3 ms·

Actually More permissive & lax gun laws -> More police militarization to preserve the competitive advantage -> More govt spending local or federal -> Less spend

by notNow 11y ago

Actually More permissive & lax gun laws -> More police militarization to preserve the competitive advantage -> More govt spending local or federal -> Less spending on other sectors such as health and education BTW I'm centrist on the issue of gun ownership & carrying but I just wanted to point out the flaw in your deduction.

throwaway1967 11y ago
> Actually More permissive & lax gun laws -> More police militarization to preserve the competitive advantage Are you sure your arrow there means causation? Explain like I'm five, why do you think the police feels it needs to compete with law-abiding gun-carrying citizens? I've never heard of this silly idea before, but maybe I'm silly and you have a great argument for that. If you had said "the more guns in criminals' hands, the more police militarization to preserve advantage" then I'd agree with you but I'd ask to see how you know the number of guns in criminals' hands. 0.001% of law-abiding gun holders are a problem for the police. 100% of criminals are a problem for the police, whether they're carrying guns, knives, or a closed fist.