4 ms·

How much skill did the tokyo subway sarin gassings take ? Lots of dexterity involved ? Nerves of steel ? A rock-steady hand ? Exactly. Thanks for playing.

• cheald 14y ago
  Your point is made, but the snark isn't necessary or welcome.
• abraininavat 14y ago
  The production and ownership of sarin gas is illegal. So you seem to be agreeing with the parent that things that are easy to kill with and that have (arguably) little other use should be illegal. If you're not agreeing with the parent, care to explain your point a little more articulately, and without the smug and childish "Thanks for playing"?
  • bmelton 14y ago
    While I agree that rsync came off as a might obnoxious, I feel it's important that I point out murder is also illegal. I honestly don't understand what point you're making, unless it is to say that because sarin gas is illegal, this gun ought to be too?
    • abraininavat 14y ago
      The argument at hand is obviously whether a particular thing should be illegal because it is deadly. rsync brought up sarin in some inexplicable attempt at getting the better of hristov. I pointed out that sarin gas is illegal specifically because it is deadly. If sarin has any bearing on the argument, it seems to back hristov's (unstated but obvious) point that this rifle should be illegal. So I asked rsync to clarify. I never implied this gun ought to be illegal, or made any statement about it one way or another.
      • bmelton 14y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. His snark aside, neither bleach nor ammonia are illegal, and require approximately zero skill to combine and deploy in confined spaces. Actually, I'll just shut up and let rsync respond if he chooses. I get a little excitable when things like this come up on HN because I love hearing the discussion of pragmatists (which I believe comprises much of HN) on the subject.
        • abraininavat 14y ago
          It seems disingenuous to compare sarin gas to bleach and ammonia. We all draw a line where we think something is too dangerous to be legal. And obviously the usefulness of something is to be weighed against its danger as well. As I asked elsewhere, I'd like to know where your line is. You keep on bringing up things like "baseball bats" as if they're the same thing as this rifle. You know they're not. So where's your line? Are you claiming not to have a line?
          • bmelton 14y ago
            I did reply in the other thread, and just now noticed that we're arguing in multiple threads, so in the interest of HN civility, I'll let that one be the conversation of record. That said, I will acknowledge that I believe that the right to bear arms is meant to prevent against tyranny, and as such, my line is arguably going to be much higher than I sense yours is. I will go further to state that I disagree with the national firearms act of 1934, which bans new, fully automatic machine guns for sale and import to US citizens.
            • abraininavat 14y ago
              Could you explain to me the logic by which you suggest some things should be illegal and some things should not? That is, what logic do you use to categorize a weapon as being protected by the Second Amendment? We know your line is not established law, since you disagree with the national firearms act of 1934. Where is your logic? This is what frustrates me with the Second Amendment. No one seems to have any logic behind their categorizations. At least my point of view is rational. Make all firearms illegal. It may get me downvoted in this intolerant place, but it's at least consistent. Could you explain to me what your method of categorization is and how it's rational?