Arguing the nuclear strawman

[merlinfire]

you have effectively said that there is a "gun control" line that is reasonable somewhere

Frankly, I don't think arguing with antis about the ownership of WMD is a smart way to proceed. Your enemy need not attempt to make you look silly if you do it for him. How many hearts and minds will we gain by advocating civilian ownership of nuclear weapons?

 

[Kitchen_Duty]

My typical response is:

An arm does not pose a risk to the general population by storing it somewhere.
Ordnance: bombs, nukes, napalm, VX gas etc pose a risk because of their presence.

So for example: My 9mm stored in my safe will not kill my neighbor because of a storage issue.

A nuclear warhead poses a risk to a city if stored incorrectly.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Even if you could own one and had the money I don't think anyone would want to (unless they were planning on using it sometime soon). I don't know much about them but I've heard they require a LOT of very expensive maintainance and upkeep or else they either go bad, or become very unstable. It's not something you can stick in your basement for 30 years and expect it to work.

 

[leadcounsel]

I see it as categories of protections under the 2A.

First is the absolutely protected category of small arms. The distinction is that the 2A was written to defend arms that would commonly be own or carried by an infantryman as an individual or part of a unit. This would include contemporary/moder rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc. for certain.

The next category is crew served weapons, there are likely less 2A protections. Sure, cannons were part of warfare so I think an argument for protections of crew served weapons and cannons can be made. They are certainly part of warfare... But the risk is that having crewserved weapons widely available could - could - cast a negative light on the 2A and ultimately erode it further..

And the last category is varying degrees of WMDs... on small and large scale. IEDs, bombs, large cannons, nukes, etc... A much harder sell and really impossible to successfully convince even the most pro-2A person that these should be widely available under the 2A. Having common public have these would ultimately be the downfall of the 2A as a whole.

 

[NM Mountainman]

The "nuclear strawman" argument has no logical basis and should be dismissed. It would be much harder to dismiss a hand fired or shoulder fired weapon like an RPG launcher. Quoting the law on Destructive Devices would be irrelevant because the discussion is about what the law SHOULD be.

Maybe the first question we should ask ourselves is: Can a well stated logically reasoned argument based on provable facts win over an anti-gunner or convince him to change his position on gun related issues?

I've watched and researched this debate for 45 years. I taught logic at the high school and college level for over 30 years, and I rarely have encountered people whose opinions or beliefs about any issue were based primarily on logic and reason. I'm also trained as a psycho-therapist who has studied in depth why people believe what they believe. (These qualifications do not make me an expert, nor do they prove that my beliefs are correct.)

IMO, logical rational arguments usually don't cause changes in beliefs or attitudes. First of all, very few people (incl. intelligent college educated people) have had the opportunity or training to learn how to determine whether or not a statement or argument is logical. Most people seem to think that saying an argument is logical or reasonable is equivalent to saying "it makes sense to me."

A logical argument does not guarantee that the conclusion is true. It simply confirms that the argument is internally consistent. But finding a contradiction in an argument proves the argument (but not necessarily the conclusion) is false. It just proves that that particular argument can't be used to prove that particular conclusion.

One main concept underlying the idea behind discussing or debating issues using logic is the belief that your opponent will have to admit his position is wrong or needs to be re-examined if you can prove his argument contains one or more contradictions or other logical errors. This assumes that both parties in the debate understand what a logical argument is and that both parties believe that their positions should be logical. It also assumes that both parties are honorable and that both will admit their error when confronted with their own logical errors.

But when you point out logical inconsistencies in someone's position he won't say, "Oh, I see I have a contradiction in my beliefs. Thanks for pointing that out. Now I realize that I need to re-examine my position. Could you suggest some ways in which I could modify my position to make it more logical?" No matter how obvious his error or how glaring his contradiction may be, he will usually refuse to acknowledge the error. He will attack or insult you personally, just repeat his arguments in a loader tone of voice, restate his same lame argument in a slightly different way, try to change the subject, disarm your logical attack with taunts or wisecracks, or simply stomp away. If you are such a good debater that you corner him and expose his error for all to see, he will feel humiliated and embarrassed. He may temporarily admit defeat, but he probably won't change his position much in the long run.

If you catch someone in a contradiction and he replies with a humorous comeback which gets a lot of laughs, then the "comeback guy" wins.

People are primarily motivated by emotions, not the desire to be logical. If a man believes he can improve his odds of getting a promotion, improving his status, or getting laid; he will make an effort to makes his statements appear to be logical. But most people base most of their beliefs on emotions and non-rational considerations. Then they try to conjure up a set of logical sounding arguments in which to package their beliefs in an attempt to gain acceptance of their ideas.

Many philosophers, economists, and political theorists of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries based their positions and theories on the assumption that men were rational. (The beliefs of women were generally not discussed or considered in this context.) But during the last 100 years or so, that notion has been pretty well disproved. (Or perhaps I should say, no one has been able to produce any acceptable evidence that most people are logical.)

IMO, the only way you can "win" a debate based on logic is in a debate tournament where both sides have agreed to abide by the judges' decision as to who has won. But those debates are based on rhetorical logic not true logic, and the judges can also award points based on other considerations. In a logical debate, if you can find 1 contradiction in your opponents position, then that part of his argument is wrong.

 

[RS14]

Nuclear weapons are, as a practical matter, impossible to use without collateral damage to civilians or civilian property, due to the (generally) large area of effect and potential for wind to carry fallout. Likewise with chemical and biological weapons. They generally will cause civilian casualties or render land uninhabitable, even if used with the best intentions.

Conventional arms, everything from knives, through small arms, up to heavy ordinance, confine their destruction to the time of use, and can be targeted so as to confine their damage to small areas, with no risk of collateral damage.

 

[FROGO207]

Hey all you are assuming that the person will be able to follow logic. In my interactions most carrying banners for the anti cause use emotion as a strong basis of belief and logic will not prevail in their minds.:banghead: Kind of like trying to tell a river to stop flowing downhill cause it is carrying soil into the sea.

 

[rellascout]

Hey all you are assuming that the person will be able to follow logic. In my interactions most carrying banners for the anti cause use emotion as a strong basis of belief and logic will not prevail in their minds. Kind of like trying to tell a river to stop flowing downhill cause it is carrying soil into the sea.

That is a gross generalization... the same behavior is often displayed by individuals here. For example bring up the NRA.

There are irrational people on both sides of this debate.

NM Mountainman well stated....

 

[TexasBill]

THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have atomic bombs."

WE SAY: "And you think we should all have rubber spoons. For your information, the colonists did have cannons and shot, the most powerful weapons of the day, that they purchased themselves."

 

[Titanium Wolverine]

quote;;;"should a private citizen be able to own nuclear weapons"
Well If that question is ever brought up I would say,,,,,,,,NO.

Now here me out....

I love guns, have a massive collection and actively fight for gun rights. My theorys

Can I realistic, and logicaly use a single barrel shotgun to protect my family in any type of situation, YES!
bolt action rifle, YES!
Semi auto .223 EBR type rifle, YES!
Full Auto Uzi type with a silencer, YES!
Belt fed .308 with 10,000 rounds of ammo, YES!
40mm's, YES!
even a tank, under a very very rare slightly posssible probably would never happen senario,,,sure, I guess.

A Nuclear weapon of any size,,,,,,heck no! That is a strictly offensive weapon with NO defensive properties. You have to go to your target to set it off, that is not something you can do from 100, 1000, 10,000 meters,,,,would you fire a small nuke 6 miles from where you are at? If that is the case then you are totaly on the offensive,,,,HENSE, why would one need a nuke other than to say, I have one.

I am very pro gun and own some very heavy weapons but have to say, the civilian gun ownership should stop at the tank!!!!!LOL

No RDX, no private satelites that can shoot space to land missles, and no, people dont need to own a nuclear ANYTHING.


Now let me tell you a little story of some depleted uranium rounds that I just HAD to have, the anti gunnies would love that one!!!!LOL

 

[Owen Sparks]

Have you priced plutonium lately?

There are only a handful of people on Earth who could even afford a nuclear weapon. In fact most countries can not even afford them but let's say for the sake of argument that you were Bill Gates and you could actually find someone willing to sell you one. You still would not have a secure way to store it. It would take a private military base staffed with a private army to keep it secure and a back yard as big as Nevada to test it in, in other words, your own country. Even if an individual could somehow afford the bomb it would be like keeping a 500 gallon of gas in your apartment or a live Bengal tiger in your back yard because would impose an immediate threat to anyone near by and that would justify legal restrictions on storage of explosives that are totaly unrelated to the Second Amendment.

As to lesser heavy weapons, Abrams tanks, battle ships and F-16’s cost MILLIONS of dollars and require highly trained crews and expensive equipment just to keep them functional. Probably no oneon this forum could afford a twenty million dollar weapon. Most of us are having trouble affording to shoot our .380’s, much less a 20 MM Cannon. Simple economics would put heavy weapons out of the hands of almost every civilian and safety restrictions on storage of explosives would price everyone out of the nuclear market.

 

[Driveway]

I would disagree that a nuclear weapon is strictly an offensive weapon. In Korea, Macarthur wanted to use them to slow/stop the Chinese. There are other scenarios where one could use them in a defensive role.

Not that I am necessarily against personal ownership of a Nuclear or other WMD. There are enough crazy people out there. I think the question becomes one of how far we are willing to let the government govern us. If there was no government, it would be anarchy; might makes right.

Now don't get me wrong, I am for a much more limited government than we have. People should be responsible for what they do, and held accountable. None of this Not Guilty by reason of insanity. I would accept a guilty by reason of insanity.... It seems that a good American these days is one who whines and complains and says It's not my fault/job.

Now,if you wanted to go the expensive weapon route, I know of a Mig-29 that was for sale a couple of months ago. Probably hasn't sold yet.

 

[NoirFan]

It would be much harder to dismiss a hand fired or shoulder fired weapon like an RPG launcher. Quoting the law on Destructive Devices would be irrelevant because the discussion is about what the law SHOULD be.

NM Mountainman makes a good point here. This is something which I think is much more important to discuss. If I accept that the 2nd amendment is supposed to allow private citizens to own military-capability small arms (and I do), then that puts me in the uncomfortable position of having to accept private possession of RPGs, surface to air missiles, grenade launchers and the like. Call me an "anti" if you will but I dislike the idea of just anyone being able to buy such weapons off Bud's gun shop. The potential for domestic terrorism is much higher; unlike the .50 BMG, a Stinger can actually shoot down a 747. The potential for accidental damage is also much higher; I don't want to live next to the guy with a garage full of RPG shells no matter how swell of a guy he is.

Unlike with the ridiculous nuclear bomb idea, shoulder-fired explosives are relatively affordable. This rules out the libertarian idea of simply letting economics keep them out of dangerous hands.

The conservative rationale for the 2nd amendment is that it allows private citizens to fight a tyrannical government on something like equal terms. Shoulder-fired explosives and destructive devices, I would argue, do not significantly contribute to this goal while producing a lot of unpleasant side effects for a peaceful society.

I'm just trying to reason out this contradiction in my head, and I'm curious what others think of it.

 

[9mmforMe]

Frankly, I don't think arguing with antis about the ownership of WMD is a smart way to proceed. Your enemy need not attempt to make you look silly if you do it for him. How many hearts and minds will we gain by advocating civilian ownership of nuclear weapons?

I'm with ya brother.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The nuclear argument is the tactical equivalent of claiming if you don't support mandatory castration you are for rape. It's a logical absurdity.

A lot of the people who voted for banning "intoxicating liquor" thought they were banning rum and whiskey but were honestly surprised to wake up and find their beer and wine had been banned too in 1919. There is a real problem with accepting the nuclear argument: those who use it want to ban more than nukes. Some of them want to felonize carrying a boy scout knife.

 

[NMGonzo]

You need better friends to chat with.

 

[happygeek]

Unlike with the ridiculous nuclear bomb idea, shoulder-fired explosives are relatively affordable. This rules out the libertarian idea of simply letting economics keep them out of dangerous hands.

The conservative rationale for the 2nd amendment is that it allows private citizens to fight a tyrannical government on something like equal terms. Shoulder-fired explosives and destructive devices, I would argue, do not significantly contribute to this goal while producing a lot of unpleasant side effects for a peaceful society.

I'm just trying to reason out this contradiction in my head, and I'm curious what others think of it.

According to Wikipedia you're still looking at $38,000 for a Stinger. It could also be argued that they're an absolute necessity for fighting a tyrannical government, looking at the example of the Soviet-Afghan War.

I still say that someone with the motivation and determination to kill hundreds and that kind of money to spend in the endeavor isn't going to be stopped by a law against mere possession.

On a more practical note, Wikipedia says Stingers are classified as a Man-Portable Air-Defense System (MANPADS). I'd assume that legally they're considered destructive devices and that with the proper paperwork, a $200 tax stamp, $38,000 to spend, and a seller you could very well own one, but I'm guessing. Anybody know for sure?

Looks like for much, much less than the cost of a M4A1 or similar assault rifle, you can legally own a man portable device that is arguably far more dangerous in the wrong hands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M203_grenade_launcher#Civilian_ownership_in_the_United_States

In the United States, M203 grenade launcher attachments fitted with the standard rifled 40mm barrel are classified as "Destructive Devices" under the National Firearms Act part 26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11,[14] because they are a "non-sporting" firearm with a bore greater than one-half inch in diameter. M203s are relatively common on the civilian NFA market. New M203s sell for approximately US$1,750 to US$2,000 plus US$200 transfer tax, and new manufacture 40mm training ammunition is available for US$8 to US$10 per cartridge, as of March 2008. High explosive 40mm grenades, however, are exceedingly rare on the civilian market, as each grenade constitutes a Destructive Device on its own, and must be registered with the Federal government, requiring payment of a $200 tax and compliance with storage regulations for high explosives.

 

[2WheelsGood]

Any time someone tries to play the nuke card, they should be mocked for their inability to grasp the difference in scale between small arms and WMDs.

I really don't think that helps any more than when one of us claims: "well, if you want to ban guns, I guess we should ban cars and baseball bats and kitchen knives as well since they too can be used to kill". Both answers seek to evade the difficult discussion about where the lines of self defense lay.

For me, in my own personal view, I see a legitimate use for the average citizen to defend their lives and property using a handgun, a shotgun and even a fully automatic rifle. But I have a hard time seeing a case where an individual citizen could use a nuke to defend themselves without taking out an awful lot of innocent people.

Having said that, the discussion is legitimate, and the recommendation of trying to make someone look foolish is not the right way to answer it.

 

[gbw]

Carl N. Brown: The nuclear argument is the tactical equivalent of claiming if you don't support mandatory castration you are for rape. It's a logical absurdity.

It isn’t absurd at all, nor a strawman.

We run around claiming the individual right to keep and bear arms.

That right either has a limit or it doesn’t. Asking whether or not there is a limit to what we defend as ‘arms’ is a fair question.

If there is no limit then the nuclear weapon argument, while impractical, is perfectly logical. A smart anti won’t use nuclear, they’ll use grenades or bazookas or such, but it doesn’t change anything. No limit means no limit, and you’re stuck with it.

I'm not willing to defend that ground. I do not want my fellow general neighbor to have the right to legal access to an RPG.

If there is a limit to which arms are covered, the next question that must be answered is: where is that limit? Semi-auto? Full-auto? RPGs? Chemical? Biological? Nuclear? You must have an answer.

The problem is that whatever your personal answer, and mine is semi-auto, it is at least partly arbitrary. So that means anyone else’s limit, for example an anti’s limit of a single-shot shotgun, may be just as valid logically (and probably legally).

‘tis a dilemma.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Does anyone realize what a Stinger Missile costs? Besides there is only one manufacturer and I doubt they would sell one to you.

 

[Tommygunn]

Does anyone realize what a Stinger Missile costs? Besides there is only one manufacturer and I doubt they would sell one to you.

According to Wikipedia you're still looking at $38,000 for a Stinger.

Apparantly, yes.

 

[Justin]

Having said that, the discussion is legitimate, and the recommendation of trying to make someone look foolish is not the right way to answer it.

Ridiculous and foolish arguments should be pointed out for being ridiculous and foolish.

If we're having a discussion about firearms policy as it relates to crime, or how a particular law unnecessarily makes felons out of law-abiding citizens, you're much, much better arguing from that point than taking the nuke bait.

I suppose, though, that this has more to do with how I prefer to make points in an argument. I'd rather point out the absurdities that exist in real life, y'know, the ones that lead to actual injustice, than get into pie-in-the-sky "debates" over whether nuclear weapons should be legal for everyone.

I went through the phase of giving libertarian macho flashes, too, and understand the appeal, but if you're actually interested in making points that will win people over to our side, presenting arguments that most people will consider to be outright lunacy is not the way to do it.

The bottom line is this:

We live in a world where people want to lock you in prison for owning 30 round magazines or putting a bayonet on a rifle. Perhaps after we get to a point where citizens in this country don't have to worry about things like 922r compliance or whether they can be arrested because they left a loaded handgun in their glovebox while visiting their kid's college campus we can debate the finer points of private nuclear weapons ownership.

Until that day comes, however, you're much better to keep your talking points grounded in reality, and it behooves you to point out (in a mocking fashion or not) when the talking points of the other side are clearly being imported from La-La Land.

 

[kludge]

That right either has a limit or it doesn’t. Asking whether or not there is a limit to what we defend as ‘arms’ is a fair question.

Well said.

Keep and bear arms. Shall not be infringed.

No ifs ands or buts.

Unless we (the states) ratify a new constitutional amendment (wouldn't be hard to do) banning private ownership of ANY arm is unconstitutional.

Just one person's opinion.

It would be SO EASY to pass such a constitutional amendment it would be laughable.

The reason they WON'T do it, is because of precedent. They would have to pass a similar amendment to ban private ownership of battleships, warplanes, bombs and artillery shells of all kinds and the guns that shoot them...

...and machine guns.

They would NEVER get enough states to ratify a machine gun ban. So they will never even crack that door to write an amendment to ban nuclear weapons, because doing so would mean that machine guns by logical extension can't be banned constitutionally.

 

[Kenneth]

I have found that it is best to not even go there. Point out that nukes are an absurd extreme, and is just a distraction from the main argument. GCNs always try to distract you when they realize they are losing the argument.




"Our wrongs we must right if we can through the Ballot Box, and if this fails us, through the Cartridge Box."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote;

 

[Justin]

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Doing the whole chest-thumping "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS! YARR!" bit must really cause some people's dopamine receptors to light up, because it sure as heck doesn't actually do much to sway someone who holds views that differ from yours.