The funniest thing of all: people don't read my posts. For if they did, they'd stop arguing against things I haven't said.
Go back and read them, and then you'll discover my position on guns. It addresses the faults of the system and factors in the most blatantly obvious statistical data.
Go back and read them, and then you'll discover my position on guns. It addresses the faults of the system and factors in the most blatantly obvious statistical data.
If only your solution was not worse than the problem, more people would agree.
The ideal world, where the police inside all our heads prevents harm to others may be preferable. The solution with the competent authority that can adequately respond to any threat has police on every corner. The internal police state costs a lot less to society than the external police state. mdude77 may be alluding to this state of grace, but uses "Godly" (which can be very confusing).
It may be prudent to spend your efforts on the cure for the need to protect ourselves rather than the symptom of protecting yourself. The way to "gun reduction" does not live in the law, but in creating a better world. Forced disarmament is unkind.
The same process works all the way up to nuclear disarmament. You don't get from here to there with demands, laws, and threats. You get there from agreement and "yes, you are right, we don't need any more of these than we already have even though some are getting rusty."
