World Peace - NRA Style

The National  Rifle Association (NRA) has stated - quite vehemently  - that the answer to gun violence is to put more guns in the streets, classrooms, theaters, churches etc.  The theory is that the good guys would then be able to shoot the bad guys before they inflicted as much damage. 

Let's see how that logic applies on a global level with regard to weapons of mass destruction (WMD's).  Using NRA logic the answer to the threat of rouge nations with WMDs is to ensure that every country is fully armed with equal WMDs.  Then, when a terrorist decides to launch an attack on an innocent country, all the other countries could use their WMDs in a counter attack.  So lets start shipping some WMDs to Libya, Pakistan, N. Korea (as well as Canada and Switzerland of course) and then we can all feel very safe - right?

I wouldn't feel safe at all in that scenario.  

There is a big problem with this type of logic - it is not logical.  The first flaw is that a tragic incident would still have to occur in order to trigger a counter attack.  So either way - armed or not - the incident would still occur first.  The other argument the NRA uses is that weapons don't kill - people with weapons kill.  It is a fun catch phrase and it is actually true but the flaw in that logic is that a powerful weapon must be present in order for a tragic incident to occur.  If no powerful weapon existed then mass causalities would not be likely.

WMDs do exist and therefore must be somehow controlled.  America's current strategy is to keep the police state (America) armed and the rouge states unarmed.  That seems to have worked out fairly well so far - except for those countries America has had a feud with.  We spend massive amounts of borrowed money to ensure that America remains the single most powerful country in the world.  The same people who support the "guns for everyone" theory also support keeping WMDs away from rouge nations.  Contradictory principles are typical to this type of thinker.  A rational logical thinker is not so easily contradicted. 

Rational logical thinkers can apply their principles on both small scales and large scales.  The answer to gun violence in America should be the same answer to WMD's in the world.  Real logical thinkers  realize that all people (and all countries) have the right to protect themselves but that WMDs need to be controlled on both a world scale and in America. 

Real logic tells us that bad people will always eventually get what they need to accomplish their terrorist goals.  Real logic also tells us that an abundance of weapons makes that goal very easy where a lack of such weapons makes that goal more difficult.  The terrorist may have to settle for a less powerful weapon if their weapon of choice is not available.  That's where logic tells us that we are safer with fewer and less powerful weapons in open circulation. 

I believe in the the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.  I choose not to be armed myself but most of my family are avid recreational hunters.  However, if you need a semi-automatic weapon to hunt you are not a very good sportsman.  In fact I've never heard of a hunter using this type of semi-automatic weapon for recreational hunting.  There is simply no need for typical Americans to own this type of weapon.  Fear and paranoia drive this type of backward logic.  Excessive fear and paranoia are also symptoms of mental instability.  Mentally unstable thinkers should not be making rules and laws for the rest of us.  The NRA is very wrong on this topic and they are losing credibility.  Americans should - and do -  have the constitutional right to bear arms - they do not however, have the right to be terrorists with WMDs.