So we should shun people for carrying a glock, because otherwise people would build a nuke, presumably unshunned?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
So we should shun people for carrying a glock, because otherwise people would build a nuke, presumably unshunned?
No, I think you just made a slippery slope logical fallacy. I'm trying to find the reasons why we reject one idea ("No, you can't have a nuke or a chemical weapon or some other mass destructive tool") and yet are okay with a related idea ("But yeah, you can have the high-capacity assault rifle which is designed for offensive deadly force.")
I think, ideally, we should focus on tools that are good at non-lethal self-defense if that is in fact our goal. Tools that are designed for offensive, aggressive force should be frowned upon because their very design seems intended to violate the NAP.
I would shun you for shooting someone for being armed with a glock.
I wouldn't shun you for shooting someone who was building a nuke.
If you act to minimise threats to others, I'm not going to have a big problem with your actions, nor would a jury.
Governments have nukes, and they have used them to murder countless people and for blackmail already. They, governments, do not get an exception to basic justice and security concepts.