1) There are basically two functions to gun ownership, self-defense against criminal violence and organized defense against government tyranny. If the 2nd amendment was written to ensure people's ability to defend against tyranny, shouldn't ordinary people be able to own grenades, automatic heavy weapons, artillery, tanks, fighter jets, and gun ships? It's hard to stand up to a US military junta with just semiautomatic M16s.
2) I think the phrase "criminals will ALWAYS get guns" is false. Strict weapon control on "military grade" weapons makes it very hard to criminals to get any heavy firearm, bazooka, or grenades. If we declare all firearms to be in the category of "military grade" weapon and make REAL concerted effort to control them, then we can pretty much make sure that criminals don't get guns.
3) Under the assumption that gun control can keep most guns out of criminal's hands, then the only validity to owning firearms is self-defense against government tyranny. It's true that superseding your right to own firearms makes it easier for government to abuse its power. Shouldn't we weigh this against the risk of big criminals (terrorists & school shooters) getting ahold of dangerous weapons?
The crux of the argument is whether people are willing to reign in some of their personal freedom and transfer that to state control. But isn't that what organized society is about? We relinquish our natural freedoms (like the free ability to kill someone) to establish a set of rules that can maximize everyone's utility.
Yves Meyer wins the 2017 Abel Prize
1 week ago