I'm not arguing with you; I'm just pointing out that running passed 6 castles on the way to a particularly defensible one was a tactical mistake (assuming your

I'm not arguing with you; I'm just pointing out that running passed 6 castles on the way to a particularly defensible one was a tactical mistake (assuming your goal is to hold on to as much of the bailey as possible, rather than just "win" the argument). Your point is a good one; the claim that guns are without externalities is obviously false. A more interesting claim for you to attack: externalities are hardly the only thing that matters. Governments need to choose an operating point between citizen freedom and preventing the harms caused by those freedoms. Without just pointing to the exact same numbers you used, why is your operating point better than OP's operating point? What are you exchanging when you move from one to the other? Are you actually increasing Pareto efficiency? Who is harmed under your operating point that is less harmed under OP's, and why should we be willing to harm them?