JohnRich 4
Recommended Posts
JohnRich 4
QuoteThe guy is a law abiding professional US citizen working for a respected national institute. Why do you find it neccessary to bring his religion into this? Would you have done so if he was Jewish or a Mormon? By doing so you detract from your argument.
Fair point.
But spend some time looking at their web site, and doing Google searches on their so-called "scholars", and it seems fishy to me. They put on a happy face of purporting to be about American social policy, but then look deeper. The majority of the "scholars" have muslim names. And the fine print of their objectives seems to involve an awful lot of Muslim rights issues. So it really seems to me to be a false front for what is really just a bunch of Muslims trying to trumpet their own rights. Nothing wrong with that, but they should call it what it is, and not hide behind a facade of pretending to be something else.
And since some Muslims are the ones that want to kill us, it's quite ironic that other Muslims now propose that we should disarm.
Quote>Few are motivated or have the means to acquire nuclear weapons.
And few are motivated enough to mix gunpowder, machine metal, and assemble firearms. But some are, as the poster above stated. And we know that some countries are motivated to build nuclear weapons as well, since half a dozen have.Quote
This is a gun thread, so why are you trying to focus it on nukes instead? Are why refuse to address the point?
There are millions of people capable and motivated to make firearms if none are for sale. They're not technically difficult to make, the materials are readily available, and there are lots of viable uses for them.
With nukes, there may be hundreds of people capable and motivated, for the materials are difficult to acquire and the utility of them is very low.
The comparison is inappropriate.Quote
> They are either tools of deterrence for a nation . . .
Mostly yes. Are we saying that individuals can be trusted with deadly weapons but nations cannot be?
When an individual kills 180,000 people with a gun, let's talk further.
I was stating quite clearly (you're channeling Kallend today, apparently) that nukes aren't diversely useful tools. If Iran had one, it can't blackmail Iraq for money with it. All it does it make it less likely that the US or Israel would attack.
billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>so why are you trying to focus it on nukes instead?
I'm replying to your post, where you discuss the issue of the difficulty of acquiring nuclear weapons.
>There are millions of people capable and motivated to make
> firearms if none are for sale. They're not technically difficult to
> make, the materials are readily available, and there are lots of
> viable uses for them.
If you said "thousands" I'd agree. There are millions of people who _think_ they know how to make guns; probably a few thousand who have the expertise to actually do it. Heck, I've spent hours in a shop trying to make something out of sheetmetal that I thought would be a piece of cake. The idea and the practice are two very different things.
>With nukes, there may be hundreds of people capable and
> motivated, for the materials are difficult to acquire and the utility of
> them is very low.
Again, there are a LOT of people who know the basics of nuclear weapons. Heck, most people who go to high school know that you slap two pieces of subcritical U-235 together and you get a chain reaction. I'd agree that there are a few hundred that stood a chance of actually getting one to work.
>All it does it make it less likely that the US or Israel would attack.
Are you arguing that nuclear weapons are primarily deterrent in nature? That would be an argument _for_ them, not against them. (At least if avoiding war is the goal.)
I'm replying to your post, where you discuss the issue of the difficulty of acquiring nuclear weapons.
>There are millions of people capable and motivated to make
> firearms if none are for sale. They're not technically difficult to
> make, the materials are readily available, and there are lots of
> viable uses for them.
If you said "thousands" I'd agree. There are millions of people who _think_ they know how to make guns; probably a few thousand who have the expertise to actually do it. Heck, I've spent hours in a shop trying to make something out of sheetmetal that I thought would be a piece of cake. The idea and the practice are two very different things.
>With nukes, there may be hundreds of people capable and
> motivated, for the materials are difficult to acquire and the utility of
> them is very low.
Again, there are a LOT of people who know the basics of nuclear weapons. Heck, most people who go to high school know that you slap two pieces of subcritical U-235 together and you get a chain reaction. I'd agree that there are a few hundred that stood a chance of actually getting one to work.
>All it does it make it less likely that the US or Israel would attack.
Are you arguing that nuclear weapons are primarily deterrent in nature? That would be an argument _for_ them, not against them. (At least if avoiding war is the goal.)
If guns weren't available and still desired, more people would evolve past the stumbling in the metal shop phase. It's not complicated to make simple ones. But even in California, it's not that hard to buy one that is imo a marvel of metal manufacturing. $800 for a beautiful Sig. A few more bills for those of you 1911 nuts. Much cheaper than me trying to do it.
At Cal I took classes taught by Kenneth Waltz who argues that that is their only function. I'm not entirely convinced that this remains true in the post Cold War world, but I know that he does.
I do believe that nukes have eliminated war between two nuclear family members. The catch being that small nations like Vietnam, Korea, Cuba have paid the price as proxy wars.
Theoretically, if every nation were so armed there would be peace, but accidents have nearly happened, even when it was just a small number in the family. And as an American I prefer our nation having the upper hand.
I'm also for guns at the individual level, so there we are!
QuoteAre you arguing that nuclear weapons are primarily deterrent in nature? That would be an argument _for_ them, not against them. (At least if avoiding war is the goal.)
At Cal I took classes taught by Kenneth Waltz who argues that that is their only function. I'm not entirely convinced that this remains true in the post Cold War world, but I know that he does.
I do believe that nukes have eliminated war between two nuclear family members. The catch being that small nations like Vietnam, Korea, Cuba have paid the price as proxy wars.
Theoretically, if every nation were so armed there would be peace, but accidents have nearly happened, even when it was just a small number in the family. And as an American I prefer our nation having the upper hand.
I'm also for guns at the individual level, so there we are!
billvon 3,132
>Theoretically, if every nation were so armed there would be
>peace, but accidents have nearly happened, even when it was just
>a small number in the family.
I can see that theory. And I guess I also see a very strong parallel with guns.
Guns are dangerous weapons, and can kill people. It takes a lot of responsibility to carry one safely. Everyone thinks _they_ can use a gun safely, but are worried that other people might not use the gun safely/wisely/legally. Gun-control advocates prefer laws to deal with this; gun-rights advocates feel that the benefits outnumber the risks. They often feel that if _they_ want the right to use guns that other's rights must be protected as well - hence their activism.
Similarly, nuclear weapons are dangerous, and can destroy cities. It takes a lot of responsibility to even maintain a stockpile, much less decide to use one. All countries think _they_ can safely own nuclear weapons, but think other countries might use them irresponsibly. Thus we have nuclear disarmament talks. And in a similar manner, if one country feels that it has the ability to maintain a nuclear arsenal, it must concede that perhaps other countries have enough responsibility as well. (IMO of course.)
In many ways the nuclear disarmament issue is gun control writ large. Do we trust that unstable government/that drunk down the street with weapons that might kill us? If we don't - who's to say that someday someone will decide that WE are not safe enough to have them, either?
>peace, but accidents have nearly happened, even when it was just
>a small number in the family.
I can see that theory. And I guess I also see a very strong parallel with guns.
Guns are dangerous weapons, and can kill people. It takes a lot of responsibility to carry one safely. Everyone thinks _they_ can use a gun safely, but are worried that other people might not use the gun safely/wisely/legally. Gun-control advocates prefer laws to deal with this; gun-rights advocates feel that the benefits outnumber the risks. They often feel that if _they_ want the right to use guns that other's rights must be protected as well - hence their activism.
Similarly, nuclear weapons are dangerous, and can destroy cities. It takes a lot of responsibility to even maintain a stockpile, much less decide to use one. All countries think _they_ can safely own nuclear weapons, but think other countries might use them irresponsibly. Thus we have nuclear disarmament talks. And in a similar manner, if one country feels that it has the ability to maintain a nuclear arsenal, it must concede that perhaps other countries have enough responsibility as well. (IMO of course.)
In many ways the nuclear disarmament issue is gun control writ large. Do we trust that unstable government/that drunk down the street with weapons that might kill us? If we don't - who's to say that someday someone will decide that WE are not safe enough to have them, either?
QuoteIn many ways the nuclear disarmament issue is gun control writ large. Do we trust that unstable government/that drunk down the street with weapons that might kill us? If we don't - who's to say that someday someone will decide that WE are not safe enough to have them, either?
MAD assures that nations won't consciously or thru minor neglect cause a nuclear bombing to occur. Bad luck/stupid thinking (think movies Dr. Strangelove, Failsafe or WarGames even) could have a bad result. A strong reason for keeping the arsenel in the 100-1000 max range.
Drunks down the street could be a risk, but history has shown it to be a small one. Most of the accidents seem to be mistaken identity in the woods (ala Chaney) or idiots presuming the thing is empty and pulling the trigger at a friend. Sometimes I wonder if all of those are actually accidents.
If you believe the drunk still has some level of rational thinking, the fear of punishment, or more likely, of someone shooting back at him should be the most effective method of deterrence. MAD on the smaller scale. The catch is that, esp in a non CCW state, the odds of lethal retaliation are lower than in a nuclear strike where the probability approachs 1.0.
Douva 0
Quote>Theoretically, if every nation were so armed there would be
>peace, but accidents have nearly happened, even when it was just
>a small number in the family.
I can see that theory. And I guess I also see a very strong parallel with guns.
Guns are dangerous weapons, and can kill people. It takes a lot of responsibility to carry one safely. Everyone thinks _they_ can use a gun safely, but are worried that other people might not use the gun safely/wisely/legally. Gun-control advocates prefer laws to deal with this; gun-rights advocates feel that the benefits outnumber the risks. They often feel that if _they_ want the right to use guns that other's rights must be protected as well - hence their activism.
Similarly, nuclear weapons are dangerous, and can destroy cities. It takes a lot of responsibility to even maintain a stockpile, much less decide to use one. All countries think _they_ can safely own nuclear weapons, but think other countries might use them irresponsibly. Thus we have nuclear disarmament talks. And in a similar manner, if one country feels that it has the ability to maintain a nuclear arsenal, it must concede that perhaps other countries have enough responsibility as well. (IMO of course.)
In many ways the nuclear disarmament issue is gun control writ large. Do we trust that unstable government/that drunk down the street with weapons that might kill us? If we don't - who's to say that someday someone will decide that WE are not safe enough to have them, either?
I agree that the parallel is undeniable. I think the issues of both small arms and nuclear arms boil down to the same answer: We, as a community (both local and global), must agree not to allow people or nations with bad track records to be armed. One of the mistakes that lead to World War II was the global community's failure to enforce the prohibition against Germany rearming itself after World War I.
The answer to this type of problem isn't to say, "Okay, we'll all disarm." The answer is to say, "You screwed up and forfeited some of your rights, and we're going to enforce the new restrictions placed upon you." Rogue nations will still get weapons of mass destruction, and criminals will still get guns, but the global and local communities will do their best to make sure this is kept to a minimum. Outside of a perfect world, that's really all you can do.
I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
billvon 3,132
>We, as a community (both local and global), must agree not to
>allow people or nations with bad track records to be armed.
In terms of gun ownership, this would have to do with crimes, I assume. Someone who kills an innocent man with a gun, or who uses a crime in a robbery etc loses their right to own guns. Which makes sense.
However, I think you want to be VERY careful trying to apply that in the international arena. After all, there has only been one country, ever, who has used nuclear weapons to kill civilians.
>allow people or nations with bad track records to be armed.
In terms of gun ownership, this would have to do with crimes, I assume. Someone who kills an innocent man with a gun, or who uses a crime in a robbery etc loses their right to own guns. Which makes sense.
However, I think you want to be VERY careful trying to apply that in the international arena. After all, there has only been one country, ever, who has used nuclear weapons to kill civilians.
Douva 0
Quote>We, as a community (both local and global), must agree not to
>allow people or nations with bad track records to be armed.
In terms of gun ownership, this would have to do with crimes, I assume. Someone who kills an innocent man with a gun, or who uses a crime in a robbery etc loses their right to own guns. Which makes sense.
However, I think you want to be VERY careful trying to apply that in the international arena. After all, there has only been one country, ever, who has used nuclear weapons to kill civilians.
Well, I don't think we should ban a man from owning a gun because he once used one to defend himself. There are requirements to own a gun in America (of legal age, clean criminal record, etc.), and I think the same should be true for nations desiring nuclear weapons.
If you got pissed at your neighbor a few years back and stabbed him with a knife, you're not going to be allowed to have a gun. Likewise, if you got pissed at your neighboring country a few years back and launched a SCUD missile attack on it, you're not going to be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. I could draw more parallels, but I'm sure you get my point.
I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
DaVinci 0
QuoteSure there is, I have wasted many a minute standing still for a red light in the middle of nowhere.
So should we ban cars so you can't run a red light?
QuoteIn terms of gun ownership, this would have to do with crimes, I assume. Someone who kills an innocent man with a gun, or who uses a crime in a robbery etc loses their right to own guns. Which makes sense.
However, I think you want to be VERY careful trying to apply that in the international arena. After all, there has only been one country, ever, who has used nuclear weapons to kill civilians.
It's not use a gun, lose your right to own guns. It's commit crimes against others, lose your right to own guns.
As much as some would like to argue, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a crime, or even the action of an unjust aggressor. (particularly in light of Japan's history in Korea/China)
Of course, the reality of the international scene is you can only apply notions of 'should be allowed' on small fry who lack the weapons. No matter how evil one thinks North Korea or Israel are, the game is up. And there's even less chance of disarming the French or the Americans.
JohnRich 4
Quote>We, as a community (both local and global), must agree not
> to allow people or nations with bad track records to be armed.
In terms of gun ownership, this would have to do with crimes, I assume. Someone who kills an innocent man with a gun, or who uses a crime in a robbery etc loses their right to own guns. Which makes sense.
The biggest current gun prohibition is against convicted felons. And rightfully so. If they've proven themselves to have no regard for human life, then they forfeit their gun rights.
I would modify that law to specify violent felons only. For example, there are people convicted of felonies which didn't involve any violence, like a secretary that embezzles money from a bank by manipulating the bookkeeping. Such a person, after they've served their time and paid restitution, should be allowed to own a gun once again. Yet current law does not allow it.
QuoteHowever, I think you want to be VERY careful trying to apply that in the international arena. After all, there has only been one country, ever, who has used nuclear weapons to kill civilians.
That use was justified, to end the war early, and save lives on both sides. Since we're comparing nukes with personal gun ownership, the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki were the equivalent of a personal legitimate self-defense shooting. Just because you shoot someone with a gun, doesn't mean that you are a criminal. And just because we dropped two nukes, doesn't mean that we committed war crimes. Self defense shootings are legitimate, and so was our use of nukes against Japan in WWII.
kallend 2,182
QuoteQuoteSure there is, I have wasted many a minute standing still for a red light in the middle of nowhere.
So should we ban cars so you can't run a red light?
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1480293#1480293
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Quote
...
That use was justified, to end the war early, and save lives on both sides. Since we're comparing nukes with personal gun ownership, the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki were the equivalent of a personal legitimate self-defense shooting. Just because you shoot someone with a gun, doesn't mean that you are a criminal. And just because we dropped two nukes, doesn't mean that we committed war crimes. Self defense shootings are legitimate, and so was our use of nukes against Japan in WWII.
The straightforwardness of that text is overwhelming. Man, that explains a lot: "Just b/c ...., you are not ..." and "Just b/c ... we are not..."
NOW, finally, I understand ...
It's all about simpleness. Easy. ![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
dudeist skydiver # 3105
I'll take that as a "he's nuts" vote.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites