I live in the United States, where mass shootings and gun violence are a real and traumatic problem.
I’m not proposing fear-based laws — I’m proposing ways to reduce violence while respecting liberty.
My goal is to focus on behavior and risk, not to punish peaceful people for crimes they did not commit.
Gun ownership itself is not the problem; violent intent, instability, and failure to intervene early are.
A libertarian approach should:
Protect the right of peaceful citizens to own firearms
Intervene only when there is clear, proven risk, with due process
Avoid blanket bans or collective punishment
I also believe there is an important distinction between private property and public shared spaces.
On private property, firearm possession should be 100% legal, subject only to the owner’s rules.
Your home, land, or business is your responsibility, and property rights should be respected fully.
In public spaces, however, limited and clearly defined restrictions on carrying firearms can be justified to reduce risk in shared environments — provided these rules are:
Narrow in scope
Neutral and non-discriminatory
Focused on prevention, not punishment
Paired with strong protections for ownership and due process
This approach respects self-defense and property rights while acknowledging that public spaces require a higher standard of safety and trust.
Reducing violence and protecting liberty are not opposites.
When done carefully, they reinforce each other.
Switzerland’s gun laws are often cited as a model for balancing firearm ownership with public safety, and they align in some ways with the approach you’re describing. But there are some nuances to understand. Let me break it down carefully:
Private Ownership
Swiss citizens are allowed to own firearms, including rifles and pistols, with certain licenses.
Many Swiss men keep their military-issued rifles at home (part of the militia system).
Ownership is largely based on responsibility, training, and background checks.
Libertarian angle: This respects property rights and allows peaceful citizens to have guns, similar to your principle that private property should allow firearms.
Regulated Access
To buy a firearm, you need a permit. For handguns or semi-automatic weapons, there are stricter checks.
People with criminal records, documented instability, or other risk factors are generally denied.
There is a mandatory “cooling-off” period in some cases.
Libertarian angle: This is intervention only when there is clear, proven risk, aligning with your idea of behavior-focused regulation rather than blanket bans.
Public Spaces
Carrying firearms in public is more regulated than ownership at home.
You usually need a specific permit to carry in public.
Certain sensitive areas (schools, government buildings) are off-limits.
Libertarian angle: This mirrors your idea of narrow, neutral restrictions in shared spaces, focused on prevention and public safety.
Culture and Responsibility
Gun ownership in Switzerland comes with training, mandatory military service for men, and a strong sense of civic responsibility.
Firearms are treated as tools that come with social expectations.
Insight: The law alone doesn’t prevent violence; the culture and training are a huge factor in low gun crime despite high ownership.
I agree that culture is the major determining factor for gun violence. I do not agree that the state has the right to restrict one’s self defense. The right to bear arms is a human right that should not be infringed upon by any state.
I think the preventative solution must come from our culture, where to root of the problem would lie, and not from the state. For instance, reputable weapons sellers may require third-party licensure (not state licensure). Also, perhaps community firearm events would be a proper solution as well.
Regulations only prevent law-abiding citizens from breaking the law and serves only to disarm those who would potentially operate in a defensive capacity when necessary, especially in public. Many shootings happen in gun-free zones (which is an enforceable right on private property) for a reason.
I’d also like to mention that many shootings in America have produced extremely incriminating evidence against the government being more than just involved in the coordinating of those horrible events. A cursory look into the 2017 Las Vegas shooting will provide a great example.
Depending on culture, there may be more risks associated with mass gun ownership, but:
Dangerous freedom must be preferential to peaceful slavery
As long as guns exist, gun violence will exist. There is no alternative. The best defense is a well armed and well trained society.
Gun laws. Truly a challenging topic. Why not stick to the ten commandments in the Bible, like “Thou shalt not kill" and Thou shalt not covet …"
It’s been established that a city with a population of 20.000 or more inhabitants (give or take) will experience an exponential rise in conflicts, violence and criminality. Why? Probably because groups and ghettos are forming that don’t communicate with each other when resolving problems.
I think people should be allowed to keep arms at home without restrictions (no permit). Besides, I guess carrying a gun in public places shouldn’t be necessary for now in LL.