X-Ftn-To: Bert Hyman 

"Bert Hyman"  wrote:
>> But, the issue was the effectiveness of weapons,
>
>Actually, the original discussion was about the INeffectiveness of
>weapons, with some arguing that if we merely got rid of icky guns,
>nobody would ever be hurt again, since all that would be left would be
>sticks, stones and fists. 

That is, unfortunately, highly unlikely. However, I am confident that
a country without guns available to the general population would be a
much safer place. 

>> agree  that a 10 megaton thermonuclear device is a much more
>> effective killer than a machete? ...
>
>I think it's time to introduce a new corollary to Godwin's law: In any
>discussion of weapons suitable for self defense, somebody will
>eventually introduce nuclear weapons into the mix. 

Actually, since some people said that a weapon is a weapon, and that a
killed man is a killed man, I don't see how all of the sudden there's
a quantitative difference that disqualifies nuclear weapons from the
discussion.
After all, there are people who keep "Wasps" for self-defense, why
wouldn't there be people who keep a nuclear warhead with the same
pretense?
All in all, this would be a powerful deterrent - nobody would likely
attack a person who can click a nuke, so there would be peace on Earth
and good will among men - EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE A NUKE AT HOME, IT'S
OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT!!!

:)))

I think any further discussion on this topic is futile, because its
motive isn't logical, but emotional. People have irrational motives
that make them seek the protection of weapons, and others have the
irrational motives that make them commit violence. I don't have a
solution for this, except by changing people's nature, and this would
be a slow and difficult process indeed.

-- 
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org