Bitcoin Forum

So first of all, Obama didn't announce anything. He came up with a list of things he would like to do with guns. Half of them he could have done anyway without a large, showy press conference (for instance writing a few letters). The rest of the things he is waiting on Congress to approve. Most likely, the House will not approve them, which then can turn into a 2014 political ploy in which Republicans didn't pass the "No Longer Shoot Children in the Head Act" or something to that nature.

Besides this hysteria, I would like to point out that gun control is quickly becoming obsolete as an idea to begin with:
http://defensedistributed.com/ (http://defensedistributed.com/)

When the average person can load up their 3D printer with plastic, download a CAD drawing for free off of the internet, and print a gun with minimal assembly, it puts the means of production into the average person. The government wants to outlaw high-capacity mags? Looks like I can print one in my home with no registration that plugs right into my gun. In the very near future, the idea of gun control will be laughable.

Not only that, but it shouldn't be long before a 3D printer may be able to print a new 3D printer. In this situation, even outlawing 3D printers will not prevent the people from gaining the means of production and being able to download designs from the internet for free or for BTC.

People will always find ways around these rules.

Yep. There's always ways around things. For example, bitcoins won't stop taxes. They can just tax the square footage of your house. Plastic guns just means you might be searched at random. Nothing is engraved in stone.

not to mention I can just get on tor and have a weapon mailed to me, I think black markets are left out of the argument alot too

RepRap already can print the parts for itself, and has been able to for years.  www.reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page

That aside, if you take away guns people will resort to bombs and airplanes. 

When the government chases their tail is laughable, except that the only one that pays the price is the citizens.

Timing sucks, I sold a gun to buy my ASIC miners and figured I'd just buy a couple of AK 47's to replace the PS-90 that I sold.  I noticed most of the AK's have doubled in price in the last two days on www.gunbroker.com.  I remember last time there was a ban most assault rifles tripled and quadrupled in price.

Of course if BTC keeps raising in price it may not matter, I'll just pay the higher price.

Not completely related, but it's a pitty that the fiscal cliff media attention has stepped back to the ever popular gun debate.

Gun control is political theatre, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Politicians on both sides of the issue energize their respective bases, rake in donations, and distract the public from more important issues.

Firearm and ammunition companies, and retailers rake in enormous sales. Perhaps some of this windfall makes it back into the pockets of those politicians who are most vocal about pushing for gun control?

I'm pretty sure nothing of legislative consequence will come out of this latest round of the gun debate. The big reason this is probably being pushed by the President is so that he can get concessions from Republicans on the fiscal issues. Then a gentleman's agreement gets worked out in a smoke filled room over copious amounts of scotch to where Obama lets the Republican mostly win the gun argument while Democrats mostly win this latest debt ceiling clash.  Hopefully this is all followed by people seeing Republicans rolling over on economic matters and then driving up the value of my bitcoins.

Just wait. An assault weapon ban won't pass and all the people who rushed out and pushed the prices up will have their credit cards come due. Should be some bargains on the market.

The only legislation I see possibly passing is the republicans caving on high capacity mags

Well feds may not pass, but NYS just banned high capacity (eh... normal capacity mags).. Anything > 7.

Jon Stewart's been on the case with this one, it's sad but it looks like a lot of America's gun problems are caused by sheer incompetence, nothing to do with the laws themselves at all, the politicians made the laws years ago they just didn't enforce them properly for the most part and also not correctly done laws, this explains why Switzerland etc. do perfectly okay with having guns in civilian hands.

guns aren't the problem kids people whacked out on psychiatric or: Pschiatric drugs themselves are. It's not " outrageous" to say that, in evert mass shooting case the murderers where on psychiatric - medication. I.e -Drugs-. You go an do the research yourself.  Every one of these mass shooters was on psychiatric drugs. And this hey don't show in the media.  YET EVERY SINGLE CASE THESE PEOPLE WERE ON DRUGS.
Psychiatric drugs. Everyone of them. It can not be stated enough.
Everyone of them.

Correlation != causation.

Some of those drugs produce suicidal and/or violent behaviour as a known side effect.

That was not the poster's claim. He claimed that all mass murderers take psychiatric drugs, and therefore psychiatric drugs cause homicidal behaviour. My point is that the relationship cannot be assumed - people are given psychiatric drugs because they have mental illnesses.

Implying (in all caps) that psychiatric drugs cause homicidal behaviour is like saying guns should be banned because most mass murders are committed using guns.

I guess my OP was a lot less to do with guns themselves, but to illustrate some of the impotence of government. Yet they love going out and pretending they are all important.

Just like the fiscal cliff. The idea that any plan that they are going to come up with is going to substantially change the macro direction of the country. Of course, they could change things, but we all know that none of them would even consider they they would do what actually needs to get done. When people realize the system is impotent except for being a bully, then they lose almost all positive connotation.

This is true.

However, it appears that there might be reason to suspect that there might be a causal relationship. So why isn't this being investigated as a matter of urgency?

Yeah, but 100% - or even nearly 100% - correlation certainly is enough to warrant further study.

The OP is a truly smart man, wish there was more like him in the US...

"Every one of these mass shooters was drinking water. And this hey don't show in the media.  YET EVERY SINGLE CASE THESE PEOPLE WERE ON FLUIDS. "

Is a 100% correlation between consuming fluids and going on a murderous rampage also enough to warrant further study?

Well it depends when they drank that water...

Disproportionate representation would be the key phrase I think. As 100% of the population consume water, one would expect 100% of the mass murderers to consume water. If 10% of the population were on psycho-active meds and 10% of the mass murderers were, there wouldn't be much to consider. If 10% of the population were on meds and say 50% of the mass murderers were, it could, perhaps (probably), be argued that the murderers were more likely to be disturbed and thus more likely to be on meds and that further investigation *might* be warranted. If it's 100% of them...

To be certain, I don't think it's the meds. They may have played a role in some cases, they are certainly powerful mind-altering substances but ultimately, this kind of thing has been going on for a long time, certainly since before meds became so wantonly prescribed. It definitely should receive some kind of scrutiny. But who benefits from fewer drugs prescribed to kids except for a few peasants? Certainly not doctors, teachers, pharma companies,  lobbyists or politicians.

Good point. It may actually be water withdrawal that caused their psychotic behaviour. However, the clear correlation that also exists between patients with cancer and water consumption implies that water is extremely toxic, so I think it's more likely that water (arther than  than lack of water) caused the behaviour.

Either way I think there's a good case against allowing individuals at risk of psychotic behviour to consume water in any quantities and in any foodstuff, at least until further studies can be completed.

Yes, that is my point. A clear correlation is by itself certainly insufficient cause for spending your limited time researching something.


I'm with you up to there ...... but then I am disappoint:


Why do you think this is true?

I can think of plenty of ways doctors could profit from not prescribing drugs - parents would be at their wits end and might try any treatment regardless of it's efficacy. Lobbyists and politicians can make just as much money when trying to change laws as when trying to maintain them. And pharmaceutical companies don't make most of their money from anti-psychotics, so I doubt it would bother them at all.
 

Ahh, but there is not a 100% correlation of consuming fluids and going on a rampage. Or else 100% of people who consume fluids would also go on a rampage.

So, nice try, but you should probably try a different angle.

The same can be said of people who take antipsychotic drugs. Not all go on a murderous rampage. By your own logic, that's not a 100% correlation.

Doctors get quite substantial kickbacks from pharma companies for prescribing drugs. It's shocking how much. Lobbyists have to get their money from somewhere and at the moment, pharma is a big earner. And it doesn't need to be that they make most of their money from anti-psychotics, merely that they make enough to hire lobbyists and politicians.

All I'm really saying is that it could do with some scrutiny.

True. But it is a hell of a lot stronger correlation than people who were consuming liquids. And of those on anti-psychotics who do not go on a murderous rampage, a higher percentage commit other violent acts as compared to the general population. Now, drawing a causative conclusion from that may be the equivalent of concluding that hospitals cause deaths, since a higher percentage of people who go to hospitals die than in the general population. Still, such a strong correlation warrants at least a second look.

I wonder how many mass murderers smoked weed.