3 ms·
But the debate should be framed as one about civil liberties and how to balance them against safety. But that's precisely what this is about. The NRA claims c
by zzalpha 9y ago
But the debate should be framed as one about civil liberties and how to balance them against safety.
But that's precisely what this is about.
The NRA claims concealed carry increases safety, and therefore concealed carry should be deemed a core right protected by the second amendment.
This paper is attacking that claim and the associated conclusion.
Given concealed carry is just one of many questions regarding what is or isn't a reasonable restriction on gun rights, wouldn't you say this paper is specifically tackling a core question about "[gun-related] civil liberties and how to balance them against safety"?
- poke111 9y agoBy putting the "more guns, less crime" argument front and center, gun rights advocates imply that if more evidence comes out that contradicts that, the case for more guns disappears. I'm saying that the argument should always have been that guns are part and parcel of the fundamental right to self defense. Maybe they result in less crime, but even if they increase it, that is an acceptable cost for liberty, within reason. I have no quibble with the paper or its conclusion. We should be clear-eyed about what costs we are willing to bear for liberty.