nuke proliferation and individual right to bear arms

[natedogg]

I have a theory. Consider these two positions.

1. It's wrong and hypocritical to tell other nations they can't get nukes.

2. It's ok to ban guns in a society plagued by gun violence, such as the USA.

natedogg

[nothumb]

This is a really interesting idea, I'm not sure the questions are precise enough but I get the gist of it.

I voted neither.

The USA has nuclear weapons as part of a realist defense policy. Other countries that understand the policy or are acting from the same POV as the USA cannot reasonably be expected to give up the defensive capabilities of nuclear weapons, since we ourselves would not do so, and since we are operating from the same POV.

Banning guns is a little trickier. It's a matter of opinion as to whether you think banning them will eliminate gun violence. It could also imply (though I don't think it does) that having guns provides a deterrent to others attacking you with guns, as nukes do. However since the consequence of breaking this stalemate is mutual assured destruction when it comes to nukes, the analogy is a little disturbing. Again, I don't think it's a complete analogy here.

Both questions point out that some non-proliferation or gun control policies ask other nations or persons to trust a government that does not place the same trust in them.

I would like to see less handguns and less nuclear weapons. Both make me very nervous - same with assault weapons and high explosives. I have no problem with hunters or law-abiding citizens owning shotguns and rifles.

NT

[Matty]

Neither.

[mmcd]

It's wrong and hypocritical to tell other nations they can't get nukes.

"Right" and "Wrong" has absolutly nothing to do with this.

It is BETTER for the U.S. if other nations don't get nukes.

We have the POWER to stop other countries from getting nukes.

[IrishHand]

The first question is useless - or at least so vague that no intelligent person should be able to agree with it.

"1. It's wrong and hypocritical to tell other nations they can't get nukes."

It's wrong and hypocritical for who to tell other nations that the can't get nukes? For the US? For Brunei? For the UN? For every democracy in the world acting together?

And which other nations? In what context? If you told Nepal they "can't get nukes", you would likely be factually correct. They almost certainly don't have the resources to acquire or develop nuclear weapons.

The next question is only slightly less useless:

"2. It's ok to ban guns in a society plagued by gun violence, such as the USA."

Ban what guns? All guns? The police, FBI and military lose a great deal of their effectiveness without guns. What about athletes who compete in the biathlon? What about the farmer who's farm is frequented by wolves?

Please provide clearer questions if you want meaningful answers.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
It's wrong and hypocritical to tell other nations they can't get nukes.

"Right" and "Wrong" has absolutly nothing to do with this.

It is BETTER for the U.S. if other nations don't get nukes.

We have the POWER to stop other countries from getting nukes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. This type of issue involves both aspects. But it boils down to "what is in the best interest of our own country" not "what is fair to all countries".

[sameoldsht]

[ QUOTE ]
It's ok to ban guns

[/ QUOTE ]

Not according to the Bill of Rights, unless you think those should be banned too.