3 ms·
The problem with having everybody possess potentially deathly tools is not terrorism, but crime in general. I, for myself, can think of a lot more crimes commit
by chki 11y ago
The problem with having everybody possess potentially deathly tools is not terrorism, but crime in general. I, for myself, can think of a lot more crimes committed by normal people than the government.
The historical argument is of course not completely unreasonable, but there are also an awful lot of discrepancies when looking at states government today and 300 years ago. At least in Europe, where I live, the government can be trusted in a lot of issues --- especially it is highly likely that they _try_ to do what is best and are no "evil emperors".
- CamperBob2 11y agoAt least in Europe, where I live, the government can be trusted in a lot of issues --- especially it is highly likely that they _try_ to do what is best and are no "evil emperors". The Europeans are fond of reminding Americans that we think 200 years is a long time. So, how long ago was the Stasi disbanded, again?
- chki 11y agoYou can not compare our situation to that of the DDR. If there is more surveillance going on than we currently know, it is certainly not as much as in that time -- a big chunk of the population were reporting to the "Ministerium für Staatssicherheit" directly, which was a well known fact.
- CamperBob2 11y agoI believe this is known as the "Special Pleading Fallacy." Of course, you could play the "Slippery Slope Fallacy" card against my argument... but we're not dealing with logical entities, are we? We're dealing with often-irrational human beings and governments composed of them.