I consider myself a libertarian. Most if not all libertarians are against gun control. However, I’ve been having second thoughts in light of arguments I’ve heard from the NRA since the Sandy Hook shooting Dec. 14.
1) NRA president Wayne LaPierre said he didn’t think regulating the size of a magazine could reduce the carnage in mass shootings. This seems pretty obviously wrong. We know from the most recent mass shootings that the shooter was only subdued because he had to stop shooting to reload his gun. See the shooting of Gabby Giffords and others in 2011.
2) Most gun control opponents take it for granted that criminals will get guns no matter the gun laws, so the question then becomes whether we’re going to arm ourselves against them or remain defenseless. I just can’t buy this kind of gun-soaked-society fatalism. Lots of countries in Europe and East Asian have criminals and gangs and all the rest, but their gun murders are a tiny fraction of America’s. Why can’t their criminals get guns if gun laws have no effect?
3) As some libertarians, such as Ron Paul, have already pointed out, the proposals Wayne LaPierre called for in his post-Sandy Hook address were pretty ridiculous. LaPierre called for putting an armed officer in every school, arguing, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” This is a complete overreaction. Schools are still among the safest places for kids.
December 31, 2012 at 10:01 pm |
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/victor7.1.1.html
January 4, 2013 at 10:58 pm |
Hi Ben and Sylvia. Thanks for the link.
Let me just start off by saying that I’m skeptical of gun control since I think guns can do a lot of good things, both for self-defense and as a way to diffuse power in society so it is not concentrated in government.
However, I don’t think it’s correct to say that gun laws have no affect on whether criminals own guns. Of course just words on paper won’t make any difference, but a government that puts enough resources into banning something can really do it.
For instance, the government prevents civilians from buying an Apache helicopter, and since the government takes this seriously, they have succeeded in preventing civilians from owning one. A lot of military hardware is difficult to get because the sale of it is strictly controlled.
From the link:
“As a society, we need to accept the reality that bad guys will continue to get guns notwithstanding our laws.”
Another bothersome thing about a lot of pro-gun people is they seem to assume it’s easy to tell who is a good guy and who is a bad guy. The last two murders in Washington County were committed by 70-year-old men with no criminal record. One of them got angry at his wife and strangled her. The other got angry at his girlfriend and shot her with a pistol.
I’m not saying gun control would have prevented those murders. But I do think guns can turn a verbal altercation into a homicide. People don’t always make rational decisions.
The pro-gun lobby assumes that if I know you have a gun, I’ll be less likely to shoot you and therefore guns are a deterrent to crime. However, knowing you have a gun makes me more suspicious and fearful of your intentions, which makes me more likely to think of you as a threat. That’s why you don’t want to be holding a gun when the police show up.