• PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    Do you think that the average person is a killer but the only thing that stops them are the tools they have available?

    • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        🙄 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.

        • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          33 minutes ago

          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?