If everyone should carry a gun to stop violence then shouldnt every country have nuclear weapons to stop war?

Answer 1

The opinion that everyone should carry a gun i personally think is ridiculous. If every country had nuke's it would open up a whole new world of threats. Just because every country could counteract the nuclear attack with one of there own wouldn't lower the chance of a nuclear battle. I personally believe it would higher the risk. Weapons don't stop people from fighting, nor do they stop country's from going to war. The stakes and possibility of higher body counts are just another tool they can use.

Answer 2

you're speaking with reference to the nuclear software in Iran. Iran money over eighty% of the terrorism interior the worldwide. The terrorists have stated that their purpose is to get carry of nuclear weapons, smuggle those weapons into us of a and different worldwide places and detonate those weapons. If Iran had nuclear weapons they might supply them to the terrorists. For all useful purposes Iran has declared war at us of a. it is not prudent to allow a usa that has declared war on you to purchase nuclear weapons or the technologies or perhaps advance it it that they had the aptitude. on your information Iran is paying for nuclear weapons technologies from Pakistan and Russia because of the fact the Iranians have not been waiting to be certain a thank you to advance nuclear weapons on their very own.

Answer 3

Not everyone should be allowed to carry a gun. Convicted felons and the certifiable insane are not allowed to have guns. The same is so with nuclear weapons.

Answer 4

NO, because what about terrorists?!

Deterrence works because both sides fear nuclear war, and try to prevent it.

Suicide bombers aren't scared about blowing themselves up, so what if a suicide bomber snuck in through, say, a container in a container ship, and blew themselves up in a port or in a major city? They don't care about their lives.

As for guns, less gun control means more gun violence. I don't understand why people don't understand this. I don't buy the argument that if everyone had a gun at say, VT, they would have been able to kill the shooter; no, whenever people get emotional, there will be a danger that they resort to guns!

More weapons to the people does not prevent more violence.

Answer 5

Nuclear weapons are out of date, very destructive

But I'm sure major countries or nations have or are developing much nastier space based weapons.

The American government talk about concerns about Fundamentalists and fanatics gaining control of nuclear weapons in the so called Middle East...This may be true

While the rest of the world watches self called Christian Fundamentalists gain stronger holds in American politics, should we be equally concerned about them

Scary people are found in all countries, in both politics and religion. Many see themselves as good people, they maybe ignorant of our beliefs, but we are equally ignorant of theirs.
Some of those in power manipulate our fears through this ignorance - how many of them have nuclear weapons.

everyone having nuclear weapons works as a deterrent, as long as everyone with them fears death (M.A.D. mutually assured destruction) If even one leader no longer fears death then M.A.D. becomes madness, and we all find ourselves in a dark scary place

Answer 6

Hiroshima. WMD? OURS? we have more than anyone else, yet we whine and cry when someone else gets one. If you study and study hard, you will find that we have more than anyone. 2'200 +. The government uses scare tactics to sell you all a bunch of goods, and it sounds like most of you are buying it. You don't stop violence with more violence. When your mother caught you fighting with your brother or sister, did she tell you fight some more, that will surely end the fight? Weapons don't declare wars or fight them, people do. People and diplomacy is the only way to prevent, stop and end wars.

Answer 7

Well let's see. Even criminals carry guns, can you imagine if every criminal carried a nuke? There wouldn't be an Earth any more and that's why we don't allow terrorists like the Iranian president to have nukes.

Answer 8

How very clever! If we could do it via the internet, I'd bake you a cake! That ranks right up there with Abraham Lincoln asking an apologist for slavery "If slavery is all you say it is, then why are not more people volunteering to become slaves?" Bravo!

But I suppose my ANSWER should be something along the lines of "But that's differnt. Wur Amurikins! Wur peace luvin peepul, not turrurist creeps. An' if yew ain't with me, yer agginst me, so eat lead yew Commie Nazi SOB!"

Answer 9

That would be a bigger reason why no one but terrorists are attacking us or other nations with nukes, and why people with nukes fund terrorists to attack other countries that have them.

Why do you think they had that...."terrorists aren't enemy soldiers or have a home country", thing laid out nice and pretty when the press start hounding them about the Gneva Convention thing?
Deniability is a good thing when nukes are pointed at you.

Answer 10

Your head is wrong, law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms, nukes are another story , only strong nations stop war, 3rd world country's will obtain and use nukes some day and when God help us