Valles Wrote:Civil order and liberty exist as separate though related factors within any given society, but neither correlates with the 'disarmament' of the citizenry. A violent and disorganized society will be so regardless of whether any given thug has a gun, a knife, or simply a rock picked up three seconds before the act. Compared to internal security apparati and the organizational superiority of real combat troops, the difficulty of acquiring illegal arms is at most a trivial factor in any popular insurrection.My, it was a busy day!
People who have a need for guns will acquire them, human nature and the presence of black markets being what they are, and people who don't, won't, not even from the corner drugstore. I, and the vast majority of those like me who are lucky enough to live someplace peaceable, have no earthly need of such a thing. Criminals, who live their lives in the expectation of violence, will seek them out no matter how firmly they're outlawed.
No amount of bleating about principles and the second amendment will change these facts. Go look at the education or news systems if you want to find a place your energy and outrage will actually accomplish something.
I would have to disagree with your argument. Easy access to firearms makes a dangerous society far more dangerous than it otherwise would be. And while it is certainly true that some criminals can get hold of illegal firearms, it is not true that this will lead to the same amount of usage of firearms as happens when they are easy and legal to acquire. In Britain and Japan, where guns are extremely hard to obtain, the level of gun crime as a percentage of all crime is very low compared to countries such as the United States. And virtually any weapon is less likely to kill a victim than a gun is.
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them... but they'll have a lot less. This does make a statistically significant difference.