Did you also look for arrests for attempting to build a Death Star?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be watching the FIFA World Cup Final?
The Sandy Hook Elementary School Shootings
- Thread starter APoc184
- Start date
Did you also look for arrests for attempting to build a Death Star?
Shooting at Connecticut school. 27 dead including 18 children
And keep in mind that it is the conservatives in the States that send their sons (and daughters) to serve in the Military in Afghanistan, etc. The Military will not protect a President that messes with conservative values.
And keep in mind that it is the conservatives in the States that send their sons (and daughters) to serve in the Military in Afghanistan, etc. The Military will not protect a President that messes with conservative values.
Nicodeamus
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 14,477
- Reaction score
- 4,530
Atomic bomb possession by individuals is just as ''real'' as the death star.
rebut the argument don't insult it,
The primary reason for guns as far as I know would be self defense, in the case of military it is killing people, some things have more than 1 purpose depending on who uses them, I use toothbrushes to clean bearings and tools, that is not their main purpose though.
What is the main purpose of knifes again? O yes to cut things open. Can you please point me to the instruction manual that states 'must only be use to cut food'.
Also just because an item is made for 1 purpose doesn't mean that its user won't use it for another purpose.
Just because you don't agree with with it doesn't mean it is BS or bad logic.
The Conservatives who send the US to war, ie the Congress and Senate? How many of their sons and daughters served?
Nicodeamus
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 14,477
- Reaction score
- 4,530
I am pretty sure the police knows what situations to take seriously and which to not take seriously....Even the SA police would take possession of uranium with the intentions to bomb SA more seriously then some wierdo trying to build the death star.
Nicodeamus
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 14,477
- Reaction score
- 4,530
yeah, google returns no results for it, they actually do have results for attempting to kill someone with a tooth brush.
Very few. Can't remember which recent invasion it was but only one of them had a kid that went.
No it is not. I'm not sure what you're not understanding here. You are equating a albino lion to a unicorn.
It is what it is, and the second you started comparing something real to something imagined, it became infantile.
Again, no one is disputing this. So stop with your strawmen.
Definitely. However, when it is bad logic, it should be pointed out, as it was here.
Nicodeamus
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 14,477
- Reaction score
- 4,530
He is probably referring to the voters. Neither Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Obama or Mitt Romney served in a war. Ironically the only runner in the last republican race who did go to war, wanted to end the war.
Exactly. So the SA police have more sense than you it seems.
Nicodeamus
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 14,477
- Reaction score
- 4,530
now please point me to a situation where an individual have owned an atomic bomb or even got as far to put the process in motion.
erm you tried to paint a hypothetical situation where someone ''might'' own an atomic bomb, that is very imaginable as it never occurred. I pointed out how ridiculous that would be, given that it is just as probably for an individual to build a death star on his own as it is to build an atomic bomb on his own.
hey you came with the argument that ''things only have a certain purpose in life''.
so please point out my fault premise.
Nicodeamus
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 14,477
- Reaction score
- 4,530
another ad hominen well done.
Nicodeamus
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 14,477
- Reaction score
- 4,530
I am trying to argue (and I am sure you're aware of it), that it is utterly pointless to have a law against owning a nuclear weapon as it is very expensive to own these and given the very unlikely situation (which is just as likely as building a death star in my opinion) of an individual obtaining the necessarily budget to build his own Manhattan project then.....
the police force will without doubt investigate the matter (as it is quite a big project that requires a big facility), therefore it will not go unnoticeable. So if someone has the intention of blowing up a town or city, then this component will already be catered for by the obligation of the police force. It is after all their duty to investigate the matter.
Therefore it is utterly pointless to have a law prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons as it serves no purpose and doesn't deter anyone from building weapons. However the idea that the police might arrest you most certainly destroys the incentive of building a large factory in your back yard, where one would be able to manufacture nuclear weapons.
the police force will without doubt investigate the matter (as it is quite a big project that requires a big facility), therefore it will not go unnoticeable. So if someone has the intention of blowing up a town or city, then this component will already be catered for by the obligation of the police force. It is after all their duty to investigate the matter.
Therefore it is utterly pointless to have a law prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons as it serves no purpose and doesn't deter anyone from building weapons. However the idea that the police might arrest you most certainly destroys the incentive of building a large factory in your back yard, where one would be able to manufacture nuclear weapons.
Lol. Sorry, I'm not going to spend the rest of the evening arguing with someone who thinks that someone having radioactive material is as plausible as building the Death Star, and who doesn't understand that just because something is being described as having a primary function, doesn't meant that "things only have a certain purpose in life''. It's either due to lack of comprehension or being disingenuous.
Have a good one
Have a good one
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
Atomic bombs isn't the only danger posed by having enriched uranium. Your arguments are ridiculous. It's too expensive currently for someone to build an atomic bomb, so it should be legal for anyone to have uranium. Gun laws don't stop people from getting guns, so all kinds of weapons should be legal (including tanks, grenade launchers and landmines). Given that many of the guns criminals get are stolen from legal gun owners, your reasoning would mean many more people have many more dangerous guns that are available to be stolen, and for people to be shot with.
If a psychopath goes bonkers with a knife and stabs people, he can be stopped much more easily than someone who goes bonkers with an assault rifle that has 30 bullets per magazine. He can also do much more damage with an assault rifle. If they're legal, it just means there's that much more of them in circulation. If they're illegal, it won't stop the odd rifle from getting stolen, but it'll reduce the overall number of very powerful guns from being around.
I'm sure I could get interested parties (and there will be many) to fund my work should I wish to build a bomb.
Nicodeamus
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 14,477
- Reaction score
- 4,530
You're once again not making the distinction between a citizen (who obeys the law, including the law that disallowed you from taking a life) and a criminal (who does not respect any law, including the law of gun ownership, people don't buy weapons to kill people, they buy it for self-defense and for recreational activities))
absolute nonsense, if this wacko locked 30 kids in a room and sliced their throats off then you won't have been able to stop him at all. However guards at the school weren't allowed to carry any guns, had they had some then less lives could have been loss.
yes more of them in the hands of ordinary people, which will make criminals think twice before they enter your home.
no, it will only disarm the civilians and give the criminals better weapons. South Africa is a prime example of this, we might not have ranging psychopaths that obtain, however we do have 50 murders a day, done by illegal fire arms. It is easier to get an illegal weapon than a legal weapon currently and our gun laws also make it very difficult for us to defend ourselves in our homes, given this we have criminals getting away and civilians being locked up.
Just look at the weaponry that the drug lords have and which the terrorist groups bought from ex-soviet artillery illegally, for as long as these weapons as manufactures then criminals will get their hands onto them. I would rather have more of them in the hands of the civilians.
Nicodeamus
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 14,477
- Reaction score
- 4,530
Lol. Sorry, I'm not going to spend the rest of the evening arguing with someone who thinks that someone having radioactive material is as plausible as building the Death Star, and who doesn't understand that just because something is being described as having a primary function, doesn't meant that "things only have a certain purpose in life''. It's either due to lack of comprehension or being disingenuous.
Have a good one
just you can't give me a shred of evidence pointing to someone owning an atomic bomb, but thanks as Christopher Hitchens said,
"whenever I see the ad hominen, it is a claim of victory'' ( I might have misquoted him a bit).
Nicodeamus
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 14,477
- Reaction score
- 4,530
and get arrested for having the intentions of killing people.
OK
Not gonna argue, your comprehension is atrocious, so for all I know you could be agreeing with me. I never said any private citizen has owned one, but somehow you've changed this in your mind to me doing so... And your whining about ad hominems is pointless. Anyone who has made the claims you have made is going to get called on nonsense.