Gun Control

[henry quirk]

Not a particularly wise move though is it?

Were we talkin' about what's wise?

If so...

Not particularly wise of you to build a weapon of mass destruction or to put it on the market.

Or to use it for self-defence.

Mutually assured destruction is still self-destruction, not self-defence.

Agreed. However, in the exchange between atto and me self-defense wasn't the topic.

[Skepdick]

so you are saying defend yourself by eliminating those who advocate mutually assured destruction?

Allahu Akbar

-Imp

Why do we need a world if Russia is not in it?

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/02/ ... ess-a76653

[Skepdick]

Sorry, but your post is not worthy of a response.

Then why did you respond to it?

I wanted you to know.

And now I know that my post was worthy of a response.

A poor response, but a response none the least.

[attofishpi]

Not a particularly wise move though is it?

Were we talkin' about what's wise?

If so...

Not particularly wise of you to build a weapon of mass destruction or to put it on the market.

No I certainly would never build such a weapon, but interesting what a fool you are since you certainly would advocate to everyone being allowed to own it!!

[henry quirk]

No I certainly would never build such a weapon, but interesting what a fool you are since you certainly would advocate to everyone being allowed to own it!!

I only say a person has a right to property. That's foolish?

I only ask why should someone, who's done no wrong with his property, be penalized becuz another does wrong with his property? That too is foolish?

[attofishpi]

No I certainly would never build such a weapon, but interesting what a fool you are since you certainly would advocate to everyone being allowed to own it!!

I only say a person has a right to property. That's foolish?

Yes, it's foolish to agree that everyone has the right to ANY property - in this case a weapon of mass destruction. If the weapon I suggested was made available to everyone as you'd wish, you would be dead pretty soon.

I only ask why should someone, who's done no wrong with his property, be penalized becuz another does wrong with his property? That too is foolish?

It's selfish of you to demand you have a right to own any weapon designed to kill humans, it's foolish to agree that everyone also has that right.

[henry quirk]

So, just to be clear: do you say there are properties no one should have, as in no one should own or possess or control an atom bomb, or, do you say there are properties only certain people should have, as in only a qualified or approved or sanctioned person should own or possess or control an atom bomb?

If the former: then don't build them.

If the latter: who decides the qualifications, or issues the approval, or gives the sanction?

[attofishpi]

So, just to be clear: do you say there are properties no one should have, as in no one should own or possess or control an atom bomb,

Yes, no single person should have the ability to make a judgement to detonate an atom bomb simply by ownership.

or, do you say there are properties only certain people should have, as in only a qualified or approved or sanctioned person should own or possess or control an atom bomb?

As above, no single person should have the ability to make a judgement to detonate an atom bomb simply by ownership.

So.

Do you believe EVERYONE should have the right to own an atom bomb and the ability to detonate it by their own decision process?

[henry quirk]

Yes, no single person should have the ability to make a judgement to detonate an atom bomb simply by ownership.

That's nice. Now, do you say there are properties no one should have, as in no one should own or possess or control an atom bomb? Or do you say there are properties only certain people should have, as in only a qualified or approved or sanctioned person should own or possess or control an atom bomb?

Do you believe EVERYONE should have the right to own an atom bomb and the ability to detonate it by their own decision process?

I believe anyone can own anything, including an atom bomb, if they can meet the price of the seller or if they can create it for themselves. I believe, if an atom bomb owner can detonate his bomb without violating the life, liberty, and property of others, then he ought to, if he likes, do that.

[attofishpi]

Yes, no single person should have the ability to make a judgement to detonate an atom bomb simply by ownership.

That's nice. Now, do you say there are properties no one should have, as in no one should own or possess or control an atom bomb? Or do you say there are properties only certain people should have, as in only a qualified or approved or sanctioned person should own or possess or control an atom bomb?

I was very clear in my statement. NO SINGLE PERSON should have the right to own, possess and control an atom bomb.

Do you believe EVERYONE should have the right to own an atom bomb and the ability to detonate it by their own decision process?

I believe anyone can own anything, including an atom bomb, if they can meet the price of the seller or if they can create it for themselves. I believe, if an atom bomb owner can detonate his bomb without violating the life, liberty, and property of others, then he ought to, if he likes, do that.

OMG. In your advocacy for such sentiments you are ALLOWING people that WILL 'detonate their bomb' to violate the life, liberty and property of others. The blood of innocent people, children, is on the hands of people like you Henry.

[henry quirk]

NO SINGLE PERSON should have the right to own, possess and control an atom bomb.

What about a group of people?

As for my sentiments: there is freedom, there is security. There is no middle ground, no third choice. Pick one. Understand: there's a price, sumthin' you give up, no matter which you choose.

[attofishpi]

NO SINGLE PERSON should have the right to own, possess and control an atom bomb.

What about a group of people?

An elected group of people, as in a government, yes. If it was possible to ensure NO body has the ability to own an atom bomb then I would prefer that...contrary to what you would prefer.

As for my sentiments: there is freedom, there is security. There is no middle ground, no third choice. Pick one. Understand: there's a price, sumthin' you give up, no matter which you choose.

Freedom? Security? ..try explaining that to a parent of a child torn apart by an AR because people like you advocate that everyone has the right to weapons of mass destruction.

[Dontaskme]

The Art of Gun Control

[Skepdick]

An elected group of people, as in a government, yes. If it was possible to ensure NO body has the ability to own an atom bomb then I would prefer that...contrary to what you would prefer.

That's a bit naive, don't you think?

No matter the guard rails and the controls you put in place, you know damn well it's all just smoke and mirrors.

Ultimately the the detonator is a binary switch.

You can add a bunch of discontinuities in the process to make it two; or three or 5 binary switches, but the shortest path from no-bang to bang is always much much shorter than the control-flow will have you believe...

The system designers will tell you that the president's not actually required.

[attofishpi]

An elected group of people, as in a government, yes. If it was possible to ensure NO body has the ability to own an atom bomb then I would prefer that...contrary to what you would prefer.

That's a bit naive, don't you think?

No matter the guard rails and the controls you put in place, you know damn well it's all just smoke and mirrors.

Ultimately the the detonator is a binary switch.

You can add a bunch of discontinuities in the process, but the shortest path from no-bang to bang is always much shorter than the control-flow will have you believe...

Naive? It's far more intelligent than allowing every dick on the planet to have their own personal total control over such a weapon. At least there is a required consultancy and agreement between fairly intelligent people prior to use of such a weapon.