[NGTM-1R]

The US has had experimental rail guns for a while now, and they are starting to reach a lethal capacity  ...but I'd say its at least a good twenty years or more before you see one deployed.

Considerably sooner than that, as a 155mm model is to be installed on the DD-X, which is due in within the next 10 years or so.

I think it's already been demo'd out at White Sands.

[karajorma]

My point is that if you feel that there is no reason an object should be regulated simply because of the danger it may be to others if it is carelessly used or intentionally misused then you should have no problem with someone building a breeder reactor in their garden shed.

As long as they don't commit the crime of actually leaking radioactivity it should be okay, right?.

[NGTM-1R]

Qualifications to run such a facility safely? And who watches it when they're asleep?

I suppose the point I'm making here is that there has to be some kind of sliding scale based on the danger of the object and the difficulty of cleaning up after it.

[jr2]

My point is that if you feel that there is no reason an object should be regulated simply because of the danger it may be to others if it is carelessly used or intentionally misused then you should have no problem with someone building a breeder reactor in their garden shed.

As long as they don't commit the crime of actually leaking radioactivity it should be okay, right?.

I would have no problems as long as they knew what they were doing... but being able to know that... hmm.

[karajorma]

In other words both you and ngtm1r are saying that dangerous items can be allowed in the hands of the public if there is sufficient regulation to ensure that the public will be safe?

Kinda different from the point you made earlier about allowing anyone to build weapons and only dealing with any crime committed using them surely?

[jr2]

My point about them building weapons was not that it was fine and dandy... my point was that these weapons are freaking regulated... and they acquire / make them despite our best efforts.  If they focused more on actually punishing those who commit crimes, rather than slapping them on the wrist and figuring they're just misunderstood, then maybe they'd get the message.

[karajorma]

Well I agree with that. I just wasn't seeing that from your original comment.

Ya, well, in NY, they regulate crossbows and throwing knives, too... not that it helps much.  Do they wish to regulate steak knives?  What about when someone puts together their own crossbow?  I think all you need is heavy consequences for using weapons in crimes.

Surely that should be heavier punishments for weapons used in crimes as well as heavier punishments for building the weapons without any legal right to do so in the first place?

[jr2]

Why should it be illegal to build a weapon?  Slingshots can be quite deadly, you know.  I'd draw the line at weapons that can be used to kill or hurt large amounts of people... those, you should need a special permit for, up to a certain point... and maybe keep the weapons at a secure location (I'm thinking M-60s here).  OFC, nukes are out of the question.  If you want to build those, go work for the government.

Exactly where would you like the weapons ban line to be drawn?  Slingshots are OK?  Crossbows & throwing knives?  CO2 pellet pistols?  Air Rifles?  .22s?  What?  Because you know they (criminals) will just take it to the next level, until you make it not worth their while to build weapons, by enforcing stern punishments for crimes.

[karajorma]

Surely the sensible line is that if you can't buy one you can't build it yourself either?

That ignores all the second amendment nonsense the Yanks are so fond of and works for pretty much any country.

[jr2]

That sounds appropriate, I guess.    (well, the first line anyways )

[Maxwell]

Surely the sensible line is that if you can't buy one you can't build it yourself either?

Sounds like a road map for technical stagnation. 

Simple fact is the law wont prevent people from doing dangerous things so long as they have free access to the tools they need.  The nuclear boyscout incident is not the first (nor will it be the last) instance of someone putting household items to a potentially disastrous use.
Meanwhile, locking up every new technology before its reached its potential (just because there are irresponsible people in the world) limits the number of minds able to experiment with solutions to a problem.

Worse it gives people an excuse to regulate tools that have nothing to do with weapons, simply because they could be used to make dangerous things.

[Kosh]

Can we bring one of these to school?

[jr2]

Can you bring a CO2 pistol?  OK then.

[karajorma]

Surely the sensible line is that if you can't buy one you can't build it yourself either?

Sounds like a road map for technical stagnation. 

Simple fact is the law wont prevent people from doing dangerous things so long as they have free access to the tools they need.  The nuclear boyscout incident is not the first (nor will it be the last) instance of someone putting household items to a potentially disastrous use.
Meanwhile, locking up every new technology before its reached its potential (just because there are irresponsible people in the world) limits the number of minds able to experiment with solutions to a problem.

Worse it gives people an excuse to regulate tools that have nothing to do with weapons, simply because they could be used to make dangerous things.

So building a nuclear reactor in your shed is fine with you?

[Flipside]

I suppose the question that raises in my mind is why build one?

If you're after protecting your property, then a normal gun is fine, if you're after improving your skill or performing in competitions, then you can try anything from catapults and bows to rifle-shooting. What purpose does building one serve other than to find out if you can, and once you have, why not simply dismantle it again, after all you've proved you can do it?

[BloodEagle]

That thing looks awesome.

[Flipside]

Er.... this IS on topic, we are still discussing the gun and it's merits/dangers.

Which is actually quite odd after 2 pages in Gendis.

[BloodEagle]

It seems to be moving away from the "check out this cool railgun" idea, and into the whole "people should/shouldn't be allowed to own anything that's dangerous" idea.

------------

As for its merits... er... um... it doesn't use gunpowder?

As for its dangers... well... er... at the moment, there aren't any significant dangers. In the future, however, railguns will be highly effective as weapons of war.

[jr2]

That thing looks awesome.

@BloodEagle: Don't forget to pull up, though!  And, get these.

[Flipside]

You see, THAT'S what off-topic looks like