From Nassim Taleb's Facebook:

I cannot possibly buy the argument that people need weapons in case the government fails them and democracy breaks down. If the narrative were true, someone over the past 5 years would have taken arms to express frustration with the banking establishment hijacking the political system for self-enrichment --one of the greatest iniquities ever, ever -- and other similar lobbyists, instead of using w weapons against schoolchildren and college students. The reason we have arms is gun lobby, period. To repeat the argument against the long peace, a weirdo with a knife can't go far. Just as I don't want to be in a plane with an armed gunman on board, I don't want weirdos with guns in civil society. Via Negativa: gun control is perhaps one of the very few things the government should do.

So to continue, let us examine the arguments against gun control, one by one. 1) Argument of self defense: mass murder weapons like automatic rifles is not compatible with "self defense" ("mass" in that context =weapons that can kill >4 persons). 2) Argument of government tyranny: Why don't gun advocates fight for the right of private citizens to own large tanks and atomic weapons? A semi/automatic rifle is too potent for self defense, and too weak against government tyranny. Its main use is on innocent crowds and, typically, schoolchildren.

For Henry Blodget's take, see here >