonsense, and imposing restrictions on peaceful people won't prevent crime. And don't forget that countries report crime rates differently. If I am not mistaken, many report only convictions, and not victims, in homicide.
I do admit that there is a suicide problem in the US, but that is also a very complicated issue. Sure, guns are a fast and simple method, but so are poisons, carbon monoxide, and leaping from tall structures and bridges. Further, the US suicide rate overall is comparable to that of Europe and far lower than that of strict-gun-control Japan.
The world is a dangerous place, but placing arbitrary restrictions on peaceful people only makes it more so.
Again, I'm not at all an expert, so I'm happy for you to correct me, but I thought the Las Vegas shooter and the Church-shooter in Charleston bought their guns legally? I thought neither of them raised red flags, and so would have been deemed 'peaceful people' until they weren't.
I'm not at all saying I have the solution to this incredibly complex problem, and I'm sure that you're aware that the US has a reputation around the world for being 'gun crazy' but I would have thought that banning all guns except single shot rifles would at least help with all the shootings and massacres. Obviously the black market would need to be stamped out, and again, it might all be too complex for the US to resolve, but I guess my overall point is that I think it's entirely practical for someone in the US to be nervous about guns, because lots of people seem to get shot. Maybe the data is wrong, but at least from a PR point of view, my half-brother and half-sister in Australia go to school without ever having to worry about a shooter. I just don't think kids in the US can say the same... it's hard not to blame the guns in that comparison.
"the Las Vegas shooter and the Church-shooter in Charleston bought their guns legally?"
They very well could in a private sale anyway as this article confirms. Since they can get this in a black market and anyone with serious mental issues can as well, why not just legalize it all and make it a wild west again? Let's remove speeding laws and allow everyone drive to 100 or as far as their odometer, since a few will keep breaking the law anyway. The law can't stop it from happening. That's the argument some make.
Very insightful reading this thread all the same.
This is why I think we need 15 billion guns... two for each person. Then we'll all be safe.
You're building a strawman argument and making an error in reasoning by appealing to authority. That is not the argument I made, and legality does not have rational or moral aughority.
Consider speed limits, as you asserted. When the natural rate of traffic flow as determined by the drivers on the road exceeds an arbitrary government limit, they are all "criminals," but no crime was committed. No harm to life, liberty, or property is an inherent or necessary consequence of driving 70 MPH in a 65 MPH zone. It is not automatically reckless endangerment, aggression, or any other form of clear and present danger. Just move to the outside lane and let faster traffic pass you.
When people buy and sell guns without following arbitrary government restrictions, they are "criminals," again despite the absence of real crime. If you don't like guns, don't buy them. It's that simple.
Using what-if scenarios is a poor way to establish norms in society and using government guns to impose your opinions on others is far from a peaceful amd rational position.