<p>Regulation is apparent in everything but prohibition is an absolutely ineffective element of regulation on things as common as firearms. The war on drugs is one example. There are those who favor making many firearms totally illegal. Barack Obama, for instance, favors a ban on all semiautomatic firearms, according to On The Issues.org. And yes, I am one of the deranged minority who favors classical liberalism and Libertarianism. I favor some gun control laws but none that primarily serve to disarm law abiding citizens. Examples include the DC handgun ban and the Assault Weapons Ban. </p>
<p>According to the DoJ, nearly 80% of all criminals who used a firearm during their crime acquired it through backwater channels, street dealers, friends, or family. Convicted felons who are re-arrested have approximately the same gun use rates as first time offenders, if memory serves. It doesn’t appear that having a felony conviction on your record will prevent you from acquiring a gun. We shouldn’t LET felons have guns but gun control needs to focus on enforcement. Major gun policy has focused primarily on public perception rather than public safety and any addition gun laws should target criminals, not people like me.</p>
<p>As for Janey’s hypothetical, I have a recommendation. Sorry it’s a little guy specific. Instead of carrying one wallet, carry an additional cardholder with some pocket money ($40), an expired drivers license, and some expired credit cards. When he asks for your money, give him that, or throw it at his feet and run. Drawing from that position is very dangerous since he has the advantage. Running and then drawing your gun or running and then calling 911 gives you range and time. In that hypothetical, having hand-to-hand training would be helpful. Carrying a gun gives you an additional option in handling the situation while not carrying one does not. Staying put gives him total control of the situation and it may seem like you’re trying to stall or get a better identification of him. I don’t think you’re going to convince him not to take your money and it’s likely just to make him mad.</p>
<p>Remember, however, that despite the fact that most of those guns get to criminals through backwater channels, they were all probably purchased legally at some point.</p>
<p>I’m not saying, however, that I necessarily believe that getting rid of guns gets rid of violent crime. As Japan demonstrates, you can have a rise in violent crime without a rise in guns. However, I don’t believe that the argument that “guns = cars = stuffed animals” makes any sense. It’s ignoring completely the very different nature of guns and, well, pretty much everything else. Guns, like drugs, fall under a category of things that the government has a legitimate reason to regulate.</p>
<p>While Friedman did not get everything right, he did not get everything wrong, either. A lot of his economic theory is conceptually sound and very useful. His work is no less useful than, say, Modigliani, Miller, Sharpe, etc. whose work relies heavily on an assumption of no taxation (their core contribution is based on valuation of firms.)</p>
<p>The point is that you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.</p>
<p>I thought I covered this - the type of regulation that most liberals favor is an outright ban - not quite the type of “regulation” I’m thinking of, which again, is simple checks to assure that they are not sold to dangerous individuals. Otherwise, they pose no greater safety risk (and in fact, less of one by the numbers) than many other things.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that I’m not your typical “liberal.” Not at all. I’m more of a cynic than anything. I agree that outright bans don’t necessarily work, but I also think than an entirely laissez-faire system is wishful thinking on the part of pure libertarians.</p>
<p>But the problem with “reasonable regulation” is that it is a slipperly slope that will eventually lead to outright bans (i.e. complete restriction of the right). I think Britain is a good example of this. 100 years ago, the British were a well-armed people and one could even go out and buy a fully automatic rifle with no fuss. Even during WWII, there were more or less few restrictions on ownership of firearms. But in decades since, more and more “reasonable restrictions” have been placed to the point of now, handguns are completely banned and longguns are subject to harsh regulation.
There is a great academic article about the restriction of rights that uses the UK as an example, but I can’t remember where it is offhand.</p>
<p>Yes, but that can be said of any regulation. However, with careful moderation of those in power, the slippery slope doesn’t have to be realized. No matter what the regulation is, there is always the potential for abuse. That doesn’t mean that we go and stop regulations altogether.</p>
<p>On a side note, I don’t know that the British are exactly a repressed people, though. Only if you equate owning firearms with freedom. The British have as robust a set of social liberties as we do-- in some ways more robust today.</p>
<p>I mean, even our freedom of speech can be limited, and for good reason. No right is absolute, nor should it ever be.</p>
<p>I never said that - but the limiting of the right to own firearms is representative of other issues in that society (i’ll refer people to the picture of the poster in london that i posted earlier). I won’t drag this thread off topic to go into that, but it is certainly happening.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? So my right to live is not absolute (assuming that I do nothing of my own volition to put it in jeopardy, such as committing a capital offense, etc.)??</p>
<p>Since when have our rights to life ever been absolute? We constantly deprive other human beings of that right through warfare (not the US, but humanity in general.) And sometimes, I think that it can be justified. Yes, war can be justified. The second you justify a war, however, you also justify the abrogation of someone else’s right to live. Furthermore, the state has, and will in the future, wrongfully execute. Does that mean we throw out the entire capital punishment system? I don’t know. </p>
<p>Now, if we’re talking about the state and its role in its own citizen’s lives, then the topic gets more interesting. We’ve already established, as a society, that we’re willing to take lives under certain circumstances (abortion comes to mind.) Depending on your view of that, however, it can be a pretty convoluted issue.</p>
<p>The point, really, and I don’t want to get into an abortion debate (please, nobody draw this down that road!), is that we never have established unflagging defenses of any of our rights because life is, at its very core, a complicated situation. To say that you always have the right to free speech is to ignore the person who yells fire in a crowded theater. To say that you always have the right to property is to ignore complicated financial matters and eminent domain. To say that you always have the right to liberty is to ignore the fact that liberty comes at the price of security, and vice versa.</p>
<p>It’s never as simple as “you just always have the right to ______.” If anything has taught me this, it’s working in international relations. Moral ambiguity is more common than you’d even think now!</p>
<p>Well I don’t think that moral ambiguity is more common, but rather moral misunderstanding.</p>
<p>I was speaking more of the state and its citizens, so war doesn’t relate, and abortion is definitely a more complicated case than we can consider here. But seriously, can you think of any other scenario where the right to life can be taken from someone without any conscious action on their part??</p>
<p>I always love how people use this as a fallback to argue that rights can be abridged at their whim. However, the legal case in which this phrase originates was overturned by an appeals court.
Not to mention that we never hear an argument as to why this should be restricted speech (I sure as hell don’t think it should be). I have a feeling that you wouldn’t argue that the person on the crowded street corner screaming that “the world is ending!!” or “we’re all going to die!” is engaging in restricted speech. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>A bit of a tangent here but Japanese colleagues have really enjoyed it when I’ve taken them trap shooting. I guess part of it was the thrill of doing something that’s very difficult for them to do in Japan. It’s possible to do in Japan but it’s so strictly regulated that it’s very expensive and not too practical.</p>
<p>I know it was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, but it was even used by Douglas in that case, so it’s an interesting example. </p>
<p>Why? Because it can cause others serious harm if it incites a panic, that’s why. Just like you shouldn’t be allowed to commit libel or fraud. As Douglas argues, it’s when “speech is brigaded with action” that speech should be limited.</p>
<p>I am pro gun for good citizens and do not mind reasonable regulations such a pre-buy qualifying, no gun show sales without a record check, and limits on number of guns allowed to be bought per some period. More attention should be paid to screening medical/pscho records which seems to be a weak link due to overly broad privacy rights. Want a gun, give up your privacy rights.</p>
<p>Abortion isn’t difficult. It’s a woman’s right to choose. If men want to carry babies to full term, then they can have a say in it. Case closed.</p>
<p>Depends on how you define a life. The baby’s growing inside a woman and if the woman doesn’t want that, she has the right to terminate the pregnancy at any time. The rights of a fully grown woman trump the rights of stem cells. Sorry. Society has no right to regulate that. If society wants to pay to have someone carry the baby to full term and raise it, they’re free to do so, but unless they’re willing to do that, they are not free to do or say anything.</p>
<p>If society wants to regulate abortion rights, they can take unwanted babies, hire a surrogate, and pay her out of pocket to raise the baby. If society isn’t willing to do that, then society can shut the **** up.</p>
<p>That’s were reasonable people may differ. Society does exactly that. It’s called adoption. And sorry but after a mere four weeks it’s developed well beyond stem cells.</p>