Wanna educate a self-described "libertarian" who opposes lifting D.C. gun control?

[cuchulainn]

I really don't have the time right now.

There's a message board to reply to the article.

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=2&id=3640

Current Editorials: Hatch: Solution to Gun Violence is More Guns

I'm not a gun-hating liberal or anything, but I've never understood this logic nor seen any credible evidence that it's supportable, but Orrin Hatch thinks more guns will reduce gun violence in DC...

A lot of people assume that because this site tends to focus on civil liberties issues that we're all a bunch of liberals, and by implication we hate guns and advocate overturning second-amendment rights. While a number of writers and readers here probably can be described as "liberal" the origins of this site are in Libertarian philosophy, not liberal philosophy. (See the preface for more detail than you ever cared to read about this.) So it may surprise you (or maybe not) that I'm not an advocate of stringent gun-control laws, though as I become more centrist in my old age, I can see where some sensible restrictions are worthwhile.
What I find completely unsupportable is a bill introduced by Orrin Hatch to relax gun control laws in Washington DC. Why? To reduce the number of murders, of course.

Hatch reasons that more gun ownership would mean more people could protect themselves against criminals. This echoes in a way the statements released by gun advocacy groups every time there's a huge gun-related tragedy in which they say "if only so-and-so had a gun, they could have stopped this tragedy!"

Now I can kind-of see where Hatch is coming from. It maybe would follow that if gun ownership and carrying weapons approached some critical mass then perhaps you would see a reduction in the muder rate because people would be able to protect themselves. However, I find it highly unlikely that Washington DC, or most places in the country for that matter, would ever approach that critical mass of people carrying weapons. Sure, there's that town where everyone's required to carry a gun that has no crime to speak of, but that's an exception, not a rule.

Also keep in mind that carrying a weapon is no guarantee that the operator will use it at all, use it correctly, or live to talk about trying to use it. The mere presense of weapons is not going to do a lot about DC's murder rate. On the other hand, it isn't always necessary to use a gun to disuade a criminal; the fact that a person pulls one out to defend himself or herself may be enough to chase someone off... but I wouldn't count on it.

Further, I haven't seen any conclusive, unbiased, reliable evidence that this reasoning holds true. If someone knows of some, please post it in the forums. I'd love to see it.

Be sure to check out Orrin Hatch's related campaign contributions.

There's a lot to be said on this issue... please use the comments forum below.

---Nick

 

[GregoryTech]

The one point that I can probably agree on with this author is that lifting the ban will not likely reduce the murder rate significantly. I believe so because I believe that it is probably mostly gang on gang, criminal vs criminal activity anyway. Besides, Hatch is not proposing a concealed carry bill. He is proposing that law-abiding residents of DC should be allowed to own guns and have them in their homes and businesses. I'd bet that occupied home invasions (the most dangerous kind, as I understand it), and armed robbery of open businesses will drop significantly, though. And the residents of DC will be safer as a result.

 

[Gunfyter]

Exactly

The residents of DC should heave the God-given right of self-protection. Those who oppose this right all have bodyguards. Also, every state that has become "Shall Issue" has shown a drop in the crime rate. "An armed society is a polite society".

 

[cuchulainn]

OK, I may have misread this guy.

He seems to be questioning Hatch's reasoning, not the removal of the law.

It seems a bit odd to me to favor (or at least not oppose) the removal of a law while attacking the reasoning given for removing the law ... something for logic class, but not normal discourse ... but to each his own.

 

[Drjones]

Guys, follow the link and read some of the other posts.

There is a VERY good reason that site is called "Morons."



If this fellow is capable of, interested in, and willing for mature, intelligent, and logical debate, invite him here rather than have us chase him in his current sewer.

Otherwise, send him an "I'm Unarmed, please don't hurt me!" shirt with my regards.

 

[Standing Wolf]

A communique from bliss ninny heaven, I guess. Whew!

 

[rrader]

I believe so because I believe that it is probably mostly gang on gang, criminal vs criminal activity anyway.

While there is a lot of gang related violence, there is also an astonishing level of classic "stick-em-up"... "bang-you're-dead" robbery-homicide in D.C. If restoration of 2nd Amendment rights to the people of D.C. won't decrease the level of violent crime at least it will give the folks there the option of protecting themselves properly.

 

[twoblink]

It's not a gun issue.

Ask the simple question, If I charged at you with:

A) A gun
B) A machete

Which would you be more afraid of? My bet is that a machete or a katana is going to be MUCH more intimidating. But most everybody has access to one, and purchase one without a license. So no big deal. It's not a gun issue, it's really a "bad guys will be bad" issue. No matter what laws you pass, they are "bad guys" and so they don't obey the law. If you have DC-esque laws, all you do is keep the guns from the hands of normal honest, law-abiding citizens.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

It's that simple.

 

[amprecon]

It isn't about the guns, it's about the people.
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." -- Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)

 

[Zedicus]

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." -- Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)

Making a Note of that one, just wish the goverments would as well....:banghead:

 

[KC]

Hey, what is the problem?
They've outlawed guns, so now only the criminals have guns (which, oddly enough, includes the city government...) Isn't this supposed to be the ideal situation?