A bit like someone putting a brick in your Gran's face or not.

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

So,in the US,for example,making it harder to buy guns wouldn't be a good thing because it might lessen their use and help reduce deaths and injuries from guns?

But to follow your analogy further, selling bombs to the Saudis when we know they are already using them to bomb water factories and hospitals...

It would be like owning a gun shop and Raoul Moat coming in with blood down his shirt, and us saying 'have the biggest guns in the shop, and we'll hold them still while you fire'.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Looking at the reality of it, arms are big business. Morally, yes, it's wrong and yes, if we stop selling them someone else will. Armaments is also a f*cking huge employer in this country and no politician is brave enough to risk the fallout of the significant unemployment that would result.

This is is the real world. It's not a nice place. Politicians are cowards. If you've not realised that, then you never will.

WE know that weapons are generally purchased with use in mind for sure but your view point is born from the idealistic notion that people will stop killing if you stop selling them weapons. They won't, and for the umpteenth time let me repeat that others will sell them weapons instead.
It is therefore pointless to stop selling weapons for national profit on moral grounds.

And yet when a politician comes along promising to challenge that, you shout him down as a terrorist's friend...

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4