We can play the guessing game without knowledge of the variables they'll use to make it happen, but in the end I think the problem will be solved in a way that no one here would normally suspect. A innovative way that confounds our expectations (lacking access to their plans).

 

As much as I like the spirit of the call to disarm, I'm a little less than optimistic. I'm reminded of the cliche comment, "If you make guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns."

 

Unfortunately, it seems Obama will keep a few nukes in stock.

 

He said he would not drop U.S. weapons unless other nations agreed to do the same, a tenet of old-school arms control, and promised to "maintain a nuclear deterrent that is strong, safe, secure and reliable."

 

Even so, it will be a huge step in a better direction.

 

As much as I like the spirit of the call to disarm, I'm a little less than optimistic. I'm reminded of the cliche comment, "If you make guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns."

That philosophy is riddled with lack of foresight and ignores many variables, though. If the productive nations outlawed guns, you'd have no big enterprise making them by the millions. You'd have pieces of crap that don't shoot as efficiently or backfire unexpectedly more often.

 

Plus, if a criminal knew you were "loaded" they'd be more likely to shoot you in the back, then search your pockets, rather than ask you to empty your pockets at gunpoint.

 

But even if they drew a gun, you're already at a disadvantage unless you have a gun out pointed ahead everywhere you walk.

 

And if everyone carried a gun? The robber would just ask that you place your weapon on the ground, or hand it over to their buddy. Yes, gangs would be a more safer way to pull crime off neatly.

 

In the Wild West, anyone on the street might've had a gun. But criminals still robbed trains and lived a life of crime. More importantly, thugs still intimidated the public (commanded respect and/or instilled fear).

 

Lastly, who's more like to shoot the other -- an everyday person or a criminally mindset one?

 

I fully support the right to guns, but find the usual arguments to be weak. The strongest argument they could make, and should: it's protected in the Constitution.

 

But the usual complaints by the special interest might have other agendas not readily perceivable.

Separated from this thread:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39735

 

This thread is about the analogy of Gun Control with regard to nuclear disarmament, per iNow's quote, which I think is one that you hear a lot. Let's focus on that. Comments about nuclear disarmament in general should probably go in the other thread. Thanks.