Can I favor gun control and STILL be a true Libertarian?

Great Debates
41

Libertarian wrote in respose to what I wrote (how do you do this shit anyway?):

UT (that’s me): Since I dont own a gun, my 2 choices as I see it are this: 1. Call the police

  1. Since I know my own home better than he does, get a baseball bat.

“I hope you know that the proper way to hit with a baseball bat is not to swing.”

UT: If you are implying that it takes as much training to learn how to brain some dude with a Louisville Slugger as it does to blow off a nugget into someone, then you are comparing apples to oranges.

UT: Besides . . . I think most Americans would be so scared shitless in this situation they would end up shooting themselves in the foot.

Oh, pooh. You’re just wrong. (Any support for your assertion?)

UT: No. Just the numerous accidental deaths from gun accidents. You are now going to respond that MOST Americans under pressure would turn into Dirty Harry and blow away Joe Scumbag without missing one single bullet.

Maybe we all need to lay off the Arnold movies, yes?

UT: And what match is Joe Six pack in a gunfight against a career criminal anyway?

Oh, sorry. [… slapping forehead …]

“It hadn’t dawned on me that the homeowner is a spastic moron and the burglar is James Bond.”

UT: No. The Homeowner is a law abiding citizen with no need to make a living learning how to roll people. The Burglar is a career criminal who makes his living robbing ordinary folk like ourselves. If he does not know how to properly learn to use a firearm, he is going to be out of business soon. Thus, toe to toe, he is going to win the gunfight with Joe Citizen. Or pursuing another line of work, Straight Dope Moderator, for instance.

(That was a joke.)

This is the exact type of lowlife we need to keep guns away from!

UT: You are joking, right Libby?

“Yeah. Get it?”

UT: Uh . . I guess. What was the joke? I’m so confused. :slight_smile:
Anthracite wrote

“Please don’t make me come into this debate”

Originally posted by theuglytruth
Libertarian wrote:

Well, then next time you awaken to the noise of a burglar, ask yourself that question. I presume you are aware that libertarianism differentiates between initial force (that of the burglar) and defensive force (that of the burglary victim).

UT: Since I dont own a gun, my 2 choices as I see it are this:

  1. Call the police
  2. Since I know my own home better than he does, get a baseball bat.

Besides . . . I think most Americans would be so scared shitless in this situation they would end up shooting themselves in the foot. And what match is Joe Six pack in a gunfight against a career criminal anyway?

"Let’s examine each point:

  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?

“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.

“3) The truth is, most Americans are not so scared they would shoot themselves in the foot, as you put it. I certainly have neither shot myself in the foot, or meekly handed over my gun both times I’ve had to use it - and I’m just a woman.”

UT: Hey, congratulations. There is an exception to every rule.

“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.

By the way, with all due respect, you do NOT sound like a lady I’d want to cross! You go girlfreind!

“And now, for the obligatory bizarre rant:”

Ah, I simply love gun control debates. They bring out all the armchair liberals who can’t imagine what it’s like to ever be a violent crime victim who wants to ensure that she is never a victim again. They bring out the “backyard nukes” argument, the “children’s blood washing in our gutters” imagery, they laugh mockingly at the concept of “wanting to defend against the Queen of England.” And, of course, the one I find sick and repulsize - “if a woman wants to defend herself, she should take self-defense classes. If she uses a gun, the overwhelming majesty of ‘da man’ will cow her into meekly handing it over to him, and then he’ll just hurt her more.”

UT: Oh. Okay. I guess that is your response to the above. No, a woman is NOT going to meekly hand it over . . she is just like a man, not know how to use it in this situation!

“Well, I found out in chat that’s the way some RP’s on this board like their women. I guess I’ll have to be content with not fitting into the mold of the helpless submissive crime victim again, thank you.”

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…

Recdntly I did an article blasting MADD and how I thought current DUI laws were ridiculously fascist, especially when dealing with drivers with less than a .10 BAL. After pointing out all the carefully researched facts, I got the lone email from the woman who tragically lost her son in a car wreck involving a drunk driver with a blood alcohol level of .30. How the hell do I debate HER?

What I am saying Anthracite is that I will not win you over. It sounds like you had a horrible expereince at one point and you are very angry.

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!

42

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

Oh! And look out for the gun-crazed .sig below:

43

You have no clue what you are talking about. You are more than twice as likely to be injured when defending yourself without a gun than you are with a gun (U.S. Department of Justice: Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft, April 1994, NCJ-147003).

Maybe your name should be “theuglyuninformedopinion”. I won’t bother to descibe how moronic this statement is. Do you think that only cops, the military, and super secret spy agents know how to use a gun?

44

IMO the argument of private guns against tyranny rings quite hollow today.

In case of a foreign invader the army is obviously going to be the one doing most of the fighting, as well as organising any militias, so there is no need for an armed citizenry in peacetime.

If the country’s own government turns tyrannical, resulting in a civil war, it will be a battle for the hearts of the people, not their guns. Any private firearms will be assimilated into the armies of both sides.

Simply put, a simple armed citizenry (not government-controlled like the Swiss or the Israeli) will not possess the equipment, training or organisation necessary for fighting a war on its own.

45

Jaakko,

Quick note - does not what happened in Afghanistan sorta go against your whole argument?

Una

46

“If you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”

Those who think that government tyranny in the U.S. is forever impossible have an incredibly myopic view of history. Governments are not stable. The U.S. government has only been around for a couple of hundred years. This is a blink of an eye in historical terms. Many other governments have gone through periods of peace and prosperity that lasted much longer. Many of the these governments eventually became despotic and turned on their own citizens.

Criminals and Gun Skills

The notion that criminals are experts in gun use is laughable. The majority of criminals who own guns have never fired them, and certainly do not practice with them. When is the last time you saw a bunch of Crips down at the gun range? We’ve had gang shootouts in this city with dozens or even hundreds of bullets being fired without a casualty.

In a shootout between a criminal and a homeowner who has trained with his gun and is familiar with his environment, I’ll put my money on the homeowner. Hell, I’ll give you 3-1 odds.

Karate and Self Defense

I’m with Anthracite on this one. Weight and strength are everything. And I know what I’m talking about - I taught self-defense, and studied martial arts for years and years.

** “Guns are only good for killing people. They have no other purpose” **

Man, am I sick of this lame argument. Not only is it ridiculous, it’s demonstrably false. There are shooting events in the Olympics. There are hundreds of thousands of licensed gun collectors. There are organized shooting competitions all over the world. There are millions of hunters. I’ve been shooting guns all my life. I derive a lot of pleasure from it. I also like guns because of their engineering, and I’d love to collect them if I could afford it. I have never killed anyone, and have no intention of doing so.

People collect fine furniture, and stamps, and coins. People collect things that have historical value. Guns can be kept for their beauty, their historical significance, their rarity, etc.

Since it’s clear that many people have many uses for guns that don’t involve killing people, this argument strikes me as being either disingenuous, or the product of a weak intellect that can’t formulate a better argument.

47

Anthracite,

No, it doesn’t. The Afghan rebels were an organised guerrilla force, not a band of citizens with their private guns.
Certainly a similar force could be created in a country like the US, but not without a military organisation and a source of supplies.
A citizen with a gun just doesn’t cut it.
dhanson,

But why would civilian firearms make any real difference?
If the dictator can get the authorities under his control, it is likely that a substantial part of the people will support him too.

I just can’t imagine that the US military would turn hostile towards their own people just because ordered to do so, be civilian firearms available or not.

In other words, where are you going to get enough evil lackeys, if every citizen is resisting the dictator?

48

Me neither.

49

Uhh, Libertarian, you did notice the bit about popular support, didn’t you?

The Waco incident isn’t even nearly universally condemned, and since the FBI and whatnot is made of people, they tend to have similar opinions.

Or do you think they would start killing Jews just as easily?

50

> it’s “Are you a Libertarian?” quiz completely ignores the issue,

Are you talking about the 10-question quiz? They can’t possibly cover every issue with that small quiz.

51

Jaako, so it is your opinion that an unarmed citizenry could organize and arm itself as quickly and ffectively as an armed citizenry?

I would like to add that the lack of a current pressing threat does not diminish the importance of a right. I don’t see our government trying to enslave the jews or silence the muslims, yet the I don’t hear opponents of the second amendment calling for less free speach or more laws governing religion. Why is the 2nd treated differently?

52

Mr. Zambezi,

In the case of the US, yes it is. Military-wise, the benefit of the private gunowners is negligible. You can discount practically everyone who has bought a gun for self-defence only, and those who actually practice shooting are relatively few.
In fact, the prevailing culture being what it is, I’d be inclined to just count hunters and those with actual military experience, but those are hardly unique for an armed citizenry.

BTW, I’m not one of the anti-gun people. I just want the guns (anything but full automatics are fine) licensed and to limit their carrying in public.

53

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?

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.

54

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.

55

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. The only reason for registration that I know of, is that they KNOW most guns will not be registered, and thus they can confiscate them, and arrest otherwise lawabiding citizens. In Ca, there is a 'assualt-weapon" resistration law, but no-one can tell me the reason for it.

56

There is a very good reason for the ban on Assault rifles - it helped to re-elect a bunch of politicians who pandered to fear and sadness after the Columbine shootings.

57

Oops. I don’t think it was the Columbine shootings - it was that maniac who opened fire on the kids in Seattle with the AK-47.

And we should all be thankful that he had a ‘nasty’ assault rifle rather than a plain-jane Remington shotgun, which would have killed far more kids.

58

. . . 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.

59

Well pld, violent crime is going down. You know as well as I that politicians need a bogeyman. An increase in crime would be the best thing that could happen to the anti-gun lobby…and to a lot of left leaning politicos.

La Pierre was correct. Clinton wants gun violence to increase.

60

Wow - so many cool guys in one thread. Too bad I don’t do men! :wink: