The harm from guns is far, far clearer, and they are far less essential or relevant to daily life, especially for young adults.

Also the US is basically the only country which sees lethality as a "right".

The harm from unaccountable governments who treat their constitutions like suggestions is far greater still, though. It's not about the guns, it's about the list. If you're an American who's not outraged by Emanuel's statement -- on guns or on social media for that matter -- it's because you feel privilege that you may not actually possess.

On that subject, it's certainly a strange time to argue for government's role as the holder of a monopoly on the tools of violence, isn't it? The human consequences of this misguided philosophy ran well into eight figures in the 20th century alone.

In any case... say what you will about the US, we won't shoot you at the border for trying to leave.

> On that subject, it's certainly a strange time to argue for government's role as the holder of a monopoly on the tools of violence, isn't it? The human consequences of this misguided philosophy ran well into eight figures in the 20th century alone.

Sounds like you think the argument people are making is that it ought to have the monopoly?

I think the argument is that whoever doesn't have that monopoly, can't call themselves a government… at least not for very long. Reason being, not having a monopoly necessarily requires someone else is doing violence and cannot be stopped by the so-called government, which means the so-called government is weak and at risk of being taken over, perhaps by the people doing the violence, perhaps by a outside "peacekeeping" force.

It's OK for the government to have the best guns, and in fact (as you suggest) that state of affairs is pretty much unavoidable for any government worthy of the name.

It's not OK for the government to have all the guns.

Given that, it's necessary to consider who should have legal access to guns and who should not.

What we call the "No-fly list" is an abhorrently-wrong way to do that.

> It's not OK for the government to have all the guns.

Why?

The argument I've heard Americans give over the years is to stop authoritarian governments, to keep the government "scared" of the people.

Yet people in the USA are now being snatched off the street and deported for what is supposed to be protected by the first amendment: speech.

Clearly literally getting shot at didn't keep Trump "scared".

> In any case... say what you will about the US, we won't shoot you at the border for trying to leave.

How does this alleged virtue square away with everything else that's going on?

There ara bunch of murdered Venezuelan fishermen right now that never came even remotely close to the border, let alone transiting it in either direction.

"Say what you will about zombies eating your brains, at least they won't eat your eyes."