Comment by zzalpha | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zzalpha | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Either you believe in the second amendment - namely, that the right to self-defense is fundamental, and the right to own a gun is inseparable from that - or you don't.

But it's so much more nuanced than that, and this kind of false dichotomy just polarizes the argument.

Does a right to self-defense mean a right to any and all arms?

Does a right to self-defense mean a right to carry a concealed weapon?

Does a right to self-defense mean a right to carry a weapon in any and all locations?

And that's just the first three questions that sprint to mind.

In fact, you anticipated this with your example of free speech, though probably not in the way you intended. After all, free speech is not an unlimited right. For example, libel and slander laws are on the books to balance free speech rights against the rights of others who might be harmed by that speech.

Why wouldn't you have a similar debate on the balance of harms regarding the right to possess and carry a firearm?

Don't trivialize this. It just makes it an "us-vs-them" conversation, and I think we can all agree there's enough of that already.

I didn't mean to trivialize it, and those are all valid questions - it's not a black and white issue. But the debate should be framed as one about civil liberties and how to balance them against safety. Making it all about what is safer vs. less safe puts it on much less solid ground.

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"?

By 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com