My general impression is that guns are pretty hard to get, which makes it very safe, but also a disarmed populace can be bad. Is it hypocritical to oppose the disarmament of one population, but not another?
My general impression is that guns are pretty hard to get, which makes it very safe, but also a disarmed populace can be bad. Is it hypocritical to oppose the disarmament of one population, but not another?
I want to point out that pretty much all the laws that seem extremely random are put in place to prevent that exact situation from happening again. For example, gun ban, or rather “hot weapons ban” were put in place when 2 rural villages got into a territory dispute and rolled out essentially an ww2 artillery battalion and shelled the crap out of each other. Emphasis on the villages, not provinces, not cities, not towns, but 2 villages. Now imagine this on a scale that could affect cities or even provinces, yeah that’s why they have gun ban there.
Also with the amount of western agencies and operatives still operating within, the last thing we’d want is for them to easily arm insurgents to commit acts of terror on the populace and greatly destabilise the place.
I was gonna mention that, lol
What exactly is the cause of the dispute?