I’ve read it, and couldn’t imagine a sillier line of reasoning. Anyone who makes the case that there’s no difference—with respect to probable abuses of power—between an armed and unarmed nation is simply deluding themselves. The differential game theory is painfully obvious.
But as I said, it's clear we've both made up our minds. Sometimes both people can see the facts and interpret them in completely different ways. Since this is an ethical case, there is no real right or wrong, and we can't really educate each other, so further debate is pointless
-
-
I’m pretty open to new lines of argument that I don’t feel I’ve exhausted to the extent I’m capable of exhausting. Fundamentally I want people to acknowledge the complexity involved, and that at the moment we’re tapped out on realistic top-down solutions. But yes, good talk

Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Good discussion guys. Matthew’s position mirrors mine even more than I expected. Gurwinder I do think you should take more seriously examples of how hard it is to *rule* an armed populace. It’s not armies; more like the new police chief keeps ending up shot somehow.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
