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.