Why Doesn't the US Support North Korea's Right to Nuclear Arms?

[Enkrypt]

Except that there is.

Here are some facts:

* American citizens have a right to arm themselves
* Countries have a right to defend themselves

Why does leadership continue to deprioririze mass shootings? Why is the killing of Americans by Americans tolerated without any meaningful progress being made towards reducing frequency, severity?

20 children are murdered at a school. No meaningful legislative iteration occurs.

One dude in Vegas kills 58 people, bump stock prices soar. Thoughts and prayers.

DPRNK says they want to bomb all of the western world, sanctions come out.

DPRNK tests tech that they have acquired within their right to defend themselves. Diplomacy (iteration) effort cranks up.

Why?




n u a n c e

How is ANY of that related to just letting North Korea have nuclear weapons? We have the right to defend ourselves, too, which is an odd oversight. I feel like there are some serious issues with your correlation between Americans having the right to bear arms, and letting an international threat like N. Korea have an arsenal of weapons capable of destroying entire countries.

How in the Hell are you making that connection when you only cite domestic events involving mentally unstable individuals with personal firearms?

Are you being dim on purpose? Are you a N. Korean hacker? Why would an American support N. Korea's right to have a nuclear arsenal when he has openly said he'd use it on Americans if given the chance?

I regret posting in this thread already. I feel like the intentions of the OP are not sincere, and I may have taken the bait. I digress, this is just a ridiculous notion to compare incidents with handguns to an insane person having a nuclear state.

[Deleted]

Hehe yeah that would be sweet.

It might actually be catastrophic if there isn't a worthy successor, because that could easily mean internal chaos that could end up being external.

Anyways, let's not flood this very thought out serious thread with such clutter of nonsense

[Frogguh]

Except that there is.

Here are some facts:

* American citizens have a right to arm themselves
* Countries have a right to defend themselves

Why does leadership continue to deprioririze mass shootings? Why is the killing of Americans by Americans tolerated without any meaningful progress being made towards reducing frequency, severity?

20 children are murdered at a school. No meaningful legislative iteration occurs.

One dude in Vegas kills 58 people, bump stock prices soar. Thoughts and prayers.

DPRNK says they want to bomb all of the western world, sanctions come out.

DPRNK tests tech that they have acquired within their right to defend themselves. Diplomacy (iteration) effort cranks up.

Why?




n u a n c e

Yes, both individuals and nations have a right to defend themselves. But look at your own examples.

20 people killed at a school. Assuming you are talking about the recent Florida shooting, there was a failure in the process somewhere. That guy should not have had access to legal guns. The vast majority of Americans would not have supported him having firearms because of his known instability. Other than fixing whatever went wrong in the background check process, the only ways that could have been prevented legislatively would be A) removing all guns (won't ever happen) or B) having armed security in the school. Every government body in the world is probably a gun-free zone, but you can tell how much faith our benevolent overlords have in gun-free zones by the armed security they possess. The government knows what works to prevent armed attackers - armed defenders. Put them in our schools.

The Las Vegas shooter was completely under the radar, last I heard. Had no prior issues, no reason to suspect he would do what he did. Other than magically disarming the entire population, which won't happen, what law should be changed? Trump just issued an executive order on bump stocks, what else could be done legislatively? And had the guy been making threatening remarks, no one would have supported his possession of guns.

North Korea says it wants to acquire nuclear weapons and bomb the United States. We thus disapprove of them possessing nuclear weapons.

Do you not see the extremely obvious difference? Even at the individual level, people who run around threatening that if they have a gun they will use it to kill their neighbor do not have the support of anyone else to possess guns. The reason we don't care that, say, France has nuclear weapons is because we have no reason to believe that they will suddenly nuke New York. North Korea is constantly threatening to wipe the United States off the map. Why should we be any more comfortable with them possessing nuclear weapons than we would a guy on top of a building with a rifle shouting that he's going to kill everyone?

[Thimagryn]

I can see you started with the wrong assumption that what US does is right and justified. The truth is that they want world domination and money and will use any mean to try to pretend that what they do is the right thing. The result of their actions are worst than those of Hitler. The only difference is that they found a way to make you think it is right.

Technically Hitler made those who followed him think that their actions were right too. The only difference is that they lost and history is written in favour of the winners, not the losers. We wouldn't be discussing 'right' and 'wrong' actions if the Nazi's had won, and any bad moves would have been chalked up as a 'necessary evil of the times'. I mean, slavery wasn't a shining moment in history either but we all move on.

[f3llyn]

Except that there is.

Here are some facts:

* American citizens have a right to arm themselves
* Countries have a right to defend themselves

Why does leadership continue to deprioririze mass shootings? Why is the killing of Americans by Americans tolerated without any meaningful progress being made towards reducing frequency, severity?

20 children are murdered at a school. No meaningful legislative iteration occurs.

One dude in Vegas kills 58 people, bump stock prices soar. Thoughts and prayers.

DPRNK says they want to bomb all of the western world, sanctions come out.

DPRNK tests tech that they have acquired within their right to defend themselves. Diplomacy (iteration) effort cranks up.

Why?




n u a n c e

Funny that. Up until recently (I don't know if it's changed, haven't checked statistics in a while ) all violent crime in the US has been at an all time low following a downward trend that's started in the 80's.

Your basing your argument on a fallacy even though it's clear you're trolling.

So yes, to answer your question, actually we have been doing something about it.

[Nfinitii]

y do u start talking about the 2nd amendment and guns? That has nothing to do w/ nukes. And if u really want to go that direction Americans don't have fully automatic weapons and explosives. So if anything they r consistent not hypocrites.

[mootygrimes]

Yes, both individuals and nations have a right to defend themselves. But look at your own examples.

20 people killed at a school. Assuming you are talking about the recent Florida shooting, there was a failure in the process somewhere. That guy should not have had access to legal guns. The vast majority of Americans would not have supported him having firearms because of his known instability. Other than fixing whatever went wrong in the background check process, the only ways that could have been prevented legislatively would be A) removing all guns (won't ever happen) or B) having armed security in the school. Every government body in the world is probably a gun-free zone, but you can tell how much faith our benevolent overlords have in gun-free zones by the armed security they possess. The government knows what works to prevent armed attackers - armed defenders. Put them in our schools.

The Las Vegas shooter was completely under the radar, last I heard. Had no prior issues, no reason to suspect he would do what he did. Other than magically disarming the entire population, which won't happen, what law should be changed? Trump just issued an executive order on bump stocks, what else could be done legislatively? And had the guy been making threatening remarks, no one would have supported his possession of guns.

North Korea says it wants to acquire nuclear weapons and bomb the United States. We thus disapprove of them possessing nuclear weapons.

Do you not see the extremely obvious difference? Even at the individual level, people who run around threatening that if they have a gun they will use it to kill their neighbor do not have the support of anyone else to possess guns. The reason we don't care that, say, France has nuclear weapons is because we have no reason to believe that they will suddenly nuke New York. North Korea is constantly threatening to wipe the United States off the map. Why should we be any more comfortable with them possessing nuclear weapons than we would a guy on top of a building with a rifle shouting that he's going to kill everyone?

This is a pretty thoughtful reply, but it falls short.

"Every government body in the world is probably a gun-free zone, but you can tell how much faith our benevolent overlords have in gun-free zones by the armed security they possess. The government knows what works to prevent armed attackers - armed defenders. Put them in our schools."

Courts and other government buildings are typically staffed by armed guards, you're right. I believe this has more to do with the protection of those asked to participate in the system of justice. Having armed deterrence prevents most forms of physical violence that would serve to undermine the justice system (or other government institutions.

The idea that putting guns in schools is a good idea is, honestly, baffling to me. It's a pretty clear failure of attempting to root-cause the problem to the lowest possible level and any attempts to correct those systemic failures.

Why?

a) It's a slippery slope. Say we (somehow) eliminated all shootings at schools because every school has armed defenders now. What's next on the list? Theaters? Malls (do we still have malls?) sporting events? Do we throw more guns at those problems as well?

b) Anybody who believes that just because somebody has been trained and possesses the physical tools to do a job can and will actually do the job correctly straight away is wrong. Hell, most of the people in this thread probably screw up at their jobs regularly. Let's go ahead and toss in some guns, a shitload of fear, and why not add the pressure of protecting a couple dozen children. Would you trust that person to get the job done with your kids?


"Other than fixing whatever went wrong in the background check process, the only ways that could have been prevented legislatively would be..."

Speaking in absolutes isn't always a good thing. The fact of the matter is there are options that fall short of disarming the entire population. Bump the age requirement for possession, increase the wait time, other stuff that hasn't even been thought of yet.

"The reason we don't care that, say, France has nuclear weapons is because we have no reason to believe that they will suddenly nuke New York."

You just got done telling me that the Las Vegas shooter had no prior criminal history and had not made clear his intention to do harm. As a result, "hey, there's nothing we could've done!"

What's to stop France from one day deciding, you know what, maybe the US isn't so great after all?

The point is, humans can act erratically and without thought. They do things that harm others, sometimes with disregard for what happens to themselves in the process. Who are we to tell another country that desires the means to defend themselves they are not allowed to because the US just thinks its better for everybody if we have control of the big bombs regardless of their motives while at the same time US leadership actively drags their feet when it comes to implementing any meaningful set of gun reform?

[Aaronioslo]

Not sure how a better way of a living is a bad thing. Is it bad only if it's forced upon people or is it inherently bad from the start?

oh right, everywhere america started war in, people are better off. look what a picture of prosperity the middle east is after all the 'american better way of livling'

and maybe it is bad because of your i know better attitude?

[mootygrimes]

Funny that. Up until recently (I don't know if it's changed, haven't checked statistics in a while ) all violent crime in the US has been at an all time low following a downward trend that's started in the 80's.

Your basing your argument on a fallacy even though it's clear you're trolling.

So yes, to answer your question, actually we have been doing something about it.

"Your basing your argument on a fallacy even though it's clear you're trolling."

I'm not. I'm really not.

I made no reference to overall crime trends. Anywhere. Ever. I'm focusing on one small, but high-impact portion of overall crime.

Also, I'm not the type of person to believe the gaping butthole sitting in the Oval, but according to him, America has never been a more dangerous place! Our cities are warzones! I can't walk outside after dark or I'm definitely going to get shot!

It's never been more dangerous! The only thing that can save us from this danger is DJT. HE'S THE ONLY ONE, DUDE!

Legislative efforts have not stemmed the effect of mass shootings which occur at a rate of more than one a day. We are not doing something about it.

Sooooo, yeahhhhhh. Kinda awkward.

[Alydael]

So in in the US every citizen has a right to bear arms. It was (and perhaps still is) believed that an armed citizenry is a healthy way to ensure the continued security of a free State.


There exists right now a party within the US government that has shown no interest in participating in any sort of iteration despite the (mostly avoidable) american loss of life at the hands of one or two heavily armed individuals in public settings.

It is actaully both parties, one party just does a better job of hiding it (and the press runs cover for them).

The Presidency has basically switched back and forth in the US: Clinton (d) 8 years, Bush (r) 8 years, Obama (d) 8 years, Trump (r) ?

Both parties had ample time to act on guns and NK. Obama had a super majority the first two years and could have basically pushed through what he wanted, but he did nothing on either issue.

Don't fall for the lies, listening to what people spoon feed you is just laziness- you can research the facts and know the truth.

Both parties are firmly in the NRA pocket.

That is why I say we need to dump both parties, Both of them had plenty of time, opportunity and money to fix the problems they cry about, but they didn't. They are both basically ineffective and do a poor job running the country, they show no leadership (a leader unites- the best they can do is divide) (but let's not get derailed).

As for NK, nothing short of a strike will stop them from getting nukes.

The reason the US opposes them on nukes is that we are anti-proliferation. We were actually cutting down our own arsenal (in treaties with Russia) until the world heated up again.

You could argue that we have no right to tell NK they can't have nukes. You could also argue that all the countries of the world (except NK, China and Iran) came together and voted against NK having them and that we are just supporting the UN and the international community.

As for guns, I think there are some common sense things we can do right now that will help:

1) No more background checks at stores or shows- you apply for a licenses from the gov't, like a driver's license. This will stop all the local shennanigans.

2) If you have recently been treated for mental illness or are taking any psycho active meds (anti anxiety, depression, zanax, etc) you can not be in the same house as guns (would have stopped the last three mass shootings, Sandy hook and Columbine- maybe more (haven't researched past those 5).

3) If the police are called to your house for violent outburst (or you are picked up by police or other security), you must attend a hearing to keep your license. In this hearing you can attempt to prove that you are still fit to have a gun or you license is revoked.

I think those are simple things we can do basically immediately to improve the situation.

You can't blame the gun epidemic on one party, that is kind of silly when you think about it. It also tends to squash discussion and the chance of a compromise if you start playing the blame game. It quickly degregates to "me=right, you=wrong (and vice versa)" Not much of an engaging intellectual discussion to be had under those circumstances.

There are other factors besides even leadership. A history of violence and a violent culture (murder in our music and movies) all promote gun violence.

[Easo]

The more nukes and players with them there are, the bigger the chances they will get used, especially when we are not talking about western world, but some failed state like... North Korea...
OP, think before you post. I am having benefit of doubt that this was not another bait thread.

[Machismo]

The answer is simple, it's because they are hypocrites. If you support the rights of a person to own a firearm, or a government to protect itself, then you have no real cause to complain about North Korea having a nuclear weapon.

- - - Updated - - -

How is ANY of that related to just letting North Korea have nuclear weapons? We have the right to defend ourselves, too, which is an odd oversight. I feel like there are some serious issues with your correlation between Americans having the right to bear arms, and letting an international threat like N. Korea have an arsenal of weapons capable of destroying entire countries.

How in the Hell are you making that connection when you only cite domestic events involving mentally unstable individuals with personal firearms?

Are you being dim on purpose? Are you a N. Korean hacker? Why would an American support N. Korea's right to have a nuclear arsenal when he has openly said he'd use it on Americans if given the chance?

I regret posting in this thread already. I feel like the intentions of the OP are not sincere, and I may have taken the bait. I digress, this is just a ridiculous notion to compare incidents with handguns to an insane person having a nuclear state.

Actually, he has said he would use it on America if we attacked him, which is what we have said. Hell, there were discussions to use nuclear weapons against them, first.

It does show the hypocrisy of many American nationalists and many of the gun rights supporters.

[mootygrimes]

The more nukes and players with them there are, the bigger the chances they will get used, especially when we are not talking about western world, but some failed state like... North Korea...
OP, think before you post. I am having benefit of doubt that this was not another bait thread.

So, I guess this wasn't obvious to you, but Why isn't this same logic applied to guns in the US?

[Machismo]

Yes, both individuals and nations have a right to defend themselves. But look at your own examples.

20 people killed at a school. Assuming you are talking about the recent Florida shooting, there was a failure in the process somewhere. That guy should not have had access to legal guns. The vast majority of Americans would not have supported him having firearms because of his known instability. Other than fixing whatever went wrong in the background check process, the only ways that could have been prevented legislatively would be A) removing all guns (won't ever happen) or B) having armed security in the school. Every government body in the world is probably a gun-free zone, but you can tell how much faith our benevolent overlords have in gun-free zones by the armed security they possess. The government knows what works to prevent armed attackers - armed defenders. Put them in our schools.

The Las Vegas shooter was completely under the radar, last I heard. Had no prior issues, no reason to suspect he would do what he did. Other than magically disarming the entire population, which won't happen, what law should be changed? Trump just issued an executive order on bump stocks, what else could be done legislatively? And had the guy been making threatening remarks, no one would have supported his possession of guns.

North Korea says it wants to acquire nuclear weapons and bomb the United States. We thus disapprove of them possessing nuclear weapons.

Do you not see the extremely obvious difference? Even at the individual level, people who run around threatening that if they have a gun they will use it to kill their neighbor do not have the support of anyone else to possess guns. The reason we don't care that, say, France has nuclear weapons is because we have no reason to believe that they will suddenly nuke New York. North Korea is constantly threatening to wipe the United States off the map. Why should we be any more comfortable with them possessing nuclear weapons than we would a guy on top of a building with a rifle shouting that he's going to kill everyone?

North Korea actually has nuclear weapons, yet they have not bombed the United States. Where did they say they wanted to bomb the United States, because most of the rhetoric I have seen says they would "obliterate" America with nuclear bombs if we ever attacked them.

- - - Updated - - -

The more nukes and players with them there are, the bigger the chances they will get used, especially when we are not talking about western world, but some failed state like... North Korea...
OP, think before you post. I am having benefit of doubt that this was not another bait thread.

He's actually got a point. If you support the 2nd Amendment, then you support a nation being able to defend itself, even shithole regimes like North Korea.

[brbshower]

Honest opinion, most are just afraid to say it...NOBODY NEEDS NUKES FOR ANY REASON. Certainly not for defense. It's really the same argument that reasonable people are making regarding AR-15's and other semi automatic weapons...WTF do you realistically need it for? If you can't defend yourself with a handgun or standard rifle then you clearly don't have the training required to handle a semi automatic weapon in the first place. You aren't going to hunt with it, and you don't need it to defend your property from some punk kid trying to steal your car radio. Nobody NEEDS either, they just want to have them to look like a bad ass. Yes, this includes the united states. The appearance of toughness is > everything else

[durenas]

The reality is, politicians don't care about ideology. With a very few exceptions, they have no real convictions. Even hardline republicans got onto the ticket because they wanted to get elected, not because they actually believed in what they're saying. They listen to their constituents, and when the NRA uses their mailing lists to mobilize their constituents to vote how they like, that terrifies Republicans. They would do ANYTHING to not get voted out. That's why gun reform will never happen, not the trivial campaign contributions. It's the mailing lists that are the real weapon here.

North Korea can't vote in US elections, that's why the US doesn't care about pissing North Korea off with their hardline stance about nuclear weapons. It's a blatant double standard, but there it is.

[dontknowdoya]

• You are comparing guns to something that can destroy cities, especially if he actually has H-Bombs; that is like comparing a flea's ass hair to a blue whale.

• The US is not the only country that does not want North Korea to have nukes; most developed countries are against it, as well as the UN.

• The argument that the US wants to be the only one that has nukes is silly; of course they would like that. So would Russia, China and every other country.

[Easo]

So, I guess this wasn't obvious to you, but Why isn't this same logic applied to guns in the US?

Because guns are not nukes. Even the biggest cannon has nothing on the smallest nuke, purely for the destructive effect. But the radiation is what makes them truly separate, its something we cant really deal with.
And, funny as it is, USA shows that the more guns you have, the more they are used. School shootings, ring a bell?

[Daedius]

Has the Fallout series thought you nothing!?

[SirCowdog]

NK doesn't get good nukes until the agree to play by the same rules as the rest of the big boy countries that have good nukes.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent that NOBODY actually wants to use. Ol Kim WANTS to use them(or at least fronts the appearance of wanting to). Therein lies the problem. He doesn't want it to protect his country or his people. He wants them so he can wave his dick around at the adult table, even though he's clearly not ready to sit there.