undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjlawson6y ago0 comments

You talked a lot about why you think guns are not necessary in a peaceful society. Of course, this isn't why people think that citizens should be allowed to have them. The reason is to resist organized violence, which can arise over time or without warning. It's not just about stopping burglars.

However the more critical problem with what you wrote is that it doesn't actually attempt to disprove anything I said. You simply reiterated a bunch of arguments against gun ownership.

You didn't actually say why adding to the list of things you're not allowed to do here makes you more free. And I think that's because it's definitionally impossible to demonstrate.

Would you say that alcohol prohibition 'expands freedom' because it reduces drunk driving deaths?

The definition of freedom is being allowed to do things. It doesn't mean being allowed to do only good things, or things which are good in some particular person's opinion. It means I can do something that you would rather I did not do. That's freedom. Freedom to do what others want you to do is not freedom.

0 comments

cyberferret6y ago

At what point do you draw the line though? If your intent with the second amendment is to, as it says, stop a potentially tyrannical government, then do you also have the freedom to buy hand grenades? How about shoulder mounted surface to air missiles to stop those pesky government F-16s? Some drones with Hellfire rounds? An M1-Abrahams to drive down to the corner store in case an uprising should start when you are out getting the milk?

Are your neighbours free to mine the road outside your house in case insurgents should drive up some day? How about them buying some uranium and building a small detonator in their garage? Or perhaps brewing some toxic cocktail of poison gas in the local primary school science lab?

Any of the above can be classed as a weapon to deter others, never mind the unintended consequence of accidental (or deliberate) discharging of any of them killing multiple innocent people. If you cannot purchase any of the above at a local dealership, then are you really free, when your government can outgun you at any point in time?

I consider myself 'free' when I take steps to minimise the infinitesimally small probability that something bad might happen, and I know that the steps I take will not result in an even worse 'bad thing' happening.

I got rid of my guns when we had kids. The very very tiny chance that I would need to use a gun against an intruder was outweighed by the even larger chance that one of my kids may have found my rifles and thought of them as play toys. Or the even larger chance that someone could burgle our house when we were not there and take them. I was free to choose what I wanted to do, and I still do not feel any less protected or safe in my own home, or while walking down the street, or when sending my kids to school, or when visiting a bar or attending a concert... or doing pretty much anything that a 'free' American is actually dead scared to do in their own country today.

jlawsonOP6y ago

Discussion about heavier weapons is interesting and worthwhile; there is a line there. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about guns right now. If the line of policy ever gets past guns we can all have a debate about hand grenades and RPGs.

Howver, again, you are slipping sideways off the topic we're discussing. You're discussing what good policy is towards weapons. That's not what we're debating. This thread is about what it means to be free.

If you could buy an RPG launcher, you would undoubtedly be more free than if you could not. This is by definition. It doens't mean you'd be safer, or better, or that this is good policy. It just means you'd be more free.

"I consider myself 'free' when I take steps to minimise the infinitesimally small probability that something bad might happen, and I know that the steps I take will not result in an even worse 'bad thing' happening."

This definition matches the word 'safe', not the word 'free'. (If you disagree, I wonder what your definition of 'safe' would be that differs from this?)

jandrewrogers6y ago

As a technical point of fact, Americans can buy tanks, missiles, hand grenades, and most any other conventional weapon if they wish, there is no prohibition under Federal law and an existing process for doing so. In practice, it is a hassle and weapons are extremely expensive so only a handful of wealthy collectors ever dabble in it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse