> why would proliferation of firearms be the opposite of modern society? In the past, guns and weapons generally were required to survive for folks outside of

> why would proliferation of firearms be the opposite of modern society? In the past, guns and weapons generally were required to survive for folks outside of cities. That is not the case today. I see this as a move towards the modern - a society that can solve problems without the use of guns. I mean a combination of both higher numbers and how widespread guns are. That said, I think the case law supporting the 2nd amendment to the level it is today is flawed, but I understand that given past rulings the only legal things to do are: a) allow basically any and all guns with no restrictions or b) overturn past decisions on the matter. Even with all of that the cat is out of the bag in the US - there are too many guns to remove. Beyond the US, 3D printing will make creating a gun at home somewhat trivial in the near future. I don't know how we dig out of that hole societally.