I'm not sure how your immaturity (for lack of a better word) at that time morphs into a reason to restrict the innocent.

Now, let's go back about 20 years. Back then, I considered purchasing a rifle for target practice and perhaps for varmint shootin'. I looked into gettin' my Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC). I decided that I didn't wanna be bothered with takin' a course and I didn't really care that much about ownin' a gun. I brushed it off as a whim and didn't think about it much… until after my son was attacked.

For about a month, while the bad guys were threatening everyone, I slept with a tire iron beside the bed. But my thoughts were far from defensive. I secretly plotted to stalk and kill the guys who disfigured my boy. I kicked myself for failing to follow through and get my FAC. I longed for a high-powered sniper rifle so I could eliminate the scum from the community. BTW, this is the very first time I've admitted to my murderous intentions, even ma don't know what I was plottin'.

Today, I'm still angry at the attackers. They got off easy. That said, I'm also relieved that I hadn't followed through with my original quest for gun ownership. I have almost no doubt that I would have lain in wait and shot those guys. I considered looking for an illegal weapon but I figgered I'd probably get caught if I went out right after my son got beat up and started lookin' fer a huntin' rifle. If I'd already had one, I'd have used it. 

Today, I'm glad that I don't have murder on my conscience and the only reason I don't is that I didn't own a gun when murderous thoughts consumed me.

That's one example of crime prevention through gun control. I really don't think I'm the only Canajun who's ever contemplated murder (or suicide) and who's abandoned those thoughts after coolin' off.

JB

(scroll)

KEvron

The current state of restriction isn't hypothetical, but ownership by an aberrant individual is.
"You're using an imaginary, highly unlikely extreme (you actually said never) as a precedent"

no, i'm using the current state of restriction as a precedent.

Well, okay if you want to switch, but you weren't. The scenario/hypothetical/precedent being discussed was "buying a nuke", not the state of restriction, as in:"buy a nuke if you can get one. Fine with me."

when presented from the comfortable position of knowing full and well that this scenario will never come to pass

(no mention of restrictions there)

Onward…
"the only folks who are actually pursuing the possession of nukes are…. folks who already don't care about whatever law you're planning to write anyways."

the only people planning to rob a bank also disregard the law, but i'm not certain what relevance either of these observations bears. [yep, I think you used bears correctly]

I'm saying that a law against using a nuke coercively will suffice given that the presence of a law against mere possession will very likely not stop this type of offender, especially since using it coercively is already decidedly illegal and that wouldn't stop 'em. In other words, it's sufficient to have a law banning coercive use.

At least that wouldn't restrict innocents, and it wouldn't be used as a specious precedent to further restrict the activities of innocents regarding the ownership of other weapons. Remember that slippery slope you sensed; I sense one here.

If the prepositional phrase is removed, it's clearer, but it would it would have been better writing to say "either observation bears…"

The pronouns neither and either are singular and require singular verbs even though they seem to be referring, in a sense, to two things. Neither of the two traffic lights is working. Either is fine with me.In informal writing, neither and either sometimes take a plural verb when these pronouns are followed by a prepositional phrase beginning with of. This is particularly true of interrogative constructions: "Have either of you two clowns read the assignment?" "Are either of you taking this seriously?" Burchfield calls this "a clash between notional and actual agreement."

So, from The American Heritage Book of English Usage:

"either with singular or plural verb.  When used as a pronoun, either is normally singular and takes a singular verb: The two surgeons disagree with each other more than either does (not do) with the pathologist.

But when either is followed by of and a plural noun, it is often used with a plural verb [as you recommend]: Either of the parties have enough support to form a government. As frequent as this usage may be, it is widely regarded as incorrect. Ninety-two percent of the Usage Panel rejected it in an earlier survey. (emphasis mine).

Therefore: Either (of these observations) bears, as in "he bears", or "it bears". Now, though, bears is tricky because it's an irregular verb and it's correct to say "I bear"…but I think "either" when referring to observations is third person singular.

As far as "planning to write", I thought about that myself. You have stated no such intent.

KEvron

how is the current state of restriction on personal possesion of nukes a hypothetical?

"You're using an imaginary, highly unlikely extreme (you actually said never) as a precedent"

no, i'm using the current state of restriction as a precedent.

"and you're telling me I'm being disingenuous."

and i stand by that observation.

"Groovy."

cool.

"the only folks who are actually pursuing the possession of nukes are…. folks who already don't care about whatever law you're planning to write anyways."

the only people planning to rob a bank also disregard the law, but i'm not certain what relevance either of these observations bears.

and what law is it that you think i am planning to write?

KEvron

Understood and that's true–but since it is true that the law won't prevent the crime (just as you describe) then don't waste time with it. Simply punish the daylights out of folks who actually act in an anti-social manner. Preemptive laws about guns not only fail to deter criminals (as you describe) they also damage the innocent as we've (and especially Mike)  described elsewhere on this blog.