Guns and the State

Here is my point of contention;

It is not the gun that is the core of statism, but the weakness of individual resolve that allows faith to be put into the "state," which in turn goes power to the "state."

For my next trick, I'll twist your noodle, I would even offer that there is no state. It is myth, words, inanimate buildings, and documents. The state can do no harm to the individual, no more than a tree can. The state holds no power over men, nor grants them rights. Individual liberty comes from life itself. Submission to and worship of the state encourages those of ill repute to use it as the method of control and conquest over fellow men. 

What I take issue with is those who seek to infringe upon the liberties of others "in the name of the state" for gain. They make individual decisions to dismiss the principles of nonaggression and property rights, from which most all else is derived. Doing so in the name of the state is simply an excuse to commit aggression toward others without fear of consequence. Hold the individual responsible instead of the institution and those acts may well be relegated to history. 

When firearms are outlawed, crime rates rise naturally, though similar assaults remain. Think of it in economic terms if you will. Aggression simply takes on another method, but is not abated. (google John Lott or Masaad Ayoob) If a factor which reduces violent crime is removed (private firearms ownership), the criminal actors will patronize that market willingly. Think of the UK after its miserable handgun ban, with violent crime rates skyrocketing 40% in only the first few years.  

It is not the gun which is the danger, but the person who wields it. It can no more harm you than the tree. As devout Second Amendment supporters will no doubt conclude, guns are not the problem, but the criminal which uses that tool for ill intent.

The initiation of force comes from the individual, not the state. The state simply encourages that aggression.