Because you seemed to assume that I was talking about banning guns.
A Weekend in Chicago
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
I don't know if the Australian situation is analogous to the American situation. My whole point is that Americans in general think that gun ownership makes them safer.
Recently, a young woman was killed by a gunman and her father went on TV with an impassioned speech against gun violence. He concluded by saying that because of his public stance against guns, he was likely to become a target for some people and he would probably have to get a gun. THAT is the problem: the belief that you can solve the problem of gun violence with guns.
Incomplete. Other parties - such as the citizenry - have an interest in the security of a free State.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Eh? I'd have thought a free state is its citzenry. But in any case my contention is that such security, in a modern setting, no longer requires in any way that the citizens carry guns. In fact the reverse it now true: carrying guns reduces the security of a state, rather than enhancing it!
And you are welcome to your opinion, noting that others will find it shortsighted and ill informed by history - which was the reasons for the examples of the KKK, LA riots, current situation in Central and South America, etc.exchemist said:
And also that even if correct - if all guns in private hands vanished overnight, magic, the free state would remain secure - there remains the existence of the guns and the right in the US. The ideal free State being secure disarmed does not guarantee that such security would survive all (or even most) of the commonly suggested means of getting from the current State to that one.