comment
stringlengths 1
9.49k
| context
listlengths 0
760
|
|---|---|
>
You're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz.
The Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though.
Luckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO."
] |
>
Here is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.
Foreign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?
And sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like."
] |
>
I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.
What do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.
Even if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment."
] |
>
I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use
nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the
right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people
should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of
all kinds.
What if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense."
] |
>
lets not forget the nuke fun factor
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?"
] |
>
law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.
Some criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.
Furthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime.
It doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.
When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.
About half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.
Also, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor"
] |
>
Im not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.
But for gun control, I will raise several issues:
Problematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?
Problematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you."
] |
>
Legalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment.
Furthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.
This is as vague as it is inaccurate.
Relative to what?
What crimes?
Do you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes.
A congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns."
] |
>
Could you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?
Please provide an example.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?"
] |
>
You can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.
I don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example."
] |
>
Nukes?
You mean grenades? You do realize a single nuke will kill 1000s of people. How is that appropriate for self defense?
Imagine if every psycho could get their hands on one. Mass shootings would be childs play compared to nuke shootings.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example.",
">\n\nYou can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.\nI don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually."
] |
>
Just imagine the news: "A nuke has been dropped on Times Square today by a man on a meth-fueled rage. An estimated 450 thousand people have been killed, as luckily it was only a small nuke".
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example.",
">\n\nYou can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.\nI don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually.",
">\n\nNukes?\nYou mean grenades? You do realize a single nuke will kill 1000s of people. How is that appropriate for self defense? \nImagine if every psycho could get their hands on one. Mass shootings would be childs play compared to nuke shootings."
] |
>
There is no practical way a nuclear weapon could be used to protect you from immediate bodily harm, even the smallest payload(the M-29 Davy Crockett) required setup and was impossible to fire from a safe distance. I can understand arguing that say civilians might need to use a Javelin so they can shoot down a chopper coming after them(and use Iran as an example) but nukes don't even fall in this category, they're outright offensive tools of mass destruction.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example.",
">\n\nYou can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.\nI don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually.",
">\n\nNukes?\nYou mean grenades? You do realize a single nuke will kill 1000s of people. How is that appropriate for self defense? \nImagine if every psycho could get their hands on one. Mass shootings would be childs play compared to nuke shootings.",
">\n\nJust imagine the news: \"A nuke has been dropped on Times Square today by a man on a meth-fueled rage. An estimated 450 thousand people have been killed, as luckily it was only a small nuke\"."
] |
>
However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.
Guns is one thint but nukes?? How can you possibly expext a normal citizen to need to use a nuke for self defense?
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example.",
">\n\nYou can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.\nI don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually.",
">\n\nNukes?\nYou mean grenades? You do realize a single nuke will kill 1000s of people. How is that appropriate for self defense? \nImagine if every psycho could get their hands on one. Mass shootings would be childs play compared to nuke shootings.",
">\n\nJust imagine the news: \"A nuke has been dropped on Times Square today by a man on a meth-fueled rage. An estimated 450 thousand people have been killed, as luckily it was only a small nuke\".",
">\n\nThere is no practical way a nuclear weapon could be used to protect you from immediate bodily harm, even the smallest payload(the M-29 Davy Crockett) required setup and was impossible to fire from a safe distance. I can understand arguing that say civilians might need to use a Javelin so they can shoot down a chopper coming after them(and use Iran as an example) but nukes don't even fall in this category, they're outright offensive tools of mass destruction."
] |
>
How could humans have a fundamental right to a piece of technology? A gun is an invention, and a relatively recent one at that. Do you think people had this right prior to the invention of the firearm? Why or why not? Do I have any other rights that are predicated on technology?
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example.",
">\n\nYou can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.\nI don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually.",
">\n\nNukes?\nYou mean grenades? You do realize a single nuke will kill 1000s of people. How is that appropriate for self defense? \nImagine if every psycho could get their hands on one. Mass shootings would be childs play compared to nuke shootings.",
">\n\nJust imagine the news: \"A nuke has been dropped on Times Square today by a man on a meth-fueled rage. An estimated 450 thousand people have been killed, as luckily it was only a small nuke\".",
">\n\nThere is no practical way a nuclear weapon could be used to protect you from immediate bodily harm, even the smallest payload(the M-29 Davy Crockett) required setup and was impossible to fire from a safe distance. I can understand arguing that say civilians might need to use a Javelin so they can shoot down a chopper coming after them(and use Iran as an example) but nukes don't even fall in this category, they're outright offensive tools of mass destruction.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nGuns is one thint but nukes?? How can you possibly expext a normal citizen to need to use a nuke for self defense?"
] |
>
More generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. Prior to a gun, it would be a bow or a blade, or even just a heavy object on a handle. In the future is may be plasma accelerators or whatever else arises. Guns are just what happens to exist today.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example.",
">\n\nYou can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.\nI don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually.",
">\n\nNukes?\nYou mean grenades? You do realize a single nuke will kill 1000s of people. How is that appropriate for self defense? \nImagine if every psycho could get their hands on one. Mass shootings would be childs play compared to nuke shootings.",
">\n\nJust imagine the news: \"A nuke has been dropped on Times Square today by a man on a meth-fueled rage. An estimated 450 thousand people have been killed, as luckily it was only a small nuke\".",
">\n\nThere is no practical way a nuclear weapon could be used to protect you from immediate bodily harm, even the smallest payload(the M-29 Davy Crockett) required setup and was impossible to fire from a safe distance. I can understand arguing that say civilians might need to use a Javelin so they can shoot down a chopper coming after them(and use Iran as an example) but nukes don't even fall in this category, they're outright offensive tools of mass destruction.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nGuns is one thint but nukes?? How can you possibly expext a normal citizen to need to use a nuke for self defense?",
">\n\nHow could humans have a fundamental right to a piece of technology? A gun is an invention, and a relatively recent one at that. Do you think people had this right prior to the invention of the firearm? Why or why not? Do I have any other rights that are predicated on technology?"
] |
>
More generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property.
Why do you think Locke didn't include that right with the others? Why isn't it written that we have the rights to life, liberty, property, and to arm oneself? Seems like you're just tacking it on.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example.",
">\n\nYou can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.\nI don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually.",
">\n\nNukes?\nYou mean grenades? You do realize a single nuke will kill 1000s of people. How is that appropriate for self defense? \nImagine if every psycho could get their hands on one. Mass shootings would be childs play compared to nuke shootings.",
">\n\nJust imagine the news: \"A nuke has been dropped on Times Square today by a man on a meth-fueled rage. An estimated 450 thousand people have been killed, as luckily it was only a small nuke\".",
">\n\nThere is no practical way a nuclear weapon could be used to protect you from immediate bodily harm, even the smallest payload(the M-29 Davy Crockett) required setup and was impossible to fire from a safe distance. I can understand arguing that say civilians might need to use a Javelin so they can shoot down a chopper coming after them(and use Iran as an example) but nukes don't even fall in this category, they're outright offensive tools of mass destruction.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nGuns is one thint but nukes?? How can you possibly expext a normal citizen to need to use a nuke for self defense?",
">\n\nHow could humans have a fundamental right to a piece of technology? A gun is an invention, and a relatively recent one at that. Do you think people had this right prior to the invention of the firearm? Why or why not? Do I have any other rights that are predicated on technology?",
">\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. Prior to a gun, it would be a bow or a blade, or even just a heavy object on a handle. In the future is may be plasma accelerators or whatever else arises. Guns are just what happens to exist today."
] |
>
Should every possible piece of property past, present, and future have been specified? Should every possible action someone could ever take as a part of their liberty also be specified?
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example.",
">\n\nYou can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.\nI don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually.",
">\n\nNukes?\nYou mean grenades? You do realize a single nuke will kill 1000s of people. How is that appropriate for self defense? \nImagine if every psycho could get their hands on one. Mass shootings would be childs play compared to nuke shootings.",
">\n\nJust imagine the news: \"A nuke has been dropped on Times Square today by a man on a meth-fueled rage. An estimated 450 thousand people have been killed, as luckily it was only a small nuke\".",
">\n\nThere is no practical way a nuclear weapon could be used to protect you from immediate bodily harm, even the smallest payload(the M-29 Davy Crockett) required setup and was impossible to fire from a safe distance. I can understand arguing that say civilians might need to use a Javelin so they can shoot down a chopper coming after them(and use Iran as an example) but nukes don't even fall in this category, they're outright offensive tools of mass destruction.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nGuns is one thint but nukes?? How can you possibly expext a normal citizen to need to use a nuke for self defense?",
">\n\nHow could humans have a fundamental right to a piece of technology? A gun is an invention, and a relatively recent one at that. Do you think people had this right prior to the invention of the firearm? Why or why not? Do I have any other rights that are predicated on technology?",
">\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. Prior to a gun, it would be a bow or a blade, or even just a heavy object on a handle. In the future is may be plasma accelerators or whatever else arises. Guns are just what happens to exist today.",
">\n\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. \n\nWhy do you think Locke didn't include that right with the others? Why isn't it written that we have the rights to life, liberty, property, and to arm oneself? Seems like you're just tacking it on."
] |
>
Locke wasn't saying that all property is fair game to be owned by citizens, did he? He said you have the right to own property, not all property.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example.",
">\n\nYou can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.\nI don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually.",
">\n\nNukes?\nYou mean grenades? You do realize a single nuke will kill 1000s of people. How is that appropriate for self defense? \nImagine if every psycho could get their hands on one. Mass shootings would be childs play compared to nuke shootings.",
">\n\nJust imagine the news: \"A nuke has been dropped on Times Square today by a man on a meth-fueled rage. An estimated 450 thousand people have been killed, as luckily it was only a small nuke\".",
">\n\nThere is no practical way a nuclear weapon could be used to protect you from immediate bodily harm, even the smallest payload(the M-29 Davy Crockett) required setup and was impossible to fire from a safe distance. I can understand arguing that say civilians might need to use a Javelin so they can shoot down a chopper coming after them(and use Iran as an example) but nukes don't even fall in this category, they're outright offensive tools of mass destruction.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nGuns is one thint but nukes?? How can you possibly expext a normal citizen to need to use a nuke for self defense?",
">\n\nHow could humans have a fundamental right to a piece of technology? A gun is an invention, and a relatively recent one at that. Do you think people had this right prior to the invention of the firearm? Why or why not? Do I have any other rights that are predicated on technology?",
">\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. Prior to a gun, it would be a bow or a blade, or even just a heavy object on a handle. In the future is may be plasma accelerators or whatever else arises. Guns are just what happens to exist today.",
">\n\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. \n\nWhy do you think Locke didn't include that right with the others? Why isn't it written that we have the rights to life, liberty, property, and to arm oneself? Seems like you're just tacking it on.",
">\n\nShould every possible piece of property past, present, and future have been specified? Should every possible action someone could ever take as a part of their liberty also be specified?"
] |
>
By that standard he might as well have said nothing at all, if the only things it refers to are actions explicitly listed.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example.",
">\n\nYou can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.\nI don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually.",
">\n\nNukes?\nYou mean grenades? You do realize a single nuke will kill 1000s of people. How is that appropriate for self defense? \nImagine if every psycho could get their hands on one. Mass shootings would be childs play compared to nuke shootings.",
">\n\nJust imagine the news: \"A nuke has been dropped on Times Square today by a man on a meth-fueled rage. An estimated 450 thousand people have been killed, as luckily it was only a small nuke\".",
">\n\nThere is no practical way a nuclear weapon could be used to protect you from immediate bodily harm, even the smallest payload(the M-29 Davy Crockett) required setup and was impossible to fire from a safe distance. I can understand arguing that say civilians might need to use a Javelin so they can shoot down a chopper coming after them(and use Iran as an example) but nukes don't even fall in this category, they're outright offensive tools of mass destruction.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nGuns is one thint but nukes?? How can you possibly expext a normal citizen to need to use a nuke for self defense?",
">\n\nHow could humans have a fundamental right to a piece of technology? A gun is an invention, and a relatively recent one at that. Do you think people had this right prior to the invention of the firearm? Why or why not? Do I have any other rights that are predicated on technology?",
">\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. Prior to a gun, it would be a bow or a blade, or even just a heavy object on a handle. In the future is may be plasma accelerators or whatever else arises. Guns are just what happens to exist today.",
">\n\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. \n\nWhy do you think Locke didn't include that right with the others? Why isn't it written that we have the rights to life, liberty, property, and to arm oneself? Seems like you're just tacking it on.",
">\n\nShould every possible piece of property past, present, and future have been specified? Should every possible action someone could ever take as a part of their liberty also be specified?",
">\n\nLocke wasn't saying that all property is fair game to be owned by citizens, did he? He said you have the right to own property, not all property."
] |
>
This is actually exactly the reason some Framers didn't want a Bill of Rights.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example.",
">\n\nYou can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.\nI don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually.",
">\n\nNukes?\nYou mean grenades? You do realize a single nuke will kill 1000s of people. How is that appropriate for self defense? \nImagine if every psycho could get their hands on one. Mass shootings would be childs play compared to nuke shootings.",
">\n\nJust imagine the news: \"A nuke has been dropped on Times Square today by a man on a meth-fueled rage. An estimated 450 thousand people have been killed, as luckily it was only a small nuke\".",
">\n\nThere is no practical way a nuclear weapon could be used to protect you from immediate bodily harm, even the smallest payload(the M-29 Davy Crockett) required setup and was impossible to fire from a safe distance. I can understand arguing that say civilians might need to use a Javelin so they can shoot down a chopper coming after them(and use Iran as an example) but nukes don't even fall in this category, they're outright offensive tools of mass destruction.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nGuns is one thint but nukes?? How can you possibly expext a normal citizen to need to use a nuke for self defense?",
">\n\nHow could humans have a fundamental right to a piece of technology? A gun is an invention, and a relatively recent one at that. Do you think people had this right prior to the invention of the firearm? Why or why not? Do I have any other rights that are predicated on technology?",
">\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. Prior to a gun, it would be a bow or a blade, or even just a heavy object on a handle. In the future is may be plasma accelerators or whatever else arises. Guns are just what happens to exist today.",
">\n\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. \n\nWhy do you think Locke didn't include that right with the others? Why isn't it written that we have the rights to life, liberty, property, and to arm oneself? Seems like you're just tacking it on.",
">\n\nShould every possible piece of property past, present, and future have been specified? Should every possible action someone could ever take as a part of their liberty also be specified?",
">\n\nLocke wasn't saying that all property is fair game to be owned by citizens, did he? He said you have the right to own property, not all property.",
">\n\nBy that standard he might as well have said nothing at all, if the only things it refers to are actions explicitly listed."
] |
>
Because people like you actively try to nickel and dime away rights because every possible situation that could ever occur wouldn't be listed, and would therefore be treated as not part of our rights? Yes, I'm glad you've read your history.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example.",
">\n\nYou can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.\nI don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually.",
">\n\nNukes?\nYou mean grenades? You do realize a single nuke will kill 1000s of people. How is that appropriate for self defense? \nImagine if every psycho could get their hands on one. Mass shootings would be childs play compared to nuke shootings.",
">\n\nJust imagine the news: \"A nuke has been dropped on Times Square today by a man on a meth-fueled rage. An estimated 450 thousand people have been killed, as luckily it was only a small nuke\".",
">\n\nThere is no practical way a nuclear weapon could be used to protect you from immediate bodily harm, even the smallest payload(the M-29 Davy Crockett) required setup and was impossible to fire from a safe distance. I can understand arguing that say civilians might need to use a Javelin so they can shoot down a chopper coming after them(and use Iran as an example) but nukes don't even fall in this category, they're outright offensive tools of mass destruction.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nGuns is one thint but nukes?? How can you possibly expext a normal citizen to need to use a nuke for self defense?",
">\n\nHow could humans have a fundamental right to a piece of technology? A gun is an invention, and a relatively recent one at that. Do you think people had this right prior to the invention of the firearm? Why or why not? Do I have any other rights that are predicated on technology?",
">\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. Prior to a gun, it would be a bow or a blade, or even just a heavy object on a handle. In the future is may be plasma accelerators or whatever else arises. Guns are just what happens to exist today.",
">\n\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. \n\nWhy do you think Locke didn't include that right with the others? Why isn't it written that we have the rights to life, liberty, property, and to arm oneself? Seems like you're just tacking it on.",
">\n\nShould every possible piece of property past, present, and future have been specified? Should every possible action someone could ever take as a part of their liberty also be specified?",
">\n\nLocke wasn't saying that all property is fair game to be owned by citizens, did he? He said you have the right to own property, not all property.",
">\n\nBy that standard he might as well have said nothing at all, if the only things it refers to are actions explicitly listed.",
">\n\nThis is actually exactly the reason some Framers didn't want a Bill of Rights."
] |
>
Because people like you actively try to nickel and dime away rights
What is a person like me? I disagree that people have a right to nuclear weapons and I'm some sort of fascist? Please elaborate.
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example.",
">\n\nYou can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.\nI don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually.",
">\n\nNukes?\nYou mean grenades? You do realize a single nuke will kill 1000s of people. How is that appropriate for self defense? \nImagine if every psycho could get their hands on one. Mass shootings would be childs play compared to nuke shootings.",
">\n\nJust imagine the news: \"A nuke has been dropped on Times Square today by a man on a meth-fueled rage. An estimated 450 thousand people have been killed, as luckily it was only a small nuke\".",
">\n\nThere is no practical way a nuclear weapon could be used to protect you from immediate bodily harm, even the smallest payload(the M-29 Davy Crockett) required setup and was impossible to fire from a safe distance. I can understand arguing that say civilians might need to use a Javelin so they can shoot down a chopper coming after them(and use Iran as an example) but nukes don't even fall in this category, they're outright offensive tools of mass destruction.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nGuns is one thint but nukes?? How can you possibly expext a normal citizen to need to use a nuke for self defense?",
">\n\nHow could humans have a fundamental right to a piece of technology? A gun is an invention, and a relatively recent one at that. Do you think people had this right prior to the invention of the firearm? Why or why not? Do I have any other rights that are predicated on technology?",
">\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. Prior to a gun, it would be a bow or a blade, or even just a heavy object on a handle. In the future is may be plasma accelerators or whatever else arises. Guns are just what happens to exist today.",
">\n\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. \n\nWhy do you think Locke didn't include that right with the others? Why isn't it written that we have the rights to life, liberty, property, and to arm oneself? Seems like you're just tacking it on.",
">\n\nShould every possible piece of property past, present, and future have been specified? Should every possible action someone could ever take as a part of their liberty also be specified?",
">\n\nLocke wasn't saying that all property is fair game to be owned by citizens, did he? He said you have the right to own property, not all property.",
">\n\nBy that standard he might as well have said nothing at all, if the only things it refers to are actions explicitly listed.",
">\n\nThis is actually exactly the reason some Framers didn't want a Bill of Rights.",
">\n\nBecause people like you actively try to nickel and dime away rights because every possible situation that could ever occur wouldn't be listed, and would therefore be treated as not part of our rights? Yes, I'm glad you've read your history."
] |
>
People who argue that our rights are inherently limited because they don't explicitly mention anything and everything within them. To quote you,
Locke wasn't saying that all property is fair game to be owned by citizens, did he? He said you have the right to own property, not all property.
How could humans have a fundamental right to a piece of technology? A gun is an invention, and a relatively recent one at that. Do you think people had this right prior to the invention of the firearm? Why or why not? Do I have any other rights that are predicated on technology?
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example.",
">\n\nYou can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.\nI don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually.",
">\n\nNukes?\nYou mean grenades? You do realize a single nuke will kill 1000s of people. How is that appropriate for self defense? \nImagine if every psycho could get their hands on one. Mass shootings would be childs play compared to nuke shootings.",
">\n\nJust imagine the news: \"A nuke has been dropped on Times Square today by a man on a meth-fueled rage. An estimated 450 thousand people have been killed, as luckily it was only a small nuke\".",
">\n\nThere is no practical way a nuclear weapon could be used to protect you from immediate bodily harm, even the smallest payload(the M-29 Davy Crockett) required setup and was impossible to fire from a safe distance. I can understand arguing that say civilians might need to use a Javelin so they can shoot down a chopper coming after them(and use Iran as an example) but nukes don't even fall in this category, they're outright offensive tools of mass destruction.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nGuns is one thint but nukes?? How can you possibly expext a normal citizen to need to use a nuke for self defense?",
">\n\nHow could humans have a fundamental right to a piece of technology? A gun is an invention, and a relatively recent one at that. Do you think people had this right prior to the invention of the firearm? Why or why not? Do I have any other rights that are predicated on technology?",
">\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. Prior to a gun, it would be a bow or a blade, or even just a heavy object on a handle. In the future is may be plasma accelerators or whatever else arises. Guns are just what happens to exist today.",
">\n\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. \n\nWhy do you think Locke didn't include that right with the others? Why isn't it written that we have the rights to life, liberty, property, and to arm oneself? Seems like you're just tacking it on.",
">\n\nShould every possible piece of property past, present, and future have been specified? Should every possible action someone could ever take as a part of their liberty also be specified?",
">\n\nLocke wasn't saying that all property is fair game to be owned by citizens, did he? He said you have the right to own property, not all property.",
">\n\nBy that standard he might as well have said nothing at all, if the only things it refers to are actions explicitly listed.",
">\n\nThis is actually exactly the reason some Framers didn't want a Bill of Rights.",
">\n\nBecause people like you actively try to nickel and dime away rights because every possible situation that could ever occur wouldn't be listed, and would therefore be treated as not part of our rights? Yes, I'm glad you've read your history.",
">\n\n\nBecause people like you actively try to nickel and dime away rights\n\nWhat is a person like me? I disagree that people have a right to nuclear weapons and I'm some sort of fascist? Please elaborate."
] |
>
|
[
"/u/kuch_bhi00 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nSelf defence means you are protecting yourself from someone that is directing harm at you. There is no way to use a nuke without ALSO killing 10's of thousands of innocent people. \nThere are no situations where a whole city and every single person in it is actively directly a threat to you. Even Moscow, and every single person in it are not a direct threat to any person living in Kiev. \nWeapons of Mass destruction are controversial because they kill innocent people. In your scenario, If a person even attempts to owns a Nuke, it would be wise to immediately kill them as they are now directly threatening your life. Even if you have no relation to them and live in another city.",
">\n\nSo the obvious question is, what do you believe the outcome of this idea will be? I'm sure you understand how much damage even one person with a nuclear bomb can cause.",
">\n\nYour second paragraph is interesting. Where did your figures come from? I found this as the first result from searching Us vs UK crime rates.\nAs for nukes, i don't trust governments to have them. Individual ownership would be disastrous.",
">\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws. Like there are chances that the crime rates in the UK will stay that way even though gun ownership becomes legal there. Also, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\nAdditionally, if normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.",
">\n\n\nif normal citizens had the ability to legally own and use nukes, then they would have a strong deterrent effect against aggression. Countries or groups that might otherwise be tempted to attack other nations would think twice if they knew that their potential victims had the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This could help to reduce the overall level of conflict in the world.\n\nI don't understand how this is different from a country having nukes. Why should individuals have nukes?",
">\n\nNukes to defend your family?\nWe don't have fat man launchers and mini nukes IRL.\nYou use a nuke and you wipe out your neighbourhood at best the whole city at worst.",
">\n\n\nAlso, the USA still has fewer crime rates than many countries which don't allow guns for normal citizens.\n\nYes, but the vast majority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nGun ownership is not at all directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nThen maybe don't make that point in your post.",
">\n\n\nYes, but the \nvast \nmajority of countries with strict gun laws have better security than the US.\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control. It's because of other factors. For example, the UK is a country's strong economy and high levels of social cohesion. Research has suggested that countries with strong economies and high levels of social trust tend to have lower crime rates.\nAdditionally, the UK has a relatively well-developed system of law enforcement and criminal justice, which may help to deter crime and to hold offenders accountable for their actions. \nMaybe if the US police force starts focusing less on protestors or harassing black people then maybe your crime rates will dip down more.",
">\n\n\nIt's not necessarily because of gun control\n\nYou're making a strawman argument.\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.",
">\n\n\nI'm not arguing that better gun control necessarily leads to less violent crime - I'm arguing that less gun control doesn't reduce violent crime.\n\nHow is that not a strawman?",
">\n\nIt's not. Op is arguing that more gun freedom, as I'll call it, decreases crime. I'm saying it doesn't. I have data to back that up.\nI'm not saying that less guns decrease crime.\nI'm saying that guns are irrelevant to the discussion, but arguing that they decrease crime is disingenuous.",
">\n\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nCould you eleborate on this? The homicide rate in the US is many times higher than many European countries with extremely limited gun ownership. Which crime rates are lower and what are your sources?",
">\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\nThere are several reasons why the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One reason is that crime rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural values, and criminal justice policies. It is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\nAdditionally, there is evidence to suggest that higher levels of gun ownership can actually be associated with lower crime rates. For example, a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had lower rates of violent crime. Similarly, a report by the Congressional Research Service found that countries with stricter gun control laws did not necessarily have lower rates of gun-related deaths.\nOf course, it is important to consider all of the available evidence when evaluating the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates. However, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.",
">\n\n\nIt's relatively low compared to many countries where gun ownership is very tough for normal citizens.\n\nAnd also high compared to many other countries where gun ownership is very limited.\n\n\nIt is therefore difficult to attribute any changes in crime rates solely to changes in gun laws.\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\n\nHowever, I believe that the evidence does not support the idea that stricter gun control laws are an effective way to reduce crime.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.",
">\n\n\nYet in your post you attributed the \"low crime rates\" of the US to high gun ownership.\n\nOk. So Lets agree that gun is not directly proportional to crime rates.\n\nIt also doesn't show the opposite. Before arming everyone and their mother with a gun I would really like to see some solid evidence that gun ownership reduces crime, especially crimes that kill people.\n\nA person who wants to kill cant be stopped. They will access it anyways from gun smugglers and illegal dealers. Additionally, there are many examples of individuals using guns to protect themselves and others from harm. For example, a woman in Texas used a gun to defend herself and her children from an intruder, and a man in Michigan used a gun to protect his family from a home invasion. These types of incidents suggest that guns can be an effective means of self-defense. Now let's talk about nukes.",
">\n\nWe're not done talking about guns yet.\nYes, you're right that there are cases where guns save lives in America, no one is disputing that. However, there are more cases where the abundance of guns hurts and kills people. \nJust a few days ago a 6-year old shot his teacher, which is something that was only possible due to the abundance of guns. I also watched a ted-talk from a guy who almost shot up a school and getting a gun for it was an impulse decision and trivially easy (he just walked into a random gun store and bought one).\nYes, hardened criminals will always get guns, but a lot of gun violence isn't premeditated but rather done impulsively because the guns are there anyway so you might as well use them. If someone steals a car I would prefer for them and the victim to have no gun rather than for them to both have a gun.",
">\n\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens areoften at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way toobtain guns illegally.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted there is significantly less gun violence and very little reason to own a gun for self defense. Your argument is that because it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns, you need a gun to defend yourself - but you're addressing the symptom rather than the very problem you identified - that it's so easy for criminals to obtain guns.",
">\n\nYes, less guns = less gun violence. If it's that obvious then let's reduce the number of guns and reduce gun violence. Unfortunately, even though this is so plainly obvious, it's a point of contention and needs to be argued. Gun advocates would rather solve the problem of gun violence, which is proliferated by having so many guns, by simply increasing the number of guns (see OP).",
">\n\nA nuclear weapon would not only affect the person you’re trying to defend yourself from but depending on the size it could affect everyone in the room or it could affect everyone within 15 fucking miles. Instead of mass shootings we would have nukings instead of 22 deaths in uvalde there would’ve been hundreds if not thousands at the absolute minimum not to mention all the deaths from fallout",
">\n\nFirstly, the us crime rate is not \"relatively low\" compared to other similarly developed countries. And...it's not as low as the countries with the strictest gun control laws. I don't think you can defend the cause and effect in the way you're doing here!",
">\n\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime\n\nThen you believe a falsehood.\nMore Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a believable scenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.",
">\n\n\nThis is such a wild statement that I am imploring you to give me a \nbelievable \nscenario in which an average citizen would need to defend themself with a nuclear bomb.\n\nI would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Also, countries would hesitate to attack other countries more in such cases knowing that everyone has nukes in both sides.\n\n\"Data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.\"\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.",
">\n\n\nFor example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party\n\nThe threatened party is the nation. It is to the nation's government to respond, not individual citizens. And, I said believable. It is not believable that a private citizen would have the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb to the territory of the state threatening his. Airport security is tough these days, and nukes are a big no-no.\n\nif a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and amass a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense\n\nAgain, the threatened party is the state. Any actions in response to a state actor threatening another state actor must be undertaken by the state.\n\nGuns are illegal in the top 10 countries with the highest crime rates.\n\nYou cannot compare nations with widely different cultures and situations like this. They are all too different. But, you can compare regions or areas within the same culture and general situation to each other. When you do this, in the US, you find reliably and consistently that areas with less guns have less crime; particularly, less violent crim.",
">\n\nHow do you defend yourself with a nuke\nAlso I would just nuke random cities for fun",
">\n\nI assume he is talking about the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. The fact that attacking you means you can kill them in return means they are less likely to attack you. \nStill a stupid reason for individuals to have nukes.",
">\n\nSelf defense doesn't work against an entire town. \nIf my neighbor attacks the person with the nuke and he nukes in response I and my family all die.",
">\n\nNukes? So a citizen could need to kill hundreds of thousands of other citizens in \"self defense?\"",
">\n\nI don't see how nukes can effectively be used defensively except as a suicide retaliation much like MAD but on an individual level. \nImagine there's a new superweapon that is invented. It's so powerful that at the press of a button all people everywhere except for you die. Do you believe everyone should have one of these?\nThe point is not everyone is a rational actor. In fact I argue most people aren't. We can't honestly even trust people with guns. If we all have guns you are basically saying some rate of murder/killing is acceptable because with a bunch of idiots in close proximity it becomes inevitable.",
">\n\nThere’s a tendency to think of crime like a heist movie, the targets are well chosen and everything is planned out. In reality crime isn’t well thought out, it’s mostly spur of the moment using what’s immediately available. Numerous studies show that people tend to be killed by guns more often when gun ownership is higher. Clearly the chance of a target with a gun isn’t as worrying as you would think.",
">\n\nfirst of all nukes are expensive so already the only people that would even be able to have them is extremely limited. So we have a small number of people with a lot of power (sounds familiar ?) \nSecond of all, who decides what is a nukeable offence? Are there any emergency procedures when someone wants to nuke a place ? Evacuations? You seem to over simply things here",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense.\n\nNukes are not a weapon that can be used in self defence as they are not targeted. If someone is breaking into your home, you can't just set off a nuke to protect yourself. If someone is sending an army your way, you can't wipe out everyone in a 10-20 miles radius and call it self-defence.\nSelf defence allows you to take an appropriate response to an attack. Shooting someone who has broken into your house in the middle of the night who might be armed and you feel your life is threatened, that can be self defence. Shooting everyone in sight because one person is mugging you at knife point: not self defence.\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.",
">\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nAnd this skips over the impracticalities of allowing easier access to nukes. Instead of school shootings where dozens of people get killed, you will instead have \"school nukings\" where the whole school plus the surrounding neighbourhood is wiped out.\n\nThere should be an age limit of 24-55 for accessing nukes, with proper psychological evaluation required. There should also be sufficient evidence to validate the mental health of the person seeking to own a nuke. This evaluation should be conducted by multiple top professionals to ensure its accuracy. Additionally, nuke owners within this age range should be required to undergo a thorough mental check-up every week.",
">\n\n\nFirst, it is true that nukes are not suitable for every situation and that they should only be used in extreme cases of self-defense. However, I would argue that there are certain scenarios in which the use of a nuke might be justified as a means of self-defense. For example, if a country or group is threatening to launch a nuclear attack against another country or group, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense. Similarly, if a country or group is planning to invade another country or group and is amassing a large military force, then the threatened party might have a legitimate right to use a nuke in self-defense.\n\nThis is an argument for countries to have nuclear weapons, not individuals.\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense? Any situation where even the smallest nuclear weapon - which is still the size of the Chernobyl explosion - can have any personal defensive application?",
">\n\n\nCan you come up with any situation where an individual needs to have access to a nuke for self-defense?\n\nDefense against a state with military and police capabilities for which the available resources far exceed what any individual can amass.",
">\n\nWhy is a nuclear weapon necessary in those situations? Why are firearms and conventional explosives insufficient?",
">\n\nBecause a state with a proper police and military can easily overpower an individual, or even a small group of individuals. A nuclear weapon with a dead man's switch would provide a deterrent at the scale a government will be sufficiently impacted.",
">\n\nAnd conventional explosives with a similar trigger won’t suffice?",
">\n\nThe bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. A little challenging to have space for that much conventional explosives, no?",
">\n\nThat doesn’t explain why you need that kind of ordinance for a defensive purpose. Hiroshima was an offensive attack.",
">\n\nAs I said. As a deterrence on a level that governments must respect. There's a reason that nuclear weapons were the choice of deterrent via mutually assumed destruction and not obscene quantities of other bomb",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nIt would take 1 wierdo incel to cause the destruction of the planet.",
">\n\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes. I know that nukes are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction, and their use is strictly regulated by international law. However, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nHow would this ever be in self-defense? Those are usually only held at the country-level, which has so far ensured that both sides don't use them. If individuals with loose fingers could press the button because they feel threatened, you can bet that it would lead to many catastrophes.",
">\n\n\nI believe that the right to bear arms is a fundamental human right\n\nWhy? I don't think this is self-evidently true, so I think its fairly important to establish the reasoning behind it.\n\nIn countries where gun ownership is restricted, law-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nIf this were the case, we'd expect rates of crimes involving guns to be fairly consistent between comparable countries, and that really isn't the case. I lice in a country with fairly strict restrictions on guns. If someone broke into my house at night, it wouldn't even occur to me that they might have a gun. I doubt any American can say that.\n\nThis has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis just isn't true. The US has much higher rates of murder and serious crime than other comparable nations. A person in the US is 22 times more likely to be killed by a gun than someone in the EU.\n\nNow, let me address the issue of nukes.\n\nI don't feel like you've really explained this view, beyond saying that you feel a certain way about guns and don't see a distinction between them and nukes. Anyway, I think there are clearly distinctions that make nuclear weapons profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands and useless for self-defence. Any idiot with an H-bomb can commit mass murder on a level beyond any school shooter or serial killer. \nNuclear weapons have some utility for states, because they have fixed borders and are generally separated from concentrations of their enemies by a meaningful distance. That isn't really the case in personal self-defence. It's unlikely you'll have a valid self-defence rationale for killing someone 200 miles away. Even if you did, it wouldn't be a valid rationale for killing the other hundred thousand people. Realistically, a personal threat is going to emerge near you. If a guy breaks into your house, how is the bomb in the basement going to help? You attempting to use the weapon is the worst case scenario in that situation, well beyond anything a home invader with a gun could do.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people should be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of all kinds.\n\nThe lack of a monopoly on violence is a characteristic of failed states. Not even saying how dangerous it is to have nukes in hands of terrorists etc.",
">\n\nDo you think Iran's monopoly on violence makes it a functional state?",
">\n\nWell it did not fall apart, so by definition - yes.",
">\n\nDo you think the women of Iran should be able to defend themselves with arms ?",
">\n\nI believe in peaceful protests. If you give weapon to those women, they will not be able to protect themselves anyhow.",
">\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves? Do you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?",
">\n\n\nWhy do you think they won't be able to defend themselves?\n\n- they kill a policeman in self-defense\n- the police comes after them and in the best case scenario they get arrested, in the worst case they get executed\n\nDo you believe in peaceful protests where men and women are brutally killed by police ?\n\nNeither you nor I have the right to talk about what the people of Iran shall do while sitting on our couch. A great analogy for you and me would be all those middle-class Westerners that know better than Ukrainians how to fight the war (or how to give up their country), without ever getting even close in a situation like that.",
">\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate. \nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son. The only way to fight force is with force. Remember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .",
">\n\n\nPolice are going to come after them anyway. The consequences of an armed populace against authoritarian governments is hard to overstate.\n\n\n\nThe only way to fight force is with force.\n\nYou are what we call internet heroes. In reality, people like living more than sacrificing their lives for doubtful benefits. Look for instance what happened during Belarusian protests in 2020 and how the Lukashenko regime survived, even with 70% of its population being and fighting against his regime.\n\nI have a right to talk about whatever I please, son.\n\nYou do have the right to talk about whatever you please, but that does not mean that you do not talk gibberish and bullshit.\n\nRemember when the left was all about self defense and second amendment to protect from a racist government? I do. Remember when republicans used gun control to target black people who wanted to defend themselves? I do, I'm a poc in fact .\n\nI am not from the US so the answer is NO.",
">\n\nYou're probably some white boy who's never had to fear for themselves, so I doubt you have much to talk about. I grew up during a time when criminals had guns and lilly white boys like you protester against Bernard goetz. \nThe Belarusian protests were largely Peaceful, nothing changed though. \nLuckily not all liberals are wimpy soyboys with big glasses living with their boyfriends in NYC. Most of the hardened LGBTQ people love the second amendment, as do many minorities who know what oppression actually looks like.",
">\n\nHere is literally how this would go down if the US allowed citizens to own nukes.\nForeign powers such as China, Russia, etc. would loan nukes to US citizens in the middle of major cities to keep for self defense. Now instead of however many minutes a retaliatory ICBM strike would take, these foreign powers now have the ability to remote detonate and wipe out major cities in seconds with absolutely no chance for the US to intervene. Do you really see this as a benefit to the security of the nation and its individuals?\nAnd sure, most citizens won’t be willing to house a nuke from Russia in their NYC apartment, but they don’t need most people to. Especially with some cash along with it, they would have no problem finding a few people in every major city to agree to this. Heck, they could pay someone living in a rural area to rent a NYC apartment to keep the nuke there with it technically just being their vacation apartment.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and usenukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that theright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that peopleshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats ofall kinds.\n\nWhat do nukes have to do with self-defense? They are indiscriminate weapons. There are no scenarios where an individual can use a nuke against an attacker and be able to plausibly claim self-defense.\nEven if your perceived attacker is like a tyrannical government, then the nuke will still kill innocent bystanders and thus is outside the realm of self defense.",
">\n\n\nI believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use \nnukes as a means of self-defense. Just as with guns, I believe that the \nright to self-defense is a fundamental human right and that people \nshould be able to protect themselves and their families from threats of \nall kinds.\n\nWhat if a serial killer or an enraged conspiracy theorist gets a nuke and uses it to kill a bunch of people? If self-defense is a fundamental human right, how does your policy give anyone the right or ability to defend themself against this?",
">\n\nlets not forget the nuke fun factor",
">\n\n\nlaw-abiding citizens are often at a disadvantage against criminals who will always find a way to obtain guns illegally.\n\nSome criminals may, but not all criminals will. When guns are illegal, they become more expensive and more difficult to get, which makes the world safer.\n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. \n\nIt doesn't. The statistics are in, as others in the thread have said.\n\nWhen potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes.\n\nAbout half of Americans own guns. There is a good chance a victim might be armed, and yet it doesn't deter criminals.\n\nAlso, nukes aren't for use in self-defense. Obviously. If you're using a nuke, you're either killing yourself or killing someone nowhere near you.",
">\n\nIm not even going to entertain the idea of citizens legally owning tacitical nukes.\nBut for gun control, I will raise several issues:\n\nProblematic claims about 'gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime': Lots of countries with stricter gun ownership laws have less crimerate, so this partially nullifies your point. I mention partially because you can say that 'crimerate is influenced by so many other factors' --- but if those factors are more influential than gun ownership and reducing crimerate is the ultimate goal, then why not just focus on improving those factors instead?\nProblematic claims about 'right to bear arms is a fundamental human right': Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings (Link to United Nations definition of Human Rights) --- do we inherently have the right to own guns just because we are humans? I highly doubt so. As humans we are born with life, with speech, with human dignity, but we arent born with guns. Your claim about it using to defend is also dubious: organized armed criminals very rarely use guns in a crime anyway --- and in armed robberies against banks etc, you as an office clerk wont want to risk your life defending others' properties in a gunfight anyway. If anything, it is much easier for a criminal to happen to be yielding a gun in a 'normal home invasion' because that country allows normal poor socioeconomic citizens to have guns.",
">\n\nLegalizing nukes ownership is the way to get rid of the second amendment. \n\nFurthermore, I believe that gun ownership can actually help to reduce crime. When potential perpetrators know that their potential victims might be armed, they are less likely to commit crimes. This has been shown to be the case in countries like the United States, where gun ownership is relatively high and crime rates are relatively low.\n\nThis is as vague as it is inaccurate. \nRelative to what?\nWhat crimes? \nDo you know what percentage of guns owned by Street gangs consists of guns stolen from law abiding citizens? I am talking about people who had weapons in their homes when they ch not only did not deter crimes but also lead to more crimes. \nA congressman (I think it was Rand Paul) said after the shooting of congressmen at a baseball game that he would have brought a gun and chased the shooter down. But every problem has a solution. The next big shooting was the one at the concert in Vegas. What would have changed if every single person at the concert and every single person in the hotel was armed?",
">\n\nCould you explain exactly how you propose to use a nuke in self-defence, as an ordinary citizen?\nPlease provide an example.",
">\n\nYou can believe it's a fundamental human right but there no evidence you give to explain it you should able to defend yourself but noone has ever argued you have a right for the tools to do so.\nI don't even know where to start with nuke argument the bombing in Japan is regarded as one of the most well known crimes against humanity not be punished yet you not only don't think that you want future events along the same lines to be treated casually.",
">\n\nNukes?\nYou mean grenades? You do realize a single nuke will kill 1000s of people. How is that appropriate for self defense? \nImagine if every psycho could get their hands on one. Mass shootings would be childs play compared to nuke shootings.",
">\n\nJust imagine the news: \"A nuke has been dropped on Times Square today by a man on a meth-fueled rage. An estimated 450 thousand people have been killed, as luckily it was only a small nuke\".",
">\n\nThere is no practical way a nuclear weapon could be used to protect you from immediate bodily harm, even the smallest payload(the M-29 Davy Crockett) required setup and was impossible to fire from a safe distance. I can understand arguing that say civilians might need to use a Javelin so they can shoot down a chopper coming after them(and use Iran as an example) but nukes don't even fall in this category, they're outright offensive tools of mass destruction.",
">\n\n\nHowever, I believe that normal citizens should have the right to own and use nukes as a means of self-defense. \n\nGuns is one thint but nukes?? How can you possibly expext a normal citizen to need to use a nuke for self defense?",
">\n\nHow could humans have a fundamental right to a piece of technology? A gun is an invention, and a relatively recent one at that. Do you think people had this right prior to the invention of the firearm? Why or why not? Do I have any other rights that are predicated on technology?",
">\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. Prior to a gun, it would be a bow or a blade, or even just a heavy object on a handle. In the future is may be plasma accelerators or whatever else arises. Guns are just what happens to exist today.",
">\n\n\nMore generally, the right to arm oneself for defensive purposes is derived from our rights to life, liberty, and property. \n\nWhy do you think Locke didn't include that right with the others? Why isn't it written that we have the rights to life, liberty, property, and to arm oneself? Seems like you're just tacking it on.",
">\n\nShould every possible piece of property past, present, and future have been specified? Should every possible action someone could ever take as a part of their liberty also be specified?",
">\n\nLocke wasn't saying that all property is fair game to be owned by citizens, did he? He said you have the right to own property, not all property.",
">\n\nBy that standard he might as well have said nothing at all, if the only things it refers to are actions explicitly listed.",
">\n\nThis is actually exactly the reason some Framers didn't want a Bill of Rights.",
">\n\nBecause people like you actively try to nickel and dime away rights because every possible situation that could ever occur wouldn't be listed, and would therefore be treated as not part of our rights? Yes, I'm glad you've read your history.",
">\n\n\nBecause people like you actively try to nickel and dime away rights\n\nWhat is a person like me? I disagree that people have a right to nuclear weapons and I'm some sort of fascist? Please elaborate.",
">\n\nPeople who argue that our rights are inherently limited because they don't explicitly mention anything and everything within them. To quote you,\n\nLocke wasn't saying that all property is fair game to be owned by citizens, did he? He said you have the right to own property, not all property.\nHow could humans have a fundamental right to a piece of technology? A gun is an invention, and a relatively recent one at that. Do you think people had this right prior to the invention of the firearm? Why or why not? Do I have any other rights that are predicated on technology?"
] |
Now you need to get a keyboard with 300 keys. and a few hundred keyboards surrounding it
|
[] |
>
That's a good analogy :-)
|
[
"Now you need to get a keyboard with 300 keys. and a few hundred keyboards surrounding it"
] |
>
The Spartan keyboard has only 1 macro. it plays a sound file. with a spartan screaming "FOR SPARTA!!!!!"
|
[
"Now you need to get a keyboard with 300 keys. and a few hundred keyboards surrounding it",
">\n\nThat's a good analogy :-)"
] |
>
|
[
"Now you need to get a keyboard with 300 keys. and a few hundred keyboards surrounding it",
">\n\nThat's a good analogy :-)",
">\n\nThe Spartan keyboard has only 1 macro. it plays a sound file. with a spartan screaming \"FOR SPARTA!!!!!\""
] |
Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a "pro-gun" law in any way, it's a "anti-criminialization" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.
Under this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.
|
[] |
>
What happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?
Like what do they do instead
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage."
] |
>
If a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.
The gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment.
This child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead"
] |
>
13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.
10 seems more reasonable to me.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”."
] |
>
Absolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me."
] |
>
The law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about "reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm".
Or I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either."
] |
>
Perhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged."
] |
>
Again: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient."
] |
>
In such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant."
] |
>
I disagree.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated."
] |
>
I think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree."
] |
>
If you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges."
] |
>
Heyeyeye...
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme"
] |
>
…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye..."
] |
>
I was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions."
] |
>
There needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be."
] |
>
I don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, "Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon."), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes."
] |
>
So bring the gun to therapy?
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least."
] |
>
I’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?"
] |
>
I've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better"
] |
>
"Bullies - Beware!"
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response."
] |
>
This is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\""
] |
>
And then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!"
] |
>
"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun"
Really stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun "loaded" just because a round isn't chambered.
Two things that look suspicious:
1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.
2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away"
] |
>
You realize that is a 15 round magazine?
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away",
">\n\n\n\"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun\"\n\nReally stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun \"loaded\" just because a round isn't chambered.\nTwo things that look suspicious:\n1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.\n2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition."
] |
>
The article doesn't say that, nor does it say a make, model or caliber.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away",
">\n\n\n\"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun\"\n\nReally stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun \"loaded\" just because a round isn't chambered.\nTwo things that look suspicious:\n1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.\n2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition.",
">\n\nYou realize that is a 15 round magazine?"
] |
>
Oh my friend it doesnt need to. It is a polymer80 pf940c the 9 stands for 9mm and the 40 stands for 40 s&w. So if it is chambered in 9mm that would make it a glock 19 meaning it holds 15 rounds standard. If it was a .40 that would make it a glock 23 which holds 13 rounds. Both those mags in the photo hold more than 10 rounds.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away",
">\n\n\n\"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun\"\n\nReally stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun \"loaded\" just because a round isn't chambered.\nTwo things that look suspicious:\n1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.\n2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition.",
">\n\nYou realize that is a 15 round magazine?",
">\n\nThe article doesn't say that, nor does it say a make, model or caliber."
] |
>
Maryland has had a 10 round magazine limit for 9+ years.
.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away",
">\n\n\n\"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun\"\n\nReally stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun \"loaded\" just because a round isn't chambered.\nTwo things that look suspicious:\n1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.\n2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition.",
">\n\nYou realize that is a 15 round magazine?",
">\n\nThe article doesn't say that, nor does it say a make, model or caliber.",
">\n\nOh my friend it doesnt need to. It is a polymer80 pf940c the 9 stands for 9mm and the 40 stands for 40 s&w. So if it is chambered in 9mm that would make it a glock 19 meaning it holds 15 rounds standard. If it was a .40 that would make it a glock 23 which holds 13 rounds. Both those mags in the photo hold more than 10 rounds."
] |
>
Yeah i know. But this is a homemade firearm. These parts all came from the internet. I just found three different sites that will send 50 round pmags to Baltimore...
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away",
">\n\n\n\"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun\"\n\nReally stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun \"loaded\" just because a round isn't chambered.\nTwo things that look suspicious:\n1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.\n2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition.",
">\n\nYou realize that is a 15 round magazine?",
">\n\nThe article doesn't say that, nor does it say a make, model or caliber.",
">\n\nOh my friend it doesnt need to. It is a polymer80 pf940c the 9 stands for 9mm and the 40 stands for 40 s&w. So if it is chambered in 9mm that would make it a glock 19 meaning it holds 15 rounds standard. If it was a .40 that would make it a glock 23 which holds 13 rounds. Both those mags in the photo hold more than 10 rounds.",
">\n\nMaryland has had a 10 round magazine limit for 9+ years.\n."
] |
>
Where Does it say that this mag is >10 rounds?
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away",
">\n\n\n\"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun\"\n\nReally stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun \"loaded\" just because a round isn't chambered.\nTwo things that look suspicious:\n1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.\n2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition.",
">\n\nYou realize that is a 15 round magazine?",
">\n\nThe article doesn't say that, nor does it say a make, model or caliber.",
">\n\nOh my friend it doesnt need to. It is a polymer80 pf940c the 9 stands for 9mm and the 40 stands for 40 s&w. So if it is chambered in 9mm that would make it a glock 19 meaning it holds 15 rounds standard. If it was a .40 that would make it a glock 23 which holds 13 rounds. Both those mags in the photo hold more than 10 rounds.",
">\n\nMaryland has had a 10 round magazine limit for 9+ years.\n.",
">\n\nYeah i know. But this is a homemade firearm. These parts all came from the internet. I just found three different sites that will send 50 round pmags to Baltimore..."
] |
>
Alright so we will say it is a 10 round magazine. Where in the article did it say it's a 10 round magazine?
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away",
">\n\n\n\"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun\"\n\nReally stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun \"loaded\" just because a round isn't chambered.\nTwo things that look suspicious:\n1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.\n2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition.",
">\n\nYou realize that is a 15 round magazine?",
">\n\nThe article doesn't say that, nor does it say a make, model or caliber.",
">\n\nOh my friend it doesnt need to. It is a polymer80 pf940c the 9 stands for 9mm and the 40 stands for 40 s&w. So if it is chambered in 9mm that would make it a glock 19 meaning it holds 15 rounds standard. If it was a .40 that would make it a glock 23 which holds 13 rounds. Both those mags in the photo hold more than 10 rounds.",
">\n\nMaryland has had a 10 round magazine limit for 9+ years.\n.",
">\n\nYeah i know. But this is a homemade firearm. These parts all came from the internet. I just found three different sites that will send 50 round pmags to Baltimore...",
">\n\nWhere Does it say that this mag is >10 rounds?"
] |
>
Isn't this what they want? Everyone to be armed to combat the criminals? Sounds good to me, let me know how it turns out.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away",
">\n\n\n\"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun\"\n\nReally stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun \"loaded\" just because a round isn't chambered.\nTwo things that look suspicious:\n1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.\n2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition.",
">\n\nYou realize that is a 15 round magazine?",
">\n\nThe article doesn't say that, nor does it say a make, model or caliber.",
">\n\nOh my friend it doesnt need to. It is a polymer80 pf940c the 9 stands for 9mm and the 40 stands for 40 s&w. So if it is chambered in 9mm that would make it a glock 19 meaning it holds 15 rounds standard. If it was a .40 that would make it a glock 23 which holds 13 rounds. Both those mags in the photo hold more than 10 rounds.",
">\n\nMaryland has had a 10 round magazine limit for 9+ years.\n.",
">\n\nYeah i know. But this is a homemade firearm. These parts all came from the internet. I just found three different sites that will send 50 round pmags to Baltimore...",
">\n\nWhere Does it say that this mag is >10 rounds?",
">\n\nAlright so we will say it is a 10 round magazine. Where in the article did it say it's a 10 round magazine?"
] |
>
If you outlaw guns in schools, only outlaws will have guns in schools. /s
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away",
">\n\n\n\"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun\"\n\nReally stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun \"loaded\" just because a round isn't chambered.\nTwo things that look suspicious:\n1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.\n2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition.",
">\n\nYou realize that is a 15 round magazine?",
">\n\nThe article doesn't say that, nor does it say a make, model or caliber.",
">\n\nOh my friend it doesnt need to. It is a polymer80 pf940c the 9 stands for 9mm and the 40 stands for 40 s&w. So if it is chambered in 9mm that would make it a glock 19 meaning it holds 15 rounds standard. If it was a .40 that would make it a glock 23 which holds 13 rounds. Both those mags in the photo hold more than 10 rounds.",
">\n\nMaryland has had a 10 round magazine limit for 9+ years.\n.",
">\n\nYeah i know. But this is a homemade firearm. These parts all came from the internet. I just found three different sites that will send 50 round pmags to Baltimore...",
">\n\nWhere Does it say that this mag is >10 rounds?",
">\n\nAlright so we will say it is a 10 round magazine. Where in the article did it say it's a 10 round magazine?",
">\n\nIsn't this what they want? Everyone to be armed to combat the criminals? Sounds good to me, let me know how it turns out."
] |
>
Even outlaws don't have guns in school 50 years ago
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away",
">\n\n\n\"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun\"\n\nReally stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun \"loaded\" just because a round isn't chambered.\nTwo things that look suspicious:\n1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.\n2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition.",
">\n\nYou realize that is a 15 round magazine?",
">\n\nThe article doesn't say that, nor does it say a make, model or caliber.",
">\n\nOh my friend it doesnt need to. It is a polymer80 pf940c the 9 stands for 9mm and the 40 stands for 40 s&w. So if it is chambered in 9mm that would make it a glock 19 meaning it holds 15 rounds standard. If it was a .40 that would make it a glock 23 which holds 13 rounds. Both those mags in the photo hold more than 10 rounds.",
">\n\nMaryland has had a 10 round magazine limit for 9+ years.\n.",
">\n\nYeah i know. But this is a homemade firearm. These parts all came from the internet. I just found three different sites that will send 50 round pmags to Baltimore...",
">\n\nWhere Does it say that this mag is >10 rounds?",
">\n\nAlright so we will say it is a 10 round magazine. Where in the article did it say it's a 10 round magazine?",
">\n\nIsn't this what they want? Everyone to be armed to combat the criminals? Sounds good to me, let me know how it turns out.",
">\n\nIf you outlaw guns in schools, only outlaws will have guns in schools. /s"
] |
>
My highschool had a gun club 50yrs ago.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away",
">\n\n\n\"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun\"\n\nReally stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun \"loaded\" just because a round isn't chambered.\nTwo things that look suspicious:\n1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.\n2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition.",
">\n\nYou realize that is a 15 round magazine?",
">\n\nThe article doesn't say that, nor does it say a make, model or caliber.",
">\n\nOh my friend it doesnt need to. It is a polymer80 pf940c the 9 stands for 9mm and the 40 stands for 40 s&w. So if it is chambered in 9mm that would make it a glock 19 meaning it holds 15 rounds standard. If it was a .40 that would make it a glock 23 which holds 13 rounds. Both those mags in the photo hold more than 10 rounds.",
">\n\nMaryland has had a 10 round magazine limit for 9+ years.\n.",
">\n\nYeah i know. But this is a homemade firearm. These parts all came from the internet. I just found three different sites that will send 50 round pmags to Baltimore...",
">\n\nWhere Does it say that this mag is >10 rounds?",
">\n\nAlright so we will say it is a 10 round magazine. Where in the article did it say it's a 10 round magazine?",
">\n\nIsn't this what they want? Everyone to be armed to combat the criminals? Sounds good to me, let me know how it turns out.",
">\n\nIf you outlaw guns in schools, only outlaws will have guns in schools. /s",
">\n\nEven outlaws don't have guns in school 50 years ago"
] |
>
Bolt action 22s on targets or similar I'd wager.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away",
">\n\n\n\"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun\"\n\nReally stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun \"loaded\" just because a round isn't chambered.\nTwo things that look suspicious:\n1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.\n2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition.",
">\n\nYou realize that is a 15 round magazine?",
">\n\nThe article doesn't say that, nor does it say a make, model or caliber.",
">\n\nOh my friend it doesnt need to. It is a polymer80 pf940c the 9 stands for 9mm and the 40 stands for 40 s&w. So if it is chambered in 9mm that would make it a glock 19 meaning it holds 15 rounds standard. If it was a .40 that would make it a glock 23 which holds 13 rounds. Both those mags in the photo hold more than 10 rounds.",
">\n\nMaryland has had a 10 round magazine limit for 9+ years.\n.",
">\n\nYeah i know. But this is a homemade firearm. These parts all came from the internet. I just found three different sites that will send 50 round pmags to Baltimore...",
">\n\nWhere Does it say that this mag is >10 rounds?",
">\n\nAlright so we will say it is a 10 round magazine. Where in the article did it say it's a 10 round magazine?",
">\n\nIsn't this what they want? Everyone to be armed to combat the criminals? Sounds good to me, let me know how it turns out.",
">\n\nIf you outlaw guns in schools, only outlaws will have guns in schools. /s",
">\n\nEven outlaws don't have guns in school 50 years ago",
">\n\nMy highschool had a gun club 50yrs ago."
] |
>
This is not good to carry a gun in school. Give them a book, not a gun.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away",
">\n\n\n\"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun\"\n\nReally stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun \"loaded\" just because a round isn't chambered.\nTwo things that look suspicious:\n1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.\n2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition.",
">\n\nYou realize that is a 15 round magazine?",
">\n\nThe article doesn't say that, nor does it say a make, model or caliber.",
">\n\nOh my friend it doesnt need to. It is a polymer80 pf940c the 9 stands for 9mm and the 40 stands for 40 s&w. So if it is chambered in 9mm that would make it a glock 19 meaning it holds 15 rounds standard. If it was a .40 that would make it a glock 23 which holds 13 rounds. Both those mags in the photo hold more than 10 rounds.",
">\n\nMaryland has had a 10 round magazine limit for 9+ years.\n.",
">\n\nYeah i know. But this is a homemade firearm. These parts all came from the internet. I just found three different sites that will send 50 round pmags to Baltimore...",
">\n\nWhere Does it say that this mag is >10 rounds?",
">\n\nAlright so we will say it is a 10 round magazine. Where in the article did it say it's a 10 round magazine?",
">\n\nIsn't this what they want? Everyone to be armed to combat the criminals? Sounds good to me, let me know how it turns out.",
">\n\nIf you outlaw guns in schools, only outlaws will have guns in schools. /s",
">\n\nEven outlaws don't have guns in school 50 years ago",
">\n\nMy highschool had a gun club 50yrs ago.",
">\n\nBolt action 22s on targets or similar I'd wager."
] |
>
Educational Facilities are the most dangerous place to be in the USA. And now it will get worse. I suppose it’s just thoughts & prayers for the children.
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away",
">\n\n\n\"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun\"\n\nReally stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun \"loaded\" just because a round isn't chambered.\nTwo things that look suspicious:\n1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.\n2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition.",
">\n\nYou realize that is a 15 round magazine?",
">\n\nThe article doesn't say that, nor does it say a make, model or caliber.",
">\n\nOh my friend it doesnt need to. It is a polymer80 pf940c the 9 stands for 9mm and the 40 stands for 40 s&w. So if it is chambered in 9mm that would make it a glock 19 meaning it holds 15 rounds standard. If it was a .40 that would make it a glock 23 which holds 13 rounds. Both those mags in the photo hold more than 10 rounds.",
">\n\nMaryland has had a 10 round magazine limit for 9+ years.\n.",
">\n\nYeah i know. But this is a homemade firearm. These parts all came from the internet. I just found three different sites that will send 50 round pmags to Baltimore...",
">\n\nWhere Does it say that this mag is >10 rounds?",
">\n\nAlright so we will say it is a 10 round magazine. Where in the article did it say it's a 10 round magazine?",
">\n\nIsn't this what they want? Everyone to be armed to combat the criminals? Sounds good to me, let me know how it turns out.",
">\n\nIf you outlaw guns in schools, only outlaws will have guns in schools. /s",
">\n\nEven outlaws don't have guns in school 50 years ago",
">\n\nMy highschool had a gun club 50yrs ago.",
">\n\nBolt action 22s on targets or similar I'd wager.",
">\n\nThis is not good to carry a gun in school. Give them a book, not a gun."
] |
>
|
[
"Many people seem to be misunderstanding the law in question. This isn't a \"pro-gun\" law in any way, it's a \"anti-criminialization\" law instead, written by a Democrat and passed by a Democrat-led General Assembly, in a very anti-gun state.\nUnder this new law, children 13 and under can't be charged except for a few very serious, specific charges, mostly including violence. I believe the original version included crimes involving guns in that list and for children 10 years old and younger, but they broadened it before final passage.",
">\n\nWhat happens if they bring a gun to school? Like do they just do social programs?\nLike what do they do instead",
">\n\nIf a 5 year old brought a gun to school, nothing would happen to the 5 year old. They wouldn’t be charged, they wouldn’t get a criminal record, nothing.\nThe gun would be taken off of them. An investigation would take place as to how they got hold of the gun. An adult would likely be charged with child neglect or endangerment. \nThis child was 12, not 5. But because the law has changed to make the new age of criminal responsibility 13, the kid doesn’t get charged. Legally, it’s the adults’ fault for not protecting this child, not the child’s fault for committing the “crime”.",
">\n\n13 is far too old. They're easily old enough to do something serious entirely of their own volition at that point.\n10 seems more reasonable to me.",
">\n\nAbsolutely not. I've worked with middle school kids. Not one if them was ever smart and mature enough to have the rest of their life ruined by being charged criminally. None of them needs tgat trauma either.",
">\n\nThe law should be crafted taking into account edge cases. There needs to be an addendum about \"reasonable evidence of personal initiative to obtain and use a firearm\".\nOr I guess the next little sociopath 5 years from now walks away unable to be charged.",
">\n\nPerhaps no charge, but mandatory psychology evaluation. Then care rendered based upon that. To include inpatient.",
">\n\nAgain: might not be for a decade, but there absolutely will be a minor who plans and works towards using a gun in a way that should lead to criminal charges. Age is not an absolute absolvant.",
">\n\nIn such cases mental holds/inpatient care can absolutely and in many cases be a better and actually therapeutic and reforming response. Our criminal rehabilitation system defines single offenders as life long criminals and turns softer crime criminals into more hardened ones. The system isn't there for rehabilitation it's there to feed the system. Even criminals who would require a record, child or not, would have a better result in life, if releasable, if they spent their time getting actual care to remediate the problem. It would also let real professionals not a parole board decide if this person really can be, or is rehabilitated.",
">\n\nI disagree.",
">\n\nI think it would be more the owner of the gun that would be facing charges.",
">\n\nIf you're under 13 ya won't be doing any tieieme",
">\n\nHeyeyeye...",
">\n\n…those don’t look like real bullets. More like sim munitions.",
">\n\nI was wondering wtf was up with the ammo. That's definitely what they appear to be.",
">\n\nThere needs to be way stronger penalties for allowing a child to access a gun. That is an unfit parent in my eyes.",
">\n\nI don't know. I don't think they should be sent to juvy (to quote a good movie, \"Juvy took me, a confused child, and turned me into a for real, no-shit felon.\"), but there should be some kind of punishment. Court mandated therapy, at least.",
">\n\nSo bring the gun to therapy?",
">\n\nI’m 100% pro gun but parents need to do better jobs of teaching their children gun safety and rules, and if they’re too young buy a safe or hide your guns better",
">\n\nI've seen people complain that schools are gun free zones, and it won't stop mass shootings. The thing is, the alternative to that is allowing kids to take guns to school (only restriction are laws against letting kids have handguns, but I've seen enough people complain about those as well). And when a bunch of kids have guns at school, well you'd probably have way more accidental shootings, and conflicts that escalate to a shooting because of high tensions because both people had guns, and someone losing their temper and shooting someone when at least forcing them to get out of the school, walk to the car to get a gun, and walk back in would have at least given them a chance to cool down and the potential victims a chance to initiate a emergency response.",
">\n\n\"Bullies - Beware!\"",
">\n\nThis is a great way to protect our kids from bullies who might try to hurt them!",
">\n\nAnd then the grade schooler got into his car and drove away",
">\n\n\n\"the gun was not loaded with bullets inside of the chamber; only a magazine with ammunition was found inside of the gun\"\n\nReally stupid wording, but I can't imagine that Maryland doesn't consider a handgun \"loaded\" just because a round isn't chambered.\nTwo things that look suspicious:\n1) 11 rounds are pictured. An 11-round magazine is extremely rare; a 10-round mag plus a chambered round makes more sense.\n2) those red things don't even look like real ammunition.",
">\n\nYou realize that is a 15 round magazine?",
">\n\nThe article doesn't say that, nor does it say a make, model or caliber.",
">\n\nOh my friend it doesnt need to. It is a polymer80 pf940c the 9 stands for 9mm and the 40 stands for 40 s&w. So if it is chambered in 9mm that would make it a glock 19 meaning it holds 15 rounds standard. If it was a .40 that would make it a glock 23 which holds 13 rounds. Both those mags in the photo hold more than 10 rounds.",
">\n\nMaryland has had a 10 round magazine limit for 9+ years.\n.",
">\n\nYeah i know. But this is a homemade firearm. These parts all came from the internet. I just found three different sites that will send 50 round pmags to Baltimore...",
">\n\nWhere Does it say that this mag is >10 rounds?",
">\n\nAlright so we will say it is a 10 round magazine. Where in the article did it say it's a 10 round magazine?",
">\n\nIsn't this what they want? Everyone to be armed to combat the criminals? Sounds good to me, let me know how it turns out.",
">\n\nIf you outlaw guns in schools, only outlaws will have guns in schools. /s",
">\n\nEven outlaws don't have guns in school 50 years ago",
">\n\nMy highschool had a gun club 50yrs ago.",
">\n\nBolt action 22s on targets or similar I'd wager.",
">\n\nThis is not good to carry a gun in school. Give them a book, not a gun.",
">\n\nEducational Facilities are the most dangerous place to be in the USA. And now it will get worse. I suppose it’s just thoughts & prayers for the children."
] |
A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military
|
[] |
>
I've actually considered this thought.
What if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military"
] |
>
Retail or food service, once. I agree with that.
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas."
] |
>
same thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that."
] |
>
I’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome"
] |
>
Not neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry."
] |
>
That is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'."
] |
>
Yes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?"
] |
>
Never worked retail and I agree.
Not that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”"
] |
>
I think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week."
] |
>
This is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.
It is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell"
] |
>
This cat gets it
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society."
] |
>
I worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this.
The hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad.
For example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.
Now I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it"
] |
>
Hey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.
The reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs."
] |
>
Yeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people."
] |
>
In Tech, Its also the same shit too. " have you rebooted your computer recently?
"Yeah I did it today"
and then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me."
] |
>
In their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort.
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days"
] |
>
I don't think you understand how much you are relating to my original post
EDIT: i thought this was the original commenter
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days",
">\n\nIn their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort."
] |
>
I’ve never worked in retail and I 100% never will. I know how poorly they’re treated. I know how much it sucks to be yelled at. It’s the exact reason I’m never going to do it.
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days",
">\n\nIn their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort.",
">\n\nI don't think you understand how much you are relating to my original post\nEDIT: i thought this was the original commenter"
] |
>
well then, spread the gospel
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days",
">\n\nIn their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort.",
">\n\nI don't think you understand how much you are relating to my original post\nEDIT: i thought this was the original commenter",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail and I 100% never will. I know how poorly they’re treated. I know how much it sucks to be yelled at. It’s the exact reason I’m never going to do it."
] |
>
No. You don’t have to work a retail job to know how to treat retail workers.
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days",
">\n\nIn their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort.",
">\n\nI don't think you understand how much you are relating to my original post\nEDIT: i thought this was the original commenter",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail and I 100% never will. I know how poorly they’re treated. I know how much it sucks to be yelled at. It’s the exact reason I’m never going to do it.",
">\n\nwell then, spread the gospel"
] |
>
You'd think this was what everyone thought until you've worked in retail
Let me make it clear. YOU ARE RIGHT. but this isn't the reality we exist in
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days",
">\n\nIn their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort.",
">\n\nI don't think you understand how much you are relating to my original post\nEDIT: i thought this was the original commenter",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail and I 100% never will. I know how poorly they’re treated. I know how much it sucks to be yelled at. It’s the exact reason I’m never going to do it.",
">\n\nwell then, spread the gospel",
">\n\nNo. You don’t have to work a retail job to know how to treat retail workers."
] |
>
I would take it a step further and say that your education isn't complete until you've worked retail or in some similar private sector business. You could have 10 PhDs and if you haven't done that then your education isn't complete.
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days",
">\n\nIn their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort.",
">\n\nI don't think you understand how much you are relating to my original post\nEDIT: i thought this was the original commenter",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail and I 100% never will. I know how poorly they’re treated. I know how much it sucks to be yelled at. It’s the exact reason I’m never going to do it.",
">\n\nwell then, spread the gospel",
">\n\nNo. You don’t have to work a retail job to know how to treat retail workers.",
">\n\nYou'd think this was what everyone thought until you've worked in retail\n\nLet me make it clear. YOU ARE RIGHT. but this isn't the reality we exist in"
] |
>
I WISH I had a life course in Highschool, Tell me how to do taxes, how to work a job, how to be kind to people. This is missing in society.
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days",
">\n\nIn their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort.",
">\n\nI don't think you understand how much you are relating to my original post\nEDIT: i thought this was the original commenter",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail and I 100% never will. I know how poorly they’re treated. I know how much it sucks to be yelled at. It’s the exact reason I’m never going to do it.",
">\n\nwell then, spread the gospel",
">\n\nNo. You don’t have to work a retail job to know how to treat retail workers.",
">\n\nYou'd think this was what everyone thought until you've worked in retail\n\nLet me make it clear. YOU ARE RIGHT. but this isn't the reality we exist in",
">\n\nI would take it a step further and say that your education isn't complete until you've worked retail or in some similar private sector business. You could have 10 PhDs and if you haven't done that then your education isn't complete."
] |
>
Been saying it for years
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days",
">\n\nIn their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort.",
">\n\nI don't think you understand how much you are relating to my original post\nEDIT: i thought this was the original commenter",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail and I 100% never will. I know how poorly they’re treated. I know how much it sucks to be yelled at. It’s the exact reason I’m never going to do it.",
">\n\nwell then, spread the gospel",
">\n\nNo. You don’t have to work a retail job to know how to treat retail workers.",
">\n\nYou'd think this was what everyone thought until you've worked in retail\n\nLet me make it clear. YOU ARE RIGHT. but this isn't the reality we exist in",
">\n\nI would take it a step further and say that your education isn't complete until you've worked retail or in some similar private sector business. You could have 10 PhDs and if you haven't done that then your education isn't complete.",
">\n\nI WISH I had a life course in Highschool, Tell me how to do taxes, how to work a job, how to be kind to people. This is missing in society."
] |
>
well lets say it again! shits fucked yo
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days",
">\n\nIn their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort.",
">\n\nI don't think you understand how much you are relating to my original post\nEDIT: i thought this was the original commenter",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail and I 100% never will. I know how poorly they’re treated. I know how much it sucks to be yelled at. It’s the exact reason I’m never going to do it.",
">\n\nwell then, spread the gospel",
">\n\nNo. You don’t have to work a retail job to know how to treat retail workers.",
">\n\nYou'd think this was what everyone thought until you've worked in retail\n\nLet me make it clear. YOU ARE RIGHT. but this isn't the reality we exist in",
">\n\nI would take it a step further and say that your education isn't complete until you've worked retail or in some similar private sector business. You could have 10 PhDs and if you haven't done that then your education isn't complete.",
">\n\nI WISH I had a life course in Highschool, Tell me how to do taxes, how to work a job, how to be kind to people. This is missing in society.",
">\n\nBeen saying it for years"
] |
>
I don't think this is an unpopular opinion...or at least I don't think (and yes I've worked retail for 4 years...and it wasn't just customers who were rude to me)
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days",
">\n\nIn their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort.",
">\n\nI don't think you understand how much you are relating to my original post\nEDIT: i thought this was the original commenter",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail and I 100% never will. I know how poorly they’re treated. I know how much it sucks to be yelled at. It’s the exact reason I’m never going to do it.",
">\n\nwell then, spread the gospel",
">\n\nNo. You don’t have to work a retail job to know how to treat retail workers.",
">\n\nYou'd think this was what everyone thought until you've worked in retail\n\nLet me make it clear. YOU ARE RIGHT. but this isn't the reality we exist in",
">\n\nI would take it a step further and say that your education isn't complete until you've worked retail or in some similar private sector business. You could have 10 PhDs and if you haven't done that then your education isn't complete.",
">\n\nI WISH I had a life course in Highschool, Tell me how to do taxes, how to work a job, how to be kind to people. This is missing in society.",
">\n\nBeen saying it for years",
">\n\nwell lets say it again! shits fucked yo"
] |
>
popular with retail workers. With others.... I'm not so sure
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days",
">\n\nIn their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort.",
">\n\nI don't think you understand how much you are relating to my original post\nEDIT: i thought this was the original commenter",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail and I 100% never will. I know how poorly they’re treated. I know how much it sucks to be yelled at. It’s the exact reason I’m never going to do it.",
">\n\nwell then, spread the gospel",
">\n\nNo. You don’t have to work a retail job to know how to treat retail workers.",
">\n\nYou'd think this was what everyone thought until you've worked in retail\n\nLet me make it clear. YOU ARE RIGHT. but this isn't the reality we exist in",
">\n\nI would take it a step further and say that your education isn't complete until you've worked retail or in some similar private sector business. You could have 10 PhDs and if you haven't done that then your education isn't complete.",
">\n\nI WISH I had a life course in Highschool, Tell me how to do taxes, how to work a job, how to be kind to people. This is missing in society.",
">\n\nBeen saying it for years",
">\n\nwell lets say it again! shits fucked yo",
">\n\nI don't think this is an unpopular opinion...or at least I don't think (and yes I've worked retail for 4 years...and it wasn't just customers who were rude to me)"
] |
>
I haven't worked in retail, worked in an Amazon warehouse though as my first job. Similar kinds of dumb shit you have to put up with, but also different.
Anyway, i find myself inclined to agree
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days",
">\n\nIn their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort.",
">\n\nI don't think you understand how much you are relating to my original post\nEDIT: i thought this was the original commenter",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail and I 100% never will. I know how poorly they’re treated. I know how much it sucks to be yelled at. It’s the exact reason I’m never going to do it.",
">\n\nwell then, spread the gospel",
">\n\nNo. You don’t have to work a retail job to know how to treat retail workers.",
">\n\nYou'd think this was what everyone thought until you've worked in retail\n\nLet me make it clear. YOU ARE RIGHT. but this isn't the reality we exist in",
">\n\nI would take it a step further and say that your education isn't complete until you've worked retail or in some similar private sector business. You could have 10 PhDs and if you haven't done that then your education isn't complete.",
">\n\nI WISH I had a life course in Highschool, Tell me how to do taxes, how to work a job, how to be kind to people. This is missing in society.",
">\n\nBeen saying it for years",
">\n\nwell lets say it again! shits fucked yo",
">\n\nI don't think this is an unpopular opinion...or at least I don't think (and yes I've worked retail for 4 years...and it wasn't just customers who were rude to me)",
">\n\npopular with retail workers. With others.... I'm not so sure"
] |
>
Just for more context:
I don't work in retail at the moment. I used to work at Fry's Electronics. I was at the returns counter one day and someone was trying to return a 3 year old Cotton Candy Machine. It was clearly used many times.
I told the person I could return the item and then he proceeded to threaten to give me aids and I should be careful who I "talk to like that"
Please tell me any other minimum wage profession that has that kind of interaction.....
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days",
">\n\nIn their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort.",
">\n\nI don't think you understand how much you are relating to my original post\nEDIT: i thought this was the original commenter",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail and I 100% never will. I know how poorly they’re treated. I know how much it sucks to be yelled at. It’s the exact reason I’m never going to do it.",
">\n\nwell then, spread the gospel",
">\n\nNo. You don’t have to work a retail job to know how to treat retail workers.",
">\n\nYou'd think this was what everyone thought until you've worked in retail\n\nLet me make it clear. YOU ARE RIGHT. but this isn't the reality we exist in",
">\n\nI would take it a step further and say that your education isn't complete until you've worked retail or in some similar private sector business. You could have 10 PhDs and if you haven't done that then your education isn't complete.",
">\n\nI WISH I had a life course in Highschool, Tell me how to do taxes, how to work a job, how to be kind to people. This is missing in society.",
">\n\nBeen saying it for years",
">\n\nwell lets say it again! shits fucked yo",
">\n\nI don't think this is an unpopular opinion...or at least I don't think (and yes I've worked retail for 4 years...and it wasn't just customers who were rude to me)",
">\n\npopular with retail workers. With others.... I'm not so sure",
">\n\nI haven't worked in retail, worked in an Amazon warehouse though as my first job. Similar kinds of dumb shit you have to put up with, but also different. \nAnyway, i find myself inclined to agree"
] |
>
I said the same thing after my logging career was over about eveyone should have to do a day in the woods, to see what it really means to earn a dollar.
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days",
">\n\nIn their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort.",
">\n\nI don't think you understand how much you are relating to my original post\nEDIT: i thought this was the original commenter",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail and I 100% never will. I know how poorly they’re treated. I know how much it sucks to be yelled at. It’s the exact reason I’m never going to do it.",
">\n\nwell then, spread the gospel",
">\n\nNo. You don’t have to work a retail job to know how to treat retail workers.",
">\n\nYou'd think this was what everyone thought until you've worked in retail\n\nLet me make it clear. YOU ARE RIGHT. but this isn't the reality we exist in",
">\n\nI would take it a step further and say that your education isn't complete until you've worked retail or in some similar private sector business. You could have 10 PhDs and if you haven't done that then your education isn't complete.",
">\n\nI WISH I had a life course in Highschool, Tell me how to do taxes, how to work a job, how to be kind to people. This is missing in society.",
">\n\nBeen saying it for years",
">\n\nwell lets say it again! shits fucked yo",
">\n\nI don't think this is an unpopular opinion...or at least I don't think (and yes I've worked retail for 4 years...and it wasn't just customers who were rude to me)",
">\n\npopular with retail workers. With others.... I'm not so sure",
">\n\nI haven't worked in retail, worked in an Amazon warehouse though as my first job. Similar kinds of dumb shit you have to put up with, but also different. \nAnyway, i find myself inclined to agree",
">\n\nJust for more context:\nI don't work in retail at the moment. I used to work at Fry's Electronics. I was at the returns counter one day and someone was trying to return a 3 year old Cotton Candy Machine. It was clearly used many times.\n\nI told the person I could return the item and then he proceeded to threaten to give me aids and I should be careful who I \"talk to like that\"\n\nPlease tell me any other minimum wage profession that has that kind of interaction....."
] |
>
I see what you're saying and I disagree.
Most humans will never have to Engauge with a logger. But do you want your starbucks?
|
[
"A mandatory year of retail service, sort of like Korea and their military",
">\n\nI've actually considered this thought. \nWhat if EVERYONE had to either join the militarty or be placed into a public service job like the post office or city clerk, construction for the city or other ideas.",
">\n\nRetail or food service, once. I agree with that.",
">\n\nsame thing in general, different specifics, but same outcome",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail, but I’ve worked in restaurants. People are just insane when they’re hungry.",
">\n\nNot neccessarily. You always have that one asshat who claims they've 'worked here before' and 'you're doing it wrong'.",
">\n\nThat is the person I'm speaking of.. You think they worked in customer service?",
">\n\nYes, thank God I’m a CNA and I’m nursing school now, but most bitching customers during my food service in high school always broke out the “I’ve worked in food service for xx years and I would never tolerate this at my restaurant!”",
">\n\nNever worked retail and I agree. \nNot that it is at all practical or enforceable or realistic on any level, but there's a gut feeling in me that says everyone can learn something about treating people better, by being treated like absolute crap for a week.",
">\n\nI think it will become self enforceable in time when no one can get their starbucks or taco bell",
">\n\nThis is a very popular opinion between people I know who have worked retail jobs. It is also absolutely correct - the number of people shitting on so-called unskilled workers is far too high and the treatment they get is often atrocious.\nIt is also far more valuable than most blue-collar office jobs who contribute absolutely nothing to society.",
">\n\nThis cat gets it",
">\n\nI worked in retail and I genuinely agree with this. \nThe hours are long, your feet are dead, people treat you badly, your managers are often just awful. Your hours are bad. \nFor example in high school I worked at Best Buy. My manager was cruel and also, she had me working shifts like: 8 hours close, getting off at 12:00am. Then, 8 hours starting at 10am the same day. Because you’re legally required to give a 10 hour break. My drive there was 30 minutes.\nNow I’ve worked worse in my “career” life, for worse people, and been treated worse. All in all my retail experience pales in comparison to the awfulness in career jobs, mine being in tech. I had some bad luck maybe. But, my experience in retail was good for me and helps me have empathy to kids/people working these jobs.",
">\n\nHey, I work in tech too and I totally agree with the fuckery that is involved with the industry. In fact its very similar.\nThe reason I bring up retail is because the PUBLIC is involved and the public doesn't give a shit about people.",
">\n\nYeah, seeing Karens just shit on these kids trying their best in a bad situation always gets me.",
">\n\nIn Tech, Its also the same shit too. \" have you rebooted your computer recently?\n\"Yeah I did it today\"\nand then you check the logs and it hasn't been rebooted in 4 days",
">\n\nIn their mind, it is your job to help them to solve the problems, they think they need to pay zero effort.",
">\n\nI don't think you understand how much you are relating to my original post\nEDIT: i thought this was the original commenter",
">\n\nI’ve never worked in retail and I 100% never will. I know how poorly they’re treated. I know how much it sucks to be yelled at. It’s the exact reason I’m never going to do it.",
">\n\nwell then, spread the gospel",
">\n\nNo. You don’t have to work a retail job to know how to treat retail workers.",
">\n\nYou'd think this was what everyone thought until you've worked in retail\n\nLet me make it clear. YOU ARE RIGHT. but this isn't the reality we exist in",
">\n\nI would take it a step further and say that your education isn't complete until you've worked retail or in some similar private sector business. You could have 10 PhDs and if you haven't done that then your education isn't complete.",
">\n\nI WISH I had a life course in Highschool, Tell me how to do taxes, how to work a job, how to be kind to people. This is missing in society.",
">\n\nBeen saying it for years",
">\n\nwell lets say it again! shits fucked yo",
">\n\nI don't think this is an unpopular opinion...or at least I don't think (and yes I've worked retail for 4 years...and it wasn't just customers who were rude to me)",
">\n\npopular with retail workers. With others.... I'm not so sure",
">\n\nI haven't worked in retail, worked in an Amazon warehouse though as my first job. Similar kinds of dumb shit you have to put up with, but also different. \nAnyway, i find myself inclined to agree",
">\n\nJust for more context:\nI don't work in retail at the moment. I used to work at Fry's Electronics. I was at the returns counter one day and someone was trying to return a 3 year old Cotton Candy Machine. It was clearly used many times.\n\nI told the person I could return the item and then he proceeded to threaten to give me aids and I should be careful who I \"talk to like that\"\n\nPlease tell me any other minimum wage profession that has that kind of interaction.....",
">\n\nI said the same thing after my logging career was over about eveyone should have to do a day in the woods, to see what it really means to earn a dollar."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.