> A body like interpol would investigate the entire world, to surveil if anybody is trying to make firearms.

And that body would need firearms.

Firearms aren't the problem. It's states because states use firearms to get resources with which to conduct war. But states are unavoidable because without states we'd have caudillos -- warlords, heads of tiny states that will in due time coalesce into large states, and we're back at square one.

A single world state wouldn't be a solution for the same reason that larger states have at times fallen apart into smaller states: there will be resentments and tyranny. Indeed, a single world state would have to be tyrannical just in order to stay together, and its government would be highly non-representative for natural reasons, namely that having it be highly-representative would mean it having -impractically- hundreds of thousands of representatives.

You're not the first to think that extreme violence could bring peace, but it's an illusion. Huge majorities of humans must know internal peace and have tremendous wisdom for us to enjoy peace on Earth.

You’re not banning anything. You’re proposing a total monopoly on effective weaponry for this joint army.

And requiring global controls on 3D printers, CNC machines, any pressure bearing metal, and a range of chemistry and fertilizers.

All this after a door to door search for weapons and ammunition. What army exactly is going to be kicking down my door to confiscate these at gunpoint?

And who is going to ensure they give up their guns?

And those who will master creating weapons in the shadows will overthrow interpol and rule mankind.

I’d say in an ideal future humans wouldn’t want to create weapons.

And those who want to make weapons will overthrow the people who don’t…

But in an ideal future…?

But who watches the watchers? Not everyone has a guarding dark.

If you aren't physically strong enough to defend yourself then you shouldn't be able to defend yourself?

Are firearms the only way for people to be defended?

To a first approximation, yes. Other means of defense either require significant physical strength, or are barely effective at all.

And yet so many societies function without personal gun ownership

That doesn't really matter, because you're taking agency away from people. You say that you know better and everyone should be at the mercy of the system.

But the system isn't perfect.

People don't need firearm agency. It won't fix unresponsive governments. Gun ownership just makes society measurably worse to stoke fragile egos.

>It won't fix unresponsive governments.

Neither will anything else. Ultimately it's your life and you're the only one that's going to have to defend yourself at a random time. If a crime is committed against you then you're just a statistic for the government. Nothing more.

Odds are carrying a gun means you and your loved ones are more likely to be hurt than saved.

I live in a country with barely any gun ownership and I feel safe. I feel no need to own a gun, and neither does anyone I know. Are you sure this is not your cultural bias speaking?

It's been tried in the past, and the disarmed populace is often killed by their own government or invaded and displaced via demographic changes that the compromised/paid off government leaders allow.

After Interpol's surveillance determined that someone was illegally making firearms, what would happen next? Presumably some sort of enforcement to stop them? How would that enforcement be conducted?

Why would they make bows and spears, but not guns? That seems a fairly arbitrary technological line to draw.

A small child could kill hundreds of people with a single gun (depending on the type). Firearms (including bombs) are force multipliers far beyond any bow or spear.

So basically, small-scale war/death is fine, as long as large-scale war is monopolized by the powerful?

What an odd framing. Large scale war should always be avoided. That's a problem regardless of personal gun ownership. And personal guns won't keep governments any more responsive to the people, because governments need enough arms to defeat country-sized adversaries anyway.

Small scale 'war' should also be avoided. Guns make personal conflicts much more deadly.

The odd framing is thinking Interpol should ensure nobody is making large scale weaponry but still allow small scale weaponry.

To ensure the natural advantage that strong people have over weak people, of course. Nature has ordained that the strong should subjugate the weak, and the equalizing force of firearms is thus an afront to nature, and is not to be tolerated!

Describing widespread firearms as socially "equalizing" is a new one to me, so thanks for that.

"God made some men tall and some men short. Sam Colt made all men equal."

Firearms grant their owners the right to say "No".

Tyrants hate that.

Before firearms the world was mostly ruled by "nobles" (i.e., those who had extorted enough from the peasants to afford weapons and armor, and had the free time for the required years of training).

Now, it isn't. That didn't happen because the "nobles" suddenly decided to turn into nice guys.

> Now, it isn't

Oh, buddy, do I have some news for you

physical strength, dexterity, skill, and combat training still make a hell of a difference in a gunfight. A gun only makes a physically weak person strong against someone without a gun.

It would certainly be more interesting conducting war with semi auto potato cannons

i have a really small machine shop and some scrap steel. i could make a functional but probably unsafe gun, and with some practice make useful weapons. are you going to audit all the use of carbide cutting inserts in the world? make sure you understand where every last pound of steel goes?

the genie left that bottle more than a hundred years ago

> In an ideal future, firearms would be banned worldwide.

But not bombs, knives, chemicals or sources of radiation?

Well.. good luck.

Ideal for whom? I and many others own firearms and would like to continue owning firearms.

Bears. Not kidding. They're resilient against small arms, and they happily eat us alive.

What happens when someone gets to head Interpol and decides they want to become a dictator? And worse, everyone else in Interpol agrees that they should be dictator?

And these guys who disarm people will read lots of classic literature to stay noble, of course.

A few years of having the greatest power on earth turns 99% of otherwise good men into non-humans. That’s just the fact of life, explained thousands of times throughout history. That’s why you have to elect a new guy every few years, cause the old one starts to lose it. Try removing him if his gang is the only gang with firearms.

Utterly ludicrous

You can make firearms in your garage, and there's nothing at all pedantic about that fact.

‘Ideal’?!!