I agree with ItDuz. Guns are illegal here so the only people who use them, use them to threaten the rest of us.
It's a bit like countries with nuclear weapons threatening countries that don't have them, and telling these countries they can't have them. That's the English model on an international scale.
The American model would be better. Allow the right to bear arms and thus give nukes to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea. Unless, of course, anyone has a problem with this.
And, yes, I'm being deliberately provocative to illustrate the point that neither banning arms or embracing them works particularly well. What works better is diplomacy. Notice how atomic weaponry was invented and moved on rapidly during WWII, moved on more slowly during the Cold War, and now during largely peacable times barely moves on at all?
If diplomacy had been practised a millennium ago, maybe we'd have no nuclear weapons, no guns, and perhaps not even longbows or clubs.
Do you own firearms?
← View full post
I agree with ItDuz. Guns are illegal here so the only people who use them, use them to threaten the rest of us.
It's a bit like countries with nuclear weapons threatening countries that don't have them, and telling these countries they can't have them. That's the English model on an international scale.
The American model would be better. Allow the right to bear arms and thus give nukes to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea. Unless, of course, anyone has a problem with this.
And, yes, I'm being deliberately provocative to illustrate the point that neither banning arms or embracing them works particularly well. What works better is diplomacy. Notice how atomic weaponry was invented and moved on rapidly during WWII, moved on more slowly during the Cold War, and now during largely peacable times barely moves on at all?
If diplomacy had been practised a millennium ago, maybe we'd have no nuclear weapons, no guns, and perhaps not even longbows or clubs.