Political Crossfire Forums

[britboy]

Now, it is a common argument used by the pro-gunners that criminals are gonna have weapons whatever we do -- legislate them or not. So we should dole them out to anyone that wants them to protect themselves.

Now I dispute this. And this is my argument of the day .. if criminals COULD get hold of weapons through smuggling etc even if they were illegal in the states .. why haven't terrorists done more nerve-gas attacks on cities in America?

I mean -- firstly, a lot of pro-gunners state criminals WILL HAVE weapons they want to have - through smuggling, thievery, etc. so we need to be protected from them. Yet criminals generally seem to me to be fairly much restricted to what is sold to Joe Public. Wouldn't you agree?

If I was Al-Que-Karum, Mr Crazy Militant -- I wouldn't want to kill 20 people by blowing myself up -- I'd want to kill 600,000 people using a nerve agent (or something). But I think I couldn't get hold of this weapon.

I bet you I could get hold of nerve agent if it was sold legally in little canisters (never to be legally used) to anyone that fancied a canister for their mantlepeice at home.

Why can the criminals get hold of guns, but not nerve agent?

[airo]

Realistically, it would be VERY easy for AQ to do any sort of devastating attack on our homeland. Why don't they? I'm not quite sure.

You saw the devastation the D.C. sniper did... get 20 men doing the same thing.

Go to the store, get a butcher knife, and have five trained men move onto an elementary school.

It's pretty much a unanimous conclusion that terrorist cells ARE here, but WHY they aren't doing something is up in the air.

By the way, pound for pound, nerve agents aren't any more deadly (And in MANY cases, much less deadly.) than conventional weaponry. The problem isn't with the nerve agents, many are VERY VERY deadly, it's that there is literally only a couple ways to efficiently distribute the substance, and even fewer situations where using the agent would garnish more damage than any other conventional weapon. The terrorists have smart chemists working for them, and know this. (Aside from the dumb ones, Read: Aum.)

[leftneckredwing]

britboy wrote: Now, it is a common argument used by the pro-gunners that criminals are gonna have weapons whatever we do -- legislate them or not. So we should dole them out to anyone that wants them to protect themselves.

Now I dispute this. And this is my argument of the day .. if criminals COULD get hold of weapons through smuggling etc even if they were illegal in the states .. why haven't terrorists done more nerve-gas attacks on cities in America?

I mean -- firstly, a lot of pro-gunners state criminals WILL HAVE weapons they want to have - through smuggling, thievery, etc. so we need to be protected from them. Yet criminals generally seem to me to be fairly much restricted to what is sold to Joe Public. Wouldn't you agree?

If I was Al-Que-Karum, Mr Crazy Militant -- I wouldn't want to kill 20 people by blowing myself up -- I'd want to kill 600,000 people using a nerve agent (or something). But I think I couldn't get hold of this weapon.

I bet you I could get hold of nerve agent if it was sold legally in little canisters (never to be legally used) to anyone that fancied a canister for their mantlepeice at home.

Why can the criminals get hold of guns, but not nerve agent?

Supply and demand is a rule of the underground economy as much as the above ground economy.

Buying even small quantities of NBC type weapons would carry a price tag above and beyond what most criminals would be able to meet. It would be possible, but most criminals have an urgency to their crimes that would not encompass such an elaborate plan. And most criminals are not suicidal.

So essentially, where there is no market, there are no vendors.

[Rankor and Pissing]

britboy wrote: Now, it is a common argument used by the pro-gunners that criminals are gonna have weapons whatever we do -- legislate them or not. So we should dole them out to anyone that wants them to protect themselves.

Now I dispute this. And this is my argument of the day .. if criminals COULD get hold of weapons through smuggling etc even if they were illegal in the states .. why haven't terrorists done more nerve-gas attacks on cities in America?

I mean -- firstly, a lot of pro-gunners state criminals WILL HAVE weapons they want to have - through smuggling, thievery, etc. so we need to be protected from them. Yet criminals generally seem to me to be fairly much restricted to what is sold to Joe Public. Wouldn't you agree?

If I was Al-Que-Karum, Mr Crazy Militant -- I wouldn't want to kill 20 people by blowing myself up -- I'd want to kill 600,000 people using a nerve agent (or something). But I think I couldn't get hold of this weapon.

I bet you I could get hold of nerve agent if it was sold legally in little canisters (never to be legally used) to anyone that fancied a canister for their mantlepeice at home.

Why can the criminals get hold of guns, but not nerve agent?

Ok first mistake - you equate handguns and chemical weapons as equally easy to get - so your arguement premise is fatally flawed. Smuggling and dealing in small arms is not the same as trying to sell Nerve agents, especially since Nerve Agents are owned by Governments and are not permitted in civillian use like small arms. For example, I do not know of a shooting competition which uses Risin or Mustard Gas. One could also make an analogy that a civillian cannot buy a fully functional T72 tank - sure you can buy one, but the gun doesn't work and you'd have difficulty finding ammo, and transport of that ammo even if done covertly would be difficult at best.

Secondly - you're question about why not kill a half-million people instead of a few hundred: This is simple - killing a few hundred people is much safer and still achieves the goal of assigning fear/terror into a population. Killing a half-million will only produce back-lash. If there's one thing that will cause the quick and horrible end to terrorists is a massive killing of people. Any hesitation of governments and people that were there before would quickly disappear and an all out man-hunt of biblical proportions would stamp out those responsible and have detrimental effects on any such terrorism existing in the future. Terrorists are well aware that they cannot go overboard and if they do, it's the end - therefore they achieve their goals and do not do something stupid to unite the rest of the world against them - it's much better to have the governments sqwabble and fight internally while other goals are achieved.

Thirdly, weapons black-market for civillian small arms (which is primarily used by criminals as opposed to military equipment) are much more prevelent and available from multiple countries around the world. RPG-7v's are not as prevelent, therefore, the black-market can easily move, ship and buy/sell civillian weapons as opposed to military grade weapons.

[lilwolf]

Money britboy, money.

There are very few bad guys running around here in the states that have the money to go buy NBS or bio's. Guns have always been here and they always will be.
As was said one sniper and damage is done, 20 snipers and you got a big frigging problem

[perdidochas]

britboy wrote: Now, it is a common argument used by the pro-gunners that criminals are gonna have weapons whatever we do -- legislate them or not. So we should dole them out to anyone that wants them to protect themselves.

Now I dispute this. And this is my argument of the day .. if criminals COULD get hold of weapons through smuggling etc even if they were illegal in the states .. why haven't terrorists done more nerve-gas attacks on cities in America?

Nerve gas isn't as easy to use as you might think. It requires fairly sophisticated technology, that is fairly delicate.

britboy wrote: I mean -- firstly, a lot of pro-gunners state criminals WILL HAVE weapons they want to have - through smuggling, thievery, etc. so we need to be protected from them. Yet criminals generally seem to me to be fairly much restricted to what is sold to Joe Public. Wouldn't you agree?

Nope. In Miami, in the 1980s, submachine gun battles between drug gangs were common.

Also, for the most part, most criminals commit crimes with handguns. There isn't any difference between most military handguns and civilian handguns--heck, almost every military handgun the U.S. military uses is available on the civilian market legally (I think there may be one or two exceptions involving silenced pistols).

britboy wrote: If I was Al-Que-Karum, Mr Crazy Militant -- I wouldn't want to kill 20 people by blowing myself up -- I'd want to kill 600,000 people using a nerve agent (or something). But I think I couldn't get hold of this weapon.

Yes, but that's because nerve gases are among the most restricted of military weapons. Only a few countries have them, and they keep tight restrictions on them.

britboy wrote: I bet you I could get hold of nerve agent if it was sold legally in little canisters (never to be legally used) to anyone that fancied a canister for their mantlepeice at home.

Why can the criminals get hold of guns, but not nerve agent?

Nerve agents are a very rare, specialized technology. Most countries can't obtain nerve agents, they have to make them themselves. It's not a simple cheap technology, like guns. If it were, I'm sure Tel Aviv would have been nerve gassed by now. Also, most guns can be easily manufactured in a hobbyist's machine shop.

[lilwolf]

At the US Military facility at Dugway, Utah you cannot get past the gates to even begin to enter the underground facility unless you have a good reason to even be there. The security restrictions there and at all facilities is tremendous.

Not the average chemist is even stupid enough to want to make this stuff (nerve agents) with out having a way to protect himself. Very difficult and dangerous and they know that. So they can't get alot of the materials needed because of heavy restrictions.

[britboy]

lilwolf wrote: At the US Military facility at Dugway, Utah you cannot get past the gates to even begin to enter the underground facility unless you have a good reason to even be there. The security restrictions there and at all facilities is tremendous.

Not the average chemist is even stupid enough to want to make this stuff (nerve agents) with out having a way to protect himself. Very difficult and dangerous and they know that. So they can't get alot of the materials needed because of heavy restrictions.

Sounds cool. So is it safe to say you agree with these restrictions to these weapons. And do you also agree that if there were less restrictions on nerve agents, more criminals/terrorists would be able to get hold of these weapons -- so they'd generally be a lot more chance of a nasty attack happening where people die?

[airo]

Britboy: Prove how chemical agents could create this "doomsday" attack where hundreds of thousands of people die. By all means.

[britboy]

airo wrote: Britboy: Prove how chemical agents could create this "doomsday" attack where hundreds of thousands of people die. By all means.

Do a google on Kurds and Saddam Hussain and lobbing nasty sh*t around.

[leftneckredwing]

britboy wrote: airo wrote: Britboy: Prove how chemical agents could create this "doomsday" attack where hundreds of thousands of people die. By all means.

Do a google on Kurds and Saddam Hussain and lobbing nasty sh*t around.

Saddam was the head of government. What's your point?

[lilwolf]

britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: At the US Military facility at Dugway, Utah you cannot get past the gates to even begin to enter the underground facility unless you have a good reason to even be there. The security restrictions there and at all facilities is tremendous.

Not the average chemist is even stupid enough to want to make this stuff (nerve agents) with out having a way to protect himself. Very difficult and dangerous and they know that. So they can't get alot of the materials needed because of heavy restrictions.

Sounds cool. So is it safe to say you agree with these restrictions to these weapons. And do you also agree that if there were less restrictions on nerve agents, more criminals/terrorists would be able to get hold of these weapons -- so they'd generally be a lot more chance of a nasty attack happening where people die?


Of course I agree with those restrictions. The restrictions are needed on this stuff and that is obvious. Never should those be lessened at all.

But how could that give your doomsday effect? Prove that one.

This is not guns we are looking at here.

[airo]

britboy wrote: airo wrote: Britboy: Prove how chemical agents could create this "doomsday" attack where hundreds of thousands of people die. By all means.

Do a google on Kurds and Saddam Hussain and lobbing nasty sh*t around.

Do a google on exactly how much chemical agent was used, how it was deployed, how long the assault lasted, and how much it was supplemented by conventional artillery fire.

Then respond.

Saddam hardly donned a ninja outfit, took an eyedropper full of VX and snuck into the middle Halabja, dropping it's contents into the center of the village and sneaking away while chuckling to himself before the deadly agent wreaked havoc among the Kurdish population.

[britboy]

lilwolf wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: At the US Military facility at Dugway, Utah you cannot get past the gates to even begin to enter the underground facility unless you have a good reason to even be there. The security restrictions there and at all facilities is tremendous.

Not the average chemist is even stupid enough to want to make this stuff (nerve agents) with out having a way to protect himself. Very difficult and dangerous and they know that. So they can't get alot of the materials needed because of heavy restrictions.

Sounds cool. So is it safe to say you agree with these restrictions to these weapons. And do you also agree that if there were less restrictions on nerve agents, more criminals/terrorists would be able to get hold of these weapons -- so they'd generally be a lot more chance of a nasty attack happening where people die?


Of course I agree with those restrictions. The restrictions are needed on this stuff and that is obvious. Never should those be lessened at all.

But how could that give your doomsday effect? Prove that one.

This is not guns we are looking at here.

Good. You agree with restricting weapons. You agree that if there are less restrictions on weapons, more criminals will get hold of them. You agree that with less restrictions, more attacks happen where people die. And no-one wants attacks where people die.


Wow! Finally Lilwolf agrees with me about a few simple, founding principles of weapon control. Welcome aboard! You'd be amazed how many people on these boards don't believe the above absolutely obvious, common sense conclusions.

Still, it's nice to see you and me batting for the same team and some common sense prevailing. Now all we have to do is convince the others.

[airo]

britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: At the US Military facility at Dugway, Utah you cannot get past the gates to even begin to enter the underground facility unless you have a good reason to even be there. The security restrictions there and at all facilities is tremendous.

Not the average chemist is even stupid enough to want to make this stuff (nerve agents) with out having a way to protect himself. Very difficult and dangerous and they know that. So they can't get alot of the materials needed because of heavy restrictions.

Sounds cool. So is it safe to say you agree with these restrictions to these weapons. And do you also agree that if there were less restrictions on nerve agents, more criminals/terrorists would be able to get hold of these weapons -- so they'd generally be a lot more chance of a nasty attack happening where people die?


Of course I agree with those restrictions. The restrictions are needed on this stuff and that is obvious. Never should those be lessened at all.

But how could that give your doomsday effect? Prove that one.

This is not guns we are looking at here.

Good. You agree with restricting weapons. You agree that if there are less restrictions on weapons, more criminals will get hold of them. You agree that with less restrictions, more attacks happen where people die. And no-one wants attacks where people die.


Wow! Finally Lilwolf agrees with me about a few simple, founding principles of weapon control. Welcome aboard! You'd be amazed how many people on these boards don't believe the above absolutely obvious, common sense conclusions.

Still, it's nice to see you and me batting for the same team and some common sense prevailing. Now all we have to do is convince the others.

There's a difference between "WMD control" and "gun control". Here's a hint, they're both compound nouns... can you tell me what that difference is?

[lilwolf]

britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: At the US Military facility at Dugway, Utah you cannot get past the gates to even begin to enter the underground facility unless you have a good reason to even be there. The security restrictions there and at all facilities is tremendous.

Not the average chemist is even stupid enough to want to make this stuff (nerve agents) with out having a way to protect himself. Very difficult and dangerous and they know that. So they can't get alot of the materials needed because of heavy restrictions.

Sounds cool. So is it safe to say you agree with these restrictions to these weapons. And do you also agree that if there were less restrictions on nerve agents, more criminals/terrorists would be able to get hold of these weapons -- so they'd generally be a lot more chance of a nasty attack happening where people die?


Of course I agree with those restrictions. The restrictions are needed on this stuff and that is obvious. Never should those be lessened at all.

But how could that give your doomsday effect? Prove that one.

This is not guns we are looking at here.

Good. You agree with restricting weapons. You agree that if there are less restrictions on weapons, more criminals will get hold of them. You agree that with less restrictions, more attacks happen where people die. And no-one wants attacks where people die.


Wow! Finally Lilwolf agrees with me about a few simple, founding principles of weapon control. Welcome aboard! You'd be amazed how many people on these boards don't believe the above absolutely obvious, common sense conclusions.

Still, it's nice to see you and me batting for the same team and some common sense prevailing. Now all we have to do is convince the others.


Whoa here britboy, I agreed that there needs to be restrictions on these weapons. NBC type weapons are not guns. Different set of logic applies here britboy. I am in favor of very tight restrictions on WMD's and the existing laws that we have for gun control are good enough.
Do not try to spin my word like LL does.
As for common snese yes there is common sense in restrictions on Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons and they are needed and should never be made lax.
Guns on the other hand are an entriely different ball game here and they should be left as they are and not subject to interferrence by the anti-gun crowd.

[britboy]

airo wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: At the US Military facility at Dugway, Utah you cannot get past the gates to even begin to enter the underground facility unless you have a good reason to even be there. The security restrictions there and at all facilities is tremendous.

Not the average chemist is even stupid enough to want to make this stuff (nerve agents) with out having a way to protect himself. Very difficult and dangerous and they know that. So they can't get alot of the materials needed because of heavy restrictions.

Sounds cool. So is it safe to say you agree with these restrictions to these weapons. And do you also agree that if there were less restrictions on nerve agents, more criminals/terrorists would be able to get hold of these weapons -- so they'd generally be a lot more chance of a nasty attack happening where people die?


Of course I agree with those restrictions. The restrictions are needed on this stuff and that is obvious. Never should those be lessened at all.

But how could that give your doomsday effect? Prove that one.

This is not guns we are looking at here.

Good. You agree with restricting weapons. You agree that if there are less restrictions on weapons, more criminals will get hold of them. You agree that with less restrictions, more attacks happen where people die. And no-one wants attacks where people die.


Wow! Finally Lilwolf agrees with me about a few simple, founding principles of weapon control. Welcome aboard! You'd be amazed how many people on these boards don't believe the above absolutely obvious, common sense conclusions.

Still, it's nice to see you and me batting for the same team and some common sense prevailing. Now all we have to do is convince the others.

There's a difference between "WMD control" and "gun control". Here's a hint, they're both compound nouns... can you tell me what that difference is?

WMD control refers to the control of weapons of mass descruction.
Gun control refers to the control of guns?

[micfranklin]

britboy wrote: Now, it is a common argument used by the pro-gunners that criminals are gonna have weapons whatever we do -- legislate them or not. So we should dole them out to anyone that wants them to protect themselves.

Now I dispute this. And this is my argument of the day .. if criminals COULD get hold of weapons through smuggling etc even if they were illegal in the states .. why haven't terrorists done more nerve-gas attacks on cities in America?

I mean -- firstly, a lot of pro-gunners state criminals WILL HAVE weapons they want to have - through smuggling, thievery, etc. so we need to be protected from them. Yet criminals generally seem to me to be fairly much restricted to what is sold to Joe Public. Wouldn't you agree?

If I was Al-Que-Karum, Mr Crazy Militant -- I wouldn't want to kill 20 people by blowing myself up -- I'd want to kill 600,000 people using a nerve agent (or something). But I think I couldn't get hold of this weapon.

I bet you I could get hold of nerve agent if it was sold legally in little canisters (never to be legally used) to anyone that fancied a canister for their mantlepeice at home.

Why can the criminals get hold of guns, but not nerve agent?

For one thing, guns are easier to get than toxic gases. And I know for a fact that toxic gas canisters will never be sold legally.

[airo]

britboy wrote: airo wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: At the US Military facility at Dugway, Utah you cannot get past the gates to even begin to enter the underground facility unless you have a good reason to even be there. The security restrictions there and at all facilities is tremendous.

Not the average chemist is even stupid enough to want to make this stuff (nerve agents) with out having a way to protect himself. Very difficult and dangerous and they know that. So they can't get alot of the materials needed because of heavy restrictions.

Sounds cool. So is it safe to say you agree with these restrictions to these weapons. And do you also agree that if there were less restrictions on nerve agents, more criminals/terrorists would be able to get hold of these weapons -- so they'd generally be a lot more chance of a nasty attack happening where people die?


Of course I agree with those restrictions. The restrictions are needed on this stuff and that is obvious. Never should those be lessened at all.

But how could that give your doomsday effect? Prove that one.

This is not guns we are looking at here.

Good. You agree with restricting weapons. You agree that if there are less restrictions on weapons, more criminals will get hold of them. You agree that with less restrictions, more attacks happen where people die. And no-one wants attacks where people die.


Wow! Finally Lilwolf agrees with me about a few simple, founding principles of weapon control. Welcome aboard! You'd be amazed how many people on these boards don't believe the above absolutely obvious, common sense conclusions.

Still, it's nice to see you and me batting for the same team and some common sense prevailing. Now all we have to do is convince the others.

There's a difference between "WMD control" and "gun control". Here's a hint, they're both compound nouns... can you tell me what that difference is?

WMD control refers to the control of weapons of mass destruction.
Gun control refers to the control of guns?

Very good! You get a gold star! Now tell us how, because lilwolf believes WMDs should be restricted (Or, as might be the case (At least with me.), nonexistent.) how he supports the tenants of gun control!

Also, you have yet to prove that chemical weapons actually produce the apocalyptic effects that you seem to believe they do. I'm still waiting for evidence that they're SOOOOOOOOOO much more deadly than conventional weaponry.

[leftneckredwing]

britboy wrote: airo wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: britboy wrote: lilwolf wrote: At the US Military facility at Dugway, Utah you cannot get past the gates to even begin to enter the underground facility unless you have a good reason to even be there. The security restrictions there and at all facilities is tremendous.

Not the average chemist is even stupid enough to want to make this stuff (nerve agents) with out having a way to protect himself. Very difficult and dangerous and they know that. So they can't get alot of the materials needed because of heavy restrictions.

Sounds cool. So is it safe to say you agree with these restrictions to these weapons. And do you also agree that if there were less restrictions on nerve agents, more criminals/terrorists would be able to get hold of these weapons -- so they'd generally be a lot more chance of a nasty attack happening where people die?


Of course I agree with those restrictions. The restrictions are needed on this stuff and that is obvious. Never should those be lessened at all.

But how could that give your doomsday effect? Prove that one.

This is not guns we are looking at here.

Good. You agree with restricting weapons. You agree that if there are less restrictions on weapons, more criminals will get hold of them. You agree that with less restrictions, more attacks happen where people die. And no-one wants attacks where people die.


Wow! Finally Lilwolf agrees with me about a few simple, founding principles of weapon control. Welcome aboard! You'd be amazed how many people on these boards don't believe the above absolutely obvious, common sense conclusions.

Still, it's nice to see you and me batting for the same team and some common sense prevailing. Now all we have to do is convince the others.

There's a difference between "WMD control" and "gun control". Here's a hint, they're both compound nouns... can you tell me what that difference is?

WMD control refers to the control of weapons of mass descruction.
Gun control refers to the control of guns?

WMDs by design are not defensive weapons.