Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[hollodero]

(11-05-2021, 01:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, yes and no. While I would absolutely say that gun control measures in this country promote inequity in huge ways, I would say that even with European models it is the case. First, any policy which restricts gun ownership in the hands of the private citizens creates a power imbalance between the people and the state. Since a democratic society is one in which the people are the state, this should never be the case.

But police always has the right to use force and no democratic system questions this in a way that gives the citizens the right to resist or fire back. Every society knows a system of enforcement that relies on an armed force (aka police) that can overcome resistance to enforce the law. Citizens in a democratic society don't have the right to be on equal footing with the police, armed-wise or resistance-wise.

(11-05-2021, 01:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Second, and this is the case especially in the US but can be seen in other places, when special permits or taxes are required it creates inequality based on socioeconomic status which then also generates a racial inequality. There is a reason gun control was first enacted in California when the Black Panthers started exercising their rights.

Which is why the main idea are general restrictions and not expensive permits. I'm also for permits, of course, because I feel society is well served if everyone with a deadly weapon knows the basics of handling them properly and isn't a nutcase.

(11-05-2021, 01:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Also, Austrian laws on firearm ownership are pretty good for Europe. As a Glock fanboy, I hope it stays that way.

You might know more about that than me.
Gaston Glock is a bit of an a-hole, however, but I hear his products are widely popular.

(11-05-2021, 01:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: An armed citizenry has always been seen as an important component of a democratic society. In the days before firearms, peasants weren't allowed to have the tools of war while the ruling class was. The framers of our government saw this in history and it is one of the reasons that the 2A was written in to the Bill of Rights. One only has to read the errata surrounding the document to understand this.

I doubt that 18th century logic still applies nowadays without modifications. Also, I don't think that an armed populace is an important part of a democratic society in the same sense eg. freedom of speech or free and fair elections are.
Our polulace is not armed and no one takes advantage of that by enforcing his will with his weaponry. Except for the state and the police to enforce the law, but that is still true for the US as well.

(11-05-2021, 01:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What there isn't a big history of, though, is empirical evidence that these gun control measures improve public safety. Public safety is the guise under which these policies are enacted. However, there is a dearth of evidence that points to their effectiveness.

So how comes that fatal gun violence incidents in the US are about four times higher than in France (as the European champion in that regard)? France has plenty of racial tensions etc. as well, yet a citizen is four times less likely to fall victim to gun violence. And I'm certain there are many things that play into that, but I don't think it's too far fetched to see gun restrictions as one reason amongst many. It's probably hard to proof without doubt, but I take it as a strong indicator.

(11-05-2021, 01:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What we do have, though, is that the strongest correlating factor to violence everywhere, globally, is socioeconomic inequality. So maybe instead of trying to limit our civil liberties in a way that may or may not reduce violence, why don't we actually look at the strongest indicator of violence in the world and try to fix our wage and wealth gaps?

I don't see these things as mutually exclusive. Society should be able to attend to both issues.