[NickRW]

Winstonm, on 2017-October-24, 09:38, said:

Libertarians are like teenagers who don't want anyone telling them what they can and can't do...

Many (in many countries and not just libertarians and teenagers) make the general mistake of "I have the right/freedom to..." without realising that does not include the right to infringe on the rights of others. Further, even if the rights of others are not directly and necessarily infringed, it is nevertheless legitimate for a society to consider whether those rights should be licensed or restricted in some fashion.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2017-October-24, 09:38, said:

Libertarians are like teenagers who don't want anyone telling them what they can and can't do, and that immature thinking leads them to idolize Ayn Rand and believe in her fictional world of doers and takers.

I don't think gun rights advocates are libertarians in general. I'll bet there's a big overlap with people who want to control women's bodies (i.e. restrict access to birth control and abortions).

They only become libertarians when the government wants to take away something they like.

[Winstonm]

NickRW, on 2017-October-25, 04:01, said:

Many (in many countries and not just libertarians and teenagers) make the general mistake of "I have the right/freedom to..." without realising that does not include the right to infringe on the rights of others. Further, even if the rights of others are not directly and necessarily infringed, it is nevertheless legitimate for a society to consider whether those rights should be licensed or restricted in some fashion.

Your response led me to consider if I accurately express my thoughts. When I say teenage, what I really mean is that libertarian beliefs were my own beliefs when I was as a teenager. I feel that what allowed my thinking to change was maturity that led to the realization that advances in civilization require human intra-dependency.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2017-October-25, 09:05, said:

I don't think gun rights advocates are libertarians in general. I'll bet there's a big overlap with people who want to control women's bodies (i.e. restrict access to birth control and abortions).

They only become libertarians when the government wants to take away something they like.

I wasn't talking about the membership but the leadership and financiers as libertarian.

[NickRW]

Winstonm, on 2017-October-25, 09:18, said:

Your response led me to consider if I accurately express my thoughts...

I was attempting to make a general point, not something personal to you or anyone else for that matter.

Perhaps the miscommunication is mine - I find it difficult to talk to folks from the US on the subject of gun control. Even the more moderate types speak from a paradigm that I simply don't recognise.

[Winstonm]

NickRW, on 2017-October-25, 10:26, said:

I was attempting to make a general point, not something personal to you or anyone else for that matter.

Perhaps the miscommunication is mine - I find it difficult to talk to folks from the US on the subject of gun control. Even the more moderate types speak from a paradigm that I simply don't recognise.

Miscommunication abounds! I was only referencing your post as how it positively influenced me to think about an unrelated/semi-related topic of mine concerning how I frame my ideas.

Or as they used to say in the National Basketball Association: no harm, no foul!

As for gun control in Europe v America, I'm sure one influence is the vast amount of open space in the US. Personal safety here ranges from safety from things like grizzly bears, black bears, brown bears, and polar bears (Alaska) to rabid skunks, coyotes, and foxes to rabid Republicans.

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2017-October-25, 12:35, said:

As for gun control in Europe v America, I'm sure one influence is the vast amount of open space in the US. Personal safety here ranges from safety from things like grizzly bears, black bears, brown bears, and polar bears (Alaska) to rabid skunks, coyotes, and foxes to rabid Republicans.

Why would anyone obtaining a gun for personal protection, particularly from bears and the like, object to reaching a minimum level of training in using the weapon?

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-25, 15:13, said:

Why would anyone obtaining a gun for personal protection, particularly from bears and the like, object to reaching a minimum level of training in using the weapon?

They would not. I'm not trying to defend the wild west thinking that is prevalent in the U.S. but to explain it as best I can. It makes no sense.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-25, 15:13, said:

Why would anyone obtaining a gun for personal protection, particularly from bears and the like, object to reaching a minimum level of training in using the weapon?

Most polls show that the majority of Americans, including most gun owners, are in favor of moderate gun control measures like this. The objections come mostly from a very vocal minority, led by the NRA, which is a mouthpiece of the gun industry, because they see any regulation as the first step towards restrictions.

[Zelandakh]

This seems like a good place to start. My idea would essentially make such courses mandatory. It is not real gun control as such but at least it would be a start and I think it might be awkward for the NRA to argue against a service they are themselves promoting as beneficial for all gun owners.

[cloa513]

Zelandakh, on 2017-October-25, 15:13, said:

Why would anyone obtaining a gun for personal protection, particularly from bears and the like, object to reaching a minimum level of training in using the weapon?

Quite a lot of them buy guns just to show them and shoot at things.

[barmar]

Do you need a driver's license to buy a car?

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2017-October-26, 10:53, said:

Do you need a driver's license to buy a car?

No, but it requires a license to buy bullets for the car.

[USViking]

Listen, I don't like it any more than you, and I do not own a gun, but there are more guns than there are people, so gun control is impossible. It will never happen.

[RedSpawn]

USViking, on 2017-November-14, 14:44, said:

Listen, I don't like it any more than you, and I do not own a gun, but there are more guns than there are people, so gun control is impossible. It will never happen.

Agreed. The genie is already outside of the bottle and there is no magical way to put her back in.

Source: https://mises.org/bl...ate-51-year-low

Please let's review this article above. If the U.S. homicide rate is allegedly at a 51 year low per capita, why are we clamoring that today's gun shops need more regulation than 51 years ago.

Keep in mind if the 51 year low homicide rate is true AND we have MORE guns in the US than we did 51 years ago, are we really worse off?

Is the media able to microscope the worst of the worst crimes, classify them as "special", and prey on our insecurities of wanting Uncle Sam to don a Superman cape to save us from these out-of-control mass shootings?

Is it possible that the news producers at media outlets are trying to sway our public opinion on this policy matter?

Are we seeing propaganda in action? Is the 4th estate a mouthpiece for desired government policy decisions?

Let's do the math and the homework and have a healthy discussion based on data, trends, and careful analysis.

If the data is flawed, please let's discuss how, but this just doesn't add up. We are awash in more guns and have lower homicides per capita than 51 years ago but we need tighter gun control on semiautomatic assault rifles to clamp down on all of these mass shootings.
U.S. MURDER RATE PER 100,000 FROM 1960-2010

[Zelandakh]

You are asking the wrong question Red. The question to ask is why the intentional homicide rate using firearms has not declined at the same rate as intentional homicides of every other category. The reasons for that are complex, with culture arguably being the most important issue, but gun availability being a contributing factor. One other (minor) point to note is that these figures do not include accidental deaths and justifiable homicides. I am not sure of the accidental gun death rate but I do know that the justifiable gun death rate by the police has risen sharply.

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-15, 00:55, said:

You are asking the wrong question Red. The question to ask is why the intentional homicide rate using firearms has not declined at the same rate as intentional homicides of every other category. The reasons for that are complex, with culture arguably being the most important issue, but gun availability being a contributing factor. One other (minor) point to note is that these figures do not include accidental deaths and justifiable homicides. I am not sure of the accidental gun death rate but I do know that the justifiable gun death rate by the police has risen sharply.

True and very good points.

I will go scurrying around the internet to see if I can find some of that data. Stay tuned.

Thanks for the feedback.

[barmar]

From https://www.bradycam...eBoCnU8QAvD_BwE

Quote

Every day in America, 93 people die from gun violence. Fifty-eight of those deaths, or nearly two-thirds, are suicides with guns. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows suicide with a gun is the most common and by far the most deadly suicide method. Just the availability and presence of a gun in the home is a strong predictor of gun suicide.