3 ms·

The idea that restricting the freedom of law-abiding people is an acceptable way to fight crime seems to be trending lately. I find this deeply disturbing. To q

by Zak 15y ago

The idea that restricting the freedom of law-abiding people is an acceptable way to fight crime seems to be trending lately. I find this deeply disturbing. To quote Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

sliverstorm 15y ago
If you want to make an effective argument, I'd suggest you find a new quote. I can't speak for everyone, but I swear that I see that quote invoked at least every other week, and usually incorrectly. I personally haven't figured out how best to interpret the quote, but I believe there is a line somewhere, an understanding I have not reached... For example, would you argue that acquiescing to the ban on assault weapons falls under this quote? There are already a number of restrictions imposed on our Liberty- even on First Amendment rights- that most people seem to think entirely reasonable. (Not expressing an opinion on the article, merely protesting what seems to be, though I can't put my finger on it, a constant misuse of Franklin's quote)
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  I have found one article suggesting Franklin's use of "Temporary Safety" is analogous to "Tranquility", which suggests an interpretation essentially condemning appeasement; that is to say, giving up liberties to a power to placate that power, to further tranquility (for now). I will have to read further, but I personally feel this is a much sounder interpretation of his quote.
- EGreg 15y ago
  There are lots of people who would say that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right and produce stories of the person who COULD have stopped the criminal had they been able to bring the gun into the diner, but were powerless to do so. I guess there is no clear cut case you can make which everyone would accept, because liberty for libertarians is, in fact, just that.
  - pyre 15y ago
    > the person who COULD have stopped the criminal > had they been able to bring the gun into the diner, > but were powerless to do so. Just like the people that don't want to wear seat belts and always bring up the anecdotes about people being saved from death because they weren't wearing a seat belt and were flung from the car?
    - Zak 15y ago
      Off the top of my head, I can think of two mass shootings that were mitigated by armed civilians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shoot...
  - xibernetik 15y ago
    A better argument regarding arms and liberty is that an armed civilian population is a lot harder to brutally repress than an unarmed civilian population. However, it's well to note that an armed civilian population is also less stable, be they armed with guns or armed with means of mass communication. Of course, China's reason for censorship is "stability", so take that as you will.
- Zak 15y ago
  For example, would you argue that acquiescing to the ban on assault weapons falls under this quote? Yes. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and I believe that right (reasonably) extends at least to infantry rifles and the like[0]. Aside from being the check of last resort on government power, military-style rifles are the most effective thing available to civilians for home defense and the like. While I will concede that those situations are rare, the use of weapons covered by assault weapons bans in crime is also exceedingly rare; criminals tend to use inexpensive, concealable pistols. [0] Bans on "assault weapons" tend to list features like pistol grips and flash suppressors commonly found on military weapons and rare on target/hunting rifles. Incidentally, the only provision of any assault weapons ban I am aware of that actually affected the lethality of the weapons is the limitation on magazine capacity.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    I knew a lot of major gun enthusiasts back in California, and from what they talked about, you are allowed to own just about any gun with pistol grips or whatever you please, so long as you follow a certain set of rules which basically revolve around removal of full-auto and the limitation on magazine capacity you mentioned. You mention military rifles- is now a good time to point out that old stock of the M1 Garand, with full-auto removed, is available to citizens at many gun stores?
    - Zak 15y ago
      rules which basically revolve around removal of full-auto That's not quite right. Full-auto means that the gun can shoot more than one shot per pull of the trigger. These have been severely restricted by Federal law since 1934, requiring a $200 tax and registration. New registrations have been banned since 1986, driving prices in to the five-figure range for weapons that would otherwise be worth less than $1000. What does enable you to have all the scary-looking features you want in California is not having a detachable magazine. A detachable magazine does actually have an impact on a gun's combat effectiveness (it makes reloading faster), but there are alternatives to that as well: guns like the SKS and M1 Garand have fixed magazines that can be quickly reloaded from an external clip. So in CA, you can have say... a Mini-14, which doesn't look scary, but is semi-automatic and equipped with a detachable magazine just like the AR-15 (a semi-automatic-only version of the US military's M-16) and just as deadly, or you can have a very military-looking SKS that takes a little bit more practice to reload quickly but is otherwise functionally similar to an AK-47. What, exactly has this law accomplished aside from making legal gun owners learn a bunch of very detailed regulations to ensure they're not committing a felony? The M1 Garand is actually sold to civilians through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, sponsored by the Federal government. They also appear in gun stores on occasion. These guns were never full-auto, and removing full auto doesn't satisfy the ATF as far as the aforementioned registration requirement; that's the reason the CMP doesn't sell the later M14 and M16 rifles to civilians.
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  If you want to make an effective argument, I suggest you get rid of quotes entirely. Benjamin Franklin was a great man, and his ideas deserve due consideration, but the fact is most people barely know the man and even fewer give two shits for any thought he ever had. Better to ask "does <x> work?" E.g. "did all the cameras across London do fuck-all to stop crime?" It would be nice if people would think critically about such things in advance, but that's not a realistic thing to expect. Instead you should get good at saying basically "I told you so" while staying instructive and not coming across as a dick.

by Zak 15y ago

sliverstorm 15y ago

If you want to make an effective argument, I'd suggest you find a new quote. I can't speak for everyone, but I swear that I see that quote invoked at least every other week, and usually incorrectly. I personally haven't figured out how best to interpret the quote, but I believe there is a line somewhere, an understanding I have not reached... For example, would you argue that acquiescing to the ban on assault weapons falls under this quote? There are already a number of restrictions imposed on our Liberty- even on First Amendment rights- that most people seem to think entirely reasonable. (Not expressing an opinion on the article, merely protesting what seems to be, though I can't put my finger on it, a constant misuse of Franklin's quote)

sliverstorm 15y ago
I have found one article suggesting Franklin's use of "Temporary Safety" is analogous to "Tranquility", which suggests an interpretation essentially condemning appeasement; that is to say, giving up liberties to a power to placate that power, to further tranquility (for now). I will have to read further, but I personally feel this is a much sounder interpretation of his quote.
EGreg 15y ago
There are lots of people who would say that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right and produce stories of the person who COULD have stopped the criminal had they been able to bring the gun into the diner, but were powerless to do so. I guess there is no clear cut case you can make which everyone would accept, because liberty for libertarians is, in fact, just that.
- pyre 15y ago
  > the person who COULD have stopped the criminal > had they been able to bring the gun into the diner, > but were powerless to do so. Just like the people that don't want to wear seat belts and always bring up the anecdotes about people being saved from death because they weren't wearing a seat belt and were flung from the car?
  - Zak 15y ago
    Off the top of my head, I can think of two mass shootings that were mitigated by armed civilians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shoot...
- xibernetik 15y ago
  A better argument regarding arms and liberty is that an armed civilian population is a lot harder to brutally repress than an unarmed civilian population. However, it's well to note that an armed civilian population is also less stable, be they armed with guns or armed with means of mass communication. Of course, China's reason for censorship is "stability", so take that as you will.
Zak 15y ago
For example, would you argue that acquiescing to the ban on assault weapons falls under this quote? Yes. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and I believe that right (reasonably) extends at least to infantry rifles and the like[0]. Aside from being the check of last resort on government power, military-style rifles are the most effective thing available to civilians for home defense and the like. While I will concede that those situations are rare, the use of weapons covered by assault weapons bans in crime is also exceedingly rare; criminals tend to use inexpensive, concealable pistols. [0] Bans on "assault weapons" tend to list features like pistol grips and flash suppressors commonly found on military weapons and rare on target/hunting rifles. Incidentally, the only provision of any assault weapons ban I am aware of that actually affected the lethality of the weapons is the limitation on magazine capacity.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  I knew a lot of major gun enthusiasts back in California, and from what they talked about, you are allowed to own just about any gun with pistol grips or whatever you please, so long as you follow a certain set of rules which basically revolve around removal of full-auto and the limitation on magazine capacity you mentioned. You mention military rifles- is now a good time to point out that old stock of the M1 Garand, with full-auto removed, is available to citizens at many gun stores?
  - Zak 15y ago
    rules which basically revolve around removal of full-auto That's not quite right. Full-auto means that the gun can shoot more than one shot per pull of the trigger. These have been severely restricted by Federal law since 1934, requiring a $200 tax and registration. New registrations have been banned since 1986, driving prices in to the five-figure range for weapons that would otherwise be worth less than $1000. What does enable you to have all the scary-looking features you want in California is not having a detachable magazine. A detachable magazine does actually have an impact on a gun's combat effectiveness (it makes reloading faster), but there are alternatives to that as well: guns like the SKS and M1 Garand have fixed magazines that can be quickly reloaded from an external clip. So in CA, you can have say... a Mini-14, which doesn't look scary, but is semi-automatic and equipped with a detachable magazine just like the AR-15 (a semi-automatic-only version of the US military's M-16) and just as deadly, or you can have a very military-looking SKS that takes a little bit more practice to reload quickly but is otherwise functionally similar to an AK-47. What, exactly has this law accomplished aside from making legal gun owners learn a bunch of very detailed regulations to ensure they're not committing a felony? The M1 Garand is actually sold to civilians through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, sponsored by the Federal government. They also appear in gun stores on occasion. These guns were never full-auto, and removing full auto doesn't satisfy the ATF as far as the aforementioned registration requirement; that's the reason the CMP doesn't sell the later M14 and M16 rifles to civilians.
bluedanieru 15y ago
If you want to make an effective argument, I suggest you get rid of quotes entirely. Benjamin Franklin was a great man, and his ideas deserve due consideration, but the fact is most people barely know the man and even fewer give two shits for any thought he ever had. Better to ask "does <x> work?" E.g. "did all the cameras across London do fuck-all to stop crime?" It would be nice if people would think critically about such things in advance, but that's not a realistic thing to expect. Instead you should get good at saying basically "I told you so" while staying instructive and not coming across as a dick.