How to Build a Bomb?

[zapatos]

Seems a reasonable argument, among others. You state it as if it were not.

I don't know what you mean when you say I 'state it as if it were not'. I was hoping it would sound reasonable.

My point was that if you don't mind regulating guns even if there are many already out there, then you shouldn't mind regulating bomb making instructions even if many are already out there.

 

Or did I miss the point you were making...

The issue is a couple of orders of magnitude more complex, for starters - counting the rounds in a magazine is quite simple. How does one measure and classify information?

I don't doubt it would be difficult to regulate bomb making information. However, how is saying you can have nine rounds in a magazine and not 10, anything but completely arbitrary? I think it would be very difficult to provide evidence that supports the proposition that a nine round magazine is demonstrably safer than a 10 round magazine.

And if you are going to be arbitrary with firearms, you can be just as arbitrary with bomb making information.

[overtone]

 

However, how is saying you can have nine rounds in a magazine and not 10, anything but completely arbitrary?

It's not completely arbitrary, simply because magazines of the necessary size are already in commercial production and weapons are designed accordingly. For whatever interaction of reasons, it seems to be a natural break point already recognized.

 

And although the exact number is probably indefensible, keeping the magazine size under - say - 25, is probably supportable with evidence as well as common sense. We could look at whatever reasons the military has for specifying its magazine sizes, for example. So the choice of some number is reasonably supportable, and the fact that the situation is simple and hardware based makes enforcement both simple and without intrusion or widespread effects. There's no judgment call, no subjectivity, in counting rounds in a magazine.

 

 

And if you are going to be arbitrary with firearms, you can be just as arbitrary with bomb making information.

The difficulty of being arbitrary "like that" with information is part of the problem here. You can't measure the stuff, count it, assess its effects or role or even existence - are you talking about pulling every currently printed issue of the Encylcopedia Brittanica off the internet-access area of the public libraries?

[zapatos]

It's not completely arbitrary, simply because magazines of the necessary size are already in commercial production and weapons are designed accordingly. For whatever interaction of reasons, it seems to be a natural break point already recognized.

It is completely arbitrary in terms of gun control with the objective of making people safer.

And although the exact number is probably indefensible, keeping the magazine size under - say - 25, is probably supportable with evidence as well as common sense. We could look at whatever reasons the military has for specifying its magazine sizes, for example. So the choice of some number is reasonably supportable, and the fact that the situation is simple and hardware based makes enforcement both simple and without intrusion or widespread effects. There's no judgment call, no subjectivity, in counting rounds in a magazine.

There are judgement calls and subjectivity in deciding that nine round magazines are acceptable and 10 round magazines are not.

The difficulty of being arbitrary "like that" with information is part of the problem here. You can't measure the stuff, count it, assess its effects or role or even existence - are you talking about pulling every currently printed issue of the Encylcopedia Brittanica off the internet-access area of the public libraries?

I am talking about being consistent. Being in support of gun regulations while opposing 'bomb making instruction' regulations strikes me as being inconsistent.

[Ringer]

How are you trying to act like owning something = knowing about something. It makes no sense, I know how to make heroin, meth, crack, etc. should those who gave me that information be in trouble even if I never make them? Since making or possessing those things is already illegal, what necessitates the information being illegal as well. A false equivalence and slippery slope don't really make good arguing points. Not to mention it is already illegal to share bomb making information to help commit a federal crime, which include making or possessing a destructive device. Which include:

The term “destructive device” means—

(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—

(i) bomb,

(ii) grenade,

(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,

(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,

(v) mine, or

(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5861

 

Bottom line is information is not put into a strict category of 'bomb making' and 'not bomb making'. The same information that is used to make bombs is used in any information rockets, combustion engines, firearms, etc., etc. Hell, warning signs such as 'objects explode under pressure' is information on bomb making.

[zapatos]

How are you trying to act like owning something = knowing about something.

I didn't know I was.

It makes no sense, I know how to make heroin, meth, crack, etc. should those who gave me that information be in trouble even if I never make them?

Not in my opinion.

Since making or possessing those things is already illegal, what necessitates the information being illegal as well.

I never said it should be.

Bottom line is information is not put into a strict category of 'bomb making' and 'not bomb making'. The same information that is used to make bombs is used in any information rockets, combustion engines, firearms, etc., etc. Hell, warning signs such as 'objects explode under pressure' is information on bomb making.

Yes, I know.

[Iggy]

The other issue is that of the difference between blowing up nitrogen triiodide for kicks and giggles vs blowing up people.

If you can't tell what the difference is there, you shouldn't be allowed out on your own anyway.

 

But you agree the difference is intent, no?

 

I mean... when VCRs first came out there were a lot of objections and lawsuits too saying they could distribute copyrighted material. Beta max was relieved that kind of punishment, but in the end the justice system said that the criminals doing the injustice deserved the punishment and not the technology they relied upon. You agree, no<?

 

The psychopathic people using the information need prosecuted and not the information itself?

[John Cuthber]

But you agree the difference is intent, no?

 

I mean... when VCRs first came out there were a lot of objections and lawsuits too saying they could distribute copyrighted material. Beta max was relieved that kind of punishment, but in the end the justice system said that the criminals doing the injustice deserved the punishment and not the technology they relied upon. You agree, no<?

 

The psychopathic people using the information need prosecuted and not the information itself?

That's pretty much what I think. I might be tempted to say something about rules to protect the young people from their own foolishness, but perhaps that's a job for parents.

[CaptainPanic]

But you agree the difference is intent, no?

 

Exactly, and I would expect a civilized country to be able to take such a subtle factor into account.

 

If someone drives a car, and accidentally causes an accident, I expect a minor punishment to keep this person sharp.

If the same driver would deliberately aim for a pedestrian, the punishment should be equal to manslaughter or murder.

 

Intent matters. Also when it comes to issues related to the dreaded "Terrorism".

 

The real issue

The main problem with terrorism is not the information about bombs, or even that some people have explosives in their homes. The main problem is that we're all super paranoid about it, so that rational discussions become nearly impossible (except on our lovely forum). We seem to accept risks in life as a part of life... except when it comes to terrorism, then suddenly we wish to have 100% protection against it.

 

The discission should be about: "Do we want 100% protection against terrorism?". If the consensus is a resounding "YES", then we should proceed to remove potentially dangerous information from the net, and from libraries. But from my point of view, the first discussion has not yet ended, and I argue that 100% safety from terrorism is not only not required, it is both economically and socially undesirable.

[overtone]

 

There are judgement calls and subjectivity in deciding that nine round magazines are acceptable and 10 round magazines are not.

Of course. Is there something wrong with good judgment?

 

They are reasoned, after all, not arbitrary. We think (for good reason) a magazine limit would reduce the hazard without affecting the use, and an obvious, reasonable choice of limit would be one already in commercial and design employment.

 

 

I am talking about being consistent. Being in support of gun regulations
while opposing 'bomb making instruction' regulations strikes me as
being inconsistent.

I see no inconsistency in treating information one way, and physical objects another. This would be so even when comparing bombs themselves with bomb information, let alone something as distantly related as a firearm.

[swansont]

What about my dad's starter pistol? Or a flare gun. Or a target rifle? My shotgun I use on clay birds?

Why not bring up plastic toys?

 

We're discussing firearms that would be subject to some sort of control, and while you may use them for other things, that's not why they were invented and made. I can use wrench as a hammer, but that's not what it's for.

Does this 'purpose' also apply to bombs? Is the purpose of a nuclear bomb to blow up, or to deter the bad guys?

A bomb that can't blow up is not much of a deterrent.

[Dekan]

Perhaps "silly" isn't the right word. A better word might be "human". As that includes all the absurdities of human behaviour.

 

I mean, a US President goes to Boston, and sheds crocodile tears about a few innocent people who got blown up by a couple of improvised explosive devices.

 

While the same President, is accompanied always by the famous nuclear "football". This contains the codes for a nuclear attack on Russia. It enables the President to order the death of millions of innocent people. By blast, burning, or radioactive poisoning. Entire cities incinerated, Russia scorched and ruined. Death and destruction on a scale unprecedented in human history.

 

Given this huge destructive power available to US politicians, doesn't worrying about a few improvised guns or bombs seem a fairly minor matter?

 

 

[zapatos]

Of course. Is there something wrong with good judgment?

Of course not. That is why I don't understand why we should apply good judgement to guns but not bomb making instructions.

I see no inconsistency in treating information one way, and physical objects another. This would be so even when comparing bombs themselves with bomb information, let alone something as distantly related as a firearm.

If information is dangerous and guns are dangerous, why regulate one and not the other? That is essentially the question I am asking.

We're discussing firearms that would be subject to some sort of control, and while you may use them for other things, that's not why they were invented and made. I can use wrench as a hammer, but that's not what it's for.

You said "The purpose of a gun is to shoot living things."

Just so I'm clear, you feel that the purpose of a target rifle is to "to shoot living things"? Or perhaps you are saying that a target rifle is not a gun?

A bomb that can't blow up is not much of a deterrent.

So then you feel the purpose of a nuclear bomb is to blow up, and not to deter the bad guys?

 

Perhaps "silly" isn't the right word. A better word might be "human". As that includes all the absurdities of human behaviour. I mean, a US President goes to Boston, and sheds crocodile tears about a few innocent people who got blown up by a couple of improvised explosive devices. While the same President, is accompanied always by the famous nuclear "football". This contains the codes for a nuclear attack on Russia. It enables the President to order the death of millions of innocent people. By blast, burning, or radioactive poisoning. Entire cities incinerated, Russia scorched and ruined. Death and destruction on a scale unprecedented in human history. Given this huge destructive power available to US politicians, doesn't worrying about a few improvised guns or bombs seem a fairly minor matter?

It does seem fairly minor when compared to nuclear Armageddon. Then again, so does every single thing we discuss on this site.

 

On the other hand, when you compare it to the normal injuries one encounters at a foot race (pulled muscles, blisters, etc.) it seems fairly significant.

[jakebarrington]

People (unfortunately) cannot be arrested just for posting that sort of information. At least as far as I'm aware.

[krash661]

you never know who you are helping on the internet.

[swansont]

zapatos, on 23 Apr 2013 - 12:42, said:

You said "The purpose of a gun is to shoot living things."

Just so I'm clear, you feel that the purpose of a target rifle is to "to shoot living things"? Or perhaps you are saying that a target rifle is not a gun?

I was under the impression we were talking about the kind of weapons that were being discussed in the context of gun control, so odds are it's not a gun in the category under discussion. If an assault-weapon "target rifle" can somehow distinguish between paper or clay, and living tissue, great. But I don't see that technology existing. Yes, my stance is that assault weapons are manufactured for the purpose of shooting living things.

 

Much like cars are manufactured for the purpose of moving people from place to place, even if some of them end up in collections and only being displayed and buffed with a diaper.

zapatos, on 23 Apr 2013 - 12:42, said:

So then you feel the purpose of a nuclear bomb is to blow up, and not to deter the bad guys?

The fact that it can blow up acts (or has acted) as a deterrent.

 

 

————

 

I ran across this little tidbit: the NRA backed a policy to keep chemical tags from being put in gunpowder, which likely impeded the Boston marathon bombing investigation. If not for the ubiquity of video, the identification of the bombers might have had to rely on the forensic evidence, and this huge piece was missing.

http://bluemassgroup.com/2013/04/how-the-nra-impeded-the-boston-bomber-investigation/

[zapatos]

I was under the impression we were talking about the kind of weapons that were being discussed in the context of gun control, so odds are it's not a gun in the category under discussion.

Okay, just a misunderstanding. I thought we were talking about all guns.

The fact that it can blow up acts (or has acted) as a deterrent.

The reason I asked it because I was trying to make the point that things can have more than one purpose. Something may be manufactured for one purpose (killing) and used for another (shooting targets).

[Ringer]

I didn't know I was.

I don't know how you didn't. When you say bomb information control should be treated the same as gun ownership control what else would you be doing?

Not in my opinion.

So then why would information on bomb making be illegal when making bombs is already illegal?

I never said it should be.Yes, I know.

Then I may be misunderstanding your entire stance on this.

[zapatos]

Then I may be misunderstanding your entire stance on this.

I sometimes forget to reiterate my point, and it tends to get lost in all the back and forth.

 

In this thread a number of people who seem to me to be strong advocates of gun regulation, objected strongly to the idea of regulating bomb making information on the internet.

 

I was curious how they justified their stance, considering that both can be used for fun or sport and both can be used for death and destruction. I wanted to know what the fundamental difference was between the two different positions.

 

If the answer is that one is information and one is hardware, then I would like to know why that distinction is critical.

If the answer is that 'lots of people already know how to make bombs', then I would like to know how that is different from 'lots of people already have guns'.

If the answer is 'it is hard to draw the line on what bomb making information is', then I would like to know how that is different from drawing the line on what a safe magazine size is.

 

Up to this point I had not taken a position. I was simply trying to get others to explain their positions.

 

But for the record, my position is that a reasonable level of regulation on guns, and information on how to build a bomb, would probably be prudent. Nothing will stop a determined criminal, but I don't see any reason to make it easy for them.

[Iggy]

But for the record, my position is that a reasonable level of regulation on guns, and information on how to build a bomb, would probably be prudent.

 

Because quite a lot of people have to be trained in explosives for legitimate reasons, the government censor would not only have to examine each new case of questionable material to determine if it is acceptable, they would also have to determine who is acceptable.

 

To become a fireworks manufacturer, for example, one needs explosives information, so we can't just burn all the illicit books. Someone would have to control the information -- deciding which college textbooks could be awarded to which students. It would be a lot of work. Each case is a judgement call. In what language can the master plumber teach his young apprentice how to turn a hot water heater into a bomb? The censor has to decide, and he may not be very qualified to make that decision.

[zapatos]

Because quite a lot of people have to be trained in explosives for legitimate reasons, the government censor would not only have to examine each new case of questionable material to determine if it is acceptable, they would also have to determine who is acceptable.

Is that the only way to do it, do you think? I imagine that since we are talking about information on the internet that software could be used to flag questionable material. Heck, even just passing a law making it illegal to teach kids how to make pipe bombs might be enough to deter some content from showing up. I imagine if you got some smart people together, they could come up with a reasonable approach to limiting some type of information without it being too restrictive.

 

McAfee knows lots of things about sites that come up during my Google searches. Perhaps something like that will be able to flag sites for 'nail filled pressure cookers' instead of just porn or viruses.

[Ringer]

I sometimes forget to reiterate my point, and it tends to get lost in all the back and forth.

 

In this thread a number of people who seem to me to be strong advocates of gun regulation, objected strongly to the idea of regulating bomb making information on the internet.

 

I was curious how they justified their stance, considering that both can be used for fun or sport and both can be used for death and destruction. I wanted to know what the fundamental difference was between the two different positions.

 

If the answer is that one is information and one is hardware, then I would like to know why that distinction is critical.

The distinction is critical because one can actively kill and the other does can actively do nothing.

If the answer is that 'lots of people already know how to make bombs', then I would like to know how that is different from 'lots of people already have guns'.

I would agree that this answer is pretty weak.

If the answer is 'it is hard to draw the line on what bomb making information is', then I would like to know how that is different from drawing the line on what a safe magazine size is.

I doubt one would say there is a safe magazine size, but there are safe uses for the information that can also be used for bomb making. Also, comparing a very specific example of, probably, the most arbitrary version of gun laws to an extremely broad area of information seem disingenuous

[overtone]

 

If information is dangerous and guns are dangerous, why regulate one and not the other?

One reason would be that the necessary means and consequences of regulating pervasive and complex and widespread information are much different than the means and consequences of regulating easily definable and impoundable particular physical items.

 

That might help explain why gun information is not closely regulated, for example. Bombs and guns, physical objects, relatively simple; bomb and gun information, not easily definable or sequesterable or extractable from the rest of the world's information, not simple.

[swansont]

 

If the answer is that one is information and one is hardware, then I would like to know why that distinction is critical.

 

Information is one step removed from hardware; you can have plans, but you still have to build the device before it can be used. The comparison is not apt — gun control discussion is not advocating restricting knowledge about guns or their manufacture.

[john5746]

I think the line between physical objects and information makes sense, but I wonder with the advent of 3d printing, etc. People will basically be able to download the printing data for weapons. I think this blurs the line. It would be nice to have something in place for monitoring downloads of this kind at the very least.

 

Even currently, I think intent is brought into play, so that if you provide bomb instructions and then say go use it on X, then that would be illegal, but not sure anyone is dumb enough to do that. I think providing instructions to make a weapon should be justification for monitoring at least, i.e a dot in the equation.

Edited April 24, 2013 by john5746

[zapatos]

The distinction is critical because one can actively kill and the other does can actively do nothing.

Do you think that the difference between giving a handgun to a criminal versus giving directions to the location of a handgun to a criminal is a critical distinction? One can actively kill and the other can actively do nothing. The directions to its location would have to be followed.

Also, comparing a very specific example of, probably, the most arbitrary version of gun laws to an extremely broad area of information seem disingenuous

I get the impression you think I've been disingenuous this entire thread. I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

One reason would be that the necessary means and consequences of regulating pervasive and complex and widespread information are much different than the means and consequences of regulating easily definable and impoundable particular physical items.

 

That might help explain why gun information is not closely regulated, for example. Bombs and guns, physical objects, relatively simple; bomb and gun information, not easily definable or sequesterable or extractable from the rest of the world's information, not simple.

That is a good point. Although I wonder if since regulating information is so much more complex, that going after low hanging fruit, such as obvious references to 'pipe bombs' or 'maximizing carnage' might be the way to start.

 

Information is one step removed from hardware; you can have plans, but you still have to build the device before it can be used. The comparison is not apt — gun control discussion is not advocating restricting knowledge about guns or their manufacture.

But don't we often regulate things that are one step removed? For example, it is a illegal to conspire to commit a crime, even if I have not taken any steps to execute the plan.

 

I wasn't suggesting that gun control is advocating restricting knowledge about their manufacture. I am suggesting that selling guns is potentially dangerous, and information on how to build a bomb is potentially dangerous. In that sense they are similar. Why should we accept one potentially dangerous situation and not another?