Just so you know, you lost this argument a long time ago. You know it. We know it. You can continue to put up a show if you want, be we all know that when you go to bed at night, you're well aware that your arguments have failed.

The correct answer is: you can't really measure the intent of people before it's too late. If we could, we wouldn't have incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing. I think you'll find it hard to refute that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. But you're free to try, if you want. Assuming that you accept that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, then you'll probably have to accept that the intent of McVeigh and Nichols was not properly measured beforehand, disproving your suggestion that observations will always yield meaningful data before it's too late.

Your arguments are falling flat on their face, but that was obvious to most of us anyway. Do you care to attempt to refute the points in the above paragraph?

Are you dodging the question because your whole premise is starting to feel shaky? Answer my question: How do you measure intent of some individual that you have never met, nor even know exists?

Tell me how you measure intent of some individual that you have never met, nor even know exists?

Ah, so you do know that that guy's views will remind others here of you.

Tell me, Mr. "I can't think things through", if you don't advocate violence, then why do you advocate that others should be able to have nuclear bombs in their garage? Other people, like Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, the Unabomber, and other such malcontents, such as the Anthrax mailer.

Does this guy's views remind anyone here of anyone: Wikipedia entry.

The state you live in? The two aren't the same. Anyone who thinks the analogy works suffers in a bad way, and I pity them. And it's a fact, I am starting to pity some of the individuals here based on their reasoning abilities, beliefs, and desperate statements they make to defend the costume they've donned while playing political rebel.

I'm well aware of that. You're even dumber than I thought if, after reading all of my posts, you'd think I thought he meant a state of the USA. Is that the best commentary you could come up with?

The state you live in? The two aren't the same. Anyone who thinks the analogy works suffers in a bad way, and I pity them. And it's a fact, I am starting to pity some of the individuals here based on their reasoning abilities, beliefs, and desperate statements they make to defend the costume they've donned while playing political rebel.

Uhhh, it's not at all clear to me. How personally is your life in shambles, or unpleasant, and so on because of the present qualities of government or, additionally, due to certain missing things in your life?

What, exactly is your concern, again? Because it's not clear to me. Share your hardships with us.

That is a really weak rebuttal, especially when you factor in how implausible your original scenario was. Do I need to remind you what the scenario was in your original rebuttal? I will. It was this: you said that it would change hands one million times, and each time, the prior owner would be killed. Actually, when we think about it, how is that an argument for ownership of nukes? I then presented to you a set of much more likely scenarios, and you then assume that your audience is stupid by suggesting that another scenario in which the nuke never gets detonated somehow renders any other scenario as not significant.

Try harder. Better yet, don't even bother. I have yet to see any theory from you or bitcoin2cash that is plausible or appears to be anything but absolutely absurd.

Why do you think the chances of the new owner disarming the nuke to be zero? That's the first fallacy of your silly argument.

The second fallacy: Let's say, that it's not zero, but one in one million, for the sake of argument. Why would each successive owner instead not choose to either have nearly impregnable security guarding the nuke, or more likely, simply not advertise it's existence, thus ensuring no further exchange?

The third fallacy: you assume the nuke is never detonated as it changes hands. But consider if it does. In that case, the total death toll is all that died in your scenario plus the toll from its detonation.

I'll leave you to ponder the second and third fallacies on your own. Let's revisit the first fallacy. You seem to be indicating that the chance of disarmament is zero upon each exchange of ownership. Assuming that to have a grain of truth to it, then it follows that increasing law enforcement would increase the chance of disarmament from zero to some higher number, as that is generally the case when law enforcement confiscates a gun from a criminal who is waving it about pointing it at people. Now, I can hear it coming: you're going to say that increasing law enforcement engaging in the act of confiscation will increase the chance of it detonating as the owner strives to protect his ownership of the weapon. However, if we examine the behavior of criminals, (cartels, etc.), we can see that owners of weapons generally don't discriminate between law enforcement or other criminals when they are being subdued - they will threaten use of the weapon in either case. Therefore, it stands to reason that the best course of action is to limit the proliferation of such weapons in the first place.