I think the two biggest arguments against guns are relevancy and efficiency if you really want to go down that road.
Relevancy: Back in the 1700s it was more likely they could fight back against the government because it was smaller and didn't have the resources it does now. Now, how do you go about overthrowing it, and if we succeeded, what would/could we replace it with that wouldn't fall to the same corruption that led to having to overthrow it in the first place? If that's your only reason for keeping guns it seems more like an illusion of security than any real security.
Efficiency: This would require being able to compare all the accidental deaths with success stories to see if the pros are worth accepting the cons. I'd be interested on the data of that if there is any.
Relevancy: Back in the 1700s it was more likely they could fight back against the government because it was smaller and didn't have the resources it does now. Now, how do you go about overthrowing it, and if we succeeded, what would/could we replace it with that wouldn't fall to the same corruption that led to having to overthrow it in the first place? If that's your only reason for keeping guns it seems more like an illusion of security than any real security.
Efficiency: This would require being able to compare all the accidental deaths with success stories to see if the pros are worth accepting the cons. I'd be interested on the data of that if there is any.
![[Image: Ip4ZfOm.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Ip4ZfOm.png)
