ha, now you understand why we like our 2nd amendment rights here in the states.
Of course I get it. But it isn't so black & white. My argument is, if we are going for security, then have a tough Government, strict strict laws and big deterrents. If we are going for freedom, then scale it right back, let the people sort there shit out. It seems to me you can't have freedom and security. It is either one or the other. Large scale gun ownership seems the perfect situation in an anarchistic environment, but little to no gun ownership seems a better deal in an environment looking for maximum security.
With guns, it's a matter of taking the punt, do I want to expose myself to a greater chance of being harmed by letting everyone own guns, but at least have a gun myself if it does happen, or do I wish to drastically lower the odds of needing a gun in the first place by disarming the majority. Under the current paradigm, I prefer the latter option, but if society moves more towards a sate of anarchy and lawlessness, then I would choose the gun option. i think though, once society moves in this direction it will be hard to turn back, we will find ourselves in a modern day wild west.
I don't pretend to know all the answers. The older I get, the more shades of grey I see.
