10 ms·
In an ideal future, firearms would be banned worldwide. A body like interpol would investigate the entire world, to surveil if anybody is trying to make firear
by jokoon 2y ago
In an ideal future, firearms would be banned worldwide.
A body like interpol would investigate the entire world, to surveil if anybody is trying to make firearms.
People would make bows and spears, but it would be more difficult to conduct war.
It would not make war and violence impossible, but it would certainly be a better world.
EDIT: lots of pedants:
obviously there would be an joint army answering to an international body whose only mission is to seize and destroy weapons.
firearms includes bombs and other lethal ammunition, of course. Not knives.
- k8sToGo 2y agoAnd those who will master creating weapons in the shadows will overthrow interpol and rule mankind. I’d say in an ideal future humans wouldn’t want to create weapons.
- ses1984 2y agoAnd those who want to make weapons will overthrow the people who don’t… But in an ideal future…?
- Loughla 2y agoBut who watches the watchers? Not everyone has a guarding dark.
- Greyfoscam 2y agoIt would certainly be more interesting conducting war with semi auto potato cannons
- akira2501 2y ago> In an ideal future, firearms would be banned worldwide. But not bombs, knives, chemicals or sources of radiation? Well.. good luck.
- Aerroon 2y agoIf you aren't physically strong enough to defend yourself then you shouldn't be able to defend yourself?
- paulryanrogers 2y agoAre firearms the only way for people to be defended?
- nradov 2y agoTo a first approximation, yes. Other means of defense either require significant physical strength, or are barely effective at all.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoAnd yet so many societies function without personal gun ownership. Guns are more likely to be involved in suicides, accidents, and crime than to prevent or stop a crime.
- Aerroon 2y agoThat doesn't really matter, because you're taking agency away from people. You say that you know better and everyone should be at the mercy of the system. But the system isn't perfect.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoPeople don't need firearm agency. It won't fix unresponsive governments. Gun ownership just makes society measurably worse to stoke fragile egos.
- Aerroon 2y ago>It won't fix unresponsive governments. Neither will anything else. Ultimately it's your life and you're the only one that's going to have to defend yourself at a random time. If a crime is committed against you then you're just a statistic for the government. Nothing more.
- 2y ago
- squigz 2y agoWhy would they make bows and spears, but not guns? That seems a fairly arbitrary technological line to draw.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoA small child could kill hundreds of people with a single gun (depending on the type). Firearms (including bombs) are force multipliers far beyond any bow or spear.
- squigz 2y agoSo basically, small-scale war/death is fine, as long as large-scale war is monopolized by the powerful?
- paulryanrogers 2y agoWhat an odd framing. Large scale war should always be avoided. That's a problem regardless of personal gun ownership. And personal guns won't keep governments any more responsive to the people, because governments need enough arms to defeat country-sized adversaries anyway. Small scale 'war' should also be avoided. Guns make personal conflicts much more deadly.
- squigz 2y agoThe odd framing is thinking Interpol should ensure nobody is making large scale weaponry but still allow small scale weaponry.
- injb 2y agoTo ensure the natural advantage that strong people have over weak people, of course. Nature has ordained that the strong should subjugate the weak, and the equalizing force of firearms is thus an afront to nature, and is not to be tolerated!
- 2y ago
- sparky_z 2y agoAfter Interpol's surveillance determined that someone was illegally making firearms, what would happen next? Presumably some sort of enforcement to stop them? How would that enforcement be conducted?
- shrubble 2y agoIt's been tried in the past, and the disarmed populace is often killed by their own government or invaded and displaced via demographic changes that the compromised/paid off government leaders allow.
- convolvatron 2y agoi have a really small machine shop and some scrap steel. i could make a functional but probably unsafe gun, and with some practice make useful weapons. are you going to audit all the use of carbide cutting inserts in the world? make sure you understand where every last pound of steel goes? the genie left that bottle more than a hundred years ago
- cryptonector 2y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/ItHadToBeBrazil/comments/ejv9u9/he_made_a_shotgun_using_a_table_leg/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ItHadToBeBrazil/comments/ejv9u9/he_...
- Duwensatzaj 2y agoYou’re not banning anything. You’re proposing a total monopoly on effective weaponry for this joint army. And requiring global controls on 3D printers, CNC machines, any pressure bearing metal, and a range of chemistry and fertilizers. All this after a door to door search for weapons and ammunition. What army exactly is going to be kicking down my door to confiscate these at gunpoint?
- lazide 2y agoAnd who is going to ensure they give up their guns?
- cryptonector 2y ago> A body like interpol would investigate the entire world, to surveil if anybody is trying to make firearms. And that body would need firearms. Firearms aren't the problem. It's states because states use firearms to get resources with which to conduct war. But states are unavoidable because without states we'd have caudillos -- warlords, heads of tiny states that will in due time coalesce into large states, and we're back at square one. A single world state wouldn't be a solution for the same reason that larger states have at times fallen apart into smaller states: there will be resentments and tyranny. Indeed, a single world state would have to be tyrannical just in order to stay together, and its government would be highly non-representative for natural reasons, namely that having it be highly-representative would mean it having -impractically- hundreds of thousands of representatives. You're not the first to think that extreme violence could bring peace, but it's an illusion. Huge majorities of humans must know internal peace and have tremendous wisdom for us to enjoy peace on Earth.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoIdeal for whom? I and many others own firearms and would like to continue owning firearms.
- numpad0 2y agoBears. Not kidding. They're resilient against small arms, and they happily eat us alive.
- ranger207 2y agoWhat happens when someone gets to head Interpol and decides they want to become a dictator? And worse, everyone else in Interpol agrees that they should be dictator?
- wruza 2y agoAnd these guys who disarm people will read lots of classic literature to stay noble, of course. A few years of having the greatest power on earth turns 99% of otherwise good men into non-humans. That’s just the fact of life, explained thousands of times throughout history. That’s why you have to elect a new guy every few years, cause the old one starts to lose it. Try removing him if his gang is the only gang with firearms.
- jack_riminton 2y agoUtterly ludicrous
- Turing_Machine 2y agoYou can make firearms in your garage, and there's nothing at all pedantic about that fact.
- lazide 2y ago‘Ideal’?!!