Gun rights

[opaltiger]

It really helps keep peace, why can't it work on the smaller scale of guns?

Because the entire point of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is that the scale is so unimaginably huge. The premise of mutually assured destruction is that any one country using nuclear weapons would be retaliated against by all the other countries with nuclear weapons, thus causing near-universal devastation of the planet. Hence, no one is going to use nuclear weapons in the first place. Also: it helps keep the peace? Really?

Unless you can argue that guns are equally as destructive as nuclear weapons your argument is useless. Also, I'm sure anyone would agree that universal disarmament would be preferable to the current situation. Nuclear weapons are seen as necessary because of their role as deterrents, but if no one had them no one would need them. Just like guns!

 

[Pwnemon]

>Universal Disarmament
>Someone hides a gun somewhere
>OH SH*T

This makes me think of those situations of a one world power. they never seem to end well.

 

[Minish]

Have you ever heard of nuclear terrorism, Pwnemon? Sounds nasty, doesn't it? What about the possibility of suicidal nuclear terrorism?

I wonder how we could prevent that happening? Because I really don't think everyone having nuclear weapons in order to "keep the peace" is going to work there.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

>Universal Disarmament
>Someone hides a gun somewhere
>OH SH*T

This makes me think of those situations of a one world power. they never seem to end well.

First of all, no one is arguing for universal disarmament.

Second of all, if your logic held true, then the first person to build a gun would have taken over the world. Shockingly enough, they didn't. It goes more like this;

> Universal Disarmament
> No one hides a gun anywhere, because it's universal disarmament, not almost-universal disarmament
> Less people die per annum

Or

> Almost-universal Disarmament
> Someone hides a gun somewhere
> We lob a brick at his head or knock him down with a car or throw a grenade at him or sneak up behind him and crack him over the head with a rock or shoot him with a non-lethal arm

Or

> Almost-universal Disarmament
> Someone hides a gun somewhere
> That person does nothing with the gun because not everyone is a megalomaniac who wants to take over the world

Or

> Almost-universal Disarmament
> Someone hides a gun somewhere
> That person has no ammo, so he does nothing with the gun

Or

> Almost-universal Disarmament
> Someone hides a gun somewhere
> That person uses up all their ammo and because of the otherwise-universal disarmament, the amount of gun crime in the world for that year is still lower than the amount of gun crime in the USA in one month.

Interesting implication; you seem to believe that the one person who keeps the gun, someone who obviously believes in the right to bear arms, would want to shoot people/terrorise people/take over the world with it. In other words, you're implying that any pro-gun rights person would cause havoc with their guns if given the opportunity. Discuss.

 

[Tarvos]

Why don't you just knife the motherfucker with a throwing knife?

 

[1. Luftballon]

why don't we disarm the world by eliminating all humans?

 

[Tarvos]

Sure. Try me.

 

[PK]

why don't we disarm the world by eliminating all humans?

i like this plan, but unfortunately, the guns will still be there for the monkeys to use

 

[Karkat Vantas]

i like this plan, but unfortunately, the guns will still be there for the monkeys to use

Yeah, but the monkeys can't shoot any of us because we'll all be dead.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Yeah, but the monkeys can't shoot any of us because we'll all be dead.

But we wouldn't want the monkeys to hurt each other, would we?