Thanks for the link Lib. Let me first state that some of if makes perfect sense, and whether I agree or disagree with the rest, the philosophy is much better thought out than I had initially assumed. My major criticism is the objection to what Libertarians view as an ‘initial force’ in the form of a law. While I can agree that the “Government should not initiate force to impose lifestyles or moral codes”, eliminating all so called ‘initial forces’ necessarily precludes being proactive. There are still the two modes of passive law (defensive and retaliatory), but each of them waits until a incident is underway or has already taken place before proving useful. You are left with no method of preventing problems before they occur. From the article:
Yes, you can own an AK-47 and not be a murderer. Yes, it is the perpetrator of the crime who is to blame. However, what is wrong with recognizing that 1)a small but regrettably measurable segment of the population will commit heinous crimes, 2)an AK-47 allows more firepower than is necessary for such accepted activities as hunting and target shooting, and 3)that same firepower could be used against the police or ordinary citizen in the commission of a crime with disastrous results. A proactive response, one which provides an additional line of defense put in place prior to the commission of any crime, provides the most robust solution – so we place restrictions on automatic weapons. The sacrifice is that law abiding citizens who wish to own them cannot, but what essential function would an AK-47 perform for the average citizen that would warrant foregoing the proactive solution?
I apologize if you consider this a hijack, but I believe I can relate back to the OP. Not only is the bus the property of Greyhound, which from a Libertarian point of view should allow them to place any restrictions they wish; but IMO lack of weapons in the hands of anyone on the bus is a restrictive, yet more robust, solution than relying on winning any conflict after it has been initiated through use of force.
On the plus side, despite some strenuous disagreement, you have helped me realize that not all Libertarians are nuevo-militiamen holed up in ranches within the recesses of Montana. Your viewpoint is unique, thought provoking, and well stated.
Nit: No, it doesn’t. A remmington 700, for example, a common hunting rifle, is much more powerful and deadly than any AK we’re allowed to own.
But it looks SCARY AND MEAN AND OH MY GOD BAN IT BEFORE IT KILLS MORE CHILDREN!!!
If we want to start judging things arbitrarily on “what essential function” they perform, you can justify quite a lot of things.
I mean, what does an average citizen need a really powerful computer for? I’m sure they just want to use it for hacking, somehow victimizing cute children, right?
In reality, the practical benefit of a military weapon is primarily reliability. This can be used in such “essential functions” of reliably defending yourself, or your country.
This is weighed vs the EVIL RIFLE reaction you get simply from the way it looks, and it seems pretty silly that military type weapons take such a bad rap.
To clarify: I realize you weren’t on a crusade against ak-47s for that particular rant, but the ignorance regarding them annoys the hell out of me. That’s why I preceeded the statement by “nit:”
Also, the point I made regarding arbitrarily deeming what is needed by the people or not can easily be tyranical is relevant to what your point was.
By that standard, Fiver, you’ve just eliminated 99% of your police forces and militaries. Congratulations.
Darwin: your response to Lib’s hypothesis neglected to factor possible motivations, the tactical objectives, of any nominal terrorist. The perpetrators of 9/11 would choose Plane #1, because their goal was to commandeer the aircraft and ram them into public and government buildings.
If their goal is simple terror and uncertainty, then Plane #2 is just as viable.
From a prospect of potential future terrorist operations, if their goal is similar to the perpetrators of 9/11, they will always choose Plane#1.
Sumac!:
Your arguments might stand up a little better if they weren’t made of straw.
Something to consider: this is probably making its rounds through e-mail, but I found it interesting, so I’ll pass it along here:
I honestly do not see how adding firearms in the hands of the average citizen into this equation could/would alter its outcome much for the better. If they could have averted the two WTC crashes, maybe. But in all likelihood, those two aircraft would have gone down, their fuselages riddles with bullet holes from either the terrorists’ or the passenger’s firearms.
The average citizen, even armed, is too wrapped up in day-to-day activities to maintain the level of paranoid alertness necessary to be ready to act the moment a terrorist makes a move. Air Marshalls are. They have the training necessary to do so.
And just speaking personally here, I’d rather my pilots pay attention to flying the aircraft than play John McLean with cockpit intruders. If the average citizen relaxing on a flight is too busy/preoccupied to be an effective counter to a terrorist or psychopath, then what do you think pilots are?
By the same token, domestic land and rail carriers should be allowed, at their discretion, to permit licensed concealed carriers aboard their vehicles. The likelihood of a licensed “nut job” is small, as people judged mentally incompetent are disallowed from purchasing firearms from dealers, and the non-dealer market has been getting fairly scarce in recent years (mostly hunting rifles and shotguns, which have the problem of not being very concealeable). And a bus or train have a much lower chance of a catastrophic event should they be accidentally punctured by a stray round.
So the risk factor all-around is much lower for land-transport than aerial, and a nationwide reciprocity of state laws (or a national-level concealed permit program) would help to make uniform safety and certification standards.
The right of New Yorkers or those in Washington, D.C. to feel free from gun crime is no more or less valid than the right of Texans or Kansans to defend themselves from armed assailants.
Just a thought: if the hijacking of American aircraft becomes logistically untenable to terrorists, what alternate methods might they then employ?
Yeah, that’d only have saved 5000 out of 5500 deaths or so. Not a significant impact.
**
Wow, THAT misconception hasn’t been debunked on this board alone 50 times.
**
You’re right. Flying a plane is so inherently hard and dangerous that one flight crew member couldn’t possibly have his attention distracted for a few moments without catastrophic results.
So, I ask you this: If there’s a terrorist or 4 on the other side of the door, pounding it, and pilot has no way to defend himself, is not equally distracted from flying?
**
rolls his eyes
Don’t even start a gun control thread here, you wouldn’t stand a chance.
SenorBeef, do yourself a favor and run a search in GD using the terms “Gun Control” and ExTank. Ex is perhaps the most rational and serious-minded firearms advocate I have ever had the pleasure of enjoying a second amendment discussion with. It is you who would not stand a chance.
Thanks, Maeglin and Lib. (I s’pose I should contribute to the thread now, eh?)
The airplane scenario seems to have been pretty well point/counterpointed between Darwin’s Finch and ExTank, but I’ll just add that the “solution” to air hijackings depends entirely on the desired outcome we (us airline executives and FAA officials) wish to promote. If we’re concerned mainly with preventing hijackings, strict security and a ban on weapons seems the most effective method. If we’re more concerned with thwarting terrorist acts in progress, then strict security, weapons bans and trained air marshals are more appropriate. If our goal is to discourage air travel by terrorists (and most Americans), arming the flight crews and strip searching the passengers before boarding makes the most sense. Only if our primary desire is to raise the level of uncertainty in potential terrorists’ minds and to drastically escalate the level of mayhem able to be wrought by unruly passengers should we allow concealed carry of weapons on flights.
As far as the Tennessee Greyhound incident goes, maybe I’m just a little dull, but I don’t really understand how gun-totin’ passengers would have prevented this (unless we’re assuming the passengers preemptively shot each other to protect the driver).
Is ‘firepower’ a well defined term that I used incorrectly? If so, I stand corrected. To clarify, it is my understanding that an AK-47 tumbles bullets and dispenses them rapidly; making it possible to make many large holes in short time. Not the best weapon for target practice; not good for hunting pheasant unless you bring a bucket; but pretty passable for killing multiple people. Now about your ‘deadly’ term…
This is a point I should have made earlier. Going by one story, there was no warning that this guy intended any harm. He kept going to the driver and asking when and where the bus would make its stops. (I ride Greyhound a lot; there’s always someone asking the driver about the schedule. Hell, I’ve done it.) The third time he went to the driver, the guy simply pulled his weapon and stabbed the driver. He then reached over and grabbed the wheel and steered the bus to the left into the median. The bus flipped several times and landed with the driver’s side up.
At what time was a gun-wielding passenger supposed to intervene and save the driver and the bus? The passengers didn’t know there was anything wrong until the stabbing occurred. Seconds later, the bus was on its side.
A real ak-47 has more ‘firepower’ in a military sense in very specific circumstances. However, firstly, the ones we get in america are stripped down to be semi-automatic. Many, many hunting rifles are also semiautomatic.
An AK-47 fires 7.62x39 bullets, which have roughly half the kinetic energy of 7.62x51 NATO, for example, a common hunting caliber. This gives the hunting rifle a high edge in penetration and lethality.
And the hunting rifle clearly has accuracy on it’s side.
And so you have a hunting rifle - same rate of fire, better penetration, more lethal, and more accurate.
The top priority in designing a modern military rifle isn’t power or accuracy. It’s ruggedness, cheapness, and lightness of bullets. A good modern day military weapon doesn’t not automatically translate to a good “school children killing” weapon, and the modern hunting rifle does a much better job.
I must’ve misread what he was saying. If he is indeed a serious-minded firearms advocate, then we wouldn’t be opposed. I think I probably misinterpreted his intention. My apologies for any insult.
There are situations in which the AK’s shortness will help it outperform a sniper rifle, but shooting cute little school children at short range isn’t one that will particularly show that.
