# Can I favor gun control and STILL be a true Libertarian? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2000, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-favor-gun-control-and-still-be-a-true-libertarian/31301 "2000-08-30T04:55:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Jaakko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@Jaakko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jaakko)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2000, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-favor-gun-control-and-still-be-a-true-libertarian/31301/61 "2000-09-07T14:44:19Z")
Anthracite, > [@](#): > > Well, since the primary purpose of licensing is to create a registry for quick and simple confiscation, I can’t see how you say you are not one of the “anti-gun people.” Would you clarify further? Well, there are perfectly good reasons for confiscation. I just don’t want criminals or mentally disturbed people to be able to buy guns or keep previously purchased ones. If there are other, less intrusive ways of doing that, I’m all for them. > [@](#): > > Are you aware of the outstanding record of lawful ownership of fully automatic weapons in the US? How few crimes have been committed with lawful fully automatic weapons in the hands of citizens (not law enforcement)? Just wondering why you would be opposed to ownership of fully automatic weapons, under the current Federal licensing scheme. Full automatics are quite useless for civilian use IMHO, and their damage potential in the wrong hands is enough grounds for me to be against them. You have to draw a line somewhere. Mr. Zambezi, > [@](#): > > Jaako, I was not aware that there was a problem with people “carrying guns in public.” I certainly don’t like people discharging them in public. If I am not mistaken, that is already illegal most everywhere. > > I am curious though: why the desire for more gun control when violent crime and gun crime is going down. I mean, I could see it if violence was getting worse, but it isn’t. I guess this comes partially down to cultural differences. While there are plenty of guns in Finland, carrying one in public is regarded as something only criminals or loonies would do. If the society is safe enough, I see no reason to allow firearms in public areas. They do pose a certain danger, and they are in no way necessary for keeping peace. Danielinthewolvesden, > [@](#): > > We have been over this before, and so far, no-one has come up with a halfway good reason for retroactive registration, or for liscensing. Hmm, yes, I don’t think retroactive registration would work at all, as the damage has already been done (ie. the wrong people already have their guns). pldennison, > [@](#): > > . . which according to Lott and Mustard, is an excellent way to increase the number of murders, rapes, and aggravated assaults. But, hey, if that’s what you want. Most of the first world is quite peaceful without things like concealed carry, and I see no reason why the US couldn’t be one of them. But should those names mean something to me? Can you give me a URL? ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2000, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-favor-gun-control-and-still-be-a-true-libertarian/31301/62 "2000-09-07T15:30:55Z")
**Jaako** : > [@](#): > > Most of the first world is quite peaceful without things like concealed carry, and I see no reason why the US couldn’t be one of them. Most of the first world doesn’t have the population, average population density, or cultural idiosyncracies that the US does, either. Comparing things like this across countries is notoriously dangerous, because there are so many different factors which may account for differences in crime rates. Anyway, John Lott and David Mustard published a (much-maligned but mathematically sound) paper in the _Journal of Legal Studies_, and Lott later published a book called _More Guns, Less Crime_. They used state- and county-level data from every single county in the United States over a 15-year period to examine the impact of various factors on crime rates. They used statistics including arrest rates, population, population density, income, unemployment, race, and concealed-carry laws. What they found was that the two biggest factors leading to decreases in the rate of violent crime were an increase in the arrest rate, and an increase in nondiscretionary (or “shall-issue”) concealed-carry laws. States that passed shall-issue laws experienced decreases in violent crime greater than states that did not; and counties within those states affected by the laws experienced greater drops than counties who were already granting nondiscretionary permits. (There is a substitutability effect–property crimes, which are less likely to involve contact between perpetrator and victim, tend to increase.) Nearly all the examined effects were statistically significant at at least the five percent level. (Some were significant at the one percent level, some at the ten percent level, some were not significant.) Lott’s work can be viewed as a PDF file at [http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf](http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.pdf) . The book is also worth checking out, too, because he examines both the political and academic controversy that met the publishing of his original work. Some of that controversy can be examined at [http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Lott\_v\_Teret/Lott\_Mustard\_Controversy.html](http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Lott_v_Teret/Lott_Mustard_Controversy.html) . I really, honestly recommend checking out the book no matter which side you’re on. It’s stats-heavy, but it provides much food for thought. ---
**Author:** ![theuglytruth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@theuglytruth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theuglytruth)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2000, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-favor-gun-control-and-still-be-a-true-libertarian/31301/63 "2000-09-08T04:23:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Anthracite \* > \*\*I would be able to respond better if I could understand what was a past quote, and what was a new quote. I think perhaps learning the “quote” feature is necessary if you intend to be here long. When you make a good point, it is difficult to find it without using the vb codes. > > And damned annoying to have to correct it. Go to the ATMB forum here and ask how to use the quotes, bold, italics, etc. > > Well, I’m going to try it now. Wish me luck! > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by theuglytruth \* > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > 1. You would call the police first - good. What’s their response time to your home? You know the SC did rule long ago that there (paraphrasing) “is not a right to be protected by the police”? " > > > > UT: Not a bad point. But like I pointed out before, are you REALLY going to blow away Clint while he is sneaking into your bedroom? Or accidentally shoot your wife coming back to bed after the 3 am piss?\*\* > > These are two specific scenrios. In general yes, if an intruder was in my house, AND I knew my SO was in bed with me, I would shoot at them. If you think about it, why _wouldn’t_ I? > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > “2) You would get a baseball bat. Why? Why wouldn’t you just end up hitting youself in the knee? What do you think an armed burglar is going to do if confronted with you carrying a ball bat? He’s going to shoot you or at you.” > > > > UT: If you hit yourself in the knee with a baseball bat, maybe by the Survival of the Fittest Rule of Darwin, you should be shot.\*\* > > But you don’t answer my question - if I understand you, you put forward that confronting a burglar with a gun will cause this professional, expert criminal to shoot you. Why is threatening them with anything else not going to yield the same result? And try this - walk through your halls, in you rooms - is it easy to even swing a ball bat in a house’s often tight quarters? At best you might bruise the intruder badly. > > And I don’t know where the “Darwin” statement belongs in all this. > > I’m not going to resond anymore to 3, as it’s only an opinion. > > The Darwin quote was a joke. Now that we have established that a baseball bat is as effective as using a gun in this situation, which is ZERO . . .so why carry a dangerous gun in the house? Not too many kids beating their little sisters to death ewith baseball bats from what I understand. > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > “4) Your “what match” statement doesn’t mean anything. If someone is trying to rape or kill you, you should not defend yourself because you would have no chance? If I am being assaulted on a country road, I should not try to defend myself, and should wait for the smiling, friendly policeman to come rescue me, because I would have no chance against a career criminal? (snort!) Yeah, I saw how well that worked! IMO, career criminals are not supermen, the are no experts in firearms use, and they are not experts in killing, and they are not homicidally driven to get into a gun battle during a routine house robbery. They typically are filthy little cowards who carry it to feel big, and end up shooting blindly at anything if startled.” > > > > UT: Ah, now you are going to bring the emotional argument. I’m a bad guy because I want to take away the right of women from protecting themselves from a rapist. What percentage of women who have been raped would not have been if they carried firearms? Don’t tell me it is over 10%! > > > > Karate is a hell of a lot more effective then a gun in this situation, methinks! Of course, since I am a man and have not ben raped, I of course don’t know. But that’s an “emotional” argument too.\*\* > > You’re damn right I’m going to bring the emotional argument into it - because people need these issues brought right down to earth for them sometimes. > > Replay the sentence about “karate” in your head. Are you aware that self defense has nothing to do with what the TV and Movies tell you? I challange that **regardless of any self-defense training** , IRL no 5 foot 100 pound woman is going to prevent herself from being raped by a 6 foot, 250 pound man if she has no weapon to defend herself. Physical self defense is a joke when defending against a significantly stronger and larger opponent. I get into this argument a lot, especially among “Bruce Lee nuts” (which are far more dangerous than gun nuts IMO) who envision petite women turning into a tornado of teeth and claws, doing spinning aerial backkicks, etc. At best, real self defense in these situations is about escape - and if escape is not possible, then she is doomed. > > If a rapist has you laid down on the ground, belly to belly, ready to do his evil deed, a knee to the balls or a poke to the eye at this point will be a lot more effective than a gun, which could also be used against you. Now I will admit that the peashooter is effective if the perv is apporoaching you from a distance, but I’m betting that most rapes are initiated by attacking from behind or at a close distance. > > > [@](#): > > > > **UT: See this is what I mean. As a Libertarian, every time I bring up that I want to get rid of welfare, there is always some doofus at the bar that gives me the “emotional” sob story that if it were not for welfare, he would still be a homeless bum ,etc etc…** > > A polite way of calling me a “doofus” and my argument a “sob story” is still calling me a “doofus” who has a “sob story”. First-semester debate tactic, really. > > Sorry. It was not my intention to insinuate that you are a doofus with a sob story. You are a very engaing debate opponent. > > > [@](#): > > > > **Therefore, since I cannot convince you that Ameircia is the only country in the Western World that allows handguns, and coincidentally has the highest gun death murder rate of these countries, that there is a PROBLEM, I give up!** > > You can’t throw out a blatant mis-statement like that and retire. “the only country in the Western World that allows handguns”?! You want to stand behind that claim, or not? > > Uh sure. What stats do you need? I’ll bet you five Dope Dollars I’m right. > > Oh! And look out for the gun-crazed .sig below: \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2000, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-favor-gun-control-and-still-be-a-true-libertarian/31301/64 "2000-09-09T02:07:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by theuglytruth \* > \*\*The Darwin quote was a joke. Now that we have established that a baseball bat is as effective as using a gun in this situation, which is ZERO . . .so why carry a dangerous gun in the house? Not too many kids beating their little sisters to death ewith baseball bats from what I understand. > \*\* On the contrary, I don’t think “we” established that at all. We established that confronting an armed subject with either weapon would likely result in him firing at the homeowner. We most certainly **did not** establish any equivalence of effectiveness in defending your life. People often tend to think the image of the firearm-weilding homeowner as “comical”, well I have a different view - I think that the common media image of the homeowner armed with a baseball bat creeping down the stairs towards the intruder is not only not funny, but is silly and ignorant. > [@](#): > > **If a rapist has you laid down on the ground, belly to belly, ready to do his evil deed, a knee to the balls or a poke to the eye at this point will be a lot more effective than a gun, which could also be used against you. Now I will admit that the peashooter is effective if the perv is apporoaching you from a distance, but I’m betting that most rapes are initiated by attacking from behind or at a close distance.** I suppose once things get that far, but that’s sort of like saying “What good will your gun do you after you are incapacitated?” I think that’s a set-up argument, since by definition once you are in that situation little will help you. Self defense with a firearm helps you avoid getting to the point of being “belly to belly” (ugh! Talk about sickening imagery!). > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Therefore, since I cannot convince you that Ameircia is the only country in the Western World that allows handguns, and coincidentally has the highest gun death murder rate of these countries, that there is a PROBLEM, I give up! > > > > You can’t throw out a blatant mis-statement like that and retire. “the only country in the Western World that allows handguns”?! You want to stand behind that claim, or not? > > Uh sure. What stats do you need? I’ll bet you five Dope Dollars I’m right. > > \*\* So you are contending that **no other Western country** allows possession of handguns? Even Canada does, and I believe Venezuela, Portugal, Italy. True, they are not as lenient as the US, but several Western countries certainly allow some ownership of them. Just look at the countries represented in the Olympic Pistol Teams for examples - even Germany has private citizens on it’s team - is Germany not a Western country? I’m not picking on you (or not meaning to anyhow). But I think you need to modify your statement to refer to leniency of ownership, to be more factually correct. There are other Western countries that **do** allow handgun ownership, in a more limited sense, than the US. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2000, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-favor-gun-control-and-still-be-a-true-libertarian/31301/65 "2000-09-09T02:55:57Z")
I would just like to say that I have nothing to add to this discussion. Considering that I broke my arm yesterday, and my typing speed is cut in half (not that I was ever setting my keyboard on fire in the first place), I will decline from re-covering ground that has been so thoroughly covered. _Again._ _ **ExTank** _ _“Nothing to see here folks; just paddin’ the post count.”_ ---
**Author:** ![\_Tim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/e47c2d/32.png) [@\_Tim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Tim)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2000, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-favor-gun-control-and-still-be-a-true-libertarian/31301/66 "2000-09-13T04:44:20Z")
It’s sad when Canada is an example of weak gun control, but it still does allow private handgun ownership under many circumstances. Long guns are not yet required to be licensed, but will be as of Jan 1. Anyhow, [this site](http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/cfm/ENGLISH/TOPICS/02WEAPON/0200200D.HTM#S02_02) describes handgun regulation in Canada. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2000, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-favor-gun-control-and-still-be-a-true-libertarian/31301/67 "2000-09-13T05:07:51Z")
Switerland has an extremely LOW violent crime rate, and every male citizen is required by Law to keep a fully automatic assault rifle\* in his home or business. Clearly, the availabity or unavailability of firearms has little or no effect on the violent crime rate. It has nothing to do with GUNS, its the economy. Poor people commit violent crime. America, as rich as it is, has lots of poor people, thus lots of violent crime. A large gap between the rich and the poor, with lots of rich for the poor to resent increase this rate. Switzerland has few poor people, and thus low violent crime. The various subsaharan african nations have LOTS of very poor people, and they don’t even call it 'crime" there, it is insurrection. Notice, that the crime rate has gone down in direct ration to the increase in the economy, and the decrease in the unemployment rate. You want to stop violent crime? Guns-shmuns- Give poor folks good jobs. - the very weapon which is the very very worst gun of all, according to the anti-gun folks. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2000, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-favor-gun-control-and-still-be-a-true-libertarian/31301/68 "2000-09-13T14:55:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Clearly, the availabity or unavailability of firearms has little or no effect on the violent crime rate. This is simply not true. Allowing nondiscretionary concealed-carry permits among law-abiding gun owners **decreases the violent crime rate**. Please read the link I provided earlier. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-i-favor-gun-control-and-still-be-a-true-libertarian/31301.md?page=3)