Weapon brainstorm

well, you can fight a war with guns
but then you get into weapons that have ethical problems like nerve gases, nukes, biological weapons.

is this facts or what?

if your lookif for reasons to use weapons, we can defend our selfs from those who would cause harm to the greater population, is one point. if your looking for people to shout out random weapons, m4, mp5, p90, glock, berreta, ar-15, m60, claymore, c4. Im not shure exactly what your looking for but for other ideas there is also the spark notes cult

you could say that there are something like 20,000 active nuclear warheads and all but about around 1500 of them are deployed by the US and Russia. And that the US has enough VX verve gas to kill everyone in the world 2 times

Ok this is a good starting point. If a man hands out a m16 (for example) to fight a war...lets say offencive intention during a war, would you fix it and hand it back to the soldier?

Its not facts im looking for, thats too easy...But really, its a philosophy class essay that I should write. That is why im asking for reflection so I have a direction to my thesis. I need a brainstorm so that I can start working things out.

heres another point, there are over 550,000,000 fire arms in world wide circulation, thats one fire arm for every 12 people on the planet

^ go watch more movies to get smart

According to most ethicists the only weapons that can ever be justified are 100% purely defensive weapons...

... good luck proving that about ANY weapon, but hey. It's a start.

ethical as it relates to torure etc can bring all kinds of shit into the picture. gas, germ warfare, nukes, the like. Then you bring into question another thing, is a gas that kills w/o pain unethical in any way? Are nukes only unethical because of the fallout or is there another peice to the puzzel

is a weapon to be used in warfare ethical at all to start with?

If killing is as bad as the general public portrays it to be, is our definition of ethical as used here far different from the deffienition we apply to our daily lives?

dont ask me to brainstorm i like saying random shit

What about how warfare has changed from an agreed on single battle between two armies, with considerably smaller casualties, to snipers and nerve gasses that are sneaky and backhanded.

Ok, I have took a new direction in my essay, I decided to do it on the bannishing arms in Canada.
Here is a section, tell me if its any good...

Guns and arms:
Total ban or Free Circulation in Canada?

Introduction
Guns have been around since the renaissance. At first, they were a tool for hunting. But, the human race found another use for this tool; killing. Guns are the military’s weapon of choice because they are fast acting machines and easy to use. But, many civilians own guns. People have different reason for owning a gun; hunting self defence or the joy of simply having a gun. To control the use of weapons Canadian laws forces their citizens to register their guns for the gun control organization. The question in this essay is not to debate the safety of guns, but to argue that guns should be completely banned nation wide. To prove my point, the legal point of view, personal judgement and the moral issues will be questioned.

Legal
-Law
The law has been defined in this course as the limitation of personal desires and society’s needs. In other words, the laws must protect the citizen and so as the community in order to live as one. In the case of guns and arms, the protection of the citizen becomes at risk. Like an arm is designed to take lives, the community begins to live in fear if someone possesses such an abject. Even if a selected group of people have the security of a gun, the rest of society will have an unjust protection. But, if everyone may have an arm to defend themselves, they might also use it abusively and offensively. The abuse will lead to insecurity between the community and the individual. If trust is lost in a community, the group will become anarchic. So if we banish all offensive tool designed to kill, a variable between social and personal safety will be taken away.
-limits
All rights and freedom must be limited. Laws must precisely draw the line between community benefit and personal desires. If freedom of speech had no limits, the whole concept of freedom of speech will be useless. The freedom of possession of arms must also come with limits. But imposing limits between recreation and dangerous weapons are close to the impossible because all arms have the same purpose: to kill. The gun control law does set limits to the type of arms that may be possessed. But, like guns are more and more sold in the black market, the guns become unidentifiable to the gun registry. So, the best way to not worry about the arm limitations and confusion, banning weapons is a simple, quick solution to the problem.

projectile arms that use gunpowder have been around a LOT longer, they had them in China thousands of years ago.

you should write about how the AK47 is the cheepest, yet most durable weapon, you can shoot it under water, with the berril fill of sand, and it just seriously the best weapon of war...well besides throwing knives, and nuclear warheards, but i mena who wants a war with no hand to hand combat, isnt that was war is all about?

cant use biological crap, can use atomic bombs.



cause if the United States went to war, and we used biological warfare, we would just fly a crop duster over Kabul or Bagdad, and just spray the shit out of areas that suspected terrorists might be in

cant use biological crap, can use atomic bombs.



cause if the United States went to war, and we used biological warfare, we would just fly a crop duster over Kabul or Bagdad, and just spray the shit out of areas that suspected terrorists might be in

I think, anyone can use a gun, if you really want to see the superiority in a nation, you should fistfight. But really though, guns are sick. A bomb's arent good. But they will be the new glock 9 some day. Sadly.

That is probably the most idiotic couple of sentences that I have ever read. So when did hunting not become killing? I don't know about you, but I have never seen a baby deer born because a gun was shot. And of course the military is going to use guns. Do you think they should use samarai swords? Think about what your writing before you hand in your paper.

ok first off if you are even gonna consider using weapons in a war, it has to be an ethical war....well if we are gonan talk about anythign ebing ethical the reasons for war etc, must be ethical first. thgen it depends what your war is based on, if it is a war based on we are betetr then you , no your not we are better, then the point of it is to prove who is beter, so you should be able to use your better weapons if you have them....unless they are killing large amounts of innnocent people ( there is no justification for this, unless it is going to directly save the lives of many times more inncocent people) but even this is unethical ebacsue who's choice is it to choose who lives and dies? anyways, i am sorry i am probally doing a shitty job of trying to help you, and i am too bored of it...this essay has too many aspects to it and should be more liek a book there are porbally a bunch of books on it...so you could look into that. PIICE

here is a good argument to base ur paper on: weapons are nescessary to allow for the evolutionof humanity

That for pointing that out.hahahaha that was kinda dumb.

But, you really have to less of a bitch when you point out things. Just question the sentence, don't insult the writer.

You have to know that guns were not always used in wars.In fact wars were fought by swords and shields. In the middle ages, before the 100 year war, nobody or very little people died due to wars. Maybe you should study a little history.