bizboy1 wrote:
Should there be restrictions on the types of powerful firearms available to the public? Should there be magazine restrictions? Can we extend this concept to more powerful devices such as surface-to-air missiles, nuclear weapons, mortars, IEDs, etc? How do we decide what to regulate? Should the government be allowed to regulate certain weapons? Is it in a moral position to do so and is it for society's best interest? Could we have peace, an equilibrium where nuclear weapons are allowed? I'm interested in hearing from those who think nuclear weapons should be unregulated. Could the Middle East benefit from the unfettered access of nukes? Surely it would alter the dynamics of the region. It would allow weaker actors more clout in the region and weaken the West's position.
1) Yes, most people should struggle to buy a firearm of any description. BB guns and the like can be used for recreational purposes as those are less likely to cause lethal harm to people.
2) Probably
3) Quite obviously, private individuals shouldn't be able to buy these things and to be honest most governments have no need for them.
4) Regulate as much as possible- it is not practical to regulate knives, but it is for guns.
5) Yes, they should remain able to do this.
6) Yes.
7) We do (though not everyone is allowed nukes)
No, more choice of a nut doing something crazy, or nukes getting in the hands of terrorists. It wouldn't weaken the position of the West as currently any nuclear strike by America (the only country where such a thing looks remotely possible) would see retaliation strikes from every other nuclear-armed nation (except possibly North Korea which probably doesn't have the capacity to nuke America), which makes a strike on Iran totally infeasible by a sane man's standard.