The Case for More Guns (And More Gun Control)

I normally might flag something like this, but there's an important point in here that has to do with our relationship to technology.<p>Guns fill a role in society that allows any person, no matter how weak, to execute deadly force against another. For many, this is the height of idiocy. Why would we allow individuals to have such power?<p>But technology is doing the same thing that guns do -- it's giving every person unprecedented power over his fellow man. DDOS attacks can bring down banks. Bio-research could unleash a deadly plague. As technology increases, the powers that one person has continue to grow.<p>So the issue of gun ownership is the same issue as freedom in technology. How much power should one person have? Every time somebody commits a crime on the internet, we're going to hear the same cries: why should individuals have so much power over others?<p>I don't have a facile or slogan-worthy answer. As a libertarian, I always want to err on the side of empowering individuals. But I can see a powerful argument to continue to take freedoms away from all of us. The issue of gun control was just the first shot fired in the larger war that is now upon us.

The question posed at the end was interesting. The interviewer said he had asked a number of people associated with horrible shooting sprees like Columbine and Aurora if they would have rather have had a gun, and many say "no." Jonathan Rauch responds with: "Maybe the right question to ask that person was, 'would you have liked someone else ... someone who is comfortable with guns ... to have had a gun in that situation?' ... I think you'd get a different answer."

HN is a pretty cold, logical place, so while the topic's raised, I'd like to ask a question:<p>A year or so ago I watched a 60 minutes segment on so-called "sovereign citizens." The segment made them out to be relatively deranged, on my own cursory research supports this.<p>One part DID stick in my mind, though: in an interview with someone with weak ties to the movement (I believe a radio host?), the interviewee said something akin to: "The Second Amendment is not so that we can go duck-hunting." I took this to mean, (and in light of the circumstances around the American Revolutionary War, I think there's a strong case to be made) that the Second Amendment was <i>specifically intended to protect the possibility of armed rebellion.</i><p>This is a fairly out-there idea, but then, it's called "Revolutionary" for a reason.<p>However, when I hear debates about gun control, this context seems to be missing. Is it such a...well...revolutionary concept that we now shy away from it? Or am I completely misunderstanding something?

Urban dwellers are about as qualified to talk about guns as rednecks are to talk about affirmative action in Ivy league schools. For both good and bad. While everyone has a right to an opinion, the opposing sides of each issue view the other side with Ad-hominem dread. And while we should not pre-suppose from where the best ideas will come from, the fact of the matter is that neither side is likely to really respect the opinions of the other either. In the absence of true dialogue, the options are (1) do nothing; and (2) steam-roll the otherside, not taking their view into consideration. Arguably (1) is both easier and more intelligent, in that is likely to be "less wrong".

&#62; "According to a 2011 Gallup poll, 47 percent of American adults keep at least one gun at home or on their property, and many of these gun owners are absolutists opposed to any government regulation of firearms. According to the same poll, only 26 percent of Americans support a ban on handguns."<p>This amazes me. I wonder how many of those 47% have had training? Or how many regularly practice firing the gun? This is one of the main reasons I'm opposed to people being allowed to own guns. Most probably don't know how to use them and in a situation where the weapon could be useful an untrained person will probably make the situation worse either by shooting another civilian or losing their cool and firing the gun and making a situation worse (e.g. in a robbery where everyone could come out safe if the thief gets the money - but some idiot with their own gun decides they will 'save the day', the thief freaks out and suddenly their are dead people).<p>Another reason I think guns should be make illegal in the US is the incredibly obvious evidence throughout the world that easier access to guns leads to more gun related crime. Coming from a country where guns are illegal it's very rare to hear or anyone being shot dead. Violent criminals obviously turn to other weapons such as knives but I would rather be up against a man with a knife than a man with a gun.

Feels like a cheap solution, there is countries where guns are very hard to get, and in those countries guns are way less used in crimes compared to USA for example. This will result in even more guns and probably a even bigger problem in the future.