Unlike other gun control threads, I’m not going I’m not going to bother with statistics. Instead I’m going to offer a different take and that is this:
I have the right to defend myself and I do not need the permission the State to do so.
Gun permits are exactly that. They are saying that a law abiding citizen needs the State’s permission to use a form of protection while criminals , who are not inclined to follow the laws, will have them regardless of what the State says.
Martial Arts require lots of training and if my attack is much bigger/stronger than me I am at a significant disadvantage. Guns do not have this problem. A decent firearm can provide protection from attackers of any size.
Concealing a weapon is not very difficult and does not require much in the way of special equipment. It won’t affect criminals because they don’t care what the law says anyway.
Point taken. However I’m going beyond just permits for owning a gun. I also am including things like concealed carry permits.
While I do not necessarily need a gun to defend myself, it is the best option. It requires the least amount of time and money for training. It also eliminates the possibility of being physically outmatched.
Your starting premise was that you have the right to defend yourself. You then asserted that a gun was the best option (or the best option for you) to defend yourself. However, a gun is not necessary to defending yourself, therefore your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
Interesting that this thread gets started just as this news is released:
This casts some doubt on your claim that a gun is the optimal means to defend yourself, since it apparently increases your risk of being shot 450% in case you’re actually defending yourself.
Basically, yes. If the only way to defend yourself was with a gun, then the right to defend yourself would be equivalent to a right to have a gun. But it’s not the only way, and if my link is correct, not necessarily even the best way to defend yourself.
You’re trying to argue this logically from the principle of a right to defend yourself, but your arguments about guns being superior are pragmatic arguments–a gun is more effective than martial arts, say.
Yes. For example, you cannot get a SS detail because you do not have enough power or money.
However, I am not arguing that the government should be able to limit people’s control of guns. Just that there are other, more valid arguments for it.
No right is absolute. You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, your right to not be searched by the police is not operative when they have a warrant, and you don’t have an unlimited right to defend yourself with any means available.
Rights are not dependent upon the means to exercise them. Having the means to exercise is a practical concern.
The reason I keep bringing up practical concerns is that you can’t meaningfully talk of rights without discussing the pragmatic implications of them and their exercise. Your right to freedom of expression does not include the right to cause a stampede in a crowded theatre by yelling ‘fire’. The state’s interest in requiring permits for gun owners is a practical concern about managing the widespread effects of gun ownership in society. If you’re claiming that your right trumps the practical concerns, then logically you can’t appeal to those same practical concerns to justify the right.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater is potentially harming innocent parties. My using a gun to defend myself is not. Permits do nothing to address those concerns because criminals are not law abiding.
I disagree. First there is the non-negligible incidence of harm that comes from gun ownership, such as accidental discharges; there’s the correlation between suicide and gun ownership due to having ready means available; there’s innocent bystanders killed in shootouts, and children playing with their Dad’s unsecured revolver; and there’s mistaken shootings where a person who thought they were defending themselves blew away their wife because they fired at a threatening silhouette. Then there’s the fact that every illegal firearm carried by a criminal started its life as a legal firearm purchased by a legal gun owner, so widespread gun ownership itself is, in part, responsible for the availability of the guns that criminals carry.
Permits allow the government to establish and enforce standards for training, safe handling, transfer, sale, storage, etc. In other words, they’re the hook by which the government can establish policies to try to manage the effects of gun ownership, especially on innocent parties.
I’m not saying that the U.S. has an effective gun control regime via permitting, but in principle I don’t find anything wrong the idea.