15 ms·
When things get real, like with proliferation of nuclear weapons, no one argues in favor of proliferation. It's only when poor people's lives are at stake, ther
by zzzcpan 9y ago
When things get real, like with proliferation of nuclear weapons, no one argues in favor of proliferation. It's only when poor people's lives are at stake, there is a lot of PR to essentially let them get killed with guns and make money in the process, rich can afford to protect themselves.
- nostrademons 9y agoNo, when things get real, only the people who already have nuclear weapons or have no chance of acquiring them argue in favor of non-proliferation. Many states on the cusp of achieving them - Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, China, and North Korea - argued very vociferously that they should be allowed to have them, and then went ahead and developed them over the strenuous objections of the existing nuclear powers. And once a state has them, it's very rare that they will argue to ban them. We've been talking about a comprehensive ban on nuke possession since the end of the Cold War, but it's 25 years later and there are still thousands of nukes in active service. Who's the biggest objector to banning them entirely? The U.S. So it is with guns. People who already own guns argue very strongly that they should be allowed to keep them, but are fine with new restrictions on who can buy them. People who might want to own a gun (or own more guns) in the future argue against any form of gun control. People who would never consider owning a gun argue that they should be banned entirely. It's pretty predictable self-interest, and where you stand on the issue depends a lot on where you stand on possession.