All Weapons on Earth Should be Destroyed

I'll accept the BOP and wish myself good luck because I'll need it against you :)I submit to you the core of all my following arguments: having no weapons is preferable to having weapons. Ultimately, there are alternate methods to dealing with the problems that weapons solve.The potential endWith nuclear weapons alone, we have the capacity to destroy planet Earth [1]. In the wrong hands (e.g. terrorists, dodgy politicians), the end of life on Earth could come prematurely. Furthermore, entrusting such dangerous weapons in anyone's hands is a risk; would you trust someone you have never met with your life? The lingering effects of a nuclear bomb are quite severe, ranging from bodily wounds to widespread contamination of the area [2]. Nuclear weapons, in particular, are awfully devastating.An arms reduction, similar to that of the Cold War between the U.S and the USSR, could eliminate the need to have global weapons to counteract international threat. Despite disliking each other thoroughly, arms reduction was agreed to by both sides (in the end of the Cold War). This has lead to further arms reductions [4], and therefore, it was/is successful. Police brutalityWhile a rarity, police brutality still exists [3]. Simply put, empowering certain people with weapons is a horrendous idea because they have the tendency to be irresponsible or irrational, but the overwhelming problem is that these certain people are not always easy to identify. Police can only be judged by what they've done; it is hard to determine if someone is irresponsible or irrational with an interview (or however they recruit police). So, how do you know which people could be empowered in such an enforcing way? Under the title of "Order", you argue that weapons are essential because they are what keep people from committing crimes – people are not likely to commit a crime knowing they're risking their life in the process. Rather than work on deterrence, would it not be preferable to work on an altogether elimination of the tendency to commit crime? Why not teach children from an early age to detest crimes? Moreover, ingrain within them a resentment of any act of crime and encourage them to scorn those who commit the crimes. With all the propaganda techniques employed within society now-a-days (Patriotism, for example), surely a fervent resentment of crime could be constructed within people, thus eventually making the ‘police officer' a redundant necessity. This argument also addresses your "Human Nature" points in that people will have no desire to commit violent acts with their improvised weapons."- It is better to have an industry that is controlled by the government than a underground homemade weapons market" Yes, but it is better to have no threat of violence whatsoever."- Weapons help to keep order" They do, but there are more efficient methods."- Violent behavior won't be changed, just the way it is preformed" Violent behaviour may be eradicated if the right propaganda and rhetoric is employed.All Governments could have the power over their people to convincingly persuade their people that violence is awful (Patriotism is a good example, although yes, not everyone submits to it. Non-violence encouragement would work better because there is a moral element to it and most people already agree that it is morally correct). [1] http://io9.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://theinternettoday.net... [4] http://www.nytimes.com...