Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
the reason civilian gun carry works it's because it works as a deterrence, the same way that mutual assured destruction prevented nuclear war. yes, it sounds absurd if you don't get the math, but it works. it's easy to rob and abuse helpless victims.
|
I don't think that that sounds absurd because of the math. The reason it seems absurd is because security based upon mutually-assured destruction is hardly the most civil scenario. At a certain point, that very solution maintains its own minimal level of violence through the culture of fear it produces. Certainly less crime is preferable to more crime, so repealing gun restrictions in some cases may have evident practical benefit, but I think that would require a slew of statistics and reliable sociology to determine that such a scenario is preferable. Would it makes sense to arm the populous in instances where there exists less crime than if you did arm everybody? Of course not. Also, there is that matter of guns bleeding in from de-regulated populations. It was the lesson of the Cold War that neither Comintern nor democracy was infectious but the mutually-assured destruction that they birthed. It isn't even about ideologies or justice at that point. It provides its own reason for being. Not a thing is more infectious than fear.