> Yes, but only one side has the guns.
Aside from the unnecessary inflammatory injection of firearms, I'd like to clarify and say "only one side thinks only they have the guns". Not that this should matter in a civilized country.
Aside from the unnecessary inflammatory injection of firearms, I'd like to clarify and say "only one side thinks only they have the guns". Not that this should matter in a civilized country.
It should be very clear by now that "civilization" is more fragile than we'd like to believe.
Society, including the systems that protect you from bad actors, could break down, and quickly.
When it comes to guns, the absense of "government" is an under-appreciated possibility.
Wait: were guns useful in 1991 to non-gangsters?
You acknowledge the rise of organized crime in a power vacuum, but doubt the utility of self-defense in that environment?
A broad organized militia may be able to monopolize enough force to keep organized crime in check... and congratulations, you've just reinvented policing from first principles.
Yes, in the absense of government protection (scroll up)