Originally Posted by
xmd 5a
All well and good, but kind of tangential to where I'm coming from. Still, at least you're telling me what your view of "how freedom works" is.
My point is that there are ways people exercise freedom that have negative impacts ("externalities") on others. How should these be taken into account in your view?
Exercising my freedom to drive a car can have negative impacts (injury, death, property damage) on others if I do so in a reckless manner.
Exercising my freedom to speak freely can have negative impacts (defamation, incitement of racial hatred) on others if I do so with malicious intent.
Exercising my freedom to run a company can have negative impacts (pollution/environmental destruction, inflicting of physical and psychological harm on customers and employees) if I put profit ahead of ethical behaviour.
(Note: I am far from advocating the banning of any of the above activities, just illustrating the benefit of regulation in curbing undesirable by-products).
My view is that gun regulation fits in with the above relatively uncontroversial (I hope...) areas where a central authority balances the rights of the individual with the rights of society as a whole. Another facet of the licencing system for guns here in Australia is the requirement to join a club and demonstrate responsible, safe use and storage of guns. Surely law-abiding gun lovers wouldn't find this too difficult - I'm sure many meet those requirements as is.