Which is interesting because there are more human attackers in the cities

A theory I like is that rural living tends to make people self-reliant. Urban living makes people dependent.

people in citys have a stronger force acting on them than self preservation

media

So when you're at risk of being attacked, rural people will tend to ask what they might do to protect themselves. Urbanites will tend to ask what it would take to get someone else to take care of them.

besides the government doesent get to spend your tax money on defending you if you can defend yourself

The problem there is that the latter isn't really feasible

Government generally doesn't defend you. Government cleans up the mess afterwards.

Feasibility doesn't matter. Appearance of Feasibility does.

The government doesn't defend you in the present tense. The government tries to disincentivize attacking you and tries to punish your attacker

See but that's where we get into the cognitive dissonance

The argument makes some sense. IF the attacker cannot get a gun THEN they cannot attack you with said gun.

Wherein the left hates both cops and self defense

Or at least the most efficient method of self defense

The weakness is that the government doesn't actually tend to succeed at stopping people.

That argument tends to lead to spoon licenses.

police CAN work

But if you accept the premise, the logic is sound. And the government can at least make it harder for law abiding people and reduce the number in circulation.

Oi m8

But in practice, guns still find their ways into the hands of gangs and the like.

Police can work in some ways yes

but modern police dont work

Like in Chicago, where handguns are banned and nobody gets killed with handguns.

But they cannot defend you

Even in places with gun bans.

It's infeasible unless you live close enough to a station

Or a cop happens to be in the area

theres actually no reason for the militarization of police, if you really think about the weapons police are facing, they havent really changed in lethality since ww2

Police help. It is a deterrent if nothing else. And the law must have a lawman in charge of enforcing it. Or it's pointless.

They've arguably become worse

I wish liberals would stop focusing on HOW people are killing each other and focus instead on WHY people are killing each other. They'd probably have lots of good ideas for tackling that problem. They're much better suited for solving issues of motivation than conservatives.

In the 40s you could own military weaponry

And then in the 60s and 80s they started walking shit back

Kennedy & Reagan.

Complete knee-jerk reaction too, as laws passed wouldn't have stopped the assassins.

That's how most regulation tends to work, TBH.

Like obviously there are still people who get ahold of modern automatics and shit, but for the most part cops deal with handguns afaik

There was a famous case where some bank robbers got some rather high-quality weapons and some high-grade body armor and went absolutely ballistic.

Automatic weapons, whether legally owned or illegally modified, are exceptionally rare in crimes.

That spooked the police forces into arming up.

But I'm also not in agreement with those people who seem to always seem to assume fault with LEOs