Some thoughts on cognitive dissonance re: weapons proliferation

[Wonk]

I've seen it advocated here, and elsewhere too, that more people having more weapons, and more concealed weapons, makes life in general safer for everyone, and that the Democratic Party should dance to the tune sung by the NRA on this issue. Some folks even go so far as to advocate no regulations at all. You gungeon regulars know who you are.

So, here's my question to those of you who fall into that camp.

Why do you believe Iran and North Korea having nukes makes our world a safer place? It's the same logic as the above arguments after all, just on a different scale.

What? You don't think Iran and North Korea should have nukes? That's the cognitive dissonance I referred to in the thread title.

Feel free to take a shot (pun intended) at explaining how more guns in more peoples hands and less regulation of guns makes everyone safer while more nukes in more countries hands doesn't.

Or, pretend to ignore this thread and let it just drop like a rock, and hopefully forget you ever read it or thought about it for even a second, because it made your brain hurt too much and guns are just so cool.

[LibertyorDeath]

1. problem with your analogy

If I shoot my neighbor with a unregulated concealed hand gun in a fit of rage cause I'm piss drunk & blacked out.
That has Zero effect on most of the rest of the USA on the other hand if North Korea Nuked California the Worlds 7th largest Economy that's a whole different story.

Nukes are a Zero sum game.
Guns are not.

[Mohammed]

9. Same rights for Arabs !

"Why do you believe Iran and North Korea having nukes makes our world a safer place?"

Why do you think that only the US and wetsern nations got a right to have nuclear weapons ?

If the Arab League had nuclear weapons, they could restore the balance of forces with the zionist entity. Presently we face the jews with conventional weapons only ... what if they nuke us over night ? We couldn't even retaliate !

[LibertyorDeath]

22. How did you arrive at this

"Why do you think that only the US and wetsern nations got a right to have nuclear weapons ?"

I didn't say anything close to.

I think the exact opposite.

[iverglas]

10. charming

If I shoot my neighbor with a unregulated concealed hand gun in a fit of rage cause I'm piss drunk & blacked out. That has Zero effect on most of the rest of the USA

on the other hand if North Korea Nuked California the Worlds 7th largest Economy that's a whole different story.

(Res ipsa loquitur.)

Let the world speak for itself, 'k?

Maybe the rest of the world is just as willing to risk the loss of California as you think the rest of the USA is (well, oughta be?) to risk the loss of your neighbour.

Your opinion about the value/importance of your neighbour is really about as worth considering, or not, as the rest of the world's opinion about the value/importance of California, I'd say.


Nukes are a Zero sum game.
Guns are not.

??

You mean -- people who get nuked tend to nuke back (or someone else will on their behalf, at least)?

Well, if they have the nukes to do it with. I guess they aren't a zero sum game if only the US and its chums have 'em.

I fail to see how this makes them different from firearms in individual hands.

[FatSlob]

16. How sweet.

O8)

[slackmaster]

25. To a hard-core vegan, even gravy is burned blood

O8)

[iverglas]

28. yikes, was I misunderstanding you?

When you said that your shooting your neighbour "has Zero effect on most of the rest of the USA" while North Korea nuking California is "a whole different story" -- were you saying that this is a bad thing, and not a good reason to deny North Korea nuclear capability?

That dead neighbours really are important, even though most people don't seem to care about them, but would care about California?

And if so ... I'd just have to ask why the preferred response seems to be to allow unfettered proliferation of either small arms in individual hands or nuclear weapons in state hands ...

[Columbia]

2. McFeeb's Law violation in the initial post!

New record! Woohoo! Beers for all! :toast:

[Jack_DeLeon]

3. Nuclear Weapons != firearms...

that being said you can draw some comparisions between them.

North Korea has nuclear weapons, Iraq didnt.

Which one got invaded?

In my ideal world I would be the only person with any kinds of weapons. However in the real world it is hypocritcal to say that I should or anyone else (or group of people) should be the only ones with weapons.

We all have the right to defend ourselves.

And if it comes down to not having the right to defend myself or having that right but having a higher risk of losing my life I would choose to keep my rights.

[Sgent]

4. Not any dissonance

North Korea and Iran are international pariah, they have both been found guilty of the equivalent of a felony.

I don't think any of us ever said that felons should have firearms.

[enfield collector]

5. hit the nail right on the head.

[goju]

6. Nor would it be cognitive dissonance anyway

But Ill leave that point to the grammar nazi's.

[FatSlob]

7. No relation.

WMDs in the hands of Nation/States are not equal or analagous to small arms in the hands of individuals.

[alwynsw]

8. Not a valid comparison.

There's aworld of differences between the roles of individuals and the roles of nations.

You analogy is analagous to the comparison of a single cell to the human organism.

[iverglas]

11. well, it would be

"You<r> analogy is analagous to the comparison of a single cell to the human organism."

... if the US, say, were analogous to the human organism.

In point of fact, the human population of the earth would be the analogous entity here, I'd think.

Individual = cell
Human population of the earth = human organism

The US might be, oh, a toe, in this analogy. Although I suppose the US is the brain, and North Korea is the toe, eh? The world can get along without North Korea, but lose California, and it's all over ...

Individuals are members of the collectivity composed of all individuals.

States are members of the collectivity composed of all states.

I'm not seeing a world of difference here, myself.

[alwynsw]

14. Cute.

:)

[FatSlob]

17. Verbose.

:bounce:

[slackmaster]

26. Thermochem sucks

:kick: :hi:

[LibertyorDeath]

21. Thank you that was my point I don't know what the fuck

the rest are talking about. Especially post #10

give me a fucking break do you know how many thousands of Americans kill each other every year with guns.

It goes on year after year after year most people don't seem to give a shit.

[iverglas]

23. A vs. B

A:
"If I shoot my neighbor with a unregulated concealed hand gun in a fit of rage cause I'm piss drunk & blacked out.

That has Zero effect on most of the rest of the USA on the other hand if North Korea Nuked California the Worlds 7th largest Economy that's a whole different story."

B;
"give me a fucking break do you know how many thousands of Americans kill each other every year with guns.

It goes on year after year after year most people don't seem to give a shit."


And all from the same source.

Talk about yer cognitive dissonance ...

[slackmaster]

27. Nuanced, yet somehow stillborn

:hurts:

[iverglas]

29. welcome

to the collective. Got the message late, did you?

Ah, if only yours had any actual girls, eh?

[slackmaster]

30. Transitionally

:smoke:

[Buster43]

12. Government policy

is different from personal liberty guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Governments decide on whether they will have nukes. In the case of N. Korea, the people have no civil liberties. They dance to the governments tune. Having gun control is making the people dance to the governments tune. That goes against the civil liberties as our forefathers desired. The politicians don't know whats good for me. Only I know whats good for me and if owning guns is my desire, then so be it.

As for nukes, do you want a country that is totalitarian in rule and is unfriendly to this country and our allies have nukes? A gun kills one person at a time. Nukes kill indiscriminately.

[iverglas]

13. what amazing burble

"Government policy is different from personal liberty guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment."

Uh ... THE SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIONS is directly analogous to individual liberty.

No other nation, or collective of nations, has any absolute right to interfere in the exercise of the sovereignty of any other nation -- the making of "government policy".

Just as no other individual, or collective of individuals, has any absolute right to interfere in the exercise of the liberty of any other individual.

Can no one around here use his/her noggin so as to construct a remotely valid analogy??


"As for nukes, do you want a country that is totalitarian in rule and is unfriendly to this country and our allies have nukes?"

That was kinda the question, wasn't it? And if the answer is "no", the question is why one would want an individual who is insane or aggressively hostile to have firearms.

Or, more specifically, how one could justify interfering in nations' choices regarding nuclear weapons, but claim that interfering in individuals' choices regarding firearms cannot be justified.


"A gun kills one person at a time. Nukes kill indiscriminately."

So?

Some of you folks really don't have much concern for human life at all, do you?

[alwynsw]

15. haha

:)

[FatSlob]

18. Burble like a V8 muscle car in Saskatoon.

:donut:

[iverglas]

19. chirp like

all your little buddies.

One post fits all, today.

[FatSlob]

20. Milestones and missives and poutyness.

:party:

[slackmaster]

24. I stopped worrying a LONG time ago - weapons are our friends

:nuke: