RE: A few questions about gun control... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


DomKen -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/4/2013 5:06:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic

Yeah, the nuke strawman, always an oldie but goodie. Somehow something that can be used for recreational purposes such as target shooting, hunting, and also self-defense, is somehow on the same level as something that accomplishes nothing but death. You aren't removing tree stumps with radioactive fallout. You aren't engaging in pest control with "nukes".

So a single nuke can kill hundreds, and possibly thousands. A single gun has never been used to kill more than a hundred people in a day, to my knowledge, and that's assuming no good guys confront the shooter. So....what the fuck?

I didn't say they were equivalent in destructive potential. I'm simply pointing out the error in saying that a basic machine shop can make crude guns is an argument against controlling the manufacture and sales of firearms as that same specious logic could be applied to nukes. That you don't like that undeniable fact is simply too bad.




stef -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/4/2013 5:07:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

But the fact remains building a small nuke is simple.

The theory behind it is simple. Implementation of the theory? Not so much.




Moonhead -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/4/2013 5:08:14 PM)

Because life isn't a Frederick Forsyth novel.




DomKen -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/4/2013 5:11:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Building a nuke in a machine shop by hand would almost certainly expose all the workers to lethal doses of radioactivity so maybe no one has been able to both get the fissionable material and skilled machinists willing to die that sort of death.



But you think, say, a Muslim fundamentalist, of that belief-system that holds death for the cause to be of the highest glory, might do it one day? If so, again, why hasn't it happened so far?


A number of reasons, first the ME doesn't have any known pitchblende deposits so they would have to go somewhere else to get the ore, remember that nonsense about Iraq buying yellowcake from Niger? Yellowcake is refined pitchblende. Second to do it you do really have to be skilled with the machine tools, polishing the uranium is vital and doing it buy hand requires having someone who really knows their business. Finding multiple adults with years of experience in a machine shop who are all willing to die a particularly unpleasant death is not going to be as easy as finding teenagers who can be convinced to blow themselves up.




DomKen -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/4/2013 5:14:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

But the fact remains building a small nuke is simple.

The theory behind it is simple. Implementation of the theory? Not so much.

Yeah we only succeeded in our first try in the 40's and we didn't have CnC or anything like the precision machine tools or electronics available today. Remember how hard we tried to keep any ex Soviet fissionable material from getting loose? That's because building a nuke once you've got a critical mass of uranium is pretty trivial now.




Moonhead -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/4/2013 5:15:42 PM)

Quite. It's so trivial that nobody's managed it without a government behind them for over half a century.




DomKen -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/4/2013 5:25:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Quite. It's so trivial that nobody's managed it without a government behind them for over half a century.

For a long time it was probably beyond the capabilities of just anyone, The timing of the explosives that combine the fissionable material has to be extremely precise. Also enrichment of the uranium prior to the last few years was a large and technically complicated operation. Now there are laser based methods that could potentially be done on much smaller scales with much less chance of being detected.




stef -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/4/2013 5:37:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Yeah we only succeeded in our first try in the 40's and we didn't have CnC or anything like the precision machine tools or electronics available today. Remember how hard we tried to keep any ex Soviet fissionable material from getting loose? That's because building a nuke once you've got a critical mass of uranium is pretty trivial now.

Of course. All I need to do is watch the news or read the paper to see all those rogue nuclear devices out there. It's a shame it's so trivial to build them these days. [image]http://www.inertdomain.com/images/rolleye.gif[/image]




Phydeaux -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/4/2013 11:18:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Quite. It's so trivial that nobody's managed it without a government behind them for over half a century.

For a long time it was probably beyond the capabilities of just anyone, The timing of the explosives that combine the fissionable material has to be extremely precise. Also enrichment of the uranium prior to the last few years was a large and technically complicated operation. Now there are laser based methods that could potentially be done on much smaller scales with much less chance of being detected.


Amazing. You're an expert on virtually everything DomKen.

Here's a few errors for you:
a). To make a nuke doesnt' require immensely precise timing. In point of fact one of the original bombs was made by firing a slug of uranium at another slug. Super precise timing is required to increase yields.
B). But even if super precise timing were required plain, ordinary flash cubes provide sufficiently precise timing.
c). You don't need plutonium to make a nuke. It can be done with uranium. Uranium isn't rare, its actually quite abundant.
D). Jordan is certainly in the middle east and has huge quantities of uranium. Iran, Pakistan, India also have significant quantities.

Regarding your reductio argument that we shouldn't attempt to regulate nuclear weapons.

The founding fathers recognized a difference between pointed hats and guns. Ie., it didn't say you can't regulate hats - its said the rights of citizens of keeping and bearing arms shall not be abridged. Washington was intimately familiar with field artillery. I suspect that if they wanted to allow field artillery the constitution would have said the rights of citizens to own field artillery shall not be abridged.

Arms require the conviction of person bearing. It is more intimate than artillery - it requires the certainty and the intent of the wielder.






Phydeaux -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/5/2013 12:28:04 AM)

Oh, and for another thing - it isn't the polishing of uranium that presents the technical difficulty. Its the separation of U-235 & U-238.
And the difficulties in handling UF6. Polishing, in comparison, is relatively simple.




DomKen -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/5/2013 3:08:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Quite. It's so trivial that nobody's managed it without a government behind them for over half a century.

For a long time it was probably beyond the capabilities of just anyone, The timing of the explosives that combine the fissionable material has to be extremely precise. Also enrichment of the uranium prior to the last few years was a large and technically complicated operation. Now there are laser based methods that could potentially be done on much smaller scales with much less chance of being detected.


Amazing. You're an expert on virtually everything DomKen.

Here's a few errors for you:
a). To make a nuke doesnt' require immensely precise timing. In point of fact one of the original bombs was made by firing a slug of uranium at another slug. Super precise timing is required to increase yields.
B). But even if super precise timing were required plain, ordinary flash cubes provide sufficiently precise timing.
c). You don't need plutonium to make a nuke. It can be done with uranium. Uranium isn't rare, its actually quite abundant.
D). Jordan is certainly in the middle east and has huge quantities of uranium. Iran, Pakistan, India also have significant quantities.

Regarding your reductio argument that we shouldn't attempt to regulate nuclear weapons.

The founding fathers recognized a difference between pointed hats and guns. Ie., it didn't say you can't regulate hats - its said the rights of citizens of keeping and bearing arms shall not be abridged. Washington was intimately familiar with field artillery. I suspect that if they wanted to allow field artillery the constitution would have said the rights of citizens to own field artillery shall not be abridged.

Arms require the conviction of person bearing. It is more intimate than artillery - it requires the certainty and the intent of the wielder.

I never said plutonium was required. Someone else made that claim.
AS I understand it the firing two slugs at each other method of triggering was abandoned because it didn't work reliable. The spherical shell of pieces of uranium imploded with precisely timed charges is the preferred method because, as long as you an get the timing right, it is very reliable.
Jordan's uranium deposits are not surface deposits according to my research and are not yet commercially exploited. They are also, it is repeatedly stated the only ME nation with any identified deposits. You don't think if Bush and his scum thought Jordan, which was very friendly with Iraq, would make a better place to scare people with talk of loose uranium.
As to enriching uranium, I already said the old methods that involved UF6 were impractical for the budding home bomb maker. However new techniques have been developed and other methods are in the development right now that avoid that issue. There are even older methods that dont't mess around with UF6. We did it in WW2 with a device called a calutron.




stef -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/6/2013 4:06:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Amazing. You're an expert on virtually everything DomKen.

Indeed, we're so lucky to have him. [img]http://www.inertdomain.com/images/rolleye.gif[/img]




Moonhead -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/6/2013 4:14:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
There are even older methods that dont't mess around with UF6. We did it in WW2 with a device called a calutron.

You mean one of these?
[img]http://smithdray1.net/angeltowns/or/images/CalutronOverview.jpg[/img]
Yep: a giant lead shielded centrifuge is a piece of piss to build. If they get in Robert Downey jr, he'll make them one from scrap in a cave in the desert.




PeonForHer -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/6/2013 4:15:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stef
Indeed, we're so lucky to have him. [img]http://www.inertdomain.com/images/rolleye.gif[/img]


Enough.




Powergamz1 -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/6/2013 4:50:15 PM)

The etymology of Arms comes from the same root as 'army', and means all the weapons of war, period.

The courts have drawn a distinction between what arms an individual can 'bear', and what would require a crew... cannons, and their automated descendants, such as missiles.
As black powder has become an anachronism, it's no particular problem to own that sort of cannon these days.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Quite. It's so trivial that nobody's managed it without a government behind them for over half a century.

For a long time it was probably beyond the capabilities of just anyone, The timing of the explosives that combine the fissionable material has to be extremely precise. Also enrichment of the uranium prior to the last few years was a large and technically complicated operation. Now there are laser based methods that could potentially be done on much smaller scales with much less chance of being detected.


Amazing. You're an expert on virtually everything DomKen.

Here's a few errors for you:
a). To make a nuke doesnt' require immensely precise timing. In point of fact one of the original bombs was made by firing a slug of uranium at another slug. Super precise timing is required to increase yields.
B). But even if super precise timing were required plain, ordinary flash cubes provide sufficiently precise timing.
c). You don't need plutonium to make a nuke. It can be done with uranium. Uranium isn't rare, its actually quite abundant.
D). Jordan is certainly in the middle east and has huge quantities of uranium. Iran, Pakistan, India also have significant quantities.

Regarding your reductio argument that we shouldn't attempt to regulate nuclear weapons.

The founding fathers recognized a difference between pointed hats and guns. Ie., it didn't say you can't regulate hats - its said the rights of citizens of keeping and bearing arms shall not be abridged. Washington was intimately familiar with field artillery. I suspect that if they wanted to allow field artillery the constitution would have said the rights of citizens to own field artillery shall not be abridged.

Arms require the conviction of person bearing. It is more intimate than artillery - it requires the certainty and the intent of the wielder.








DomKen -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/6/2013 5:05:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
There are even older methods that dont't mess around with UF6. We did it in WW2 with a device called a calutron.

Yep: a giant lead shielded centrifuge is a piece of piss to build. If they get in Robert Downey jr, he'll make them one from scrap in a cave in the desert.

The reason to build it that big was for speed and safety. In theory it could be the size of a microwave, it isn't a centrifuge by the way.




Real0ne -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/7/2013 9:24:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Trickless has shown the fallacy of total gun control.

Yes and no. he has demonstrated the fallacy of total governmental control but that fallacy is getting less and less true. What when there is NO WAY you could've made a STEN gun or any other type of gun without it being recorded and monitored by 24 video cameras in real time complete with facial recognition software? A complete surveillance state makes a complete control state possible.



You mind telling me where in the US is government surveillance cameras are in private homes, private businesses, or even on private property. Hate to tell you this, but for that to happen the entire constitution would have to be thrown away.





the corporations are controlled by the government as a creation of the government. Hence they do not need to have cameras in your home. Everytime you order something online, every site you visit, everything you say is sifted through. It is a trespass but hey people dont give a shit because of the fucked up logic that they have nothing to hide so big fucking deal, they [the government agencies] can break the laws and do what ever they want and the enablers do not give a shit, because they have fucked up and misplaced priorities.

Its not about whether they are committing a crime its that the law is being broken or agencies are operating extraconstitutionally, or legislatures are passing shit law and all by those expected to keep and protect it.

You people DO KNOW that the legislatures are NOT required by law to pass strictly constitutional law, that and who decides what is constitutional? The same group called "government". and they try to convince you that because they are a different agency of department that there is NO CONFLICT IN INTEREST.

That and I can assure you that in the spiderweb of shit law we have today, if I could peek into anyones life I assure you that I could find some law they have broken without their knowledge.

Typical americans, not real fucking brite.




papassion -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/7/2013 12:18:22 PM)

A good, common sense gun law that only hurts the criminal! Our newspaper, The Johnstown Tribune Democrat, had a story today about a felon (he was convicted in 2006 for cocaine sales) caught carrying a gun. (A convicted felon cannot carry a gun) He got 6 years in federal prison, and 3 years probation. In the fed system, if you get 6 years, you DO 6 years.

Previously, felons caught carrying guns in our town only got a slap on the wrist. Guess they are finally getting serious about gun laws.

If gun laws like this were ALWAYS enforced, word on the street would be, "its not worth it to carry if you are not licensed and legal."




jlf1961 -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/7/2013 3:00:31 PM)

Yup, if gun laws were enforced across the board, and the teeth given back to the ATF, things would be different.

Considering the way teenagers are going, I still want to put a 20 foot high fence around the property, with a 20 foot wide dead mans zone filled with land mines with another 15 foot inner fence.




lovmuffin -> RE: A few questions about gun control... (6/7/2013 3:11:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Yup, if gun laws were enforced across the board, and the teeth given back to the ATF, things would be different.



The problem with that is the ATF had a habit of coming down hard on law abiding citizens and gun dealers for trivial violations. Not only that but it wasn't uncommon for them to tamper with evidence like working the action of a semi auto until they could get it to double up, then calling it a Machine gun. They had some of their teeth pulled for a reason.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.1015625