The question of the state's employment of violence, the means by which it does so, and the costs entailed by maintaining those means, has nothing whatever to do with the question of whether it is or is not good social policy to allow deadly weapons to circulate widely among the citizenry.
Surely you will not maintain your opposition to, say, purchase of a newly designed warplane, or the procurement of a great quantity of ammunition, owes in any great part to a distaste for firearms? You oppose spending monies on the military because you do not like the uses the state puts its military power to, and feel the money better spent on other things.
Nor do people who wish to see this 'second amendment, second amendment' nonesense discarded, and some reasonable restrictions on ownership of firearms, do so because they just hate guns, hates 'em to pieces. People wish this curbed because it is clearly harmful to civil order, and exacts a toll of pain and tragedy that can be in no wise balanced by any benefit wide distribution of firearms among the populace confers on society.
= new reply since forum marked as read
