From: arc@cco.caltech.edu (Aaron Ray Clements)
Subject: Re: the usual
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 30
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

kendall@lds.loral.com (Colin Kendall 6842) writes:

>I just heard some anti-gun-control people giving the usual arguments:
>It's everyone's right to bear arms, and the way to solve the problem
>of people getting killed by guns is better law enforcement.

>It strikes me that this argument could be logically extended as follows:

>A nuclear weapon is an "arm", hence anyone has a right to have 
>nuclear weapons. And if someone uses his nuclear weapons to blow
>up New York, L.A., and Chicago, that's okay as long as we have a
>good police force capable of finding him and putting him in jail, 
>which will serve as a deterrent to others.

>Do any anti-gun-control people disagree with this, and if so,  why?

Yes, I am pro-gun, and yes, I do disagree with this statement.
Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are dangerous.  Radioactive
decay of plutonium and uranium, as well as the tritium in the
weapon, tends to be somewhat dangerous to living things.
(Can you say "neutron flux"?)  Plus these things have no self-
defense purposes.  It's kinda hard to justify their use as
a militia weapon when at best they are meant for battlefield use
(low-yield weapons) or at worst for industrial target obliteration
(translation:  cities and population centers).  Not to mention that
for it to be used as a militia weapon and expect the user to live
requires some sort of launch vehicle . . .

aaron
arc@cco.caltech.edu
