It's also a good limited comparison in a way that I suspect TDS didn't mean to make. The safe use of guns and nuclear weapons both depend on the responsibility of human beings. Therefore, in both cases, we have to ask ourselves, "Can we trust humans to act responsibly enough to have the weapons?" One of the most common anti-gun arguments is that people aren't responsible enough to have weapons. Since nukes also require people to act responsibly, asking if its okay for countries to have nukes would be a way of determining how people feel about the role of responsibility in owning weapons by analogy and without the emotion involved in gun debates.
No analogy is perfect, but perfect comparisons are not the function of analogies. People use them to draw limited comparisons between specific aspects of different ideas.
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields
☮★★☮ Just a democratic-socialist in the heartland of America.CHECK OUT MY TUMBLR(BLOG)HERE "Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
And you've been asked several times what your policy proposals are, but you won't say.
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
Okay. I still see the two as very difficult to compare, though, even in a limited fashion. For example, a nuke includes a variety of dangerous components. There are explosives, which if wrongly stored or handled could become unstable and self-detonate. There are nuclear materials that are radioactive and very toxic, and require special handling to avoid injury to anyone exposed to them. Plutonium, in particular, is one of the most incredibly toxic substances in existence.
One also has to consider the degree of disaster involved if the weapon is misused. A mishandled gun can injure or kill someone yes... in certain unusual circumstances someone with ill intent may be able to use a gun to kill dozens of people.
Misuse or nefarious use of a nuke can readily result in the death or injury of hundreds of thousands of people, possibly millions.
There's also the issue that a nuke has no legitimate use in private hands... whereas firearms do: self-defense being the most important. Since it is impossible to make all weapons disappear (guns alone even, but also knives and bludgeons and bows and all the other things people killed people with before guns were invented), the need for personal arms for self-defense is a strong argument, whereas there simply IS no argument for the private personal possession of nuclear weapons, is there?
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
drink machines topple over and kill people every year. I beat a toppling ICBM would take out 2 or 3 people