Hello fellow libertarians,

A few hours ago, a user here linked to an article about the protests in france. It suggests that the lack of armament of the public has led to an uncontrolled outbreak of violence on the part of criminal gangs. I found this perspective exciting, but unfortunately the post was quickly deleted after he received some downvotes, so I would like to share my thoughts here.

Even though I am not in favor of gun bans, I have serious doubts as to whether such relaxed gun ownership as in the us would have deescalated the situation in any way. In my view, owning weapons to protect oneself and one’s fellow human beings is absolutely justifiable, but the uncontrolled acquisition and loose carrying regulations in public spaces are definitely not.

I would very much look forward to a discussion with you about this topic and maybe OP might say something about it?

The link for reference: https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/as-france-disintegrates-gun-control-leaves-citizens-defenseless-against-rioters/

  • shotgunpulse@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    owning weapons to protect oneself and one’s fellow human beings is absolutely justifiable, but the uncontrolled acquisition and loose carrying regulations in public spaces are definitely not.

    This incident in France proved that strict regulations only affect law abiding citizens. Having one “side” disarmed might prevent escalation but it also strips them - but not the others - of the possibility to exercise their right to defend themselves.