Bitcoin Forum

So...

I'm curious. How many of you guys would be comfortable putting one of these:
http://www.firearmstoday.com/files/2011/08/wbt-GFZ-poster.jpg
On your front lawn?

I'm going to assume the pro-gun guys would like something more like this:
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6812636928/h84801A66/

It's pretty much a well known fact that virtually all households in Japan have no guns in them. Consistency is what matters. You're attitude is to escalate forever. Disgusting.

So I take it that you're the "yes" vote, then?

Actually, I didn't vote.

Well, now that's just a shame.

Well, now that we have a few votes, I see pretty much the pattern I expected. Mostly hypocrites. Everyone who voted no: You're a bunch of hypocrites, but especially the person who voted "No, I own a gun, but think you should not be able to."

To the one stand-up person who would actually post a sign: Have you such a sign? Has it protected you thus far?

To the hypocrites: Why, if you would not subject yourself to this danger, do you do so to our children?

To the really hypocritical asshole: Fuck you.

Why do you care if they want to have guns or not? If they live in a safe area, it's irrelevant, and if not, they'll likely die anyway. It shouldn't affect your own life.

Gun control in my country appears to work. I'm for maintaining the peaceful status quo here, so I suppose I'm a defacto gun control advocate. I'm beginning to think that gun control discussion threads should be tagged to indicate which country they apply to, since it's clear that while gun control might not be possible or prudent in some societies, it is possible and useful in others.

As to the question in the OP, I wouldn't put up a sign on my front lawn (if I had one) like the one in your post for the same reason I wouldn't put up a "Nuclear Free Zone" sign. It's tacky and does nothing to encourage discussion between opposing viewpoints.

OF COURSE! Guns are evil metallic weapons built by satan. They are so evil that even Hitler made sure to disarm the german people.

If you own a gun, you are going to hell. Period!

thisiswhatliberalsactuallybelieve.jpg

I don't own a gun, I don't think I should be allowed to own one. I have no good reason for needing one. If I did own one I would be in more danger of accidentally shooting myself or someone else than ever needing it for self defence. I don't care who knows that I don't own a gun. Gun ownership is so low in my country that people will simple assume I don't own a gun anyway.

This poll is the most pointed poll I've seen on this forum.

i voted option 1.
i dont feel that protecting some items of mediocre value is worth getting into a firefight. if robberies were a real problem in my neighborhood, i would get insurance and just hop out the window. or better yet, move to a different neighborhood.
same goes for the robber btw. property crimes are not associated with long jail time in germany, so killing some guy to eliminate the remote chance that you are identified would be really really stupid. if i were a robber i certainly would not carry a firearm either.

I pity you... that you require permission to do anything or be anything or have anything.

So do you believe people should be allowed to do what ever they want, even if it endangers, or deprives others of their own rights?

So you think you should be allowed to do anything or be anything or have anything? That's a bit egocentric and solipsistic isn't it? You really have no regard for what your fellow citizens may think of you?

Why is it that you lot are jumping to conclusions and just making up an imaginary conversation you had with him?

It's not much of a conclusion to jump to. He pities anyone who think they need "permission to do anything or be anything or have anything". He implies that he himself does not need such permission.

Maybe you should let people voice their opinions on their own rather than just making it up like a Journalist normally does.

+1

OK then: Bitware, you state that you believe someone who requires "permission to do anything or be anything or have anything" is to be pitied. Does this mean that you do not believe that you require such permission?

I'm not licensed to practice medicine as I'm totally unqualified and therefore it is illegal for me to practice medicine.
I cannot fly a Boeing 747 for similar reasons.
Deep sea diving is also currently out of the question for me.
I am not a trained and qualified slaughter man so I let others kill animals for me.
The 'increase penis length by 20%' drug I've developed has been rejected by the FDA so I'm not allowed to sell it.

'Right to bear arms', but I can't go deep sea diving or give a woman a gynecological examination without being controlled by these fuckers?

Edit: satire

Well, I see we have some more votes, and interestingly, "yes" is pulling ahead. Probably has nothing to do with me calling all the "no" voters hypocrites. We do have another "I have a gun, but you shouldn't asshole, however, and to you, as well: Fuck you.

To the permission discussion, I would add this: Someone who accepts reality the way it really is understands that you don't need permission to do anything, or own anything, or be anything. These are societal constructs, lies we tell each other.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/freedom.png

But in a just society, actions that harm another have consequences, because that society understands that "No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=132065.0

relevant thread.

You don't need to be licensed to go deep sea diving.

You'd be stupid to go without training and the people who do the boats and equipment will (probably) not rent to you without being certified but there's nothing legally stopping you.

The fine state of Tennessee, however, requires a person to go through training and certification for the "privilege' of bearing arms in public. Is that good enough for you?

I'd love to go deep sea diving in Tennessee - but the fucking bastards don't allow it.

Haha, yeah. Top of my list of the cons of Tennessee is that it's land-locked. Quarries just aren't the same.

Questions for pro-gun activists: do you realize there are places and communities in this world where you don't have to fear a random armed idiot will invade your home or shop, and you don't have to consider the whole "should I own a gun?" question? Do you realize how fucked up place you live in?  Do you realize that you owning a gun and having certain related "rights" does not make it any less fucked up? Do you think you live in a normal place? Have you asked yourselves what can actually be done to make things better, other than playing along and perpetuating the madness?

All well and good. But have you forgotten our discussion? Guns exacerbate the problem. Take a cue from other countries and their policies. It's mind boggling that you think 300 million guns in this country is a good thing.

Did it ever occur to you that more guns means more police, and more guns in the hands of police? The opposite is true in many other countries.

I was thinking the same thing. It is bad enough as it is, but some people just won't stop until you require permission to breath.

I was not clear enough, I'll try again. Certainly there is, and always has been, unprovoked violence in all societies. However, the fact is that in some countries at some points of time the rates of violent attacks are 10 or 50 times lower than what we see today in the U.S., Russia, Colombia, or Thailand. How come? This is a good question to ask.

I spent time living in all sorts of countries, and have pretty much seen it all, from armed conflicts to gang violence, to boring and safe small towns, to safe and vibrant cities, to ghettos. I am not your typical gun control advocate. I think it's much more productive for us all to ask ourselves "how come?" than to seek a quick fix in gun control or in arming ourselves and our homes.

So, the topic being discussed in this thread is a red herring, and I can't even answer the poll.

This.

Whatever the result of this poll or any discussion about gun control is going to be, it will not change a single thing about the root causes for these catastrophic events.

People are angry and some will snap. And they will use whatever tools are available to them to hurt others.

There are many possible solutions, but to weaken everybody (4) is probably the worst solution and has very dangerous side effects.

1) Solve the cause why they become angry
2) Take them out before they hurt anyone
3) If they do get angry, try to prohibit that they snap
4) Restrict everyone from owning (some of the) tools that maniacs (could) use to hurt others

I notice your list of places neglects rural farming communities (outside of even the small towns, just a few hundred people per square mile).  This is where I live, and out here not only do we use guns to harvest much of our food, we use them to keep vermin under control (they will eat the crops, groundhog holes have killed at least one person I knew and injured many others when their tractor rolls).  The problem isn't guns, it's the way you psycho flatlanders live.  I would go crazy too if I had to be stacked hundreds of feet high without a single piece of grass or a tree to my name.  No thanks, I'll stay in the hills please.  And I'll keep my guns.

I recommend you go on a travel binge for a few years and then try to paint the picture. Clearly you have not spent time in Tokyo, for example. People are "stacked up", and there's not much grass, but typically you can walk around in the middle of the night, and only good or interesting things will happen to you. At this moment, Moscow or L.A. - not so much.

Consider these per-capita rates of violent crimes in Canada:

Quebec 756/100,000
Ontario 756/100,000

Manitoba 1,598/100,000
Saskatchewan 2,039/100,000
Yukon 3,007/100,000
NWT 6,448/100,000

Had you ever spent time in these places, you would have noticed that reality is exactly opposite of what you claim: more urbanized and densely populated areas have generally lower incidence of violent crimes. I don't say that there is a casual relationship, but obviously your claim of rural communities being less violent is false.

Well I can walk around just fine in my community without problems.  I do not generally carry a firearm unless I'm hunting.  Obviously your claim that rural communities are violent is false.

Also, the Quebec and Ontario regions are distinctly different cultural populations from the rest of Canada.  Try again.

Oh, and I have spent time in Saskatchewan, Yukon, NWT, and Northern BC.  I never experienced or even saw an act of violent crime.  Too bad it's only your experience that matters ;).

Finally, these regions have very large transitory population of oil workers.  Not only are these not the most civilized people, depending on how they calculated their statistics (tough to say since you didn't provide a reference), they might only be counting crimes per citizen.  If this is the case, it would easily explain the discrepancy since permanent residents are few and far between.

100% false.

LOL Most awesomeness!

Hahaha! That is a good point. This question alone is a pretty convincing argument to be armed, in my opinion. I'm still convinced that an NRA (not saying I completely support the NRA) or similar sticker is more effective than any security system in terms of detering theives and the like.

And a sign like this basically says: Please rob me! I can't shoot back, I promise!

I do understand that there are other countries where this is "less" of an issue. However, wherever I am, I'd like to be armed at all times. Knife, machette, axe, revolver, and rifle. For the trees, bushes, bears, and people trying to take my God-given rights away.

Perhaps in the US. In Australia, the rate of deaths caused by firearms is much higher in country areas than city or urban areas:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytopic/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument

However this increased rate might be due to the higher rate of suicides in country areas, since in the period recorded in the above link 76% percent of firearm deaths are caused by suicide and the country areas have a much higher rate of suicide than cities.

I couldn't find rates of firearm use in violent crimes (seems to be lumped with other weapons, for example "Armed robbery"), but this link makes for interesting reading:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/341-360/tandi359/view%20paper.html

Finally, a comparison between Australian and US crime:

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime

I can't vouch for the data, but it appears to show that although there are twice as many assault victims in Australia than in the US, there are 158 times more firearm murder in the US as in Australia. That's 15700% more.

Australia does have strict gun laws, and they seem to be useful. There are more assaults in Australia than in the US, but far fewer result in firearm murders. Maybe the assaults are all pub violence, but maybe keeping firearms out of drunk hands is a good thing when the assault rate here is so high.

Thoughts?

Really? I assume you're anti-paedophile. Would you be comfortable putting up a "This is a paedophile free zone" sign on your front lawn? I would hope not, because that too would be extremely tacky. Just like an accursed "Baby on board" sign.

"Firearm murder" is a useless statistic and its very use is an indication of a predisposition to a bias against firearms. Outlawing seatbelts and airbags would reduce deaths involving seatbelts and airbags. Then there's the tradeoff, murders vs rapes vs home invasions vs mugging. Guns offer a level of defense otherwise unobtainable for those not a physically fit adult male.

There are a lot of these? Source, please.


That's a rationalisation, not a provable conclusion. Can you provide any evidence that Americans less likely to be murdered than Australians? The most current data I can find shows that the US has 4.8 times as many murders as in Australia, regardless of the weapon. Why should Australians need guns when they don't suffer the same depredations as US citizens?

I used to be anti gun but now I can see advantage in the Swiss approach of everyone having to own a gun by law.

20 dead kids seem worth it for the ability to defend the country from the various powers that be.

I think that's the best solution as well, I don't agree with giving an armed mob weapons but getting people who want to own guns to train with them properly will allow people to keep an eye out for crazies too, the swiss have proven gun ownership can work, but of course from what I've seen lately being anti-gun is more of a religion than anything to do with rational thought and whenever a something horrible happens involving guns it's only then they get riled up about it.

I'm actually fully supportive of what the swiss do, I just wish it wasn't compulsory, but you shouldn't be able to get a gun either if you're not willing to do the training anyone sensible would do before getting one.

A couple, or, even none of these is enough for my point which is that you can't focus on a single statistic (if that is the avenue you are going to pursue.) If you are going to be strictly utilitarian, you must weigh all the pros and cons.

I can tell you this, however: The drummer from Def Leppard's only got one arm.


That's a rationalisation, not a provable conclusion. Can you provide any evidence that Americans less likely to be murdered than Australians? The most current data I can find shows that the US has 4.8 times as many murders as in Australia, regardless of the weapon. Why should Australians need guns when they don't suffer the same depredations as US citizens?
[/quote]

No, it's a straight-up fact. Granny with gun, granny without gun. Who's in a better position when the sound of the door being kicked in comes floating up the stairs?

In many ways, the murder rate is irrelevant in any case. It's you who needs to show an overwhelming case for removing the freedom of others.

No, it's a straight-up fact. Granny with gun, granny without gun. Who's in a better position when the sound of the door being kicked in comes floating up the stairs?

In many ways, the murder rate is irrelevant in any case. It's you who needs to show an overwhelming case for removing the freedom of others.
[/quote]


A stupid non-argument. What percentage of 90 year women can reliably fire a handgun without injuring themselves or others? Who's in a better position? I'd say the granny who lives in Australia rather than the one who lives in the US. At least in Australia handguns are not required to ensure personal safety.


Yes, you're rationalising with made up scenarios.

I absolutely agree.

My post was about differences in national character as they apply to gun control, not gun control ingeneral. I think Richy_T either misread or misunderstood my post which quite clearly was no pro or anti guns, but simply noting a difference between two countries and suggested reasons.

Why do you lot think I want space exploration so much?

Have you ever heard the phrase 'If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns'? According to what you've just stated, that favorite phrase of gun rights advocates is rendered invalid.

So which is it?

1. You're using invalid logic in your argument.
2. A favorite phrase of gun rights advocates is invalid.

If you're going to bring up Switzerland, then be sure you understand their laws. I doubt you do.

I think there is significant gun control in the ISS - in fact I would be surprised if there are any firearms on the space station at all ;)

I'm talking about private exploration noob :P where's your imagination?

I still don't think there'll be much need for firearms, in this solar system at least. They'd be very dangerous on a spacecraft. Unless you have a more sci fi view of space with aliens, indestructible UFOs, blasters, teleporters and the like? In that case I'm with you, believe me.

That would be space opera, as in Star Wars. On the other hand, 2001: A Space Odyssey is science fiction. No guns in sight on the Discovery. Great movie, by the way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-QFj59PON4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUdkIn7C9fA

I love you science, now make me spaceships!

Do you regularly read Centauri-dreams.org? It's mostly quality reporting on interstellar propulsion studies and extrasolar planet discoveries. Pretty much everything gets covered.

This will be right up your alley - Jules Verne wrote about going to the moon in what was essentially a very large bullet propelled by a very large gun:

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjpQ2uR8kmVyS9ckII6HmY0Lhxc5SJphPRV1yHtB-dbrYYxFyAtg

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRa8968ZE7WVOJCj6gy8T9wyNoCn06ok5KOpxovArOMEbf58w9c

I don't see how that follows. Or is even relevant or matters.

Then don't waste my time or everyone else's by posting things about how outlawing seatbelts would reduce seatbelt deaths.

Maybe I just don't get what you're getting at. If seatbelts are outlawed, only outlaws would have seatbelts. So how does that invalidate the gun version and what is the relevance of this?