[tornadoboy55]

That's primarily because gun bans or gun control are a net benefit whilst letting your poor and old starve is a net negative.

[jimmywanger]

> because gun bans or gun control are a net benefit.

If you really believe that, compare/contrast most dictatorships with the United States, Switzerland, and Israel.

Gun control is something that oppressive rulers always try to implement as soon as possible.

[beat]

This logic is countered by the many peaceful, democratic nations with strong gun control laws - the majority of them, really.

[jimmywanger]

No, I'm saying that weak gun control is not a complete bad. A lot of functional states have all sorts of gun control laws.

However, all (as far as I know) totalitarian states have strong gun control laws. I can't think of a single one which had a permissive attitude toward the civilian ownership of guns.

I'm speaking of course of de jure gun control laws, not the de facto possession of guns by the population.

[aanm1988]

I for one am glad we have not gone down the path of the hellhole that is Australia.

[doubleplusgood]

Gun control in Israel is pretty strict for civilians but you make a good point.