If(for example) letting people having guns prevents 1000 crimes a month and banning guns prevents 1 crime a month(and allows the 1000 to happen) which would you choose?
Most crimes are done with hand guns. Not talking about general crimes. I am talking about militia style weapons that can take out 50 plus people in seconds.
Plus you're not considering people who live in rural ares where the nearest police are 15+ minutes from your home. A pistol is not an adequate deterrent to keep thieves or worse away.
I don't think you can make a case for banning ARs on the basis of preventing mass killing. If you somehow make it impossible to buy legally and find illegally they'll use bombs/trucks.
It seems extremely callous to just trade the lives of victims of mass shootings to keep the balance of power between cities and the country in tact, BUT, the other option is tyranny.
The electoral college is a similar check on feudalism(power centralized in cities). It forces candidates to make campaign promises to ppl in both cities AND the country to get elected.
Basically, the ability to own a powerful long gun allows people who live in the country to accumulate more wealth. Otherwise you become a target. Those guns are a check on feudalism.
