Two points here:
1. Chemical nerve agents are very cheap and easy to make. I will not go into just how, but most anyone could do it with only modest effort.
2. Remember not too many years back that Japanese cult that unleashed chemical weapons in the Tokyo subway?
Point is, your argument is only ALMOST on solid ground. Sure, sophisticated chemicals and biologicals are not easy to make but nerve agents ARE... and they are pretty awful things. There's more to be said, but duty calls and so does my nice warm bed. Work is beckoning in the morning.
So is mustard gas, BUT suppose you're in your garage terrorist WMD facility, and you're down to the last step of making diisopropylflurophosphate or something like that. You're wearing gloves and a mask. You go ahead and make the final step and now you have a big container of nerve gas.
What happens next? You die unpleasantly. It takes very little of these agents to kill you they have enough vapor pressure to do the job, and you don't just have to inhale them. So unless you're in an expensive containment facility, making any war gas is more likely to kill you than do anything else. Same is true for mustard gas - pretty easy to make, but them what? You're in a closed room with a lethal gas where even a slight exposue can cause permanent damage. Making these things for most people would just be a complicated form of suicide.
Point is, your argument is only ALMOST on solid ground. Sure, sophisticated chemicals and biologicals are not easy to make but nerve agents ARE... and they are pretty awful things. There's more to be said, but duty calls and so does my nice warm bed. Work is beckoning in the morning.
Points 1. and 2. you mention above are "true", however, neither has anything to do with the subject under discussion, which is the right of people to own guns, or other arms (including WMD's) for self-protection from dangerous criminals and/or tyrannical governments.
For point 1., chemical nerve agents are not only relatively easy to make, you can buy them over the counter in any Wal-Mart in the insecticide and household cleaner departments. BUT, and it's a very big BUT, in the "real world" people don't try to use them for personal protection, although a woman spraying a would-be rapist in the face with a can of Raid would be perfectly okay. For point 2., the release of sarin gas in the Tokyo subway by the AUM Shinriko cult was a terrorist attack, not an act of self-defense. Their "crime" was murder, no matter what tool they used to do it, and it's happened just once. By your logic, since San Francisco was once destroyed by an earthquake, and we know theoretically that another could occur at any time, then we should just evacuate and abandon the city. After all, the risk is "real".
The bottom line is you seem to have completely missed my "point" from my original post, and ironically, your points actually supported and illustrated mine perfectly. The examples you gave are theoretically are infinitely remote, they simply are not a problem in "the real world".
As I pointed out in my previous post, the only people who are actively trying to acquire WMD's are those wqho are already embarked upon far more murderous missions: terrorism, and in the case of governments, acts of war and aggression. There are far more relevant laws under which to pursue these people than through gun regulations.
Trying to tie these types of actions and crimes to the issue of gun control is simply dishonest sophistry, and those who advocate these types of arguments reveal themselves clearly. They're not concerned about the rights and lives of their fellow human beings - they're only interested in controlling them, and any pretext, however specious or absurd, will do.