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/
Yeah the main problem about gun control issues is the fact that guns exist. As soon as guns started to exist it’s just been one huge problem 🤣. These types of problems are always cropping up, but it’s just rehashing the dame old arguments over and over and over again. Can’t it be boiled down to something like “humans choose¹ to use tool² for the purpose of hurting³ others. What do we do?” #2-We can’t erase guns from ever existing, so that’s the annoying part because this “problem” could easily be solved if you just unexist the tool that is being used. #1 could be solved by removing human choice or free will. After all, any tool could be used to hurt someone the problem is the free will. #3-if person A shoots at person B, can B fire back? Remove guns from the equation. If A instigates violence against B and person B fights back the who is hurting whom? If 2 people are fistfighting who is right, who is wrong?
All these issues are dealt with so neatly if you start with the foundations of a philosophy. Libertarianism slowly builds a foundation of natural truths and builds layer upon layer to answer these complex questions. Certainly Libertarianism says that violent aggression against persons or property is not acceptable right? And Libertarianism cannot bend the rules when it comes to personal liberty. People are free to act and to own tools -even (and especially) if those tools could be used to inflict harm. It boggles my mind to think the popular culture believes mankind should only be free to do good, or be kind, or say uplifting things, or help others. But not freedom to do bad, to be mean, to say hurtful things, to harm others. Freedom is the ability to choose, right guys? Right?? … guys…?
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.
