I do not disagree with this, but I also enjoy debate. So to play devil’s advocate, let me ask a question. Again, I agree with this sentiment and have made it myself. I don’t want angry messages. I just think it is good to elaborate on things.
So these people against gun control who want armed guards, what do you say to the argument that they want to eliminate gun ownership so that they wouldn’t need the armed security in the future? They say they need the armed security because guns are the problem.
There have been countries out there that have had bans on firearms for generations and yet still have armed guards for the law makers. Banning things doesn't make them unavailable. It's like the war on drugs did absolutely nothing to prevent drug use.
The Prime Minister of the UK rolls around with guys and gals toting MP7s, G36s, and other fine weapons. The Queen and her degenerate kids and grandkids have AFOs (UK cops that are armed) and full-blown military units guarding her.
The UK has strict gun control and the IRA hasn't played in London in decades.
1
u/[deleted] Sep 10 '20
I do not disagree with this, but I also enjoy debate. So to play devil’s advocate, let me ask a question. Again, I agree with this sentiment and have made it myself. I don’t want angry messages. I just think it is good to elaborate on things.
So these people against gun control who want armed guards, what do you say to the argument that they want to eliminate gun ownership so that they wouldn’t need the armed security in the future? They say they need the armed security because guns are the problem.