11 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI believe everyone on the planet should be as armed as they care to be, and it especially holds true for nations.
So basically both you and DrS support Iran's nuclear program then?
Once everyone knows that everyone else is armed, people become much more polite.
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhich is all well and good until the kids get their hands on those weapons, the Collumbine massacres wouldn't have been nearly so bad had those kids only have a ruler and lumps of eraser to ping at people instead of handguns, no? Same's true with nukes. All good, until undesirables (i.e. govts who won't hesitate to use them, for example) get ahold of them.
I believe everyone on the planet should be as armed as they care to be, and it especially holds true for nations.
Once everyone knows that everyone else is armed, people become much more polite.
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzBelieve this: if every drive-by pissant knew that every pedestrian was armed to the teeth with counter-measure weaponry, those drive-by folks would have to do so with so much haste, they'd likely miss their intended targets, or -surprise!- just not do it at all.
Which is all well and good until the kids get their hands on those weapons, the Collumbine massacres wouldn't have been nearly so bad had those kids only have a ruler and lumps of eraser to ping at people instead of handguns, no? Same's true with nukes. All good, until undesirables (i.e. govts who won't hesitate to use them, for example) get ahold of them.
12 Jan 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHVery good. But what if none of them had weapons at all? Wouldn't that also prevent 'collatoral damage' too? Or are people caught in the [both proverbial and physical] cross fire somehow worth less in your eyes?
Believe this: if every drive-by pissant knew that every pedestrian was armed to the teeth with counter-measure weaponry, those drive-by folks would have to do so with so much haste, they'd likely miss their intended targets, or -surprise!- just not do it at all.
13 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeI personally still think nuclear power is a bad way to boil water considering it leaves toxic waste with a half-life of thousands of years. I think it's unwise for ANY country to rely on it for any part of their energy needs. Nonetheless, many countries do and I see no reason why Iran shouldn't be "allowed" to if other countries are.
What ever happened to the Left and their opposition against any form of nuclear energy ?
14 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderNonetheless, many countries do and I see no reason why Iran shouldn't be "allowed" to if other countries are.
I personally still think nuclear power is a bad way to boil water considering it leaves toxic waste with a half-life of thousands of years. I think it's unwise for ANY country to rely on it for any part of their energy needs.
Great. Now I need to re-think my entire position on this issue. Thanks for nothing, No1.
14 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzPut it this way. Let's say you had an hankering for firing at my neighbor, but you had to fire across my land to get at him.
glad to see you debating your little socks off there sonny.
If you knew I was fully equipped with enough fire power to cause you damage, and that I was very likely to return fire in whatever direction it comes, would you think twice about firing across my stretch of land?
Sure, you would.
Like any leader of any country, you would count the cost of going to battle against my neighbor through my yard, and make the determination whether picking up another enemy was worth accessing your current one through that unknown territory.
Most thugs use handguns precisely because they think others won't do the same.
Most thugs hang out in larger populations, where there may be a greater sense of false security in the same.
You don't see any thugs in my 'neighborhood' precisely because said thugs are aware that most landowners out here in the country side/farm area not only carry personal protection, but house multiple choices of weaponry.
Who would try a drive-by when the houses in and around the target would likely open fire on the vehicle? 'Survival of the fittest award' in this case goes to the better-armed folks.
In short, arm everyone, and watch politeness return to society.
14 Jan 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd the kids that end up getting shot up in the middle are still the ones who lose. In the current world that's the poor US and UK soldiers who are getting sent off to fight in a war which has nothing to do with WMD.
Put it this way. Let's say you had an hankering for firing at my neighbor, but you had to fire across my land to get at him.
If you knew I was fully equipped with enough fire power to cause you damage, and that I was very likely to return fire in whatever direction it comes, would you think twice about firing across my stretch of land?
Sure, you would. ...[text shortened]... he better-armed folks.
In short, arm everyone, and watch politeness return to society.
14 Jan 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAlthough its a a nice thought that criminals wouldn't use weapons for fear of retaliation, your argument doesn't work in practice.
Put it this way. Let's say you had an hankering for firing at my neighbor, but you had to fire across my land to get at him.
If you knew I was fully equipped with enough fire power to cause you damage, and that I was very likely to return fire in whatever direction it comes, would you think twice about firing across my stretch of land?
Sure, you would. ...[text shortened]... he better-armed folks.
In short, arm everyone, and watch politeness return to society.
U.S. Policemen still get shot despite being very well armed.
Gang war drive-by shootings still occur even though its well known that the target gang is able to respond in kind.
Many law-abiding citizens in America are already armed yet are still victims of crime.
If everyone was armed then more people would be killed, both accidentally and deliberately.
In my view, your solution would only increase the already tragically high death rate from guns in the U.S
I appreciate you may live out in the country and probably feel safer for owning weapons yourself but can you really believe that arming all city dwellers is a good idea to prevent gun crime?
Similarly with nuclear weapons - the more people that have them, the greater the chance of a strike. Proliferation for reasons of 'fairness' or 'deterrence' (or any other reason) is a bad idea.