> Michael M. Butler wrote:
>
> > >and they may not be the most practical method of ensuring
> > >your own personal autonomy and freedom.
> >
> > This, while it is arguable, is a complete non-sequitur. The "if
> > this is so, then" part of your sentence suggests a sequitur for
> > which I find no evidence in any of the rest of your post. Are you,
> > perhaps, throwing sand in the bull's eyes?
>
> Huh? If the aggregate external costs are greater than the aggregate
> external benefits
That's exactly the question. ARE the aggregate external costs
greater than the aggregate external benefits?
The early evidence says not.
For example, a randomly-selected American is -- even according to the
most anti-gun of the credible studies -- many times more likely to
use a gun in a successful defense against a crime, than to be injured
by a gun.
But this apparently contrafactual hypothesis is the basis for your
entire argument.
US$500 fee for receipt of unsolicited commercial email. USC 47.5.II.227