5 ms·
That's primarily because gun bans or gun control are a net benefit whilst letting your poor and old starve is a net negative.
by tornadoboy55 10y ago
That's primarily because gun bans or gun control are a net benefit whilst letting your poor and old starve is a net negative.
- jimmywanger 10y ago> because gun bans or gun control are a net benefit. If you really believe that, compare/contrast most dictatorships with the United States, Switzerland, and Israel. Gun control is something that oppressive rulers always try to implement as soon as possible.
- doubleplusgood 10y agoGun control in Israel is pretty strict for civilians but you make a good point.
- beat 10y agoThis logic is countered by the many peaceful, democratic nations with strong gun control laws - the majority of them, really.
- jimmywanger 10y agoNo, I'm saying that weak gun control is not a complete bad. A lot of functional states have all sorts of gun control laws. However, all (as far as I know) totalitarian states have strong gun control laws. I can't think of a single one which had a permissive attitude toward the civilian ownership of guns. I'm speaking of course of de jure gun control laws, not the de facto possession of guns by the population.
- aanm1988 10y agoI for one am glad we have not gone down the path of the hellhole that is Australia.