sundin13 said:
ConservagameR said:
Pretty much. The more you have and more damage they can cause, the less trouble you tend to have overall. Combine them and you reduce even further. That doesn't mean no trouble whatsoever, even internally. It wasn't connected to anything prior to the point about US citizens donating some guns to Ukraine. While Ukraine's past arsenal also made a point, the main point was how important defense is and why it's better to take it more seriously and go overboard than not. Which is part of the reason why the US is so well armed. Trying to find the perfect balance is obviously the best solution if you can find it and implement it, which is much easier said than done. Not everyone requires the same level of defense. Some places like Canada or Australia don't arm themselves anywhere near the amount they could simply due to their geography and environment. |
So...there's no point about guns and school shootings here? I mean, if you want to argue that there is value in nuclear weapons, there is some truth to that but this doesn't seem like the place. If you want to try to make an argument for arming the populace to reduce crime on the other hand, that is a pretty garbage argument although coincidentally this would be just the place to make it. |
Had a chuckle when this popped up in my YouTube feed today. Reminded me of this recent post. Seems like Stossel is trying to make the argument.
