Shouldn't we all be allowed to carry a small nuclear device? You can make them fit in a backpack nowadays. It would deter a lot of violence, wouldn't it? Plus, I like the idea of making my noisy neighbours vanish in small mushroom cloud!
2007-08-30 12:23:18 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yeah, vanishing your neighbors sounds pretty good. But I am somebody else's neighbor!
2007-08-30 12:40:08 · answer #1 · answered by Linz ♥ VT 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nuclear weapons are all that prevented the largest war in human in history from occuring sometime in the late 1950's in Europe, China and the Arctic. IN the hands of sensible nations with sensible leades they pose no real threat.
The difference between guns and nuclear weapons is that nuclear weapons are pointless except as detterents at the national level. For individuals, they make no sense. Guns on the other hand are safe in the right hands and crime stats bear out that armed citizens are less likely to be attacked, and the conceled carry laws actually decrease crime rates. Many countries have tried gun confiscation or extremely limiting gun sales, and the result is almost always an increase in crime; especially violent crime.
2007-08-30 22:06:21 · answer #2 · answered by 29 characters to work with...... 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your point about gun control, made by exaggerating the point, is well taken. The average citizen should not be allowed to have military quality "weapons of mass destruction" or other similar devices.
Guns on the other hand are a self defense weapon. If the Government takes away your ability to defend yourself, be it from a criminal or and oppressive government, then the Government MUST GUARANTEE your safety.
The Government must also be held LIABLE if they fail to protect you. They won't allow that either.
In addition, if you outlaw nukes, you'll make the world safe for WAR!
2007-08-30 19:35:33 · answer #3 · answered by Philip H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the propper terminology might be something like "when nuclear weapons are banned by treaty, only rogue states in violation of that treaty would have nuclear weapons."
The aphorism about guns of course, is aplicable to individuals since many, many individuals already have access to guns. Thus, the option of becoming an 'outlaw' by retaining a gun is rather easily exercised. Nukes, OTOH, are currently - as far as we know - the exclusive purview of governments.
2007-08-30 19:32:20 · answer #4 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, just like guns.
Make a law that takes away your weapons, and the outlaws (do you get the "outlaw" part, gullible anti-gun people?) will take you out and whatever else they want.
History and human nature has proven this out.
Outlaw weapons and the good people give them up and the bad guys keep theirs. Common sense.
2007-08-30 20:06:19 · answer #5 · answered by Al a voter 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Without question, yours is the best question on Yahoo Answers that I have read in quite a while.
Remember, without outlaws, there will never be a sheriff.
2007-09-04 02:39:40 · answer #6 · answered by johny0802 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Same theory should apply to guns. Guns should be outlawed and then only outlaws will have guns!
2007-08-30 19:29:20 · answer #7 · answered by It's Your World, Change It 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but it indicates why they won't be outlawed in the foreseeable future.
2007-08-30 19:27:01 · answer #8 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your NRA buddies will be proud of you.
2007-08-30 19:42:08 · answer #9 · answered by grumpy 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We will be dead before that ever happens thanks to nuclear Holocaust and those megalomaniacs.
2007-08-30 19:33:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋