So why use the term 'violent crime' when you are only referring to gun violence?
Seems rather silly to use a phrase which has a clearly understood meaning to only refer to a subset of the events it describes.

Not to burst your bubble, but the violent crime rate in England is not only higher than the US, but it is so much higher that the actual number of violent crimes in England is higher than the US, a country with SIX times the population.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-december-2012/stb-crime-in-england-and-wales--year-ending-december-2012.html#tab-Violence
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

You think there are states in the US where explosives can never be used, even for demolition or mining purposes? Does that actually sound reasonable to you?

Of course. History has taught us that once we realize that the systems we have spent many billions of dollars in developing are damaging the environment, those vested interests do not care to invest in well-funded, comprehensive, and effective schemes to manipulate political and media activities to prevent shutdown of those systems.

because income taxes are the only taxes paid. sales taxes on gasoline, food, and necessary consumer goods don't apply to the poor. the poor go to the same schools as the rich? news to me. the poor have access to the same hospitals as the rich? what country do you live in?

Have you seen my cell phone? I'm sure it's around here somewhere.

If you know of a way to instantly test for actual intoxication of other drugs... 3) Profit! Ratio of aviation accidents caused by alcohol to other drugs = Large 'Following accidents, 91 employees -- averaging 18 out of every 1,000 -- tested positive for drug use. Random testing found just six out of every 1,000 employees tested positive. "This is a very, very rare occurrence," when compared to other industries such as trucking, where drug use is estimated at 20 to 30 out of every 1,000 employees, Li said.' http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/04/us-drug-use-linked-airplane-accidents-idUSTRE7235NY20110304

Send them through a breathalyzer-only checkpoint and you will have satisfied me.

Are you rational? MAD is not a theory, it is a doctrine, it is the state of your world. The United States and Russia have several thousand thermonuclear weapons they are ready to annhiliate each other with at a moment's notice. A flaw in the engineering of any component in this system is a flaw in the system. It's a system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System
What you don't have is a basic understanding of the functioning of the United States or Russia's strategic warning, communications, command and control, and delivery systems.
Here is a pretty clear reason why MAD is unreasonable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
Here is a list of military research by MIT which includes projects which destabilize the MAD model by introducing the possibility of delivery system defeat: http://web.mit.edu/pugwash/www/milres.html
You did not say it was moral, you said it was for the benefit of humanity.

The problem with MAD is that it is predicated on the assumption that if no one conducts a first-strike, no one will have to counter-attack, and therefore there will be no nuclear war.
History has shown that only due to early warning system operators disobeying their training and exercising judgement that could have ended in trial by court martial and execution was the world saved from a computer error causing a nuclear holocaust which would result in the destruction of the bulk of the world north of the equator.
Nuclear weapons launch warning systems are fallible and have nearly caused the collapse of our civilization.
Please let us know if you have professional experience with nuclear weapons command and control or launch systems and therefore could contradict the publicly available information which indicates that these systems are unstable.

And one that contributes/has contributed to the US nuclear weapons complex and other projects that contribute to the national defense of america, which certainly is not for the good of humanity.

How long does the PRC have to engage in massive coordinated intrusions into western military, defense contractor, and commercial computer systems until people get it through their head that this is no conspiracy theory and it the only reason the west puts up with it is the economic barrel the chinese have us over.
If a country has invested multiple billions of dollars into the development of weapons capable of killing most of the population of the united states, I will not install black-box security software developed in that nation.

While that sailor was stopped by a civilian visitor, I think it's unreasonable to assume that this could have led to compromising the missile or propulsion systems of that ship. One danger of working around people with guns is that they can shoot you. One person dead, or five people dead, is not a catastrophic failure of an engineered system. One feature of the engineered system that is a ship's security force is that they are trained to kill renegades. This system did not fail in the case of the astute.

Believe it or not, the safety analyses on military nuclear reactors include combat damage.
Your statement on safety analysis practices is either supposition of fabrication.
Failure analysis for pipe ruptures in nuclear systems is not done assuming the pipe slowly blows out, it's done assuming the pipe instantaneously ceases to exist.
What I am proposing is that sophisticated sabotage would be detected before it can be exploited, not that it cannot be carried out.
This is such crap, you might as well publish an article stating that an internal safety study concluded a bomber pilot with a nuclear weapon on board could crash his plane. The way you mitigate such failures is through personnel measures. Anyone who works in job where such measures are in place understands what I am talking about. This is why you do background investigations, psychological tests, and financial monitoring.

I am absolutely confident in those assertions.