>>12943127>Would everyone owning a gun have a similar effect on a local scale to the existence of nukes on a global scale? Might be a way to reduce violence. Can't promise it would eliminate it completely
>Ever since the advent of the nuclear bomb, countries that have them have avoided direct war with each other and either funded proxy wars or just went and shit on countries without them. Would people be less prone to commit crime/start unnecessary conflict if they knew they were at risk of getting domed?Balance of terror and Mutually assured destruction are one when thing when you are talking about Nukes. If shit goes nuclear, NOBODY wins. Nukes cause destruction on a global scale. Even if one country were to nuke another without any possible retaliation, the ensuing disruption to the global economy, communication grid, infrastructure and backlash wouldn't exactly make it the soundest of victories. On the other hand, shootouts between two or more people can and frequently do result in one side gaining a decisive victory. There are plenty of ways for two warring factions with guns to get an advantage on eachother. Ambushes, cheap shots, superior combat tactics, strength in numbers, long range shooting etc...
