Political Crossfire Forums

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3446 Location: London

A company develops a way to coat bullet with liquid Anthrax. This has no immediate (additional) effect to the victim of the shooting. They still either live or die at about the same rate as with normal ammo.

However if they live, slowly after a few days the company states chances are the poison will kill the victim. It's gonna be a pretty nasty, slow death.

The ammo ain't gonna make any additional damage to the victim within the first 12 hours of getting shot.

My question, would you ban this ammo saying 'can't be justified to use it', or would you let currently 'legal' handgun owners buy it?

If you want to answer .. 'er .. wouldn't be possible'. I'm not interested. This is not a 'what would be technically achievable' thread -- this is an 'if they managed to create it' thread.

ps. For the sake of argument .. there is no cure that can be administered to the victum once the nasty gunk is in his bloodstream

airo · Joined: 31 Jul 2004 Posts: 2583 Location: Tampa, Florida

If i shoot them, and hit them, they're going to die. If not for that one bullet, then for the next half dozen headed their way.

So, it's sort of a moot issue.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

britboy wrote: A company develops a way to coat bullet with liquid Anthrax. This has no immediate (additional) effect to the victim of the shooting. They still either live or die at about the same rate as with normal ammo.

However if they live, slowly after a few days the company states chances are the poison will kill the victim. It's gonna be a pretty nasty, slow death.

The ammo ain't gonna make any additional damage to the victim within the first 12 hours of getting shot.

My question, would you ban this ammo saying 'can't be justified to use it', or would you let currently 'legal' handgun owners buy it?

If you want to answer .. 'er .. wouldn't be possible'. I'm not interested. This is not a 'what would be technically achievable' thread -- this is an 'if they managed to create it' thread.

ps. For the sake of argument .. there is no cure that can be administered to the victum once the nasty gunk is in his bloodstream

Anthrax is a disease. It is illegal to spread a disease. I would oppose it based on public health laws.

In terms of say Poison x, which is a hypothetical poison that can withstand the heat of the inside of the barrel, instead of a disease, I would be against it. Why? The objective of gun defense is to stop, not kill. A bullet that kills in a week is useless for defense. That is just murder, which, again, is not our objective. Our objective is to stop the attack, not kill the attacker.

Blenderhead00 · Joined: 26 Oct 2006 Posts: 62

i do not think such an ammo would ever be made, or would have any use in the event it was. but it should still be legal. the government has not the right to deny ANY weapons.

wyldejackyl · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 7197 Location: Chicago, IL

The government shouldn't deny it, but the manufacturer shoudln't make it in the first place. WMD bullets?! Making such a round wouldn't be ethical. That's like putting a small nuke on the end. The bullet itself is enough, nevermind all the creative things that can be done with just a bullet. But now you must put something more on the end, to increase suffering - after the fact? That idea is asinine (as usual).

Boneman · Joined: 24 Feb 2006 Posts: 511

As someone else said, that crosses the line from self-defense to murder, so no I don't think it should be legal for the civilian population, but nor should it be legal for government use.

micfranklin

britboy wrote: A company develops a way to coat bullet with liquid Anthrax. This has no immediate (additional) effect to the victim of the shooting. They still either live or die at about the same rate as with normal ammo.

However if they live, slowly after a few days the company states chances are the poison will kill the victim. It's gonna be a pretty nasty, slow death.

The ammo ain't gonna make any additional damage to the victim within the first 12 hours of getting shot.

My question, would you ban this ammo saying 'can't be justified to use it', or would you let currently 'legal' handgun owners buy it?

If you want to answer .. 'er .. wouldn't be possible'. I'm not interested. This is not a 'what would be technically achievable' thread -- this is an 'if they managed to create it' thread.

ps. For the sake of argument .. there is no cure that can be administered to the victum once the nasty gunk is in his bloodstream

Oh jeez. Shooting a gun at an armed criminal out of defense is one thing, but shooting a gun with anthrax swimming on the bullets is something else, like murder. Neither civilians nor the government should be able to use this.

Snake · Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 21776 Location: e-Thuggin

Another hypothetical eh? I'm with micfranklin on this one. Besides, if I'm going to shoot someone, two in the chest, one in the head....

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 10895 Location: Podunk, Colorado

lol

Like an Anthrax coated anthing isn't already illegal.

mattman42 · Joined: 26 Apr 2005 Posts: 661 Location: Maine

These hypothetical questions are getting pretty dumb.

micfranklin · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 3:38 pm Post subject:

That's alright, anti-gunners are always looking for loopholes in our logic.

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 10895 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Kind of makes you get friendly with the report button hoping it will be moved to Poltical Humor.

mattman42 · Joined: 26 Apr 2005 Posts: 661 Location: Maine

micfranklin wrote: That's alright, anti-gunners are always looking for loopholes in our logic.

I appreciate anyone doing so, but to do so by making up some hypothetical situation which is next to impossible isn't the way to do it. Perhaps using some sort of logic that has some basis in reality would be more persuasive.

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

Make it illegal. Such a thing (if ever possible) would not be useful for defense. A bullet is a meant to stop. Coating that bullet with anytype of biological warfare substance moves into murder. No one, governments included, shoudl have such a device.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject:

Coat a bullet with a bateria culture.

Are you on crack?

Appart from the fact thats impossible, a bullet wound is treated with antibiotics anyway, if it dosent just kill you straight off, rendering the anthrax pointless.

Its all very well saying 'well what if it where possibile', but you might as well have asked if the bullet were to be coated with mustard.

It would have roughly the same effect.

thintheherd · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject:

Self defense requires immediate stopping power = one for the good guys

Biological agent administered requires willfull intent to kill (premeditated) = murder

I'm guessing that bb has no real answer to any reply to this silly hypothetical.

Or at least one worth hearing.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3446 Location: London

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Coat a bullet with a bateria culture.

Are you on crack?

Appart from the fact thats impossible, a bullet wound is treated with antibiotics anyway, if it dosent just kill you straight off, rendering the anthrax pointless.

Its all very well saying 'well what if it where possibile', but you might as well have asked if the bullet were to be coated with mustard.

It would have roughly the same effect.

No I am not on crack. Are you 16 years old?

bigstick61 · Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:55 pm Post subject:

Well, it's kinda foolish to think that the bacteria could withstand the heat and friction and other forces imparted on it when the gun is fired.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3446 Location: London

bigstick61 wrote: Well, it's kinda foolish to think that the bacteria could withstand the heat and friction and other forces imparted on it when the gun is fired.

I'll repeat the very first sentence of the OP

Quote:
A company develops a way to coat bullet with liquid Anthrax.

I believe that at some point in the whole of the rest of time the technology will become available to do this. You are saying 'never'. I stand by my OP.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

airo wrote: If i shoot them, and hit them, they're going to die. If not for that one bullet, then for the next half dozen headed their way.

So, it's sort of a moot issue.

BUT T3H ANTHRAX KILLS!!!!

who cares about the slug of lead traveling the speed of sound, we need to worry about the white powder that can infect you.