Guns Deter

Imagine you’re a criminal and you want to prey on people in a neighborhood. Then you learn that almost everyone in this neighborhood owns guns. You probably won’t want to target that neighborhood, anymore.  

10 thoughts on “Guns Deter

    • No. But, he should still have the right to own a gun. Just because someone is creepy and immoral in a sexual way does not mean that I can forcefully prevent them from having a weapon that protects themselves.

    • I want a gun whether the sexual predator has one or not. He probably has strength that my wife and children do not have.

    • I do not think that it should be legal for kids to own guns (however, operating them is fine with parental permission). Whenever libertarians speak about various rights, we are usually considering the unspoken requirement that we are talking about people of proper mental capacity, which would exclude children and those who are mentally retarded. I’m not saying that children and the mentally disabled have no rights at all, but the rights theories must be adjusted for them and they would not have all of the same rights, and to the full extent, as adults do. Some libertarian philosophers have described certain rights theories for children, but I’m not going to focus on it because I haven’t studied it enough yet (keep in mind that political philosophies outside of libertarianism generally don’t have consistent rights theories for children, so it’s to libertarianism’s credit that they have been working on such theories). So, basically, I’m generally in favor of adult’s rights to own guns, not children.

      • Most, if not all, states already have laws regarding age of ownership of guns.

        Remember though, gun regulations and laws only affect the good guys since the bad guys don’t care about laws and regulations. A 12 year old thug could care less what the law stipulates. Common sense mandates that just like driving a car requires a certain level of maturity and responsibility, so does owning a gun.

        Alas, that has never been an issue. The issue is the Liberals wanting to take guns away from all law abiding citizens thinking that the bad guys will follow along. That is obviously not how it works. See the gun violence in DC, Detroit, Baltimore, NYC where gun laws are insane but still not effective. Compare those cities with ones in Texas, PA, and other states that permit concealed carry by ordinary law abiding citizens when they get the training, clearance, etc. Gun related crime is lower where the citizens can carry.

        • I don’t quite understand your first paragraph, but I like your second paragraph. So, on your first paragraph, regardless of what current laws are (because I am interested in what laws SHOULD be), are you suggesting that kids should be able to own guns? Kids operating them is fine with parental permission, but, are you saying full ownership?

  1. To pose a theoretical question to you.

    In this world, everyone brings guns to work. Someone has a mental break down and starts shooting up the place. Now instead of having one set of gun fire, now everyone starts firing all through the office creating a swarm of bullets and chaos. Now since there are more bullets being fired, do you feel it’s more likely that people will be harmed or less likely for them to get hit and harmed? Please comment on the fact that people are not training in combat situations and how identifying friend from foe may come into place.

    • Firstly, I just want to make clear that I do not favor forcing everyone to own a gun, I just think that people should be free to own guns if they choose. And, I think that this just happens to have some benefits through the concept of deterrence. Now, just to play along with your scenario, I don’t think that the people would act in the way that you think, at least not usually. Imagine yourself in the situation, and you hear gunshots. Would you just start shooting randomly? I think most people would not. Most people would not start shooting their cubicle neighbors. They would probably duck and wait to see if they see a gunman walk by. I admit that some accidents might occur, maybe some “friendly fire”, but on average it probably would not be an excessive amount. So, I personally think that the opposite would be worse. The opposite would be where only the lunatic has the gun and everyone else has no gun. In such a case, the lunatic would be able to freely kill many, many people before being killed himself. So, on a net basis, I would think that the situation with everyone having guns would have less deaths, and so would be better.

      Now, I should mention that a workplace is owned by a company/employer. Even in a libertarian society, an employer could have a policy of “no guns” in the workplace (at least no guns for normal employees, they might choose to allow guns for the bosses and guards). Just as you would have to follow my rules if I invited you to my house (property), employees would have to follow the rules set forth by the employers who own the workplace property. So, to begin with, your scenario of a bunch of employees carrying guns to work would be unlikely because most employers would probably feel uncomfortable about that and have a “no gun” policy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*