It's well within your right to have no interest in owning a gun. But if it's possible to dramatically reduce gun deaths *without* a draconian ban, surely you should support that? I earnestly believe that it is. Non-Anglo gun laws across the globe suggest that it is.
Nah
Liberalism doesn't actually require a minimal state, in the sense you're describing (no more intrusion on personal liberty than necessary to achieve particular compelling ends). The democratic community is, within certain limits, entitled to regulate the conditions of social life how it sees fit!
Is firearm ownership within what ought to be the "individual rights" exception to this principle? Fantastically no, not even close! Firearms exist to cause death and destruction. They are eminently regulable, if literally anything is. ALSO!
A significant reduction in firearm deaths is good. An EVEN BIGGER reduction in firearm deaths is better! One (1) death that we could stop by writing laws is one death too many. No obligation to balance "people enjoy their gun hobbies" against that.
Yeah, this is pure culture war nonsense. Gotta make the hicks miserable, no matter what carve-outs you have to make to your supposedly universal principles. "Even one death is too many, no need to balance anyone else's hobbies or interests." This is legitimately insane if applied universally.
I mean, I'm not necessarily saying that's what the law SHOULD be. Obviously in many cases *coughdrivingcough* we do in fact trade off lives for e.g. convenience. I'm just saying that liberal principles do not OBLIGE us to weigh hobbies and interests against actual-factual lives
A law that banned automobiles because of the deaths they cause would not be illiberal
"A law that banned automobiles... would not be illiberal." 👍👌
Robert Black, welcome to the war on cars.
Again, I'm not talking about what would be wise policy! Lots of things I think are unwise policies aren't illiberal! (I don't think banning cars outright is an ideal solution, I'd rather find some way to just ban idiots who don't take it seriously from getting behind the wheel, but eh)
.....yeah?
I said what I said. Automobiles, like firearms, being things that by their very nature impose massive costs on your fellow citizens, are subject to broad and comprehensive regulation. They are permitted to exist at the sufferance of the Leviathan
Firearms are the most effective means of self defense, which is the most fundamental right of all sentient beings. As such, they are among the least regulatable so long as they are effective for that purpose.
Absolutely no it is not.
I agree. would you say liberalism demands that the state be limited I.e restrained constitutionally legally procedurally etc so that it respects individual rights up to a point?
I'm not a lawyer, which is why I think my experience here will be valuable. Till this day, the easiest place I've ever purchased a gun is Tokyo. New Delhi has the highest number of shootings in Asia.
Japan has extremely strict gun laws
That's the point I'm making. "Gun laws" do not mean anything to rich people in most parts of the world. I'm speaking as an immigrant. To cease gun deaths, we must invest in reducing poverty, provide alternatives to self-defense, and invest in investigative capabilities.
What's the annual death rate from guns in Japan, do you happen to know?
I know it's famously recorded as single digit. I'm not trying to win a debate here. I'm sure there's a hundred ways I'm wrong about some detail or the other. My point is, the 2nd amendment isn't about guns. It's about the 'right to defend' being equally distributed. It's not like that everywhere
We already do these things to a great degree, we should do them more.
The Second Amendment is radical not in that it allows keeping of firearms, but that it allows both the rich and poor to own the right to defend themselves.
The facts of guns and gun ownership suggest that it is. But nobody left of center is remotely interested in even learning about this possibility, because even opening up the wikipedia page on the AR-15 makes them feel like they're betraying their families and principles.