Libertarian Response to Connecticut Shooting Tragedy

[chizzle]

I found the following article from Reason.com which is my favorite news site. It is a Libertarian news site (maximum freedom, maximum personal responsibility), so it agrees really well with my values on most issues:

4 Awful Reactions to Sandy Hook School Shooting - And Thoughts on a Better Response - Reason.com

 

[WebSnyper]

I found the following article from Reason.com which is my favorite news site. It is a Libertarian news site (maximum freedom, maximum personal responsibility), so it agrees really well with my values on most issues:

4 Awful Reactions to Sandy Hook School Shooting - And Thoughts on a Better Response - Reason.com

Pretty good article. Thanks for posting.

 

[chizzle]

Thanks for the feedback. After hearing all the news stories and reading all the articles over the past few days, it is nice to read a level headed news story.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Thank you for posting. One of the very few articles that have been written since yesterday that is worth reading.

 

[88GT]

The author has a few facts wrong. I'll let this post address the "expansion" of firearms rights.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but calling automatic weapons possession illegal isn't technically correct. Sure, you need the proper paperwork, but if that's the only string attached, then we could just as easily make the statement that carrying a gun in Indiana is illegal. Precision requires specificity. The lack of the latter results in a half-truth and nothing more.

I agree with his intended message that making political hay out of tragedy is classless. But he's no better by standing on the soapbox and wagging his finger while telling us how we should be responding, IMO. I think by and large the reactions to the events have been sincere, even if they don't measure up to someone else's sense of acceptability. Who am I to tell someone he shouldn't be behaving a particular way? Now that I think about it, that's rather un-libertarian. Isn't it?

 

[scottka]

Yeah, the author did start out by making that generalization, but at least he went on to explain how it actually works. I thought the same thing as you did at first, but then when I saw the rest, I figured that was fair enough.

 

[arthrimus]

It was a good read. The stats that were provided in there could be quite useful. I really enjoy seeing logic driven articles like this being written.

I had never heard about that 1927 massacre in Michigan, a perfect example of guns not being the actual problem.

 

[chizzle]

The author has a few facts wrong. I'll let this post address the "expansion" of firearms rights.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but calling automatic weapons possession illegal isn't technically correct. Sure, you need the proper paperwork, but if that's the only string attached, then we could just as easily make the statement that carrying a gun in Indiana is illegal. Precision requires specificity. The lack of the latter results in a half-truth and nothing more.

I agree with his intended message that making political hay out of tragedy is classless. But he's no better by standing on the soapbox and wagging his finger while telling us how we should be responding, IMO. I think by and large the reactions to the events have been sincere, even if they don't measure up to someone else's sense of acceptability. Who am I to tell someone he shouldn't be behaving a particular way? Now that I think about it, that's rather un-libertarian. Isn't it?

I would agree on one part and disagree on the other. I think their sentence structure / explanation was a little off when discussing machine guns. I think the news media has really struggled on this subject in the past due to little or no exposure to the shooting sports. Their explanation was a little off, but I don't think it was on purpose, I think they just struggled for words. The reason I think that, is because the article then went on to discuss machine gun ownership in what I consider an even-handed way.

Where I disagree is in regards to being able to call out behaviors that are counter productive. While people who hold libertarian values are a " live and let live" group, I don't think that precludes us from speaking up when we see people trampling on our rights and values. Specifically, if folks are calling for more government intervention (laws, regulations), or more of a specific religion in our government, I think it is precisely the right time and place for libertarians to speak up and politely but firmly say "no thank you."

 

[88GT]

I would agree on one part and disagree on the other. I think their sentence structure / explanation was a little off when discussing machine guns. I think the news media has really struggled on this subject in the past due to little or no exposure to the shooting sports. Their explanation was a little off, but I don't think it was on purpose, I think they just struggled for words. The reason I think that, is because the article then went on to discuss machine gun ownership in what I consider an even-handed way.

Please. When was the last time any other media outlet got such a free pass for making similar mistakes?

Where I disagree is in regards to being able to call out behaviors that are counter productive. While people who hold libertarian values are a " live and let live" group, I don't think that precludes us from speaking up when we see people trampling on our rights and values. Specifically, if folks are calling for more government intervention (laws, regulations), or more of a specific religion in our government, I think it is precisely the right time and place for libertarians to speak up and politely but firmly say "no thank you."

Sure, say, "No, thanks" to the suggestions that impose additional restrictions on personal behavior. But except for the the calls for a renewal of the AWB, what exactly was so bad about the other comments? Huckabee is just voicing an opinion. So was Moore, as disgusting and revolting as I find that opinion to be; I would be lying if I said I haven't employed similar thought processes when the tables are turned and "they" make an easy target. Rivera's comments actually propose a real solution. You may not agree with the efficacy of it, but that doesn't make it and "awful" response. I find it ironic that elsewhere on INGO there is a post the supports Rivera's suggestion, albeit indirectly, by concluding that just one individual making the choice to act has stopped these active shooter situations more often than not. Just imagine what the outcome would be if that person were someone who was there specifically for that purpose.

From the article:

The raw emotionalism of Rivera's response - like President Obama, he choked up in describing the massacre - is understandable, but provides absolutely zero insight into how society or individuals should react.

Sounds to me like he thinks there's a right way and a wrong way.

 

[chizzle]

Please. When was the last time any other media outlet got such a free pass for making similar mistakes?



Sure, say, "No, thanks" to the suggestions that impose additional restrictions on personal behavior. But except for the the calls for a renewal of the AWB, what exactly was so bad about the other comments? Huckabee is just voicing an opinion. So was Moore, as disgusting and revolting as I find that opinion to be; I would be lying if I said I haven't employed similar thought processes when the tables are turned and "they" make an easy target. Rivera's comments actually propose a real solution. You may not agree with the efficacy of it, but that doesn't make it and "awful" response. I find it ironic that elsewhere on INGO there is a post the supports Rivera's suggestion, albeit indirectly, by concluding that just one individual making the choice to act has stopped these active shooter situations more often than not. Just imagine what the outcome would be if that person were someone who was there specifically for that purpose.

From the article:



Sounds to me like he thinks there's a right way and a wrong way.

I can see I am not going to persuade you and that we're going to have to agree to disagree. That being said, I still think this is one of the best articles I have read on the incident. But, as they say on my favorite motorcycle forum: Your Mileage May Vary (YMMV).