Dox47 wrote:
I'm perfectly willing to accept risks to my security that come with the benefits of my liberty. Blanketing the country in cameras like they did in the UK might save a few lives, for example, but I doubt many Americans would see that as worth the cost of the invasion of privacy. I believe we've long since crossed the point of diminishing returns with airport security, I'd rather the planes have a slightly higher chance of being hijacked than endure the certainty of airport hassles due to ever more stringent regulation I also don't believe in absolute group authority, nor do I believe that laws should be about what citizens are and are not allowed to do, but rather what we allow the government to do. Too many things are multi-use to regulate every possible item that might do harm, that's an out of control spiral towards totalitarianism. Simple fertilizer and fuel can become bombs, metal bars become guns and knives, computers that keep order can also wreak havoc, the list is endless. Simply put, I'd rather deal with the problems that result from a surplus of liberty than the problems that come from too little.
To address the practical applications of my opinions, I believe in nearly unlimited civilian ownership of small arms, pretty much anything that throws a bullet, and any non-explosive weapon or tool. I'd keep the current system of applying for a blasting permit to obtain explosives and most of the licensing requirements for automatic weapons, but scrap the discriminatory aspects of the permitting process, as well as the restrictions on barrel length and weapon configuration. I'd also make it much easier to obtain silencers, the legal definition is vague and it's not fair to make them effectively illegal and then close down shooting ranges because of noise complaints. I don't think criminal law is the appropriate place to approach WMDs, nuclear weapons require access to extremely expensive facilities and materials that are unlikely to be available to even the wealthiest of individuals, and chemical and biological weapons are relatively easy to synthesize by even moderately trained chemists and over-regulation would be a likely result of trying to control access. Besides, anyone attempting to acquire such weapons would not be deterred by a law anyway, mass murder is already pretty illegal, we can only execute someone once after all. Better to improve our intelligence services to disrupt plots early on, focus on stopping people with ill intent without unfairly punishing the rest of us with oppressive laws.
Basically I don't trust other people, the government especially, to define my needs when it comes to self defense. Too often perfectly adapted defensive weapons are regulated or restricted because of ignorance, negative media portrayal (switchblades in the 1950's, martial arts weapons in the 1970's), or the desires of law enforcement agencies to be the only ones with a particular item (saps, blackjacks etc). The amount of pure misinformation concerning weapons and their users spread both intentionally or inadvertently is staggering, I can hardly think of another field that is so heavily regulated by people so ignorant in the subject they have authority over. Gun control groups are extremely active in spreading this disinformation, as well as attempting to control the vocabulary of the debate and sensationalizing any gun crime that does occur in order to further their own prohibitionist agenda. They have to resort to such distortion tactics in order to survive, the emotional argument is all they have when you strip away all of the smoke and mirrors, and rational policy is not decided by volatile emotions. Ideally policy wouldn't be made by dilettantes in the field being addressed, but that's a whole other thread's worth of problems by itself.
i agree with almost everything said in this post. the issue of "arms control" is, necessarily, complicated. to pretend otherwise is silly.
it's ridiculous for anyone to call for a ban on all firearms and those of us who support increased arms control regulations aren't doing ourselves any favors by pretending that there aren't people on our side doing that.
it's equally ridiculous for anyone to call for a complete lack of arms control or firearm regulation. there are people out there who think that's a good idea, but i haven't run into any around here.
those are extreme positions and are difficult to defend, making them delicious looking straw-men. when we attack those caricatures, we may be scoring points against our ideological opponents but we're not really getting anything accomplished.
personally, i think that firearm regulation can be much more effective than firearm prohibition. i'm opposed to outright prohibition of firearms for the same reasons the nra and the "gun nuts" do. prohibition doesn't remove the weapons from reality, only from law abiding citizens.
safety education and proper training are crucial to safe, effective, use.
my views: firearms should be heavily regulated. different categories of weapons should require different permits/licenses. ALL of the permit/license fees should go toward funding the safety education and training for the effective use of the weapon soas to make those permits/licenses more affordable.
where it gets complicated, for me: the 2nd amendment is interpreted in several ways, the two i think i see most often involve the perspective that it guarantees the right to organize an armed militia, with some people going so far as to say that this means the national guard, and the perspective that the authors knew how to use a comma and were basically saying "look, we need to have guys with guns to protect the country, you need to have guns to protect yourselves from us, if we get out of hand." it might surprise some people but i subscribe to the latter view.
but it's more complicated than that. for instance, where do you draw the line? especially if your rationale for having firearms is the 2nd amendment, this can be a tricky question. hunting rifles and handguns are good for hunting, protecting yourself from individuals, and killing small numbers of people but they're not likely to be effective against military hardware. like i keep saying, though, it's more complicated than that.
a rational, intelligent, productive discussion on this subject is possible. it's just really hard. a lot of issues are like this, for some reason or another.
but it's not possible to have such a discussion (and to expect it to be anything but a text-based, verbal, food fight) without understanding that the issue, itself, is much more complicated than "everybody should buy a gun!" or "no one should be allowed to have a gun!"
*edit* because i realize i often come off as a jerk, i wanted to say that none of this was a swipe at dox or anyone else in this forum.
_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)
Last edited by waltur on 22 Jun 2010, 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
20 Jun 2010, 2:17 am
