| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2007 09:43:49 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How would a "properly designed" gun law have prevented this guy from purchasing a weapon? He had no criminal record, he was over 21. What criteria would you have entered into the system that would red flag his application? |
Would the reporting of suicidal tendencies, psychological tests, prior police interventions/reports not help.
|
My neighbor called the police on me because he thought I parked too close to him on the street out front, should that exclude me from gun ownership? The VT whacko was never arrested for anything, let alone convicted. The police can be convinced that someone's guilty, but unless they can prove it, the suspect is innocent until proven otherwise. Unfortunately, that never happened. Had one of those girls that he was was stalking decided to press charges and gotten him convicted, then he would have been red-flagged.
As for medical exams/conditions, those are considered private.
Message edited by author 2007-04-20 09:55:29. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 09:55:10 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
ETA: The NRA reports that, in 2005, it had more than 4 million members |
And thus constitutes less than 2% of the population -- of course their needs should come first -- how obvious! |
That's why the US has what we call individual freedoms, so that an individual has the right to do as they please no matter what the "majority" believes. Some rights you might have heard of: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to equal protection under the law, etc.
Just google "The Bill of Rights" |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 09:59:00 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
[quote=GeneralE]
How would a "properly designed" gun law have prevented this guy from purchasing a weapon? He had no criminal record, he was over 21. What criteria would you have entered into the system that would red flag his application? |
Would the reporting of suicidal tendencies, psychological tests, prior police interventions/reports not help.
|
My neighbor called the police on me because he thought I parked too close to him on the street out front, should that exclude me from gun ownership? |
Do you have any other scenarios to provide... good grief, surely you can understand the gist of what I was saying...I guess the old adage that "Common sense is NOT so common" does hold true.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Had one of those girls that he was was stalking decided to press charges and gotten him convicted, then he would have been red-flagged. |
Absolutely right on that one!!!
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...As for medical exams/conditions, those are considered private. |
Actually, if a person is considered a danger to himself or to others, then there are venues available to report that, just as a doctor has a requirement to report any physical impairement a person might have which would make him a menace behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle.(at least in this country)
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-04-20 10:01:08. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 10:03:31 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
ETA: The NRA reports that, in 2005, it had more than 4 million members |
And thus constitutes less than 2% of the population -- of course their needs should come first -- how obvious! |
Silly General, they're the ones with the guns. Of course we listen to them! |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 10:06:40 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by aliqui:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
ETA: The NRA reports that, in 2005, it had more than 4 million members |
And thus constitutes less than 2% of the population -- of course their needs should come first -- how obvious! |
Silly General, they're the ones with the guns. Of course we listen to them! |
My father is a hunter and former Army and is no longer an NRA member, I never was and still own guns. I bet you Less then 1 in 4 registered gun owners is an NRA member. So how about that real 15% j/k!
Message edited by author 2007-04-20 10:07:35. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 11:27:09 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
[quote=GeneralE]
How would a "properly designed" gun law have prevented this guy from purchasing a weapon? He had no criminal record, he was over 21. What criteria would you have entered into the system that would red flag his application? |
Would the reporting of suicidal tendencies, psychological tests, prior police interventions/reports not help.
|
My neighbor called the police on me because he thought I parked too close to him on the street out front, should that exclude me from gun ownership? |
Do you have any other scenarios to provide... good grief, surely you can understand the gist of what I was saying...I guess the old adage that "Common sense is NOT so common" does hold true.
|
My point was that legally, his record was clean. Just because the police spoke to him or had some interaction with him, there was no cause to restrict his rights. For better or worse, that's the way it works.
Message edited by author 2007-04-20 11:27:51. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 11:32:24 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...As for medical exams/conditions, those are considered private. |
Actually, if a person is considered a danger to himself or to others, then there are venues available to report that, just as a doctor has a requirement to report any physical impairment a person might have which would make him a menace behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle.(at least in this country)
|
I agree, someone may have dropped the ball on this one.
If this is the case, it's not the specific gun laws that failed, it was the failure of others to report the shooter's behavior/condition. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 12:31:21 PM · #83 |
I am generally a supporter of the freedom for people to buy guns, but as a general principle only under strong regulation. I must say that the American perspective shown here bemuses me - though it is in part due to the peculiarities of US history.
Most troubling me is the fact that a number of the arguments used are very weak - I find weak arguments going unchallenged very irritating.
A gun is different from a knife or bat in some fundamental ways. It is significantly more powerful and it has range. Knives and bats have widespread non-violent purposes, whereas outside sport shooting, guns do not. Comparisons between guns and knives or bats are absurd and all arguments that rest on such comparisons are very weak.
Gun control is already accepted throughout the states in respect of many types of weaponry. No-one expects to be able to buy a rocket launcher or hand grenade. Arguments that rest on some fundamental objection to gun control are very weak.
The US constitution is a legal document drafted at a time of broad societal change. It has been amended a number of times through history to reflect changing social and political attitudes in the US and the world. It is not a holy document and it may require amendment from time to time (indeed - that may be the proposal). Arguments that rest solely on the existence of a current constitutional right are very weak. Statements or exclamations of patriotism based around it are not even arguments - just pure rabble rousing.
The argument that private gun ownership provides defence for the individual against the state is naive. This may have been a sound reason in the 18-19th century, but does not reflect the development of social rights, universal suffrage, and the rule of law in the 20th-21st centuries. If you are worried about the current atmosphere in which individual freedoms are being compromised, then the starting point should be to oppose the loss of those freedoms, not argue for the right to tool up for when they are all gone. Remember any small group of fighters involved in asymmetric warfare against the state would be widely regarded as “terrorists”.
The argument that if guns are eliminated then people would use bombs is very weak. People have access to guns and to bomb making materials. Almost invariably, they use guns – not bombs. Bombs are difficult and dangerous to make and are unreliable. Guns are easy, glamorous (an important aspect in the context of the mentally deranged), personal, direct, relatively safe. Eliminating guns does not mean that the same people would use bombs instead.
The argument that people have equal access to legal and illegal guns is weak: there are additional barriers and risks associated with buying illegal guns. These barriers may not be strong in the US, but they should not be ignored.
Comparisons to some other nations are very weak. If the nation being referred to has conscription (ie compulsory military service) and related gun ownership (eg Switzerland), then the comparison is in almost all respects is very weak.
So – what are the strong arguments?
I think that self defence in a dangerous part of the world is a good argument, and freedom to practice gun sports is another good argument. I suppose that the US could well be dangerous enough that people need to arm themselves – though that should be an article of national shame, not something to be proud of (as some people seem to treat it).
But the strong arguments for gun ownership are no argument against the imposition of stringent regulation on gun ownership (eg requiring that owners be vetted for psychological stability, non-criminality, attend regular training, keep guns securely, etc in order to be licensed) and on there being a restriction on the types of guns that may be owned (restricting automatic weapons, military ordinance etc).
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 01:34:27 PM · #84 |
| I would recommend a reading of THIS ARTICLE which describes one man's research about gun ownership / gun use, and the influence a biased media has on the topic of gun control. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 01:51:37 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
The VT whacko was never arrested for anything, let alone convicted. |
But he had recently been committed involuntarily for suicide watch.
"As for medical exams/conditions, those are considered private."
I am of the opinion that perhaps they should not be considered private. Details don't need to be reported to dealers or what not. Just a simple flag to denote an issue and not sell. And a number the individual can call to find out why.
I believe involuntary committal for suicide should be a yellow flag for gun purchases. Not an absolute preventitive. But one that just may require a review of some sorts.
Originally posted by "matthew":
The US constitution is a legal document drafted at a time of broad societal change. It has been amended a number of times through history to reflect changing social and political attitudes in the US and the world. It is not a holy document and it may require amendment from time to time (indeed - that may be the proposal). Arguments that rest solely on the existence of a current constitutional right are very weak. |
I guess I did not realize how very weak the freedom of press, speech, and religion were...
That said, I will agree with you that they are in weak in the fact that they can be ammended and changed. There is also some other history. The U.S. once prohibited alcohol. The result was probably one of the most violent periods in U.S. history and aided in the growth of organized crime.
Originally posted by "matthew":
The argument that private gun ownership provides defence for the individual against the state is naive. This may have been a sound reason in the 18-19th century, but does not reflect the development of social rights, universal suffrage, and the rule of law in the 20th-21st centuries. |
Why not? Why would it not still apply to today. We seen numerous nations through out the world turn into dictatorships. Many of which had been democracies before economic collapse was shortly followed by the collapse of government and order only to be replaced by tyranny and the loss of freedom.
Originally posted by "matthew":
If you are worried about the current atmosphere in which individual freedoms are being compromised, then the starting point should be to oppose the loss of those freedoms, not argue for the right to tool up for when they are all gone. |
I think it prudent to do both. Doing so also adds to your negotiating power. If you have no strength in negotiating than you will surely lose upon the negotiating table if it comes to such.
Originally posted by "matthew":
Remember any small group of fighters involved in asymmetric warfare against the state would be widely regarded as “terrorists”. |
Not necessarily...
It depends on choice of tactics. If said group declared themselves. And made a declaration of hostile engagement but then only attacked military and/or government targets. Then they would not be terrorists.
I believe the men who hijacked planes and crashed them into the WTC were terrorists. I believe those were illegal targets. However, I believe the Pentagon was a valid and legitimate target. Had the men merely taken cargo jets (say a FedEx or UPS jet) with no passengers and used them against the Pentagon. Preferbly with a declaration of intent, even post-action. I would not consider them terrorists. Militants, the enemy - yes, most definitely but not terrorists.
Were Palestinian to only engage military and government targets. I would not have the issues I do. I would see it as legitimate military engagement.
Originally posted by "matthew":
Eliminating guns does not mean that the same people would use bombs instead. |
No, but the means is available. And the elimination of one tool would likely not dispose of the intent. Therefore the intent would find another means be it bombs, poison, trucks into crowds.
Originally posted by "matthew":
The argument that people have equal access to legal and illegal guns is weak: there are additional barriers and risks associated with buying illegal guns. These barriers may not be strong in the US, but they should not be ignored. |
Never said they had equal access. I'd say access varies greatly. Some hick from Pennsylvania probably has better access to purchasing legal guns. Where as someone from the urban environments of Philly probably could get an illegal gun much easier.
Originally posted by "matthew":
Comparisons to some other nations are very weak. If the nation being referred to has conscription (ie compulsory military service) and related gun ownership (eg Switzerland), then the comparison is in almost all respects is very weak. |
Okay...why...it's great to declare something as weak. But at least have the providence to supply some reasoning for your argument.
Now, I will grant you that nations with conscription service have the benefit of also training all their citizens. Perhaps that would indeed be a wise idea.
But it also goes back to society. The mere presence of guns does not seem to be the issue. Switzerland doesn't have rampant gun crime does it?
As has been pointed out. The United States "knife crimes/homocides" tend to be higher than other modernized nations total homicides. Why? (this is rhetorical as I am not sure anyone has a complete answer - my best answer is that we have a culture that has lossed the concept of responsibility)
Originally posted by "matthew":
I think that self defence in a dangerous part of the world is a good argument, and freedom to practice gun sports is another good argument. I suppose that the US could well be dangerous enough that people need to arm themselves – though that should be an article of national shame, not something to be proud of (as some people seem to treat it). |
I don't think us Americans are proud that we have a lot of violent crime. But many of those who want a gun to protect us feel that our government system caters to the criminals. Often in it's attempts to be so politically correct the government tends to be very soft on criminals. Our prisoners often have access to more amenities than many of our citizens do (jails with gyms, college tuition grants, Xboxes, cable TV, and more). Sorry, that doesn't sound like prison to me. I have to slave for 8+ hours a day. So should every prisoner - I believe all prisoners should have to work a bare minimum 40 hour week like most of us.
Originally posted by "matthew":
But the strong arguments for gun ownership are no argument against the imposition of stringent regulation |
No, that argument comes from nations like Australia. We have seen numerous times that gun registration merely leads to eventual gun confiscation.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 03:27:47 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The argument that if guns are eliminated then people would use bombs is very weak. People have access to guns and to bomb making materials. Almost invariably, they use guns – not bombs. Bombs are difficult and dangerous to make and are unreliable. Guns are easy, glamorous (an important aspect in the context of the mentally deranged), personal, direct, relatively safe. Eliminating guns does not mean that the same people would use bombs instead. |
I'll let Saj debate you on the other topics, but on this I think you are grossly underestimating the determination of Americans to complete a task when they really want to.
Lack of a gun won't stop a wacko hell bent on killing a lot of people from completing their task and explosives have been used by wackos in the US before (Oklahoma, pipe bombs...). Yeah a gun is easier to get and is the first choice of mosat wackos, but if they can't get a gun they'd find something else.
Ever use a rock or a wrench to pound in a nail because a hammer wasn't around? It's kind of like that.
Heck, our wacko kids OD on nyquil and inhale glue just to get a buzz because they can't get weed!
I think it's a solid argument that if guns weren't around they'd find another tool. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 03:34:56 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I think it's a solid argument that if guns weren't around they'd find another tool. |
I wholeheartedly agree with this premise... but one has to remember another parts of the equation which are not addressed here.
First, some things are very dangerous to produce (some people actually blow themselves up and save all of us a lot of grief); and
Second is the matter of conveyance and visibility. It is much easier to conceal a gun in your pocket than say a propane tank that one could use as a makeshift bomb.
No one is disputing that people are resourceful, but the ready availability of guns to such deranged individuals does tilt the table to their advantage somewhat.
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-04-20 15:35:30. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 03:45:39 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "Spazmo99":
The VT whacko was never arrested for anything, let alone convicted. |
But he had recently been committed involuntarily for suicide watch.
"As for medical exams/conditions, those are considered private."
I am of the opinion that perhaps they should not be considered private. Details don't need to be reported to dealers or what not. Just a simple flag to denote an issue and not sell. And a number the individual can call to find out why.
I believe involuntary committal for suicide should be a yellow flag for gun purchases. Not an absolute preventitive. But one that just may require a review of some sorts.
|
The last I heard, being placed on suicide watch is NOT a crime.
Should medical records be made accessible for transactions, that would open up a whole giant can of worms. Maybe the results of your latest cholesterol screening should be used to decide if you'll be allowed to purchase that Big Mac Value Meal. Perhaps your the results of your genetic testing could be used to determine your predisposition for various diseases and that risk be used to deny employment, or a home loan, or life insurance, or health insurance.
If someone was considered enough of a risk to themselves to be placed on suicide watch, the Doctors evaluating him would have to be convinced that risk was past in order to release him. Should that person then be banned from buying a gun forever? for 6 months? 10 years? until their happy pills kick in? |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 03:48:06 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
First, some things are very dangerous to produce (some people actually blow themselves up and save all of us a lot of grief); and
Second is the matter of conveyance and visibility. It is much easier to conceal a gun in your pocket than say a propane tank that one could use as a makeshift bomb.
|
Suicide/car/IED bombers seem to have little trouble producing, concealing and using bombs.
Message edited by author 2007-04-20 15:48:52. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 03:51:22 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...... but the ready availability of guns to such deranged individuals does tilt the table to their advantage somewhat.
Ray |
However, armed citizens help tilt the balance to a more favorable condition. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 04:04:43 PM · #91 |
Jason, you have made a lot of points that respond to points different to those that I made (I am not sure if deliberately or not). I will try and briefly point out the points I have made and you have at least partially ignored.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "matthew":
The US constitution is a legal document drafted at a time of broad societal change. It has been amended a number of times through history to reflect changing social and political attitudes in the US and the world. It is not a holy document and it may require amendment from time to time (indeed - that may be the proposal). Arguments that rest solely on the existence of a current constitutional right are very weak. |
I guess I did not realize how very weak the freedom of press, speech, and religion were...
That said, I will agree with you that they are in weak in the fact that they can be ammended and changed. There is also some other history. The U.S. once prohibited alcohol. The result was probably one of the most violent periods in U.S. history and aided in the growth of organized crime. |
I did not say that constitutional protection is weak, but that the argument is weak: the argument that just because it is in the constitution, it is right.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "matthew":
The argument that private gun ownership provides defence for the individual against the state is naive. This may have been a sound reason in the 18-19th century, but does not reflect the development of social rights, universal suffrage, and the rule of law in the 20th-21st centuries. |
Why not? Why would it not still apply to today. We seen numerous nations through out the world turn into dictatorships. Many of which had been democracies before economic collapse was shortly followed by the collapse of government and order only to be replaced by tyranny and the loss of freedom. |
How will individual gun ownership prevent the change of national control? A modern military coup does not involve massed battles. They do not involve the collapse of government, but its redirection. They may not involve any more loss of freedom than you are currently experiencing with the elimination of important rights such as habeus corpus. In order to happen, they are usually popular. What apocalyptic (or perhaps regressional) vision exactly are you guarding against?
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "matthew":
If you are worried about the current atmosphere in which individual freedoms are being compromised, then the starting point should be to oppose the loss of those freedoms, not argue for the right to tool up for when they are all gone. |
I think it prudent to do both. Doing so also adds to your negotiating power. If you have no strength in negotiating than you will surely lose upon the negotiating table if it comes to such. |
But you have so often expressed your support for the curtailment of important freedoms in the "war" on terrorism. How do you reconcile, say, protecting the law of habeus corpus with your support for extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay?
Originally posted by thesaj:
Originally posted by "matthew":
Remember any small group of fighters involved in asymmetric warfare against the state would be widely regarded as “terrorists”. |
Not necessarily...
It depends on choice of tactics. If said group declared themselves. And made a declaration of hostile engagement but then only attacked military and/or government targets. Then they would not be terrorists.
I believe the men who hijacked planes and crashed them into the WTC were terrorists. I believe those were illegal targets. However, I believe the Pentagon was a valid and legitimate target. Had the men merely taken cargo jets (say a FedEx or UPS jet) with no passengers and used them against the Pentagon. Preferbly with a declaration of intent, even post-action. I would not consider them terrorists. Militants, the enemy - yes, most definitely but not terrorists.
Were Palestinian to only engage military and government targets. I would not have the issues I do. I would see it as legitimate military engagement. |
This is all very interesting, but the point is that small groups fighting asymmetric war are either terrorists or freedom fighters - depending on your side.
If you are determined to go off on a tangent, I would argue that asymmetric warfare is a valid method of warfare and self defence - but critically, it depends on attacking soft targets in order to be successful. Not very pleasant, but justifiable (examples where "we" engaged in it and victor's history records it as valid might be the French Resistance in WW2, or the actions of Laurence of Arabia in WW1).
Originally posted by thesaj:
Originally posted by "matthew":
Eliminating guns does not mean that the same people would use bombs instead. |
No, but the means is available. And the elimination of one tool would likely not dispose of the intent. Therefore the intent would find another means be it bombs, poison, trucks into crowds. |
For the reasons I gave, I am not sure that your statement (which agrees with mine then disagrees with it) follows: guns are easy. Take away or reduce the ease, and the regularity of occurrence should go down.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "matthew":
The argument that people have equal access to legal and illegal guns is weak: there are additional barriers and risks associated with buying illegal guns. These barriers may not be strong in the US, but they should not be ignored. |
Never said they had equal access. I'd say access varies greatly. Some hick from Pennsylvania probably has better access to purchasing legal guns. Where as someone from the urban environments of Philly probably could get an illegal gun much easier. |
You have reversed my statement: I said that there are barriers to obtaining illegal weapons. In order to obtain one, I would have to make contact with people I never normally deal with and persuade them to deal with me and hope that they don't rip me off or kill me. That is a not insignificant barrier. If I did not have access to legal weaponry, I would not take the task of obtaining an illegal one lightly.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "matthew":
Comparisons to some other nations are very weak. If the nation being referred to has conscription (ie compulsory military service) and related gun ownership (eg Switzerland), then the comparison is in almost all respects is very weak. |
Okay...why...it's great to declare something as weak. But at least have the providence to supply some reasoning for your argument.
Now, I will grant you that nations with conscription service have the benefit of also training all their citizens. Perhaps that would indeed be a wise idea.
But it also goes back to society. The mere presence of guns does not seem to be the issue. Switzerland doesn't have rampant gun crime does it?
As has been pointed out. The United States "knife crimes/homocides" tend to be higher than other modernized nations total homicides. Why? (this is rhetorical as I am not sure anyone has a complete answer - my best answer is that we have a culture that has lossed the concept of responsibility) |
You make my point perfectly: Switzerland has a totally different culture and everyone with a gun has spent years training with it in the armed forces and keep weapons as part of the territorial force protecting Switzerland under continued training - that engenders some degree of responsible ownership. There are no valid comparisons to be drawn with the US, or general analyses to be drawn up that have any validity when applied to the US, because the underlying facts are so very very different.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "matthew":
I think that self defence in a dangerous part of the world is a good argument, and freedom to practice gun sports is another good argument. I suppose that the US could well be dangerous enough that people need to arm themselves – though that should be an article of national shame, not something to be proud of (as some people seem to treat it). |
I don't think us Americans are proud that we have a lot of violent crime. But many of those who want a gun to protect us feel that our government system caters to the criminals. Often in it's attempts to be so politically correct the government tends to be very soft on criminals. Our prisoners often have access to more amenities than many of our citizens do (jails with gyms, college tuition grants, Xboxes, cable TV, and more). Sorry, that doesn't sound like prison to me. I have to slave for 8+ hours a day. So should every prisoner - I believe all prisoners should have to work a bare minimum 40 hour week like most of us. |
I said "some" people here. You yourself don't seem to want to tackle the underlying causes (say, restricting uncontrolled and irresponsible ownership) as much as defend an ancient right that appears to perpetuate some of the problems.
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "matthew":
But the strong arguments for gun ownership are no argument against the imposition of stringent regulation |
No, that argument comes from nations like Australia. We have seen numerous times that gun registration merely leads to eventual gun confiscation. |
"Australia" is not an argument. Of course there is a degree of gun confiscation: you implement controls, and then you have to enforce them.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 04:06:04 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
First, some things are very dangerous to produce (some people actually blow themselves up and save all of us a lot of grief); and
Second is the matter of conveyance and visibility. It is much easier to conceal a gun in your pocket than say a propane tank that one could use as a makeshift bomb.
|
Suicide/car/IED bombers seem to have little trouble producing, concealing and using bombs. |
Could you produce a car bomb today?
Could you use a gun to shoot someone today?
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 04:44:22 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
First, some things are very dangerous to produce (some people actually blow themselves up and save all of us a lot of grief); and
Second is the matter of conveyance and visibility. It is much easier to conceal a gun in your pocket than say a propane tank that one could use as a makeshift bomb.
|
Suicide/car/IED bombers seem to have little trouble producing, concealing and using bombs. |
Could you produce a car bomb today?
Could you use a gun to shoot someone today? |
For me, both would take more than today, but are certainly possible within a matter of days, if I were to desire to do such a thing.
Message edited by author 2007-04-20 16:45:37. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 08:50:00 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
First, some things are very dangerous to produce (some people actually blow themselves up and save all of us a lot of grief); and
Second is the matter of conveyance and visibility. It is much easier to conceal a gun in your pocket than say a propane tank that one could use as a makeshift bomb.
|
Suicide/car/IED bombers seem to have little trouble producing, concealing and using bombs. |
Could you produce a car bomb today?
Could you use a gun to shoot someone today? |
For me, both would take more than today, but are certainly possible within a matter of days, if I were to desire to do such a thing. |
Bombs are not that easy to make and they have a different purpose and effect to guns. Powerful bombs require either a large amount of space and huge quantities of ingredients (the kind of quantities that attract the attention of the secret services), or a smaller space and experienced chemists with laboratory equipment. Scaremongering about chemical weapons and gas bombs replacing banned guns is even more absurd: these would be very difficult to make effectively.
I am not saying these things cannot be done (bombing attacks are proof that they can be) - but they generally require groups of people to organise them and require expertise, time and space. While I don't think that illegal guns are easy for normal people to come by most of the time, I daresay that finding an illegal gun would take a lot less effort than building an equivalent bomb. Per my original point, it is a bad argument to say that people would turn to bomb making if guns were not so easily available.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 10:18:33 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
First, some things are very dangerous to produce (some people actually blow themselves up and save all of us a lot of grief); and
Second is the matter of conveyance and visibility. It is much easier to conceal a gun in your pocket than say a propane tank that one could use as a makeshift bomb.
|
Suicide/car/IED bombers seem to have little trouble producing, concealing and using bombs. |
Could you produce a car bomb today?
Could you use a gun to shoot someone today? |
For me, both would take more than today, but are certainly possible within a matter of days, if I were to desire to do such a thing. |
Bombs are not that easy to make and they have a different purpose and effect to guns. Powerful bombs require either a large amount of space and huge quantities of ingredients (the kind of quantities that attract the attention of the secret services), or a smaller space and experienced chemists with laboratory equipment. Scaremongering about chemical weapons and gas bombs replacing banned guns is even more absurd: these would be very difficult to make effectively.
I am not saying these things cannot be done (bombing attacks are proof that they can be) - but they generally require groups of people to organise them and require expertise, time and space. While I don't think that illegal guns are easy for normal people to come by most of the time, I daresay that finding an illegal gun would take a lot less effort than building an equivalent bomb. Per my original point, it is a bad argument to say that people would turn to bomb making if guns were not so easily available. |
Bombs are much easier to make than you would have it seem and no, they do not require a team effort to produce. Look at the Unabomber, a lone whackjob, in a remote cabin with no power. While he was an intelligent man, he did not have a team of chemists at his disposal, just the USPS.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2007 10:22:30 PM · #96 |
My argument that getting an illegal gun is easier than building a bomb would be that I, a female in rural NC, has absolutely no idea about how to get an illegal firearm (I'm not even completely sure about how to get a legal one).
BUT, I have had students tell me how to build explosive devices from the materials they can pick up around the farm.
A WMD, of course not, but it could still do some damage. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 10:38:14 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by karmat:
My argument that getting an illegal gun is easier than building a bomb would be that I, a female in rural NC, has absolutely no idea about how to get an illegal firearm (I'm not even completely sure about how to get a legal one).
BUT, I have had students tell me how to build explosive devices from the materials they can pick up around the farm.
A WMD, of course not, but it could still do some damage. |
We built a lot of bombs, mortars, cannons, rockets, and improvised firearms as kids. Didn't live on a farm but you can build lots of fun stuff with only access to a hardware store and a drugstore. If we had access to a machine shop we could have gotten into some serious trouble. |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 10:55:45 PM · #98 |
| Yesterday was the anniversary of the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City ... done with stuff found "down on the farm." |
|
|
|
04/20/2007 11:39:09 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Yesterday was the anniversary of the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City ... done with stuff found "down on the farm." |
Maybe we should ban farms.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2007 09:03:32 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...... but the ready availability of guns to such deranged individuals does tilt the table to their advantage somewhat.
Ray |
However, armed citizens help tilt the balance to a more favorable condition. |
Yes indeed... everyone in a circle firing away somehow seems to balance things out...it really does.
Ray |
|
