3 ms·
> The issue with nukes is that it's simply not possible to detonate one without causing collateral damage. Sure, how about a howitzer then? What you're failin
by hannofcart 6y ago
> The issue with nukes is that it's simply not possible to detonate one without causing collateral damage.
Sure, how about a howitzer then?
What you're failing to see or refusing to admit is that you too want to restrict access to weapons based on a certain threshold of collateral damage/body count each of them can inflict.
It's just that for some (perhaps most) of us, an AR-15 is way past our threshold.
As for the truck you mentioned that was used in France: if it's ever found that a certain truck model makes it particularly easy to run over people with, I bet my bottom dollar that soon after there will be legislation enacted restricting access to it.
- mmm_grayons 6y agoNo, I don't want to restrict ownership of howitzers. Though personally, I'd prefer an M61 vulcan. So no, I wouldn't say I'd restrict based on body count.
- ben_w 6y agoJust to be clear, you’d be fine with a personally owned nuke if it didn’t have fallout?
- mmm_grayons 6y agoThe issue is not the fallout but the fact that a nuclear weapon cannot be targeted - it by its very nature and design harms innocent civilians. Compare that to a fierarm, which can obviously be directed one way or the other. It's the same reason I wouldn't load my concealed carry handgun with FMJ rounds.
- anigbrowl 6y agoRealistically, if you fire a howitzer you have zero assurance that the shell will only land upon legitimate targets. The recent hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan are testament to the indiscriminate destructive power of military weapons.