They arent worse options. You just wanna tell yourself you've got some moral highground.

Are you going to make any attempt whatsoever to justify that claim?

Everything you said after this is worthless. Its all you pretending that you need hierarchy to solve problems because your weak.

Ancaps literally say the same thing about poor people and socialists. Also, curious that this was in my opinion the best argument I made in my entire post and it turns out to be the one point that you just completely and very vocally ignored.

Since you ignored this very important point, I'm just going to drill it in by rewording every single argument you made to make it be against killing in self-defense since that is entirely analogous to the position you're arguing.

"Killing in self defense is all just you pretending that you need violence to solve problems because you just want to kill people."

"Your still pretending killing in self-defense is any better at magically stopping people from being violent. Why is that? Because you know it's needless violence that doesn't help the problem perhaps?"

"Killing in self-defense is literally what we've got now. Yea, that's been proven ineffective sweetie, people are still violent."

"No, any violence is bad. You support your own right to kill, nothing more. You don't want real change, just different people committing the violence."

Do you see any problem in these arguments? How would you respond to them? Whatever your response is, just take it and then flip it back around to be about freedom. Now you know what all my takes are on all of these things.

But it won't tho. I wouldnt of even wasted time on you if I knew you were just gonna deny outright statistics lol.

How can I deny statistics when you have provided no statistics for me to deny? Are you seriously making the claim that making something illegal has absolutely no effect on how many people do it though? Am I getting that right?

Yup. Same as going out without an umbrella when it rains gets ya wet.

And if you can't find food you starve, that's just now nature works. That's the argument ancaps use to justify wage slavery. Damn, maybe the fact that societies have control over food distribution and law enforcement but not over the fucking weather is an important detail? Maybe we should try to maximize freedom in all the ways we are physically capable of while not going any further than that on account of it being literally impossible?

Nah. Your just conflating everything with rules.

If you evade taxes, you run the risk of getting your ass locked up and/or fined by the state. If you go outside without a gun in your ideal world, you run the risk of getting your shit nicked and/or decked by whoever you may meet. We could talk semantics all day, but in terms of their actual effect on a person's day to day life these two things are basically identical. Do the thing or face the consequences. Should we not try to minimize that as much as possible?

But they are physically forcing me. Thats what the law is. Did you not think your shitty ass comparison through or what? I am under threat of punishment if I break laws. You arent for being unarmed.

As a wise scholar once said:

"You think pigs some how would magically teleport there before the initial shooter shot then? If this is your reasoning then explain it out."

Laws don't stop you from doing shit, all they do is apply a consequence to actions which tends to control human behavior on account of humans being (at least in theory) I

The only difference between those two situations is that one of them is called "law" and the other one is called "crime". Both have the same effect on people, both are within our control, and you only give a shit about one of them for reasons that are completely beyond me.