One of his big arguments to solving the gun issue is to control the market where the guns are made. He beleives that, if the government is to lay heavy taxes and other penalties on the gun manufraturing companies, then the price of the guns will go up and the production would lower, achieving his goal to lowring the production of guns and making it hard for anyone to buy one. He is against civilian ownership of any gun and supports the state to be the only ones to own one.
So I swooped in and started with bringing up the civil liberty questions, why should the government stop an individual from owning a gun since it follows the same guidelines as property? Of course then he goes into " well you think the state cares about your rights? " " it is the nature of the state to get rid of items that put people in huge danger ". I then brought up NAP and other related ideas but it was of no use (I don't think he really understood what I was talking about or awknowledged it). I also applied the same principles to the ideas he has on the gun market.
What would be, lets say.. the best way of handling this? I'm kind of a novice and I feel like I'm lacking lots of potential in my arguments. Care to assist a fellow liberty fighter? :)
Just hit him with the hitler supported gun control and look what happened there.
"Just hit him with the hitler supported gun control and look what happened there."
Even if this is true, this is a bad idea for an argument with a friend, as people will tend to think that using hitler in an argument is just making it inflammatory.
Schools are labour camps.
this should help http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html
if we go for gun control, make it illigal for the government to own guns and start there.
Firstly, what is the 'gun issue'?? If it is spree killings, how come there are so many of those in countries with gun control? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_spree Perhaps it is the case that it's beyond the power for states to prevent law-breakers from getting guns and that by preventing law-abiding people from getting them they simply render the latter defenceless against the former. Criminals could make guns for sale in their basements relatively easily, and because legal production would be so supressed, they could probably make a lot of money doing it. Point out Prohibition in the US to him and the complete failure on the part of the state to supress the production, sale, and use of alcohol. In any case, a madman could cause chaos with a mere match and bottle of vodka.
If it is violence in general, why is it that countries with gun control (e.g. UK, Australia), have more violent crime under every category except homicide by firearms (for obvious reasons)??
These videos should also give you some points (I'm sure there are many others on Youtube too):
TheIndividualist: One of his big arguments to solving the gun issue is to control the market where the guns are made. He beleives that, if the government is to lay heavy taxes and other penalties on the gun manufraturing companies, then the price of the guns will go up and the production would lower, achieving his goal to lowring the production of guns and making it hard for anyone to buy one. He is against civilian ownership of any gun and supports the state to be the only ones to own one.
Just wonder: if he is against civilian gunownership, why he doesn't propose to ban it altogether but instead comes up with such a relatively sophisticated solution?
I'd say go right for the jugular - ask him why he trusts those who work for the state so much more than those who don't work for it.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Because those who bear arms in service of the state receive extensive technical and safety training in addition to psychological vetting/counselling.
Sphairon:Because those who bear arms in service of the state receive extensive technical and safety training in addition to psychological vetting/counselling.
... Always and necessarily?
Are you familiar with police academy or military recruitment/training procedures?
Even if the training system was imperfect, the most you could gain from using this argument would be support for gun licensing at police/military standards. I doubt that's what you guys are aiming for, though.
Sphairon:Are you familiar with police academy or military recruitment/training procedures?
Just because they've "received training" doesn't mean they'll use it or even remember it. Are you familiar with the nature of the state?
So you would argue that comprehensive firearm training has no significant effect on the safety of gun users and their environments?
I would argue that people are free to ignore/forget whatever training they receive.
"What would be, lets say.. the best way of handling this? I'm kind of a novice and I feel like I'm lacking lots of potential in my arguments. Care to assist a fellow liberty fighter? :)" - TheIndividualist
Handle it to do what? Your chances of converting this person are near 0%. If you just want, as I often do, to post an alternative point of view so at least people thumbing through the thread won't see only socialist drivel, write a concise defense of the right to bear arms as relevant to the thread's subject as possible, post it, and ignore their responses.
Internet debates aren't really debates because there's no standard or moderator to appeal to when people, as the often do, go off the deep end and/or into tangents that are barely relevant. So, keep it simple, keep it concise, keep it on point, hit and run, and let them deal with the consequences.
Sphairon, let me add that I don't see this as just a matter of using guns carelessly vs. carefully. Even if all police officers always used guns in complete accordance with their training, that has no necessary bearing on whether I think their use of guns is justified.
/meme
give him an axiom
he cant refute.
</meme>
Or say
If guns are free to be carried then you have 1 man with a gun killing 10 people that are defenseless and dont have guns.
If guns cannot be carried, then 1 man with a gun can kill 100000 people that are defenseless against guns.
The argument of whether or not the person has training with the weapons is pointless. It is with the intention in which you use the gun. Whether you have training or not.
If guns are highly taxed then only the greedy rich will be able to have them and use against the small proletariat.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Greetings The Individualist,
Try a google search on McDonald v. Chicago, it was the most recent case on second amendment rights and a landmark decision. The SCOTUS ruled that it applied to the states, i.e. it was a pro-gun ruling. This link is plenty for any research you may want to take up: http://www.chicagoguncase.com/case-filings/#SupremeCourt.
I have thread links from other sites that may be of interest to you.
Warm Regards,
Matt
@ Aristippus
Lengthyounarther's tha shit.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Any more thoughts on this, Sphairon?
Sphairon: Because those who bear arms in service of the state receive extensive technical and safety training in addition to psychological vetting/counselling.
The Police Brutality/Aggression Thread
(When will the quote function on this forum ever be fixed?) Well, Autolykos, your first point is certainly true, but empirically, I'm fairly positive you'll find that increased safety training correlates very strongly with at least fewer unintentional gun accidents and maybe even lower gun violence in general.
Your second point (Even if all police officers always used guns in complete accordance with their training, that has no necessary bearing on whether I think their use of guns is justified) is kind of a knockout argument. Yes, if we follow Rothbardian ethics, then a private citizen loony with a gun is less objectionable than a police officer with one. If that's a conclusion you feel comfortable making, then I don't know what else I could tell you.
Regarding the police aggression thread, that's certainly something to be on the lookout for, but it's anecdotal. The average policeman is no roided-up Rambo beating up civilians for fun.
Sphairon: Regarding the police aggression thread, that's certainly something to be on the lookout for, but it's anecdotal. The average policeman is no roided-up Rambo beating up civilians for fun.
Maybe, maybe not. The problem with police brutality isn't with how many cops aggress against citizens. The problem is with qualified immunity and the general protection and cover-up of police crimes by their respective police departments. Whether it's 50% or 1% of cops is immaterial if the 1% are shielded from justice.
Sphairon:Well, Autolykos, your first point is certainly true, but empirically, I'm fairly positive you'll find that increased safety training correlates very strongly with at least fewer unintentional gun accidents and maybe even lower gun violence in general.
You seem to be implying that only the state can bring about fewer unintentional gun accidents and maybe even lower gun violence in general. Why is that?
From what I understand, part of the training that police officers (and presumably other armed government agents) go through involves what's called a "use of force continuum". My first point was meant to include that, and I think it's that part of their training that armed government agents are most likely to ignore. After all, when the government agency you're working for rubber-stamps your actions - I mean, conducts an internal investigation and rules that your actions were consistent with agency policy - and you've been given qualified immunity by courts of that same government, what real difference does it make whether you act in accordance with the official use of force continuum or not? And that doesn't even go into just what the official use of force continuum may be.
Sphairon:Your second point (Even if all police officers always used guns in complete accordance with their training, that has no necessary bearing on whether I think their use of guns is justified) is kind of a knockout argument. Yes, if we follow Rothbardian ethics, then a private citizen loony with a gun is less objectionable than a police officer with one. If that's a conclusion you feel comfortable making, then I don't know what else I could tell you.
I'm not sure what you mean by "knockout argument". Do you mean the same thing as "cop-out"?
Why do you use the emotionally loaded word "loony" when referring to someone who owns a gun and doesn't work as an armed government agent? But yes, I trust a "private citizen loony with a gun" more than a cop with one. I have no idea why you apparently wouldn't do the same.
Sphairon:Regarding the police aggression thread, that's certainly something to be on the lookout for, but it's anecdotal. The average policeman is no roided-up Rambo beating up civilians for fun.
First off, how do you know that for sure? Second, do you understand that cops enjoy all sorts of exemptions from the rules that they claim the right to enforce on the rest of us?
This isn't meant to be a counter-argument, but just as an aside: I fail to see how you can consider yourself to be an anarchist while taking such a statist position on this issue.
Autolykos:You seem to be implying that only the state can bring about fewer unintentional gun accidents and maybe even lower gun violence in general. Why is that?
Describe to me a market-based strategy for improving people's gun habits.
Autolykos:[...]police officers[...]
Not going to disagree here, state policing has some serious incentive structure problems. That in itself doesn't mean that a laissez-faire approach to private gun ownership doesn't have any, though.
Autolykos:I'm not sure what you mean by "knockout argument". Do you mean the same thing as "cop-out"?
You were implying that you could always retreat to the "ethical" stance on things, which on a libertarian forum usually means some appeal to Rothbardian ethics against the state. If you believe in those premises, then fine, but debating them is kind of pointless for a subjectivist like me.
Autolykos:Why do you use the emotionally loaded word "loony" when referring to someone who owns a gun
Because no government interference with firearms purchasing means even loonies can buy guns. It doesn't mean every gun owner is a loony. Sorry if I was being ambiguous.
Autolykos:I fail to see how you can consider yourself to be an anarchist while taking such a statist position on this issue.
My position is that the benefits of keeping government away from our guns outweigh the negatives. There are negatives, though, and the typical libertarian approaches to the topic are prone to ignore those.
Re: the quality of police/military firearms training, HA HA HA you should see most of those guys in practical shooting scenarios. Most of the civvies I know who shoot have taken far more pains to train themselves than the police and military have trained my friends who have/do serve.
Secondly, I’d keep it simple in this conversation. You’re talking to a guy who hasn’t thought about the issues very well.
The reason heavy taxation on manufacturing/sale/purchasing of firearms doesn’t work is simply that those whole processes go black market and just keep happening. Just because a thing is illegal doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
I mean, murder is illegal. Simple as that. If a person commits murder, they’re already a criminal. If a person buys a weapon for any reason whatsoever but doesn’t use it against others, then they haven’t done any harm and they’re not a criminal.
Everyone's in favor of their own freedom. But allowing everyone else to be completely free? Huh, that's kinda scary.
That's what we have to overcome.
Aristippus:If it is violence in general, why is it that countries with gun control (e.g. UK, Australia), have more violent crime under every category except homicide by firearms (for obvious reasons)??
Can you point me to a source that supports that claim?
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
You can find studies modeled in such a way as to support both sides of this argument. I don't see it as a fruitful area to focus on, honestly. It distracts from the issue of rights, and honestly, the statistics don't give either side any great claim to utility.
Police don't stop crimes, they show up after they are committed.-Jesse Ventura
There are hundreds of millions of guns in existence in the US alone. How could his scheme control the gun market (black market) enough to make a significant impact on violent crime?