Gun-violence & libertarianism - a connection?

[DetlefK]

A theory just came to my mind.

Libertarians are known for their Randian attitude "I got mine, why should I care for you" or put in a less stereotyping form: To them, it's individual achievements that drive society to a better future, not collective achievements.

And gun-rights-activists? They need their guns for self-defense. (Let's not get into the argument why an assault-rifle is better at fending off a mugger than a gun.)
At the same time, gun-violence has become a public risk.
Gun-rights-activists either silently accept them as the price that has to be paid for the freedom to be ready to defend oneself anytime with lethal means or use that risk as an argument why that defense is necessary.

Do you see the connection?

The needs of the public: Less gun-violence.
How: All evidence and even computer-simulations of virtual towns show that the easiest way to reduce gun-violence is to reduce the number of guns in circulation.

The needs of the individual: More security for them as an individual.
How: More guns.

The conclusion is easy: "I got my security, why should I care about yours?"

[el_bryanto]

1. I would tend to agree with this analysis - with one additional point - Rural vs Urban

When you are out in a rural environment and not in contact with as many people I think it's easier to have the illusion that you can do it all by yourself. And in fairness some survivalists really do everything themselves. When you are in the city you know you are connected to thousands of people all networked together. So you know you aren't an island in the city.

By the same token - the gang violence and murders seem much more prevalent in the cities; they are paying a larger share of the societal cost for free gun ownership. While in the rural areas they see more benefits from gun ownership; hunting and the like.

Just a thought.

Bryant

[OneGrassRoot]

2. I see a definite link and would like to explore it further as well.

I'm not broad-brushing any group of people about this topic, but I have also noticed a connection in my friends with Randian libertarian views also being staunch Second Amendment advocates (no regulations or changes, guns are not a problem at all...government is the problem.)

I specify Randian because I think libertarianism has been corrupted...the origins were steeped in The Common Good but the American version of Ron/Rand Paul libertarianism is, in many ways, naive, selfish and destructive, imho.

So, K&R to this discussion.




ON EDIT: Dang, my edit didn't "take." Let me try again.

I don't necessarily agree with the statement in the subject line that libertarianism and gun violence are directly linked, per se. However, the lack of will to do anything ABOUT gun violence -- or to even see it as a problem -- and the strong resistance to any gun control measures are, I feel, linked to those with a libertarian view.

[DanTex]

3. An enormous connection.

The whole premise of libertarianism is that "more freedom" is always good, and that the "common good" is just an excuse for socialists to restrict people's rights and steal from the "makers" to give to the "takers". In this case, there basically is no rational argument that as a society we are better off awash in guns, but people who believe in the virtue of selfishness don't care about that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. You're misstating the premise.

I don't say this as a libertarian, my voter registration card says Democrat.

But the premise is --

-- All people require security and as such it is an essential human right.

-- You cannot adequately provide security (or may actually be a threat) therefore I will provide my own security.

-- The means of security I provide for myself are not a threat to you because I personally am not a threat to you.

-- I personally am not a threat to you therefore you have no right to treat me as a threat.

[DetlefK]

5. Your premises 3 and 4 are shaky.

to 3rd: It doesn't matter whether you personally are a threat to me. Your actions and their consequences might be a threat to me as well.

to 4th: I have every reason to assume you a threat because you carry a lethal weapon and I don't know your motivations.

How do you tell a good guy with a gun apart from a bad guy with a gun?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Your premises are far shakier

I have the presumption of innocence. You cannot make me a criminal based on your personal phobias and subjective dislikes. Possession of a beer doesn't make you a dangerous alcoholic. Possession of a penis doesn't make you a rapist. However, some people have very legitimate reasons to fear violent alcoholic rapists.

We do not treat people who drink alcohol as if they are drunk drivers and wife beaters. We outlaw specific activities, i.e. drunk driving and domestic violence. But those who are casual, recreational drinkers enjoy the presumption of innocence unless and until they do something that is specifically illegal.

And "cost to society" is not the sole criteria for declaring a thing illegal because the cost to society from accidents, crime, DV and medical complications of alcohol beat the cost of gun violence by orders of magnitude.

[OneGrassRoot]

13. Forget "declaring a thing illegal"...

Are you in favor of any stronger regulations or requirements for gun ownership?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. That depends on the proposal.

I'm all for providing stronger intervention services for the mentally ill. Half of gun deaths are from suicide. If we actually wanted to help people in trouble we would be looking for ways to provide care rather than merely disarm them while still leaving them in whatever desperate situation would drive them to suicide in the first place.

[OneGrassRoot]

19. It's a given that we need many approaches...

I agree. All of our issues are complicated when you look beneath the surface.

Still, do you oppose anything in the Manchin-Toomey proposal, for example?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. In light of yesterday's tragedy?

It would have been useless. The shooter was given a secret security clearance which is substantially (in theory) more stringent than any background check. It also would have been useless in the Gifford's tragedy because Loughner's ineligibility status was never entered into the database. Ditto the CO theater shooter, despite the fact he was reported to the police by a mental health care professional IAW the law.

Interventions are good but what would be the point of passing Manchin-Toomey if it is just one more law the enforcers choose to ignore? We should be rioting until they hand us the heads of the people who allowed manifestly dangerous people to go free to compensate for their betrayal of the laws we already passed. These episodes undermine the case for stronger regulations because genuine threats are ignored while innocent people are made into criminals. Perhaps -- just perhaps -- this is why additional gun control is flagging as a political issue.

[OneGrassRoot]

23. More safety training... (edit, sorry)

There are too many accidents that occur because guns aren't being treated as they should be. They're dangerous, they're not toys, but people deal with them too casually.

I'm not talking about the Navyyard or any particular incident.

In addition to other non-gun-related measures to create a stronger, safer, healthier society, I'm asking if you are open to the possibility of ANY measures being enacted as it concerns gun ownership?

Are there any gun control measures that have been proposed over the years that you could get on board with?


EDIT TO SAY that I was on a call and didn't word this reply well. Basically, I'm not asking about measures that could have prevented any specific event. We have many events involving guns: suicides, homicides, accidental death and injury, mass shootings. I'm asking if you're in favor of ANY measure concerning gun ownership.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. I don't think there is much daylight between us.

As to your exit question -- I honestly don't know. So much of what has passed recently seems more like cheap political theater than actual efforts to address real problems as I illustrated WRT background checks (which I never once did whenever I bought weed while in college despite its status as being illegal). I'm not calling T-M political theater, I assume they're genuine but I also assume their law, if passed, will be genuinely ignored as have been all the other laws I cited.

Those who more stringently call for more "control" seem more interested in the control more than the body count and the louder they scream for control the more cynical I become towards their motives.

[DetlefK]

14. How about another premise:

"All criminals have a gun. Some law-abiding citizens have a gun."

You see a guy with a gun.

Good guy or bad guy?

You have to weigh the proportion of armed good guys in the society minus the armed good guys that could turn into armed bad guys vs the proportion of armed criminals in the society plus the armed good guys that could turn into armed bad guys.
Then you can see the odds what this guy might be.

And after THAT:
What are the consequences if you think him a good guy, but he's a bad guy?
What are the consequences if you think him a bad guy, but he's a good guy?
You have to weigh that in, too.

What. do. you. do?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. Criminals are defined by their actions. You're filtering what you see through a bias/phobia

In what you are describing you're assigning irrational, unfounded fears to people. It's really as weak an argument as people who claim crossing the street when they see an African America approaching is a legitimate concern for their safety. Criminality is an action, not a state of being.

[DetlefK]

18. So, we have "good guys with a gun" and "formerly good guys with a gun". Right?

Why would you need a gun if you are surrounded by good guys?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. What made the person a "former good guy"?

Maybe he was always just an asshole. The presence of the gun did not make him a former good guy, a gun is not some evil totem that overtook his otherwise good mind. The fact that he may always have been -- and always will be -- an asshole is why the good-good guy bought a gun in the first place.

[DetlefK]

22. Now YOU are the one assuming ;-)

Replace "criminal" with "asshole who might snap" and we have a new definition for "bad guy".

Your argument is actually very simple. Too simple:
I shouldn't be afraid of gun-owners, because they might as well be good guys. Being armed is no discriminator for intention.

What delivers greater security?
A tool to discriminate bad guys on sight or a tool to fend of bad guys after they unmasked themselves?




And I just had a huge déjà-vu while writing this. I think I had a similar argument on DU after another mass-shooting.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. The overwhelming preponderance of gun crimes are not spontaneous.

Time and again the pro-banning faction ignored their own laws to allow manifestly dangerous people such as Holmes, Loughner and Alexis to go without care or intervention.

Of the 80 million gun owners currently in the US how many will spontaneously snap with no prior indicators of aberrant behavior?

[DetlefK]

27. Finally: spontaneous vs. non-spontaneous violence

Non-spontaneous violence occurs from people with certain attributes. Therefore, this source of violence can be curbed a priori with regulations limiting access to guns for these kinds of people.

Spontaneous violence cannot be held in check with regulations. Nevertheless, the availability of means decides whether the violence turns lethal or not. I think, the US are just as prone to random violence as other countries, but the easier availability of guns means that confrontations easier turn lethal.

However, gun-regulation would take care of both problems in the long shot (1 or 2 generations):
Harder access to guns. ->
Non-spontaneous lethal violence gets reduced. ->
People feel safer. ->
Less guns kept around. ->
Spontaneous lethal violence gets reduced.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. And drug regulations will cure the drug problem.

[DanTex]

6. But your argument is purely libertarian, because it ignores the social consequences.

As a society we're all better off with tighter gun laws. You might not personally be a threat, but the policy of allowing easy access to guns has the inevitable consequence of more violence and homicide. Ignoring societal implications and focusing only on the individual is the hallmark of libertarianism.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. "As a society we're all better off with tighter gun laws."

That's a declarative statement that assumes its own conclusion.

Supposedly secret security clearances are "tighter laws" but the shooter yesterday never should have been allowed to obtain one of those considering his history.

[DanTex]

10. It's a true statement. It's at the heart of the matter.

There is plenty of evidence here, for example, the recent study that came out a few days ago...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023661481

In fact, not believing in science is another hallmark of libertarians (see global warming). It actually points to the essential weakness of the argument. They can't really bring themselves to argue that "freedom" is more important than preventing epidemic levels of homicide and/or environmental degradation so when evidence comes out, they claim it's some kind of "liberal agenda".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. One thing science is incapable of doing is speaking to my rights.

I do have a right to personal security and I do have a right to presumption of innocence.

We are not governed by statistics, we are governed by the preservation of our rights. You cannot abrogate that fact by waving around some guy's study and if you insist you will soon find a whole host of things, supported by statistical evidence, that can be governed by SCIENCE! but ought not be (I'm thinking the Tuskegee STD experiments).

[DanTex]

12. That's exactly what I mean by "libertarian".

As a society we would be better off with tighter gun laws but "rights" are more important than that. And science doesn't matter. Ironically, in this case, the very justification you give -- personal security -- is actually damaged by your absolutist stance on "freedom". It's not actually personal security that you value, because that would be better served with tighter gun laws.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Please tell me which of your rights yields to some person's statistics.

I'll bet statistically if the cops didn't have to Mirandize suspects or obtain search warrants they could probably bust a lot more criminals.

It's not actually personal security that you value, because that would be better served with tighter gun laws.

Since you're so fond of statistics -- Less than 7% of sexual assaults involve a gun. A woman with a gun has a 7% chance of being on equal terms with her attacker but a 93% chance of having more power at her disposal. A gun ban would be useless to improving the security of 100% of the women involved in a sexual assault. Ergo your right to be scared must yield to the statistics presented.

[hack89]

7. I don't think criminals are killing each other out of personal safety concerns.

poverty, desperation and despair have more to do with it than political philosophies.

[upaloopa]

26. No connection. Now cats on the other hand

are individuals and only care about safety and immediate gratification so they promote gun violence. See the connection?

[DetlefK]

28. You misunderstood: Private actions have public consequences.

If everybody buys a gun in private, gun-violence will rise in public.

If everybody pisses in the streets in private, odor will rise in public.

[upaloopa]

29. you are making a logic error

If a likes b and b causes problems then a supports causing problems.
For a statement to be true all its inferences have to be true.
Get it?

[DetlefK]

31. Only if A realizes that B causes problems. Otherwise it's just negligence.