11-05-2021, 01:19 PM
(11-05-2021, 01:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: I seee this is a widely popular post, still I have to disagree with this particular take. Gun control can be used in that manner like many policies can, but it does not automatically lead to these outcomes or even promotes them.
Eg. I live in a country with gun control measures and I don't feel that it makes the country illiberal, unequal, oppressive or undemocratic in any way.
I think his point was that it does so in this country, in which private firearm ownership is largely legal. Gun control laws frequently include large taxes on guns and ammunition, which makes ownership cost prohibitive for poorer people. Or, and take New York City for an example as their case was just heard in SCOTUS, the issuing of concealed carry permits, which also often involve a significantly cost, is largely restricted to the wealthy and powerful. IN NYC it's virtually impossible to get a CCW unless you're a judge or a celebrity. For example, Howard Stern has a CCW and the man never leaves his house/apartment. He also has private security. How is his need greater than that of a shop owner who works in a bad neighborhood and wants to take his weekly earnings to the bank? Or and elderly person who works or lives in a high crime area?
Having lived in Europe I am very familiar with European bewilderment about our ownership of firearms. But firearms ownership is deeply rooted in American culture. I strongly believe that the government should not have a monopoly on the means of self defense. All freedoms, especially those in the area of firearms ownership, will be abused by some. But for me, Bel and many others a potentially dangerous freedom is always preferable to autocratic security.
