I am sorry you are dense enough that he needed to clarify his argument by comparing guns to nuclear weapons. You don't have to keep trying to explain what his point was; you've repeated it enough the glass of water next to me has caught on. To those of us with higher brain function the point about a small scale arms race was already clearly illustrated in the article even before he got on to nuclear weapons.

Which is what my objection is; further illustrating the point using something universally feared was not necessary and was only done to manipulate.

I am not going to bother to respond to you when you, once again, offer an explanation of what his point was.