The Saker — Saker rant: “Gun control” should only mean “hitting your target”

Those who want to ban guns are guilty of false cause. However, "gun control" generally means legal precautions against abuse. As a libertarian of the left I agree with that view. The use of objects and means is not the problem but rather the abuse. It's not a violation of a person's liberty to impose regulations that are aimed at precluding abuse. In fact, it is a violation of the public's freedom not to do so.

Are there conditions where banning firearms should be not only permissible but also encouraged? Of course. But blanket rules are seldom effective. Design the rule to fit the case.

Finally, should the public be permitted to own or carry weapons that are designed for military and security use? For the most part, no, in my view, although I think that it is a good idea to provide venues for supervised use of such weapons within the bounds of reason. There is already an opportunity for people who want to use such weapons by joining the national guard, for example, if they don't want to be professional military.

BTW, I was in East Berlin during the Sixties and happened to see a man strolling down the street with a shotgun in a city that was heavily patrolled by police carrying submachine guns — that's what they were called then instead of assault rifles. Having come from Manhattan, I was quite surprised since that was unthinkable at the time in a large US city. But it was obvious that man was a hunter, and the police took no notice.

The Vineyard of the Saker
Saker rant: “Gun control” should only mean “hitting your target”
The Saker