So, I was thinking about suitcase nukes and high-capacity firearms...

[Comatose Sphagetti]

The reason no private citizens are permitted to have suitcase nukes is, no matter how law abiding, responsible, sober, etc., the owners may be; SOMEONE is going to set one off and cause mass destruction. The few, as in many examples in our lives, ruin it for everyone else, and rules have to be made to protect the many from the few.

Same with high-capacity firearms... no matter how law abiding, responsible, sober, etc., the owners may be; SOMEONE is going to use one to cause mass destruction. The few ruin it for the many.

One weapon is banned because the consequences of it's use are unimaginably horrific, while the other, also with unimaginably horrific consequences, is not.

The difference is in the body count.

[Robb]

1. A suitcase nuke would be great for home defense.

But a few hot-heads have really ruined it for the rest of us.

Thoughtful post.

[a geek named Bob]

2. a gun can only kill the people it's pointed at...

nukes kill ALL the life in the destruction zone.

Don't be obtuse

[Comatose Sphagetti]

3. a gun can only kill the people it's pointed at...

Tell that to the people killed every New Year's eve by celebratory gunfire.

Don't be acute.

)

[a geek named Bob]

7. that's a trajectory, not a mass effect

when you use "arguments" like yours, you cheapen your position.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

11. You said "a gun can only kill the people it's pointed at"

Wrong

[Hoyt]

4. But a gun is still deadly, and used against innocent people too.

[a geek named Bob]

9. so's a sword...

[Hoyt]

17. And where I live you can't carry a sword in public, but almost any yahoo

can strut into Chuck E Cheese with a gun or two strapped to his body. What's with that?

[a geek named Bob]

18. are you going to make a point? n/t

[pkdu]

5. Ever heard of Mr. Rick O'Shea ?....not just those it's pointed at.

[a geek named Bob]

10. When you equate a richochet with a deadly supersonic flame wave

you cheapen your argument.

[pkdu]

13. Wasn't equating them. Just pointing out an incorrect statement.

As for the "suitcase nuke" ..if deliberately set off , it does exactly what the perp intended.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

15. A projectile falling from a weapon fired indiscriminately in the air

is not a ricochet.

[a geek named Bob]

16. "I" didn't state they were... I responded to the wrong post n/t

[MrSlayer]

6. I hunt with suitcase nukes.

It makes the meat a little overdone though.

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. Neighborhood nuclear superiority is not covered by the 2nd amendment.

except in an NRA wet dream.

[baldguy]

14. More like an opiate-induced hallucination.

[defacto7]

12. Actually, the suitcase nuke

would make the area where it was detonated useless for a very long time. Therefore the land would not be commercially viable and the resale value would plummet.

No body count necessary. It's only the bucks that matter.



(sarcasm)

[Animal Chin]

19. The Framers intended for us to have suitcase nukes

To keep the government in check. Give me mutually assured destruction or give me death!