 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970 time: 05:18
|
|
quote: The explain why we license drivers, doctors, teachers, etc. Is this not a "violation" of thier right to privacy? As you stated earlier. |
I already explained my opposition to licensing, with the possible exception of cars on public roads.
quote: It harms the international community because it makes that person a world power. Why do you think that Nation-States have been working so hard to keep them out of the hands of sub-national groups, ex. Al-Qaeda, ect.? |
I don't give a tick on a rat's ass about the international community - this is totally irrelevant to the concept of individual rights.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999 time: 23:18
|
|
--"I disagree -- I believe it will significantly lower the murder rate in the United States."
I fail to see how. As has been mentioned many times, even if banning guns somehow managed to prevent every gun-related murder, our murder rates are still significantly higher.
I think it's too optomistic to think that even half of them could be prevented by a total ban, and probably nowhere near that much. Most guns used in crimes currently are obtained illegally. A total ban would not significantly increase the difficulty of obtaining an illegal weapon (illegal drugs are moved into the country in ton lots, after all).
The only way you can really draw that conclusion is if you are of the opinion that guns exude an aura of evil, that influences anyone around them to become a killer (and, yes, I have spoken with people who pretty much state that).
--"You cannot ignore the real examples found in Great Britain and Japan."
Sure we can, because there are plenty of other variables. You can not take two data points in total isolation and make even a correlation case, much less a causation case.
Using your logic, I could substitute suicides for murders, and get the result that banning guns would dramatically increase the suicide rate in the US (using Japan as the other example).
This just doesn't work for either argument.
Wraith
"Next time you threaten to shoot someone, make sure they actually have a will to live."
-- ("The John Larroquette Show")
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999 time: 23:18
|
|
--"Here is the most detailed crime statistics for Hong Kong that I can find so far."
Okay.
Overall Crime Rate per 100,000 for the year 2000: 1,159.0
FBI UCR for 2000 (seems to be most recent available)
per 100,000 for the year 2000: 4,124.0
Of course, this says nothing about what is and isn't counted as a crime, but the US is already way ahead, and we haven't narrowed things down to just violent crimes yet.
Hong Kong again
Violent Crime Rate per 100,000 (2000) 222.2
FBI's UCR has listed 506.1 per 100,000.
However, according to the UCR, only 25.6% of those involved a firearm.
So, even if you assume getting rid of firearms would have prevented every one of those, we've still got a much higher rate.
And, again, this says nothing about what was and wasn't counted, so it's kind of hard to tell.
--"Notice that they had chemistry experts working at it and still failed to product a toxic gas with sufficient purity to do their deeds."
Well, I'm not too familiar with sarin, but it seems to be rather more complicated than phosgene. Which can be made simply by mixing two chemicals...
Another reason to choose phosgene would be the smell; very few people would be alarmed by the scent of musty hay. And since usually symptoms won't appear until you've already taken a lethal dose...
Why'd they use sarin anyway? Just because it's supposed to be a nerve agent? We should just be happy that most criminals are stupid.
Or, if you prefer fire, buy one of those huge propane tanks. You're already 90% of the way to your own 30,000 gallon fuel-air bomb.
Wraith
"Opportunities multiply as they are seized."
-- Sun Tzu
|
|
|  |
 |
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999 time: 00:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Wraith
Well, I'm not too familiar with sarin, but it seems to be rather more complicated than phosgene. Which can be made simply by mixing two chemicals... |
The synthesis of sarin is a multi-part process involving some relatively uncommon chemicals (at least, uncommon at the level of purity required by the processing). Two parts of the process produce unwanted HCl that must be completely distilled out of the mixture, and another part of the process produces an unwanted chemical agent that must also be removed (but which is similar enough in molecular weight to the semi-synthesized sarin that distillation is very difficult). The presence of any impurities in the final product will cause the sarin to quickly degrade, which apparently was the problem with the sarin produced by the Tokyo group.
quote: Why'd they use sarin anyway? |
I'm guessing overkill.
Last edited by loinburger on 28-03-2002 at 10:35
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18. Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|