Should we every single person this planet access to nuclear weapons? Mutually Assured Destruction has kept us save from nuclear war thus far. Clearly this applies not just on the state but on the individual level as well.
No one except liberals attempts to classify individual arms based on some inconsistent and dubious concepts of “magnitude of lethality” that is related to the prowess of a user wielding such a weapon.
Soooo, we then just go back to handing guns to anyone?
Sorry, but with that attitude we can’t improve anything. How about we just keep it a psychology test?
Do you think that the average person is a killer but the only thing that stops them are the tools they have available?
Should we every single person this planet access to nuclear weapons? Mutually Assured Destruction has kept us save from nuclear war thus far. Clearly this applies not just on the state but on the individual level as well.
🙄 In which we equate Nuclear weapons with individual arms. It’s the mental equivalent of assuming Communism means you have to share your tooth brush.
My point is there is clearly a limit to how many people a weapon can kill before no sane person would allow people to possess it.
Apparently, for you this number is greater than 61 deaths per weapon, seeing as this is the number of people killed in the Las Vegas Mass Shooting.
So, which is it? 100? 1000? 1 million? When is a weapon too dangerous to be available commonplace in your opinion?
No one except liberals attempts to classify individual arms based on some inconsistent and dubious concepts of “magnitude of lethality” that is related to the prowess of a user wielding such a weapon.