(When will the quote function on this forum ever be fixed?)
Well, Autolykos, your first point is certainly true, but empirically, I’m fairly positive you’ll find that increased safety training correlates very strongly with at least fewer unintentional gun accidents and maybe even lower gun violence in general.
Your second point (Even if all police officers always used guns in complete accordance with their training, that has no necessary bearing on whether I think their use of guns is justified) is kind of a knockout argument. Yes, if we follow Rothbardian ethics, then a private citizen loony with a gun is less objectionable than a police officer with one. If that’s a conclusion you feel comfortable making, then I don’t know what else I could tell you.
Regarding the police aggression thread, that’s certainly something to be on the lookout for, but it’s anecdotal. The average policeman is no roided-up Rambo beating up civilians for fun.
Maybe, maybe not. The problem with police brutality isn’t with how many cops aggress against citizens. The problem is with qualified immunity and the general protection and cover-up of police crimes by their respective police departments. Whether it’s 50% or 1% of cops is immaterial if the 1% are shielded from justice.
You seem to be implying that only the state can bring about fewer unintentional gun accidents and maybe even lower gun violence in general. Why is that?
From what I understand, part of the training that police officers (and presumably other armed government agents) go through involves what’s called a “use of force continuum”. My first point was meant to include that, and I think it’s that part of their training that armed government agents are most likely to ignore. After all, when the government agency you’re working for rubber-stamps your actions - I mean, conducts an internal investigation and rules that your actions were consistent with agency policy - and you’ve been given qualified immunity by courts of that same government, what real difference does it make whether you act in accordance with the official use of force continuum or not? And that doesn’t even go into just what the official use of force continuum may be.
I’m not sure what you mean by “knockout argument”. Do you mean the same thing as “cop-out”?
Why do you use the emotionally loaded word “loony” when referring to someone who owns a gun and doesn’t work as an armed government agent? But yes, I trust a “private citizen loony with a gun” more than a cop with one. I have no idea why you apparently wouldn’t do the same.
First off, how do you know that for sure? Second, do you understand that cops enjoy all sorts of exemptions from the rules that they claim the right to enforce on the rest of us?
This isn’t meant to be a counter-argument, but just as an aside: I fail to see how you can consider yourself to be an anarchist while taking such a statist position on this issue.
Describe to me a market-based strategy for improving people’s gun habits.
Not going to disagree here, state policing has some serious incentive structure problems. That in itself doesn’t mean that a laissez-faire approach to private gun ownership doesn’t have any, though.
You were implying that you could always retreat to the “ethical” stance on things, which on a libertarian forum usually means some appeal to Rothbardian ethics against the state. If you believe in those premises, then fine, but debating them is kind of pointless for a subjectivist like me.
Because no government interference with firearms purchasing means even loonies can buy guns. It doesn’t mean every gun owner is a loony. Sorry if I was being ambiguous.
My position is that the benefits of keeping government away from our guns outweigh the negatives. There are negatives, though, and the typical libertarian approaches to the topic are prone to ignore those.
Re: the quality of police/military firearms training, HA HA HA you should see most of those guys in practical shooting scenarios. Most of the civvies I know who shoot have taken far more pains to train themselves than the police and military have trained my friends who have/do serve.
Secondly, I’d keep it simple in this conversation. You’re talking to a guy who hasn’t thought about the issues very well.
The reason heavy taxation on manufacturing/sale/purchasing of firearms doesn’t work is simply that those whole processes go black market and just keep happening. Just because a thing is illegal doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
I mean, murder is illegal. Simple as that. If a person commits murder, they’re already a criminal. If a person buys a weapon for any reason whatsoever but doesn’t use it against others, then they haven’t done any harm and they’re not a criminal.
Everyone’s in favor of their own freedom. But allowing everyone else to be completely free? Huh, that’s kinda scary.
That’s what we have to overcome.
Can you point me to a source that supports that claim?
You can find studies modeled in such a way as to support both sides of this argument. I don’t see it as a fruitful area to focus on, honestly. It distracts from the issue of rights, and honestly, the statistics don’t give either side any great claim to utility.
Police don’t stop crimes, they show up after they are committed.-Jesse Ventura
There are hundreds of millions of guns in existence in the US alone. How could his scheme control the gun market (black market) enough to make a significant impact on violent crime?