Not at this point in time, imo.
that gets personal… and therefore isn’t universal (law) anymore… cause now the arguments can go in all kinds of directions such as, ‘if only the amerindians had guns when the first colonists attacked them,’ or ‘if only Japan had more sophisticated guns when Perry at cannon point forced Japan to trade with the U.S.’, etc…
The case against ‘private property’ of WMD isn’t a universal law; it’s the application of a theory of universal law on a particular case, vested in time and place.
Well it is different. Having a WMD is not the same as pointing a gun at someone’s head 24/7. Having a WMD is like, well having a weapon. I mean, what do you think someone is going to do that has a WMD? Threaten the world with destruction if he or she does not get what he or she wants? Let’s think about this for a sec. I have a nuclear weapon. You walk up to me with a gun. I say put your gun down or I will launch my WMD at you. You go BOOM, BOOM, and I am dead. Give me a freaking break with this whole, it is no different than pointing a gun at someone’s head 24/7.
Did you have a rebuttal? Oh, nope. I guess you cannot argue at all. BTW, you were the one implying that I am unable to reason, since my position was the opposite of yours. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.
I think the main problem with WB’s case is that he is only considering defense against individual criminals. In cases involving defense against a state, WMDs are the ultimate counter. States use mass formation conventional forces such as infantry division, tank columns, air squadrons, armadas, naval fleets and so on. It is not only conceiveable that one could use a WMD to pinpoint a criminal mass without any collateral fallout, but that it is also the only realistic way to defend against a larger, superior force.
As far as the constant threat argument is concerned, I think it depends on the intent of the owner of the weapon.
Why are you so whatever you want to call it? There is no need to be like this; it’s only the internet. (By the way; besides the irrelevance of insulting people, your insult is also a non sequitur.)
I did not say that I thought you were incapable of using reason. I said that I find the position you take, unreasonable (for lack of a better word) and I tried to explain why. Please note the difference.
Exactly. This is why individuals do not own WMD’s, but nations do. Laws do not stop individuals from owning WMD’s. Individuals do not own WMD’s, because they are worthless for individuals. An individual that owned a WMD could threaten a nation with retaliation if his or her person is threatened. The other nation would just send in an assassin and have him or her killed. But for a people, WMD’s are great for defense against another group of people.
Excellent post.
I don’t really see why your conclusion follows from your argument; I’m sorry. Again; the difference between an ordinary weapon and a wmd is, well, the fact that a wmd is a wmd. The difference in kind - between something that can very easily be used for defence and/or attack without killing innocent people and something that is virtually impossible to use in such a way - gives me enough reason to consider it different, with different attitudes towards it from a philosophy of law perspective.
But I’m not really making new arguments here. So I consider it a agree to disagree.
I am still waiting for a rebuttal.
OK, well, “unreasonable” is a completely subjective word and therefore, completely worthless to use in a formal argument. You seem to know argumentative fallacies so well, how about you figure out which one this is.
This post was interesting to me because the underlying idea you didn’t mention: A WMD could serve the purpose of defending one individual against a mass of aggressors. I don’t necessarily see a scenario in which this would happen, but it is not an impossible scenario.
EDIT: I guess you do make this point in a later post. Of course, since it can be used for defense against a mass of aggressors, it can be used as offense against a mass of defenders.
right, but I was thinking about this… I think Stephen brought this up and this is based on intent. If a person argued the intent was to shoot it into space, then nobody could stop that person from having a nuclear weapon based on his or her intent (even if he or she is lying). Yet, I’m sure there is explicit evidence that can easily be found that nuclear weapons are not currently present to be ignited in space. People sign documents and outrightly declare, as Spideynw is now and Stephen said too, that nuke’s are to kill people in other countries on this earth. Nuclear fallout is a second key issue and those pacific islands prove that fallout is dangerous even decades after thus killing innocent people. Sure nuclear weapons may be used upon an army solely without killing innocents on the battlefield but fallout blown by wind or even fallout decades later in the same region is still evidently connected to the blowing up of the nuclear weapon and therefore is still the discharge of the nuclear weapon event potentially killing innocent people. Now people can set-up a perimeter around a formerly detonated nuclear zone to keep people out from becoming harmed so that’s an option - or - is that really a reasonable option?
nation’s are made up of individuals with various perspectives… that’s not an argument.
And the difference between a gun and a bomb, is that, well a bomb is a bomb. So what? It cannot kill as many people as a WMD? And? A gun cannot kill as many people as easily as a bomb, so we should just make bombs illegal, using your logic. In fact, a single shot rifle cannot kill as many people as easily as an automatic rifle, so maybe we should make automatic rifles illegal. Wait, I know, a sword cannot kill as many people as a gun, so let’s just make all guns illegal.
Your argument just boils down to WMD’s are the most dangerous weapons, so we should get rid of them. But the logical conclusion of your argument is that we should get rid of all weapons.
It is not beyond reason that in a free society, people would buy insurance from a company that builds WMD’s for protection from other nations. In essence, no one individual would own the weapon. A company would. But maybe I am missing your point.
Actually, I make the point that an individual could not use it in defense against a group of people. A group of people would not need to launch a WMD at an individual to take him or her out. They would just need to send an assassin.
no, it’s understanding the nature of a bomb and a wmd. if the bomb goes off kills only criminals with no lasting discharge (fallout), then that bomb is different from a nuclear weapon.
we’re talking about innocent people getting killed… a bomb (non-wmd type) or an automatic rifle can be used without killing innocents…
no, that wasn’t his argument from what I can tell…
this argument boils down to threat. holding a gun is the same as a wmd in a missile silo. They are barrels with ‘bullets’ inside in a discharge position. a gun with bullets in its chamber in the hands of a person with nobody around can’t hurt anybody… a wmd in the chamber of a silo with people at it’s operating machines will hurt innocent people when it goes off - not potentially can, but will… Unless you can point out how a wmd going off can’t hurt innocent people?
I never said there was no difference. But tell me this, when has a bomb ever been used to just kill a group of criminals? Or even for self-defense? The whole argument is based on the notion that WMD’s will surely kill innocent people. Well, so will any bomb.
Then, it appears it boils down to it will kill innocent people if used. Again, so would pretty much any missile or bomb.
Regardless, laws do not stop criminals from getting weapons, only law abiding citizens.
no, the argument is wmd’s can ONLY kill innocent people (even if criminals are mixed into the destruction). A bomb is more pin-point targeted. Unless you can think of a way that a wmd will never hurt an innocent.
no, a missile or bomb is more pin-point accurate. a nuclear bomb isn’t - it will kill innocents no matter what (if detonated on earth).. I did bring up the perimeter argument and I wasn’t sure if that would avoid innocents from dying or not. I was wondering if there is a good argument as to how that is unreasonable or reasonable so there might be a way - not sure.