I'm trying to find the right balance though. Should I be "free" to own a weapon of mass destruction? Or, put another way, if those were far easier to obtain (nukes, chemical weapons, etc), do you think they would be used more often by crazy people? If so, then there's an example where limiting freedom does increase well-being for all the non-crazy people. If we have to live each day in fear we might die, that lowers our well-being and creates very real psychological harm.
So if we can agree on that, we have to start brining it back what makes rational sense and what we can test against concerning evidence available to use. If limiting gun ownership increases well-being based on evidence, then we should pursue that if we care about well-being. Does it have to be done via government laws or threats of violent force? No, I don't think so. We could come up with other options, and that's what this discussion is about.
As a person who owns a security business, I would love to own more powerful weapons. In early American colonial days, I would have been one of the individuals owning warships. Those warships were hired to do a lot of good. I'd do the same today with powerful weapons. We already have private companies operating as mercenaries too. Do you think those units get military firepower? Yes, of course they do. If they are going to war, and being paid to do it, they are using the weapons of war. No, they don't have nukes, but they don't need nukes to perform the service they provide.
But why offensive weapons? Why not weapons effective for non-lethal defense only? Does this relate to the "best defense is a good offense" strategy? Again, I refer to Detroit Threat Management. They specialize in non-lethal de-escalation in their security practice. I'm just not convinced high powered rifles with a lot of ammunition makes sense as the most effective defensive weapon for disabling an attacker. Am I missing something?
How would a population defend itself from internal police, military forces, or external forces with just non-lethal defensive weapons? Are the attackers going to give up their lethal weapons?
Will the military and police of the world give theirs up? Will the criminals and other predators? No, they will not. It doesn't work anyway. Again, take away guns, and predators will still have other weapons.
If you are using a vehicle to kill people, I want to have a gun to stop you. If you are using a knife to kill people, I want to have a gun to stop you. No one is bullet proof, and that's why oligarchs don't want the rest of us armed.
There are two systems basically. One system has a few armed to the teeth with the means of destruction at their finger tips. History shows they have done serious damage too. Democide is a top killer.
The other system is when all people are armed, and that makes it so the first system's oligarchs and agents of the oligarchs cannot commit democide without a bloody fight.
I understand this argument and have used it many times myself. I also can't ignore the evidence if other countries whise populations don't have guns and they also don't have the gun violence problem we have. Additionally, they are not authoritarian, so they don't have the democide problem either. The argument can be made that maybe some day they will and they've only increased systemic risk by disarming. To make that claim (or any claim, for that matter), I think we have to look to evidence, reason, and logic. The study I referenced in my post is one such example. Every country with disarmed citizens doesn't automatically get destroyed by a tyrannical government.
Those people are subjects. They are not free. We have a problem with gun violence? Millions upon millions of guns in America didn't harm a single person today. 99.999% of the guns don't.
How can you say those places are not authoritarian when they prevent people from owning the means of defense? The UK even has anti-knife laws. The police, royals, and military can own weapons though.
You though? Nope. You're not allowed. That is authoritarian. I'm not saying all disarmed countries are destroyed by their governments, but that has happened. Laos? China? Soviet Union?
History has countless examples of how people, who are disarmed, are then slaughtered. What about that evidence? Is it not reasonable to consider those examples from history?
What is logical is that free people are armed, and they maintain the ability to resist, with violence if necessary, to protect themselves. That prevents slaughters that have happened in places like Russia, China, Africa, etc. etc. etc.
Ask an American Indian about disarming and trusting the government.
This issue is primarily created by the world being divided up into states. In a private law society, you bet people would have both civil-social and legal incentive not to have their own nukes rigged and ready to go.
That is, if we chose to established it properly to begin with. A failed society in this regard looks equally bad, no matter if it's private or statist.
"Should I be "free" to own a weapon of mass destruction?" Yes you should, imo, if you really wanted to. I hate to say, for once, that I disagree with you Luke :) I can't agree on this assertion, "Or, put another way, if those were far easier to obtain (nukes, chemical weapons, etc), do you think they would be used more often by crazy people?"
No, I don't think they would be used any more often. In fact, I would think less. I can explain...
To me, it comes back to why do we (humans) wage war in the first place? I can't remember who said it, maybe RP, LR, or another popular libertarian leaning person, but they said "countries don't attack other countries. Rather, governments wage war against other governments." If we are living in ancapistan, I don't see how using these methods of mass destruction would benefit the assailant. There are no people to take over to tax, one of the main reasons of conquering other countries is to take in their citizens as tax slaves.
"If limiting gun ownership increases well-being based on evidence, then we should pursue that if we care about well-being." - can you cite something that proves this? I don't see how (unless everyone magically agreed to it) people with guns would be willing to give up their guns for the sake of the well-being of others.
Maybe I can't see the forest for the trees. But until gov't is dismantled, I don't see a chance in hell of people willingly giving up their guns without someone else pointing a gun at them.
The guy who shot up Vegas was not involved in war. He took his own life. He had no interest in being benefitted in any rational sense of the word. Do you think people like that wouldn't consider using a nuke if it was in their power to obtain one?
In the original post I included an abstract from a paper I linked to as well as the data referenced in the VOX video. It may not be causation and might just be correlation, but other wealthy countries with fewer guns where guns are harder to get do not have the same problems we in the United States have.
If rational people recognize guns lower wellbeing and other tools for effective self-defense could be used instead (i.e. tools not designed as effective offensive weapons) than I do think it's possible rational people would be willing to give up their guns. It's happened in other counties and their well-being has increased (in terms of gun related violence) because of it.
I would say it's a little too early to say his interests could not have been benefited. Whether a life insurance policy or some other agreement he made which to this tragic event someone he knew benefited. I don't mean to speculate, but I can't quite rule it out, yet anyway.
I obviously couldn't put it past anyone to nuke an area if they really wanted to. But why then is it ok for our gov't to have nukes, and not all other nations? Seeing as we are the only country to have used one. I think you and I would agree that people wanting to be in positions of power (politicians) have more violent and controlling tendencies in their nature. And yet, only 2 nukes dropped on populations (in the same graphic region at the same time) since their existence. I would think we would have seen many more nukes considering the people behind the button are considered to be the craziest and most psychotic of everyone.
So to say the old Joe blow down the street from you is concocting a nuke in his basement seems like quite the violent fairy tale to me.
To your wealthier countries point, I would argue that the citizens of Catalonia wished they had the right to bear arms right now. Sure they might not get shot and killed at the same rate as here, but they are powerless against the state police, proven by recent events. Is their well-being better than ours?
"If rational people recognize guns lower wellbeing and other tools for effective self-defense could be used instead (i.e. tools not designed as effective offensive weapons) than I do think it's possible rational people would be willing to give up their guns." - I absolutely cannot argue this one iota. Assuming of course we are talking absent a govt.