Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

3

__deleted_ wrote

A undeniable, absolute right to deadly weapons sounds to me like the right of the bourgeois to own property and order people around.

Wanting reasonable gun laws or even wanting reasonable discussions on the topic doesn't mean you favor the authoritarian state accumulation of power, it just means you don't want to get shot up by some rightwing maniac.

I want functioning societies where people are free from oppression in various forms. Sometimes the short term requires compromise with dangerous institutions like the nation-State instead of being 100% against everything at all times, dooming yourself to total irrelevance.

So yes, I'm in favor of gun restrictions.

If it helps, I'm also in favor of other laws, like those regulating finance (such as they are) and those supporting Medicare and Social Security.

2

zer0crash wrote (edited )

First off, rights, as bestowed by a state are a spook. The only rights we have are those we are capable of enforcing.

By bestowing the state the powers to control arms you do in fact enable authoritarian state accumulation of power, whether it is to avoid getting shot or not. There is no magickal formula of words or twist of logic that can avoid that. I would not consider this a practical compromise by any extent.

Fact is, unless the state is all-knowing and can predict the future, the state/police are very, very unlikely to save you from any mass shooting to begin with. It's simply a matter of resources and the fact that the police are a responsive force.

Gun control will merely ensure that a black market supplies arms to those who really want it. So ultimately someone who acquires a gun illegally (or makes one), and intends to use it against innocent people will very likely not be prevented by any law and its enforcers no matter how many controls you implement.

edit: mobile