No, it is inconsistent. To say you stand against tyranny but are not willing to take the measures and responsibility necessary to negate tyranny is logically incongruent.
I usually don't agree with you, but I'm always happy that you're willing to take unpopular stances. Groupthink is tiresome.
That said, the public need more guns, not fewer. Our "betters" should fear us. It keeps them in check.
States with the highest levels of gun ownership also have the lowest gun violence. States with the most aggressive anti-gun legislation overwhelmingly have the worst gun violence. Virtually all the gun violence is perpetrated by people who don't legally own guns, they're virtually all black, young, males, and members of gangs. There's your violence problem.
And what does it even matter if they have guns? "Gun violence" is such a stupid statistic. Yeah all the criminals and gangs would be friends and not commit crimes but the magic gun gave them the idea to be a criminal.
States with the highest levels of gun ownership also have the lowest gun violence. States with the most aggressive anti-gun legislation overwhelmingly have the worst gun violence.
Cause and causation are not the same for both of these examples. conservative states tend to support gun rights, and they have more weapons, they also tend to be more homogenous, so its not necessarily the guns that make it safe, but a combination of these factors. there would still be violence if those gang members had 'legal' guns, too.
I am aware of the link between loose gun laws and lower gun crime rates, and how even pro-gun control folks have to admit that.
The issue is that in some European countries, gun crime is already so low that it has no way to go but up in case of free gun ownership. At least, that is what I expect. If there were tons of guns, I'd agree with you.
Hers are logically inconsistent, to an extreme.
I oppose the crackdown on the truckers, and I also don't want free gun ownership in my country.
But I'm European, and no one here wants free gun ownership.
Which is why you are inferior. Citizens unwilling to fight for themselves will not fight for each other.
Whether or not I am is not the point.
My point is that you have to understand that people can disagree with you without being 'bad' or inconsistent.
No, it is inconsistent. To say you stand against tyranny but are not willing to take the measures and responsibility necessary to negate tyranny is logically incongruent.
I usually don't agree with you, but I'm always happy that you're willing to take unpopular stances. Groupthink is tiresome.
That said, the public need more guns, not fewer. Our "betters" should fear us. It keeps them in check.
States with the highest levels of gun ownership also have the lowest gun violence. States with the most aggressive anti-gun legislation overwhelmingly have the worst gun violence. Virtually all the gun violence is perpetrated by people who don't legally own guns, they're virtually all black, young, males, and members of gangs. There's your violence problem.
And what does it even matter if they have guns? "Gun violence" is such a stupid statistic. Yeah all the criminals and gangs would be friends and not commit crimes but the magic gun gave them the idea to be a criminal.
Cause and causation are not the same for both of these examples. conservative states tend to support gun rights, and they have more weapons, they also tend to be more homogenous, so its not necessarily the guns that make it safe, but a combination of these factors. there would still be violence if those gang members had 'legal' guns, too.
I am aware of the link between loose gun laws and lower gun crime rates, and how even pro-gun control folks have to admit that.
The issue is that in some European countries, gun crime is already so low that it has no way to go but up in case of free gun ownership. At least, that is what I expect. If there were tons of guns, I'd agree with you.
Your loss. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Switzerland is in Europe last time I checked ?