Bitcoin Forum

In my years of selling weapons, I have yet to figure this out.

That's interesting. Someone voted yes. I'd be very interested in hearing the story there.

inb4 matt referencing OP to be atlas

Because it's a policeman.

Ha, that could be. My Dad was an FBI trained weapons expert and lifelong LEO. But he was in favor of gun control and the day he retired he was most excited about never having to keep track of his gun again.

A little story...

In Canada, we made the gun registry a decade ago (a real big mess that cost 5 times the initial price). But at least, it been completed. Now, Harper(our crazy PM) decided that he wanted to destroy the gun registry with all the data in it because he want to relax the gun controls laws. You know who protested the most against it? Yeah, our police services.

Why? Because it made their job easier.

I know policemans who were proud of saying that they never used their gun in their career (after 20-25 years of service).

If I pay high taxes, it's to be able to pay professionals who can handle guns in a responsible way to protect my ass.

You're probably right, it was a cop/ex-cop.


So do I. A policeman who never has to fire his weapon is a very happy one indeed. (well, if he's a "good" cop)


Obligatory AnCap comment: Couldn't you do that without also paying for other services you don't use/want?

[Moved to the other topic]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98114.0

Thanks. I opted to continue this conversation here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=98114.0 rather than derail this thread.

Am I the only one who counted "restrict them from kids" as gun control? Even without laws against it I'd want to stop anyone who knowingly gave guns to children.

I don't know this for a fact, but I bet almost all gun owners would agree with restrictions on children. That is the the law now in the U.S. If you are a child you can go hunting with a grown-up but can't carry a gun. Having said that, I got my first real gun when I was 10 and took it to the woods all the time. :)

Only the long gun (rifles, shotguns, etc.) registry is gone.  handguns and stuff still need to be registered and licensed, which I fully agree with.

The long gun registry was nothing but a money burning boondoggle and never would have made any difference to anything.  Exactly how often do you hear about a murder or robbery involving a rifle?

Pitching the long gun registry out is the ONLY thing I agree with the Conservatives on.

The fuss is mainly with the destruction of the data. We paid for it, why is he destroying everything? If Canadians don't want to manage the registry, fine, we can do it ourself. Maybe the RCMP doesn't use it, but our own national police force is interested in keeping the data. We consider the gun registry as a useful tool and we want to keep using it.

Don't wonder why half the Quebec wants to get out. We always get forced decisions like that down our throat, and we need to sue the country for something that our own provincial government could easily manage. Give us the data and stop messing around.

Gun registries have proved extremely useful for burglars and genocidal war criminals...

To answer the poll question, many gun control advocates "own" guns, as the entire International Criminals Union supports "gun control" (making victims defenseless to keep criminals alive and prosperous). Why would a criminal choose to be as defenseless as his victims are legally required to be?

Gun control in the US? Absolutely.

There are many countries with a lot more guns per capita than the US that have far fewer gun related crimes, so clearly the gun isn't the issue. But violence seems to be embedded in US culture and that's why gun control is necessary. Fewer guns, fewer killings/injuries.

Like taking pointy objects away from out-of-control children.

Fix the culture and the gun control can go away again.

Fewer guns in the hands of good Samaritans, more killings/injuries with all other weapons.

Here's a good starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism

Seems about right. "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right."

When US-ians stop shooting at each other and start behaving like other countries gun-wielding citizens, they can have their guns back.

Well, looking at this info it seems that other weapons are less lethal, which is probably why we developed guns in the first place.

Direct admission to the mortuary was three times as common in cases of gunshot compared with stab wounds. The hospital mortality rate for gunshot wounds was 8 times that for stab wounds. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1997/02/24/knives-00006/

More limited access to guns, fewer deaths. Some criminals would still have them, but most wouldn't risk it if carrying one was an offense that had a few years imprisonment attached to it.

If your goal is to prevent harm to others, then you also want to prevent the potential harm from NOT having a gun. Since the whole group won't grow up at the same time, it's more fair and efficient to evaluate this on a case-by-case basis with mandatory liability insurance (like cars). That way you won't deem society ready and give guns to idiots, and won't deem society unready and deny guns to to cautious trained citizens.

Gun laws DON'T reduce murders, look it up if you don't believe me.

I think C. S. Lewis said it best:

Like I said in my OP I think it's the culture that needs to change. In a violent culture you need to limit the access to dangerous things. You would also rather be accidentally stabbed during a robbery, than accidentally shot. Or even intentionally stabbed come to think about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The US is far higher than Canada, Europe or Australia, which are the usual comparison objects. Three to four times higher.

Give everybody guns, violent culture fixes self.

Gonna need a mop, though.

Great solution. Make sure everyone tries to be the most violent. That will turn out well I'm sure.

If you want to select for peacefulness, it is best if peaceful people have the tools to defend against violent behavior. A peaceful person does not become violent when armed, but he does become a more dangerous target for the violent people to attack.

Correct, which is what mandatory liability insurance would do. You haven't justified just having one sweeping policy for the foolish and wise alike.


Would you rather face a robber while you are armed or unarmed?


I'm not disputing American aggression. I'm disputing a causality between permissive gun laws and homocide rate, so you'd have to show how homocides decrease in jurisdictions once gun bans are enacted.

What does living in a violent environment do to people?

The state cultivates violence. It is a system entirely based on violence. You want to prevent violence by using the treat of violence to remove peoples ability to defend themselves from said violence.

What is a more violent environment,
this (Porcfest 2009):
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2484/3660895006_9bf4b133d8_z.jpg?zz=1

or this (just a few days ago):
http://ww3.hdnux.com/photos/14/52/70/3321374/7/628x471.jpg

I once had a Wise Gunnery Sargent in the Marine Corps that said "The only reason the United States, has not or will not ever get invaded is, There are enough weapons to arm every Man, Women and Child willing to defend there land. No self respecting person would let any one come take there land. It really has nothing to do with the country it has to do with what is protecting what is yours. Your country, your state, your county, your city, your block. Its yours and if you like the way you live, you would shoot any invader foreign or domestic trying to take it plain and simple."

I am a believer of this 100%, if there is a will there is a way gun or no gun. Crackheads will rob you with a gun or a knife does not matter.
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/Senate/PDF/S34v0.pdf
 
And here is a perfect example

http://www.jdnews.com/articles/investigating-102834-police-shooting.html

USMC 6541 Aviation Ordie tech.... I built bombs and worked on there electronic systems.
 IYAOYAS b*tches!

**** edit ****
New York has a anti hand gun law and it has DONE NOTHING!

What sweeping policy have I proposed?

I have been robbed. I was unarmed and gave up what little I had on me. He got a little cash, I got away unharmed. Had I been armed I might have resisted which would have ended badly for one of us.

I'm not sure how to do that. Perhaps if you give guns to inmates on one US prison where the offenders are violent, and compare the effects to a regular prison?

Or, you could compare violent crime rates in countries both before and after gun laws were passed, like this guy did:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636

Sweet I'm going to get that book for bathroom reading lol

Do you always avoid answering questions by asking a question of your own?

And, from just looking at the pictures, obviously the second one. But what you're proposing if I understand you correctly, is that everywhere should be like the second pic. Arm everybody.

There is no such thing as peace..... If someone wants something bad enough they will take it, if it be a person or a president.

It will turn out very well if we kill off the hand wringers first followed by the thugs and those who think it's cool to hold the gun sideways when you shoot it.
Society will quickly right itself and members will be polite towards each other again.

I used to be a gun control advocate, but then I took an arrow in the knee.

I answered your question by not answering it. I ceded the point. Yes, a violent environment makes people violent. But note that while we only see one person open carrying in the first picture, there is no reason why everyone there would not be armed, even Bongo-boy there. The situation, however, is not violent, regardless of how many people are armed, because the people are peaceful. The second picture, on the other hand, is violent, because the people with the guns are violent. A little backstory: That gentleman there with the knife was minding his own business, smoking something that "looked like a marijuana cigarette", and is simply (unsuccessfully, and unwisely) attempting to defend himself from their aggression.

"Everybody" isn't armed in that picture, only the thugs in the blue costumes are.

States, as in US states I assume.
What if the opposite had been done? What if guns had been removed from everybody but the police, what then? Perhaps that would have reduced violent crimes even more. No way to know.

Guns are tools for killing. That's what they do. They make killing easy. If killing is harder to do, fewer people will probably do it. Or at least succeed at it. By how much is anyone's guess.

This is what I used to sound like, I guess I've grown up since then... Guns ARE tools for killing, and when you need to kill someone you want it to be easier for you than it is for them

No, he also examines other countries, such as England. Crime rates went up (still low, but did increase). Read the book, or at least the wiki page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

Guns a tool for killing or a way to keep some dumb ass from robing me? If they know I got a gun and they come in my house to rob/rape/murder eat my munchies and they know I got a gun, it will make them think twice.

I get that everybody isn't armed. But that was your suggestion a few posts up, wasn't it? Arm everybody. Did I get that wrong?

Not sure how US police handles things, but if there's a law (agree or not) that you break (or not) and police comes to question you about it, and you pull a knife, you're really not defending yourself are you?

I did say it was unwise, what the man did, did I not? ;)

And yes, my suggestion was to arm everyone, like in the first picture. Peaceful armed people do not suddenly become violent.

I agree I think like everything education is key.

Oh, you have a little master suppression technique going there. Implying that I somehow lack the mental capability to understand what you have grasped. Bravo.
Point 1.2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_suppression_techniques

Gun prohibition before "we're" grown up, and legalization after. This is opposed to handling it on a case-by-case basis with liability insurance.
Do you always rely on personal anecdote to support your political beliefs? Perhaps armed AntiCap would be reflecting on how he could have been stabbed anyways.

No, not really, just that I see the world differently then when I used to sound like you, Not to imply I think you are not grown up, just that I was not when I was anti-gun.

And you are so cute when you are angry.

Maturity ≠ mental capability. Lacking one does not indicate you lack the other, and stating that someone lacks one does not imply that they lack the other.

Actually, it's far easier to kill with most everything but guns. Guns make LOTS OF NOISE, and handgun fatalities are rare, according to morbidity stats. Full auto rifle fatalities at further than contact distances are also rare, when you realize that most of that lead is spraying everywhere but at the target's vital organs, if it even hits the target at all.

You only begin to approach the difficulty of killing with a gun if you are screaming like a banshee while you wield whatever silent weapon you're about to use. And yes, that even means bombs, because once they make noise, either the suicide bomber is dead (stupid suicide bombers announcing their intentions get shot in the head), or the command detonator is safely away. Smart killers (real ones, not fictional ones with 'silencers' that in real life, don't silence SHIT) use guns as a last resort, and only at the furthest imaginable distances so they minimize their chances of getting caught.

You don't have to go to Camp Peary to know this common sense shit.

You're right, guns are tools.  They have a specific purpose and use.  That's how cops use them too, right?  They kill people every day with them, and yet you don't advocate that the cops stop carrying them, do you?  When you get down to the root of the gun control argument, it's about trust.  We're supposed to be able to trust men in uniform, but when these same men are wearing street clothes; whether simply off-duty or retired from service, they're no longer trustworthy?  If you can't imagine yourself comfortable around someone that you know is armed & not wearing a badge, your choices involve carrying yourself to even the odds or simply advocating for government to remove firearms from the public spaces.  The former requires much from you, including the responsiblity to brush up on both the law concerning justifiable use of force and the practical skills required in safely using a firearm; as well as the rather steep personal cost of obtaining the weapon to start with.  The latter option is simply easier, as is doesn't require anything from you other than a vote and imposes the burden of enforcement upon the police & those who wish to carry for whatever reason.  The facts remain, though, that any practical level of reducing the number of firearms in public is impossible by statutes.  Firearms are very old tech, and easily produced by skilled people today, and soon enough it will be possible to print out a crude firearm on a hobby level 3D printer.  And this one might actually be all plastic.

http://defensedistributed.com/

Is that somehow better you think? Implying that I lack maturity? What if I was a gun advocate before but matured into my current position?

"Matured" into acting out of fear, rather than logic?

When you grow up, you'll realize there's no need to fear peaceful people.

I find this statement to be funny.

Oh yes, quite humorous that I would wonder why a gun control advocate would have a gun.

Of course, I had not considered that there might be police officers or ex-police officers responding.

I find this statement funny as well. I don't think you really know who's responding.

I know I responded. That's the only person who I know has responded. I don't even know if you have. Honestly, I don't care.

gun control works only for honest people ...

Bad guys still get theys weapons ...

as a bad guy I would vote for gun control ...

I'm honest ... and vote against any gun control .

Replace gun control with, "marijuana prohibition",  "internet filter", "DRM" the bad guys will still be doing bad things, and the honest people will be limited

At a certain point the line between good and bad will be so blurred the government will have us all locked in work camps (Maybe biden wasn't being racist, maybe they are going to put y'all back in chains, all y'all) .... Being unarmed is only going to help.

So very true, and this is the way the U.S.A is moving sadly.

Is that the same logic that you used before? "If we arm everybody and put them in a violent society, there will be peace"?
Did you know that in the UK most police doesn't carry a gun? And while they have slightly higher crime rates, they have fewer homicides by gun, or gun crimes overall. And carrying a gun has a stiff penalty attached. Someone mentioned in another thread that incentives work. Indeed they do.

I don't fear peaceful people. Never have. I do however want it to be damn hard for someone intoxicated, psychotic or otherwise mentally unhinged to get access to a gun. People do go bat-shit crazy sometimes, even for short periods of time. Drugs, desperation, something else, it does happen.

And when it does, I want to be able to defend myself, and my family, thanks.

Yes, if you arm everyone (especially the peaceful people), in a violent society (such as the US), there will be peace. More guns, Less crime (http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493636). If you outlaw guns, the peaceful, law-abiding people are the ones who give them up first. That leaves them in the hands of the violent criminals...

someone bat-shit crazy is more likely to get a gun if guns are criminal, criminals don't do mental health checks

The UK is a criminals' utopia. As a criminal, not only can you murder, rape, maim, and commit all lesser crimes with effective impunity, but if your victims defend themselves with absolutely reasonable force or even lesser force, THEY go to prison.

You don't have to worry about the violent criminals, unless you're a violent criminal yourself. They attack each others, rarely anybody else. Other people are collateral damage. The people you need to worry about are your neighbors.  Peaceful, law-abiding citizens that at one time might combine the wrong medication with alcohol and become psychotic. You have a better chance of defending yourself if both carry something else than a gun, and the effects are often less tragic.

I don't think we live in the same reality.

This is the case in most of the EU.

No shops get robbed/extorted? No one gets mugged?

If criminals only interact with criminals, why would what they do be illegal?

You don't need to worry about the batman, unless you are the batman yourself.

You get your view of the world from comics?

Please back that up with some statistics. Love to see it.

Sure they do. Rarely with any fatalities though.
Obviously it's not only between criminals, but the majority of gun violence is between them. Which is what I was talking about, if that was unclear. It's so rare that you don't have to worry about it. I mean, you could get hit by an asteroid tomorrow, but you don't worry about that, do you?

The majority of gun violence occurs between the violent criminals because that's the only situation where both sides have guns. True, the shopkeep doesn't get shot, but that's because he handed over the cash when the criminal started waving around a pistol. The mugging victim doesn't get shot, but that's because he handed over his watch and wallet as soon as the criminal pulled the gun. The home invasion robbery victims don't get shot, but that's because they cowered in a corner as soon as the criminals shoved shotguns in their faces. The rape victim doesn't get shot, but that's because she didn't resist when the rapist pointed a gun at her.

There's no violence, if you don't resist. Doesn't mean there wasn't a crime.

I still think there's violence, even if somebody doesn't resist, however ...

...the shopkeeper doesn't get shot because he handed over the money. That's a good thing, right? Nobody shot. If bullets start flying there's probably going to be at least one fatality. Same with the mugging victim, or home invasion (how common is that, really?). And unless you're about to shoot uncle Bob, or your co-worker at the Christmas party, or any other acquaintance,  guns don't really help much against rape either. You do know that rapes by strangers are rare, right?

I do see a lot of benefits to guns, just not in the hands of every man, woman and child on the planet.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/gallery?section=news/local&id=8604253&photo=1

Read that they got shot and did not do a damn thing, now if they had a gun to protect themselves they could be alive today.

If cousin Sally regularly carries her S&W Ladysmith wherever she goes, maybe Uncle Bob thinks twice about doing anything untoward. Maybe that co-worker decides to just have another drink instead of following her into the supply closet, on the off chance she really did just need to go get some rubber bands. Maybe the mugger sees the pistol on the guy's hip and decides that this guy will not be the easy mark he was hoping for. Maybe the robber thinks twice when he sees the sign on the door: "Warning, Cashier is ARMED." As to the home invasion, well, have a peek at this (http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/06/25/14-year-old-phoenix-boy-shoots-armed-intruder/).

The police here would have him charged with murder and pushed for trial as an adult... The courts would have (hopefully) let him go free, I know of one story of a guy getting cleared after he shot an intruder (with a gun he wasn't meant to have), We have gun control, but also a legal obligation to do anything to protect ourselves, that anything part is the kicker, reasonable force when your life is under threat, is deadly force, But we are not allowed to have weapons to help with that.

This is all I have to say
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/8851/gunlaw.jpg

Except that's not how most rapes happen. Read a bit more about it. Uncle Bob starts with a few innocent things that eventually progresses. The colleague takes advantage of someone that had too much to drink, or changed her mind when they reached the bedroom.
A mugger that sees an armed person will hopefully not attack, or they will see the threat and act to neutralize it first. All depending on the level of desperation. Same goes for the shopkeeper. Shoot first and get money later. In any case the assault will be more violent, not less.

As for the home invasion, well, I got scolded earlier for using anecdotal evidence by someone on this forum. Is that something that goes both ways?

It doesn't really work that way.  Have you ever heard of someone robbing a gun store at gunpoint?

Or a doughnut shop with three cop cars parked out front?

Lmfao thats a great way to put it

Key word missing: successfully.

Yes, yes I have. http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/87598762.html
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_fefbf848-af8b-5be4-b41d-2d3aaec10d77.html

However that is obviously not the most common crime. You would only rob a gun store if you needed guns, not cash.

Notice he said AT GUNPOINT.

It appears both links you provided were pure strong-arm robberies. In other words, hand to hand combat only. Both attributable to lack of preparation on the part of the victims. They let the perps close distance and apparently because the perps were unarmed, they felt they couldn't shoot. Even an unarmed robbery of a gun shop justifies homicide in self-defense (assuming the perps end up being rare fatalities from handgun wounds), because if you don't neutralize the threat, criminals get the guns and can kill you and god knows how many others.

There's a video in the Guns thread, I think, of just such an action. They go in with, if I remember correctly, a shotgun, and come out with several more guns and whatever was in the register. Ballsy move, but had the clerk been armed, and proper security measures been followed, it would never have happened.

The doughnut shop example still stands, though.


That's the idea. Though the events will still happen, if the assailants are desperate enough, and when they do, they'll be bloodier, that very bloodiness will deter most of them from happening in the first place. Reducing the level of desperation in the society is important too (but isn't really relevant to a gun control discussion).

Even that's apples and oranges. If you're not able and willing to protect your merchandise or your life by any means necessary, your merchandise will be taken, and you have to pray they don't load your merchandise and take your life.

I assume you aren't familiar with soviet union. There were plenty of armed factions fighting it.... And still didn't help a bit.

During WW2 in Ukraine there were plenty of ukrainian freedom fighters, in the end they were all crushed: and they had access to weapons, plenty of them. Guns cannot protect against an army, not 60 years ago, not today. And that picture exactly what happened to UNA, OUN and others.


The organized mobs are much stronger than the disorganized ones. The only thing that crushed Soviets was greed.

Well, no, the doughnut example won't stand either I'm afraid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa-wfOo36qY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHg56J3yhLQ

I agree that the best thing to do is to reduce desperation levels, and  also that it's not relevant here.
Have you ever had anything to do with criminals? I don't mean victimized, but worked with them? I have, by association, done that. They are not generally deterred by consequences, since few of them plan that far, or if they do they are convinced that they will come out on top. The assault will be bloodier, and that's about it. Best case nobody is seriously hurt. Worst case someone lost a son/daughter/father/mother.

Well, I have seen criminals in prison saying they were scared shitless of armed victims, and that they sought softer targets if they knew their victims could defend themselves. So shove your pro-criminal safety BS where the sun don't shine, because that's the only place it can survive.

This.

Very eloquent.
Yes, robbers seek the easiest target. The ones that aren't a threat. I agree with that. What I don't agree with is your solution. Do you honestly think that a robber won't need any money if people around him are armed, or do you think he will work out a way to neutralize the threat that his intended victims now pose?

What robber would you rather meet? A confident one that believes that he can take your money and get away safely, or one that is scared beyond belief that you might be armed and could shoot him at any moment?

OK, see, now you've gone fully off the "criminal safety" deep end.

If the criminal is so scared, maybe he should try earning his money, rather than taking it by force?

I don't care about the criminals safety. Ok, a little bit then, but mostly the victims. Even a criminal should get the opportunity to better himself, and until he does we should try to mitigate the damage he does, and keep him away from society until we have given him the tools to coexist with it. That includes helping him find a way to earn his own money.

Great! Then let's give him an incentive to "go straight" on his own, namely, safety. Rather than keeping him away from society, why don't we offer him opportunities within society to better his position without using violence?

Threatening him with violence isn't a working incentive. Criminals are threatened by institutionalized violence every day. Doesn't really scare them straight now does it? If you want to help, which I'm all for, you need early intervention in schools, extra resources dedicated to helping kids in danger. Social programs to help single parents. Early diagnosis and treatment of kids with mental disabilities.  That's how you reduce crime.
Education, and help to find a job for those who already are committing crimes. Tools for them to handle their issues. That's what to do if you want to help people to "go straight".

None of the above is relevant for the topic however.

I see crimes as a result of social problems. Adding a lot of guns to the mix doesn't solve the problems. It attacks the symptoms, with a lot of extra bloodshed.

i wanna know when the citizenry get to have some sabo orbiting rounds

Screw that, I want a Californium-251 mini-bomb on me, capable of producing say 100 tonnes of TNT-blast, all connected to a hidden switch, as well as an EKG and an EEG, so if I get killed in a robbery people will know, and the robber won't survive. That would give criminals incentives not to rob me, and people nearby incentive to keep me safe as a baby.

So long as you advertise that fact. One robber comes along who doesn't know, and your estate will have one hefty class-action suit to deal with.

Why do I have to advertise it? Are concealed weapons not allowed in your world?
And why my estate? I didn't hurt anybody. Go pester the robbers estate. He was the one who triggered the device.

Incentives don't work if nobody knows about it. You wouldn't be safe if your nuclear bomb-vest was concealed. You'd just be a walking timebomb. As to which estate gets to deal with the class action suit, since any and all possible witnesses have been vaporized, the only one we can conclusively prove to have been at the scene is you, with your vest. And since you're not around, either, to point the finger at the robber, well, guess who gets the blame for the smoking crater in the middle of the city?

Well, in your world he'd have to assume I'm armed. Which would deter him. Right?

I'll just have to stream a camera feed to the cloud to prove my innocence should a class action arise. Problem solved.

But you specifically said that the criminals would be incentivized not to attack you, and the people around you incentivized to keep you safe. Those incentives would not work in the least if your nuke-vest is a secret. There's a distinct difference between "assuming you're armed", and "assuming your death will wipe out a significant section of the city"

And even assuming the EMP from your demise doesn't wipe the record of it, the robber killed you, but you killed all the others. especially if you didn't advertise the fact that your death would create a crater 3 city blocks in size.

Yeah, my bad. I won't rely on others. That sounds socialist. I won't incentivize people around me. The fact that I'm armed, with a rather powerful weapon, should deter criminals. It's all about who has the "biggest gun". And mine will be F-ing huge. And I'm not hiding it, I'm just not flaunting it. Shouldn't certain death for the robber and everyone around him be a great deterrent?

I'll make sure the evidence is safe. I'm sure google can provide safe storage. And why is it me who's responsible? Not a single death would have happened if the robber had just let me be. If my car is hit by another car, causing me to spin out of control and hit a pedestrian, am I responsible for the pedestrians death? Same thing.

Deterrents only work if the people being deterred know about them. If you want to be kept safe by your vest-nuke, it had better be very obvious to all who see you that your death will mean theirs.

You need to read up on what nukes do to electronics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse#Characteristics_of_nuclear_EMP). Your storage would not be safe. And a car is not a retributive booby trap. A car is a device designed to get you from one place to another. If you spin out and hit a pedestrian after being struck by another vehicle, that is by definition an accident. The vehicle is not designed to spin out and strike pedestrians. Your vest is simply completing it's designed purpose when it detonates, killing anyone in the vicinity. Since the designed purpose was chosen by you, you are at fault for the destruction your death causes.

I have to inform the criminals that I am armed? Shouldn't the fact that people could be armed deter criminals, wasn't that the original idea? Do people have to carry their guns in the open for your plan to work?
I don't have a death-wish so I'd probably inform any robber that hurting me would mean certain death, but I might withhold details. Then everything is fine, right? I don't want to rely on my speed with a gun to be able to defend myself.


Yes, I know what EMP is, that's why I'm streaming it all to the cloud. Away from my current location.

And my vest is designed to keep me safe from robbers. It's not designed to explode, that would kill me. It would only do so if someone already killed me, and act as a deterrent for other criminals knowing what might happen. So who's fault is it in the car example? Who should pay restitution? I would argue that it isn't me being hit. In either case I have taken no action to hurt anyone, other peoples actions has caused others to be hurt. Am I responsible for other peoples actions?
Oh, and I thought you didn't believe in "designed purpose" as in the example with the guy using a gun for target practice in a kids park?

Remember this?

Yeah, that still applies. If you want to defend yourself, wear a bullet-proof vest, not a nuclear bomb one. The bullet-proof vest is designed to protect you. The nuclear bomb vest is designed to explode when you die. You build a device that is designed to ensure that you take anyone nearby with you, that's on you when it does exactly what it was built to do. Have you ever considered you might come to accidental harm?

The funny thing is that you said this in the other thread:

Yet you're the one spouting idiotic notions like a concealed nuclear bomb is supposed to be a deterrent. Everything I say is logical. Everything you say is from out in left field.

You're the one saying that guns work as a deterrent. Well, do they or don't they? I could say the same. If you want to defend yourself, get a bullet proof vest, not a gun.

If the bomb should go off by accident I suppose that I do have to pay restitution to those affected, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

A gun is used to defend yourself. A bomb vest that explodes when you die is not used to defend yourself, it's used to deliver retribution to your attacker.


I'm done talking to you on this.

So if the robber gets a shot off hitting you in the gut that will cause you to bleed out you shouldn't fire back and "deliver retribution to your attacker"? Interesting position.
But fine, I'll have a switch on it too. "Leave now or we both die". See, now it's an offensive weapon too. I can defend myself with it. The best the robber can do is lose, he can never win. With a gun he has a chance of winning. Not now. Even if he shoots me he loses.

I understand that you're in a difficult position. Nobody wants to allow somebody to walk around with a nuclear bomb on them. The whole idea is absurd, yet your ideology tells you that there's no way you can prevent it, all you an do is look at the crater and say "Oh, well, somebody might have to pay restitution". I find that amusing.

By all means. just leave the kids in the school on the next block out of it.

And now I'm done talking to you at all, until you start acting sane. Welcome to the ignore list.

So that's how you win arguments? "Waah, you don't agree with me so I'm going to ignore you because I'd rather talk to people who agree with me".

There is a risk that people will get hurt if the bomb goes off, but risk != harm, right? Anything could happen. The trigger could click on the bomb, a divine intervention, anything.
The reasonable response here would be "No, we shouldn't allow people to carry nukes". But you can't say that. Can you?

No, I disagree with many people who are not on my Ignore list. I put people on ignore for being assholes. See my "discussion" with Rarity for details.

Here's how an AnCap society might handle an asshole like you carrying a nuke rigged to explode upon their death:

If you advertise the fact that you are carrying such a device, you will find that everywhere you go, everyone has mysteriously disappeared. You would indeed be completely safe from robbers. And shopkeepers. And traffic jams, so at least there's that. Or, of course, you may be disallowed to enter any area, because the owners don't like the risk of you tripping, breaking your neck, and destroying their property. Either way, good luck getting lunch.

If you don't advertise it, and someone spots the fact that you have a bomb strapped to you, you will be treated as a terrorist. If you're lucky, they'll simply draw on you and order you to disarm the bomb. Since your only recourse is to do so, or to trigger it, and as you say, it's a defensive system, not an attack system, you'll disarm it. If you're unlucky, the last thing you (and everyone in the vicinity) will hear is "he's got a bomb!" Assuming your defense system does not backfire on you and kill you and everyone around you, you will then be expelled from the property. Once again, good luck getting lunch.

You're welcome to own nuclear explosives. You're welcome to carry them. You are not welcome to arm them and carry them around keyed to your vital signs. That makes you a terrorist, and you will be treated as such.

I'm sorry you think I'm an asshole. I don't think the same about you. A bit funny in a weird way, but not an asshole.

Advertising the device doesn't seem like a good idea then. I do like lunch.

Having a weapon makes me a terrorist? Not my intent?
What right do people have to order me to disarm my weapon. Don't I have the same rights as everybody else to carry a weapon?

I don't think my device makes me a terrorist. It makes me very dangerous, but not a terrorist. And someone with a regular gun is also very dangerous, should something out of the ordinary happen to them. Psychosis or so.

And I'm a peaceful guy. I wish no harm. There are people who do. But you still don't want to prevent people from owning nukes?

No, I do not want to prevent people from owning nukes. There are plenty of legit reasons to own, and even use, a nuke. As mutually assured destruction for muggers... no. Killing completely innocent people because you had a fatal accident is a terroristic act.

Someone with a regular gun can be disabled by shooting them. In the mean time, they, can only kill people one at a time. A nuke let off in a city will cause massive devastation. If you truly wish no harm, then don't take actions which may cause harm without your intent to cause it. That means don't cart around a nuke keyed to your vitals.

As to what right they have to order you to disarm your weapon, compare it to a loaded, cocked pistol being waved around. Just as in that situation, you are threatening everyone around you with random death. A disarmed nuke hurts nobody, but an armed one could kill everyone in the vicinity. The man waving the loaded, cocked gun around would be ordered to safe and holster his weapon unless he wants to get shot. It would be no different for some asshole with a bomb strapped to himself.

Now, are you willing to admit that your example was ridiculous?

Who are you to decide what use I make of my property? If it's mine I should be able to do what I please with it.
And I believe that terrorism is supposed to have an agenda, to coerce. From wikipedia Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. . Although it also says that there's no common definition exists. If I fall and break my neck, triggering the device and killing people, that's an accident. A preventable one at that, but still an accident. Not terrorism.

You're not being consistent. Earlier it was fine to fire a rifle through a park, now it's not fine to wave a gun around.
As to having a bomb strapped to me, where's the harm? I believe that was your question in another thread too.

Yes the example is ridiculous, but so is the notion that nukes should be available to whatever person or group wants one.

Thank you, that's all we have to say.

I'm using your ridiculous ideas. You're the one who believes that I should be allowed to carry a nuke. Your ideology doesn't do anything to prevent it. It's an extreme example, but one that could happen.

How about answering the other questions, or do you admit your inconsistency and the fallacy of your system? It's a nice simple theory, that would never work in the real world.

I'm being perfectly consistent. I'll address your idiocy one statement at a time.


Certainly it is, and you're welcome to do whatever you want with it. Just understand that if you go onto someone else's property with a device designed to destroy it if any harm comes to you, you will not be allowed to stay. If you pull a weapon and point it at someone, don't be surprised if you get shot. And that is exactly what you are doing, arming a nuke, pointing a gun at everyone nearby, even people who don't know you're there.


Your stated reason for carrying the nuke is to receive protection. You're threatening harm to everyone even remotely near you as a defense against mugging. If that isn't the "systematic use of terror", I don't know what is.


Again, perfectly consistent. Firing a rifle through a public park isn't the same as waving a gun around. You specifically stated that the shooter had set up targets, and as I said, if he wanted to avoid confusion, he should inform the people in the park that he's about to do some target practice. If you want to avoid being confused with a suicide bomber, you should inform everyone that the explosive strapped to you is wired to your vitals, and nothing will happen as long as you're safe. Of course, recall what I said about lunch.


Oh, there's no harm to strapping a bomb to you. As I said, you're welcome to carry a nuclear device. An armed bomb is another matter. That's the equivalent of pointing a gun at every individual within range of the explosion.

Myrkul has dragged you down the rabbit hole, into his world view, which:

- Lacks commons sense
- Prefers to be built upon ignorance
- Encourages absurdity
- Has not been tested on any meaningful scale (for obvious reasons)
- Is hypocritical
- Is contradictory
- Requires arguments supporting it that conveniently leave out practicalities
- Is coercive
- Leaves no place to go where one is not subject to the whims of others

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=92501.msg1062338#msg1062338

That's cute. At least I've never been so immature as to present my opinion of you outside the context of some thread where you're pontificating on the mechanisms of your fantasy world. Instead, I say it like it is to your face, or where you'll hear me loud and clear, like right here, and directly addressing your unending garbage, all based on crackpot websites.

Insights into the mind of myrkul: witness where myrkul entertains, even leans towards the notion that the Colorado shooting was all faked: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94471.msg1046661#msg1046661

Is this the mind of someone whose ideas you wish to take seriously?

Yes, crackpot websites like Mises.org, and Wikipedia, and crackpot authors like Frederic Bastiat, and Murray Rothbard.
::)

Feel free to take all your further insults of me to the thread I linked above, rather than cluttering up other threads with your bullshit.

Mykul is using 'reducum ad absurdum' to highlight the rediculouslessness of the current system.  Of course anyone willing to build and carry around a nuke is a threat to everyone around him, same for a bomb vest.  The real point here is not that you gunbanners actually believe that you can remove weapons from society, because you don't advocate removing weapons from governments or it's agents.  There is the big, pink elephant in the room.  That governments have nuclear missiles pointed at each other all of the time, and are a constant threat to each other, and all of us happen to be in the way.  So we are under threat every minute of our lives.  So the real point here is not that someone should or should not be prevented from possessing a nuke; because the practical reality is that it's not governments that actually prevent this, it's the high cost of such a weapon and it's limited usefulness to anyone with his head on straight.  But the same argument applies to any military grade weapon that a person could afford and have a practical use for, and therefore any less military/offense in design and more defensive in design as well, such as a home-defense shotgun or a handgun; the opinions of what others believe are appropriate notwithstanding.  I've shot many a full-auto machine gun, and they a a great time.  A minigun costs about $40 per second to actually fire, so it's not exactly a poor man's hobby; but who are you to say what I can't do for fun?

So as to prevent a hijack by FistAsshole, I'll copy my previous post here:

You have failed to address the fact that governments point nukes at each other precisely because governments, taken as entities, exist in an AnCap society. In an AnCap society, there are households, with parents, guardians, etc. who lay down rules for the rest of the residents. Likewise, in the AnCap society of this world where the governments are the households, there are rules. In general, in a household, or a within a state, the rules are that no member should point a weapon at another.

What needs to be addressed about that?  Nation states function in an environment of functional anarchy, kept in check by their own sanity and the consequences of aggression.  I'm not an anarchist, though, so I shouldn't have tp defend that position. I was merely pointing out the double standard among gun control advocates, for I have met exactly zero that advocate disarming the police.

The right to bear arms is what protects all other rights.

Criminals don't obey laws.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.  (Government agents too.. but I repeat myself.)

M

The crazy is strong with this one, I can tell.

1) Yes, I can do whatever I want with it but no I can't? Make up your mind. I have certainly not pointed a gun at anybody, not even figurativly. I have a device that prevents you from winning a fight with me.

2) I'm incentivizing. You're the one calling it terror. I'm just carrying a big gun. There could be some collateral damage, I agree, but the mugger could miss me while shooting at me and hit the nursing home behind me, so that damage could happen anyway.

3) The park shooting wasn't my example actually, but I quite enjoy it. How can you fire a rifle without handling it in the open first (or waving it around if you will)?. So I can wave a gun around, and if someone kills me for it they will have to pay my family restitution? Let's just pretend you didn't want to ban me from my gun-waving earlier.
And the park shooting guy, he's preparing to shoot through the park right now, and I see this as a threat to my family and friends still in there somewhere, and he's adamant about shooting right now, assuring me that he will pay restitution if he hits anyone in my family. Can I use my own gun to shoot him before he hits anybody, or do I have to wait until somebody dies?

4) So a gun is fine, but a loaded gun isn't? Again, I'm not harming anybody. And if they feel that I'm somehow threatening them I'm cool with them pointing a gun at me. No biggie. They might percieve me as a threat, but that's not my problem. And anybody in that room with a gun could also pe percieved as a threat.

I also happen to have a few asshole cousins. They also love nuclear bombs and they hate your way of life. They will do anything to hurt you. Sorry about that. But I'm sure the nuke they're buying has a legit purpose.

Yes, but enough about yourself, we're talking about weapons here. I've taken the liberty of correcting your spelling errors.


Well, if I have a gun drawn and aimed at your head, you certainly can't win any fight with me, either. The problem lies not in the fact that you have a device which prevents me from winning any fight with you, but in the fact that the device also threatens everyone within range. A bomb is not a shield.


Assuming that the mugger was using a nuclear hand grenade, yes. But he's not. He's using a firearm. Use proportional force, ie another firearm. You're not just carrying a big gun. You're pointing that gun at everyone in range, and saying, "Better not fuck with me, or I'll blow you all away!"


It's public property. That's where the problem lies. It's his land too. Get your friends out of his shooting range, if you feel they're being threatened.


Again, a loaded gun is fine, as long as it's not being pointed randomly at people. A nuclear device is fine, as long as it's not armed. Armed is not loaded. Armed is hammer cocked and pointed.


A tool is a tool. A nuclear bomb is a tool to make a very large explosion. That explosion can be used for good (say, asteroid mining) or evil (blowing up a city). Guess which category your retributive vest falls under.

I'm a gun control advocate and yes there were guns in my home growing up and I have used them for alligator hunting.  (delicious, but I'm vegetarian now)

What changed my mind was moving to London.  The culture shift from Florida to London was crazy, but one of the things you noticed was that the police generally don't even need to carry guns.  There is still a lot of criminal violence but it tends to be less deadly.  I'm not at all convinced prohibition in general, and of weapons specifically, can't work.  We have too many examples where they have worked just fine.  Consider the danger of automatic weapons, for example.  Though a weapon like a Tommy gun or a fully automatic AK would be a good tool for mass murder, the long term automatic weapon bans in the US have put such weapons out of reach of casual buyers.  You could still get one if you are a collector and you want to pay out a lot, but they are not the types of weapons commonly used by criminals.  We could do the same thing for other guns if we wanted.

As for military stuff like Tanks and nukes, we have a government of the people and for the people.  The military and police use these kind of weapons in our name and if we don't like the government we vote them out instead of shooting them out.  I'm not a legal scholar so I can't tell you how to interpret the second amendment, but if I had my way all of that junk would definitely remain banned.

What is the difference between a semi-auto AR15 and fully auto M-16?

One can fire fully auto, making it even more dangerous.   Though,  I'm not comparing the danger between the two. I'm pointing out how gun control alters the availability between them.  Both should be banned.  That one already has been controlled is simply pointed out to preempt suggestions that such bans don't work.

One small question: Why?

How many M-16s do you believe are in US civilian hands right now?

I don't have precise figures.  Tell me, would it be false of me to suggest:

1.  Much fewer than there are AR-15 and variants.
2.  That it is much less often the weapon used in crimes or mass murder than the AR-15 and variants.  

(And yes, I am aware handguns dwarf both in ownership and criminal use. The point is simply to compare two very similar weapons to note the difference gun control makes between them.)

I have no idea that's why I was asking. I do know that it is said to be pretty easy to turn an AR15 into an M16 and the instructions are freely available online, no idea how many people do this but that would make it difficult to get a good estimate on how effective the suppression of automatic rifle ownership is.

As far as I am aware, easy conversion to real full-auto is a bit of a myth though I imagine it can be done if someone has the right tools.  However, it generally isn't done because for criminal or mass murder purposes you aren't really gaining much and are in some ways losing out on reliability by altering a gun to be fully auto that was not really designed for it. 

As for ownership numbers, I have no idea.  They are so rare I doubt anybody even tracks them.  According to Googling on gun forums, people price out at fully auto AK as a bargain at $10k. (http://www.uzitalk.com/forums/showthread.php?37670-FULL-AUTO-AK-47-PRICE-CHECK)  You can get the legal semi version for much, much less. (http://www.impactguns.com/ak47-rifles.aspx)  Gun control has priced the full auto versions out of the reach of the common criminal, and we could do the same with the semi-auto version if we wanted.

Again, Rarity, this is a very simple question: Why?

As a gun control advocate, you should be able to answer why you think guns should be controlled.

That's the price for a legal one. I have no experience in how easy it is to do the mod or what effects it has on reliability. I do know that you can hear them going off in the hood on 4th of july.

Those are probably AKs. Much cheaper, much more widespread. Also, much more reliable.

Fully auto?  Unlikely.  Maybe bump fired. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgf4FB5wJss)


If you have any stats that show fully automatic weapons are showing up in any numbers worth mentioning in cases of mass murder or crime in the US compared to less controlled weapons, go ahead and post them.  As far as I am aware, you won't find them so the black market prices seem irrelevant. I doubt you will find the prohibition has a downward pressure on the price.  They are highly illegal and there is no demand when a semi-auto does the job just as well.

This is based on a false premise.  Namely that the cost of a legally registered class III weapon is directly corrolated to the black market price of an equivalent weapon.  While there are many ways that regulation can affect the black market prices of such weapons, there comes a point that the black market weapon is cheaper to aquire than a legitimately registered one; then gun control regulations fail.  This price point is always crossed under a complete ban, so it's reasonable to look at places where such weapons are unavailable other than on the black market to take a reasonable guess as to what the maximum that regulations can force up the black market price of such weapons.

There are other practical reasons than just the high cost that criminals don't generally use class III weapons, as they are usually used by thugs who have limited experience with automatic weapons, and even the well trained USMC doesn't use full auto M-16's anymore for the average grunt; because the user has a tendency to squeeze the trigger until his magazine is empty.  A semi-auto is a better weapon most of the time anyway.

This is also an untrue statement.  It's not illegal for a US citizen, with zero history of criminal activities nor mental illness, to own or buy a fully automatic weapon, a short-barreled shotgun, or even a shoulder fired anti-vehicle & wire guided missile.  What is required is a license for each of these classes of federally regulated weapons, and a lot of money.  As you have already alluded to, it's mostly the cost of the process that is the limiting factor.  It is simply not true that there is a ban on such weapons in the US.

Well, your attempt at preemption is a fail, since as I have already pointed out, Class II & Class III weapons are not banned.  They're regulated at the federal level, and rather harshly, but they are not illegal.

http://www.knobcreekrange.com/events/featured-events/machine-gun-shoot

Interesting. You've changed your position twice. In consecutive posts, no less. So, which is it, a good choice, a slight gain, or roughly equal?

From a quick googling it looks like very few automatics are reported to be used in crimes, which at least indicates the type of person who chooses to own one anyway. We would need to see before-ban and after-ban stats to really compare though.

We should also remember that the most successful mass-murder in recent US history was done with box-cutters.

Slow down there.  I was talking directly about black market purchases.  I already discussed the legal option.


Well, it's a premise.  If you want to declare it false, link me the average cost for a black market AK in the US.  I can't dig it up.  However, when we are talking about crime in the US we are talking about guns commonly moving from legal purchases on to the black market.  If we made the fully auto weapons widely available, there is no doubt they would be just as cheap as the semi-auto weapons now and moving through that process to enter the black market.  Gun control prevents that.  The weapons must be imported into a country with very tough law enforcement and a market already flooded with guns.  Better to sell them elsewhere.


Holy triple post.  Slow down.  Weapons like an AK can be owned if they have been grandfathered in, however they are banned for import and for new manufacture for civilian sale. Old grandfathered in weapons are good for collectors and hobbyists, not criminals and murderers.


Well it was a different time.  These regulations date back to the 1930s when Tommy guns in the hands of mobsters and robbers were scaring the shit out of people.  That was all a bit exaggerated though and the gun wasn't that common.  As I've said, fully auto weapons really aren't the best for crime. 


Well, box cutters and airplanes, and we took the sensible control method of locking the cockpit doors from now on.  If you have a sensible preventative measure, you should take it.  There were 11,493 firearm homicides (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm) in the US in 2009.  That's several 911's every year.

Okay, so you admit they are not banned.  Then your premise has failed, has it not?

And what is your motivation for the belief that they shout be banned?

Banning manufacture and import is functionally a ban.  You are simply disputing semantics.  If you want to repeat the steps that have led to a fully auto costing $10000 and being out of the hands of criminals for other firearms but call it "Oktoberfest" instead of "Ban" I'm entirely okay with it, the semantics don't bother me.  In fact, it will probably make it an easier sale to the public.

Wait I thought we agreed that was a legal fully-auto? Someone go check silk road for the black market price...

Rarity will never answer this, because he doesn't want to admit that it just boils down to "I'm skeered of 'em!"

The legal price is relevant because guns in the US that end up used in crime are often legally purchased originally.  We don't have many, "Oops, my fully automatic AK-47 got stolen, Officer!" when it costs 10k and the number of available guns is finite.  A rich collector will pay more than a bank robber because the bank robber will just use a cheap handgun or (rarely) semi-auto rifle so the fully-auto guns stay off the black market.

 I would be interested in the black market price in the US if someone can dig it up, but again there just isn't that much demand.  The country is flooded with tons of guns already and large scale importation of illegal firearms is (relatively) difficult because of serious port security.  There is a much bigger market for these weapons in the developing world where people actually fight battles with them.  In general, the US illegally exports firearms far more than it imports them.  

I was talking about the modding not importing. I wonder how often the police even check to see if this has occurred. Like you I don't think its important enough to search out.


Anyway, why? Because you think it will price them out of the range of the common criminal?

I don't quite follow how you got back to modding.  A modified semi-auto is not particularly useful for a criminal or collector.  There isn't really a market there.  

Handguns are the best weapon for criminals.  Even for mass murderers, killers with handguns who know what they are doing have put up comparable kill rates to killers armed with semi-automatic rifles.  

For crimes such as robbery you want to steal stuff and not get caught, not kill people.  For criminal use the attributes you want are an easily concealable but still an extremely effective, reliable, and relatively easy to use weapon.  They prefer handguns for the same reason people prefer them for self-defense.

A black market modified rifle of unknown reliability and large size that will spray bullets everywhere in the mode you modified it for is not a good choice.  

Furthermore, the 'ban' on importation or manufacture of full-auto weapons are, in fact, not a complete ban.  There are exceptions, some of them notable.  For example, a FN P-90 is on my wishlist, but falls under the aforementioned importation ban.  Except for policemen.  But once it's been imported for a cop, and said cop has owned it for a period of time (2 years, IIRC) then a standard Class III transfer & ATF tax stamp is all that is required for that cop to sell that firearm to any other citizen with the correct permit to buy one.  I won't claim that this happens often, because it most certainly does not, but there have to be some guys buying up such guns (perhaps for an additional "private pension" fund?) because P-90's are available in the US, apparently legally.

Now, I don't know how many states limit their policemen in this regard.  I've no doubt that it's a non-starter in California.  But it is an exception to the ban, so there is no ban.  If there is an exception, then it's not (economicly speaking) a ban.  If the demand is high enough, the exceptions become the rule and then the ban is meaningless political drivel.

Sorry for being unclear. I got into this thread because I was interested in how effective the "ban" on automatic rifles really is. From what you are saying you think they are poor tools anyway.

I do not believe that such a process is actually legal.  I'm gonna need a link on that.    First off, I do not believe policeman can "own" fully automatic weapons.  They are treated as any other citizen under these laws.  They may be issued one by a department but they do not own it and can not sell it. Second, it is my understanding that no fully automatic manufactured after 1986 can enter the legal market as per FOPA. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act)  I'd be interested if you could provide links to show otherwise.


They are at least as effective as a semi-auto and they have that flexibility to go full auto in the unlikely even you actually needed to.  Otherwise they are bad tools for most purposes other than fighting a battle.  The ban is so effective gun control advocates have had to resort to a lot of false scare mongering about semi-autos to try and make them out to be "Machine Guns" or give them scarier names like "Assault Weapons". (and I say that as someone in favor of gun control)  If fully automatics were actually out there on the streets, believe me you would be hearing about it.  

Oh, Rarity, you're not doing yourself any favors by ignoring this question, you're just proving me right.

Maybe if your threats are at long range.  Inside a building or at close range (much more likely scenarios for robbery) and you are going to want the handgun because of the advantages in mobility.  

And bottom line, just easier to carry.  You aren't patrolling Baghdad, you can afford to compromise. :P

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.  Many experts disagree.


http://www.chuckhawks.com/guns_home_defense.htm

In the end of course,  folks paranoid of armed murderous robbers in body armor they have to shoot in the dark strike me as the type more likely to end up accidentally hurting a family member.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

1) Assuming you get your gun out. I've taken out the uncertainty. You will lose a fight with me. We both will. You can never win. A threat is not harm. Where's the harm? Threat is also highly subjective.

2) Why proportional force? Where's the rule saying that? You you wish to give the robber a possibility of success? Read Sun-Tsu, he's not a proponent of proportional force either. Yes, there's a risk of collateral damage. Not my problem.

3) We're back to intended use then. Something you were a proponent of earlier iirc. And for the question you ignored. My family IS leaving, it's just that they're not out yet. And he's going to shoot NOW. So, what are my options? He will not listen to my plea.

4) Where's the harm? And that's your opinion. I don't see it like that. Who's correct? Who gets to decide?

5) Thanks Cpt Obvious. I think we all know what a nuke does. Everyone should be allowed to wield that much destructive power in case they want to take up astroid mining?

Indeed, you have removed the uncertainty. You've drawn your gun, and pointed it at the skull of everyone in range of the explosion, simply by being there with an armed nuclear device. I'm sure you can see how that will lose you friends. And while a threat is not harm, it is aggression. You do not have the right to initiate the use of force, the threat of force, or fraud against another person. This is known as the Non-aggression principle, and it is the guiding concept of libertarianism.

But it is your problem, because it's not collateral damage. it's the bomb doing it's job. You nuke a city because a mugger shot you, it's not his fault that you killed everyone else in range.

Stay off public land, then, and stay in privately owned parks, where the owners are intent upon it remaining a park, and not being used as a shooting range. Public property is public property. You cannot stop someone from using their property in whatever manner they desire.

Again, you're threatening the use of physical force upon completely innocent strangers. That is the harm.

Yup.

Indeed, you have removed the uncertainty. You've drawn your gun, and pointed it at the skull of everyone in range of the explosion, simply by being there with an armed nuclear device. I'm sure you can see how that will lose you friends. And while a threat is not harm, it is aggression. You do not have the right to initiate the use of force, the threat of force, or fraud against another person. This is known as the Non-aggression principle, and it is the guiding concept of libertarianism.

But it is your problem, because it's not collateral damage. it's the bomb doing it's job. You nuke a city because a mugger shot you, it's not his fault that you killed everyone else in range.

Stay off public land, then, and stay in privately owned parks, where the owners are intent upon it remaining a park, and not being used as a shooting range. Public property is public property. You cannot stop someone from using their property in whatever manner they desire.

Again, you're threatening the use of physical force upon completely innocent strangers. That is the harm.

Yup.
[/quote]

1) No I haven't. It's aggression to fight back? I thought that was defense. I haven't initiated anything.

2) I still think that the eventual deaths is a direct result of the muggers actions, not mine. And besides, it's just risk, not real harm. Until there is, but that's not my problem either. I'm vapor by then. Probably. Who knows.

3) But it is a park. Built as a park. Everyone but one has the intent of keeping it a park. He's waving a rifle around, preparing to shoot. Can I  shoot him back first? And wait what? He can shoot his rifle and that's fine but I can't carry my armed nuke around, because you consider that a threat? Either he's a threat to everybody in that park, or I'm not with my nuke. Make up your mind. Neither of us intend to kill anyone. We might put others at risk, but hey... you know the song.

4) See rifle shooting guy in park above. Earlier he wasn't harming anyone, but now he is? Or I'm not. Please be consistent.

5) What do you expect the result to be by giving such power to your local supremacist group, Al-quaeda or similar organization?

I'll accept this argument when you tell me what granny down the street did to you to deserve you fighting back against her. To say nothing of the rest of the people in range of the blast.

No, he shot a man (though I use that term loosely). You, on the other hand built (or bought) and armed a nuclear weapon and carried it into a city. And it's not risk, it's a threat. That's the difference.

It's a public park. which means that it is his property, too. He's just using his property as he sees fit. You, on the other hand, are bringing a device which can kill indiscriminately onto someone else's property, and using it to coerce your safety out of him. The target shooter may be putting the other people using their shared property at risk, but you are directly threatening people, on their property.

I never said he was. I said you were threatening people. And by carting around an armed nuke, that is exactly what you are doing, threatening people. I am being consistent. You are the one suggesting that property rights change depending on who owns the property.


What do you expect to be the result to be by giving such power to your local government?

EDIT: And if you think such a group can't acquire one now, you gotta be nuts.

The US government is no longer a government of the people.  It's a government of the corporations and control freaks (read: power elite) of the world.  Time and time again out of control governments strip their citizens of the right to bear arms, and then slaughter them.

The most horrendous crimes of humanity have been done by governments against an unarmed population.

Do you trust your government?  You shouldn't.

M

1) No granny doesn't deserve to get hurt. The mugger should pay restitution.

2) Where's the threat? Please explain why a bomb is a threat but a gun isn't.

3) And I'm using mine as I see fit. No problem then, right? I'm not threatening people. I put them at risk, at their property. Something that's perfectly OK according to you. And you still haven't answered my question about how I should act. Shoot him or wait for restitution.

4) Still not buying it. Being prepared isn't the same as threatening. Having a gun out, even pointing it at people isn't threatening them unless I ask something from them, or have an intent to shoot. I imagine elderly people doing this to compensate for them being slower to react. No law against being prepared, right? How to figure out intent is another matter. I imagine that the "National coalition of elders" puts out a pamphlet or something explaining why elders walk around with a finger on the trigger.
I'm the one believing that democracy is a good thing remember. That means a collective decision about how to use parks, and it includes restrictions even on private property.

5) Just answer the question.
But I'll answer yours just the same. I'd prefer that nobody had them, yes. But there's accountability when most governments have them, something that can't be said for individuals. Nukes in the hands of Pakistan is a nightmare, far worse then Iran imho.
I do think groups can acquire them now actually. That's why I want stricter control and people who take these dangerous toys away from people who shouldn't have them.

Glad you finally saw reason. He can't do that if he's atomized, and you can't receive it if you are. Nukes are a horrible self-defense weapon.

A bomb is not a threat. An armed bomb is. Just like a gun is not a threat until it is pointed at someone and ready to fire. An armed bomb is equivalent to a gun pointed at everyone within range of the blast.

No, you are threatening people. You have an armed bomb, so anyone within range of the blast is threatened by that weapon. Again, you are more than welcome to have such a device, so long as you keep it far away from anyone or anything that might be harmed by it, or else keep it disarmed while around them. As to what you should do, use your judgment. I am not responsible for your actions, only you are. Understand, though, that you may be held liable for causing him harm, if you act to prevent him from firing.

But people are not psychic, so if you point a loaded firearm at people, you have to expect them to assume you intend to shoot. Rule one of firearm safety (http://pages.uoregon.edu/joe/firearms-safety.html) is: Always point the muzzle in a safe direction; never point a firearm at anyone or anything you don't want to shoot. So if you are following firearms safety, you intend to shoot the person you point a gun at. That makes it a threat.


You're right, governments should not have nuclear bombs. they're far too dangerous to trust to such insane organizations. I'm glad we could come to that agreement. I trust the private sellers of nuclear bombs to vet their customers properly before selling them, and not sell to anyone with ties to governments, or other terrorist organizations.

1) That's not for you to decide. I'll go to heaven. So will granny so it's not really a problem, but the robber or his estate should pay restitution anyway.

2) Says you. What makes your opinion the right one?

3) Again, says you. They're at risk yes, but I'm willing to take that risk.
I'm defending my family by shooting him, so he's the aggressor and I'm the defender, right. Why should I be held liable for defending my family. Don't I have that right?

4) Why do you have to assume that? Screw those rules. You can't tell me what to do. Your perception makes it a threat, not the action in itself.

5) Like how you trust the private sellers of handguns never to sell to a criminal? Heh, good one. But I'm sure the sellers ethics improve when there's more money involved.

No, that's not for you to decide. The mugger shot you. If you can fight back against him, that's fine. But granny, and everyone else in range, did nothing to you. You initiated the conflict between you and them, placing you firmly in the wrong. Mugger might have to pay your estate, but you'll have to pay all the others. But then again, what do you care? You're vapor anyway, beyond the help of medical science. Perhaps you might have been saved from the gunshot, but certainly not the nuke.

It's not opinion, it's fact. If I have a gun out, loaded, and pressed to your head with my finger on the trigger, I can kill you without you having a chance of defending yourself. If I have a nuclear bomb armed and ready to go off at the press of a button, I can kill everyone in range of the blast without the chance of them defending themselves. That makes them equivalent.

No, they're not at risk, as I just explained, you are threatening them.
And no, you're not defending your family by shooting him. You're attacking him. He is not pointing his gun at your family. Your family is running around on his shooting range.

No, numbnuts. Let me restate that: never point a firearm at anyone or anything you don't want to shoot. That's the most basic rule of firearm safety. You can't say "screw those rules" and expect me to take anything you say seriously.


Yes, indeed. When the liability of a negligence claim goes up, I most certainly expect that the sellers will do more extensive checks.

1) I did fight back against him, others just got in the way. If he hurts somebody else as a result of his attack on me, that's not my fault.

2)  Actually in that situation you can't. Ask anyone experienced in hand to hand combat. They might "feel" threatened by my nuke, but that doesn't mean they're actually being threatened. Are those feelings enough to infringe on my right to bear arms? And what kind of weak ass argument is that? "They can't defend themselves against a nuke". That's the point. Or does everyone have to walk around with tiny guns that do minimal damage. What's the point of a weapon people can defend themselves from?

3) I disagree. I'm putting them at risk. I'm ok with that.
Ah, semantics. Ok, so then I'm not shooting at him. He just happens to lie at the exact spot on the ground that I was going to shoot at. He's at fault for lying around in my shooting spot. Problem solved then. No need for defense. Funny thing is, that spot actually moves with him.

4) Says you. The reason that you don't point a gun at anybody is to reduce the risk of accidental shootings. I'm OK with putting you at risk. "Give me your money or I shoot" is a threat. "Bang! Whoopsie, does it hurt" isn't.

5) That. Or hiding the fact that they sold it. Whichever is cheaper. This is supposed to be a totally free market, so I'm assuming there will be people willing to deal only with criminals. I sense a new policy here. Are you going to make somebody else responsible for one mans actions? Is the gun manufacturer/seller at fault for what the buyer does with it? Should the seller pay restitution to a victims family if the robber didn't have enough?

All this took was one google search for the term "can cops buy automatic weapons?".

This one looks like it's illegal to do this in cali, but the cops do it anyway.

http://calcoastnews.com/2011/12/peace-officers-buying-and-selling-assault-weapons/


I'm not finding directly applicable data on actual full auto weapons, but this is loosely related...

"Q: Are SAWs and LCAFDs marked “Restricted law enforcement/government use only” or “For export only” now legal to sell to civilians in the United States?
Yes. SAWs and LCAFDs are no longer prohibited. Therefore, firearms with the restrictive markings are legal to transfer to civilians in the United States, and it is legal for non-prohibited civilians to possess them. All civilians may possess LCAFDs."

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/saws-and-lcafds.html

I can't find any current data on an import ban for automatic weapons, not even on teh BATF site.  Are you sure you are not thinking of the assault weapons ban?  That has expired.

True. if he hurts someone while attacking you, that's his fault. But if you hurt someone while fighting back, that's on you.

Seriously, you're just making yourself look like a fool here. They don't "feel" threatened, they don't even know you're there. That's the point. You're threatening with death people who don't know you, haven't met you, and certainly aren't threatening you.

No, you are threatening them. I've explained that already.
Sorry, but then you can't say you were defending your family, since that spot on the ground didn't do anything to threaten them. Either way, you're responsible for your actions.

Likewise, "Don't fuck with me or I'll blow you away" is a threat. And that is the stated purpose of your vest. Thus, it is a threat. Keep digging that hole.


Everyone's responsible for their own actions. That includes making sure you don't sell something to someone who will misuse it.

1) Yeah, that does sound reasonable. I might have to actually pay a few relatives then. I wonder if that brings the dead back.

2) So threat isn't subjective? Really? When an armed man enters a room, everyone will perceive this the same?

3) No, you've told me what you think. I don't accept your premise. I assume you wouldn't accept my view that any armed man in my vicinity threatens me. That's why I have my vest. I'm pointing my gun back at them.
I just want to empty my clip at a specific spot. He's at fault for lying around exactly where I want to do that. Same idea as the one you sported. He should just move if he doesn't want to get hit.

4) That the same thing you say with a "desert eagle" on your hip. So a gun is a threat now in your opinion?

5) Unless you don't care what they'll use it for as long as you get paid, in which case you'll sell to anyone who wants one. Free market and all. There are plenty of criminals, so I'm sure you can make a good living catering their needs.

No, it does not. That's why a nuclear bomb makes such a horrible self-defense weapon. I'm glad we've come to that agreement.

No, threat is not subjective. Being armed is not a threat. Pulling that weapon and pointing it at someone is a threat.

No, if you hit someone when you empty your clip at a specific spot, that's on you. If he hits someone when he shoots at the targets across the park, he's liable for that. You're not "pointing your gun back at" the little old lady down the street, or any of the other people in the vicinity who don't know you're even there, or even anyone in the vicinity not actually pointing a gun at you. You're just pointing your gun at them. It's not granny's fault you're afraid of a piece of metal in someone's pocket.

As I have said numerous times, a holstered pistol isn't threatening anyone. Nor is a disarmed bomb. An armed bomb, or a drawn and pointed pistol, however is threatening people. Are you tired of digging, yet?

Oh, certainly. Until you get tracked down by people ready and willing to hold you accountable for those actions. Then you're in trouble.

If tracking them down was easy, then the Armory would still be in business.

SoaB, I messed up, I'm no gun control advocate.

Gun control is impossible and gun control advocates aren't even striving for that. They want a subset of the population to control things with guns.

I never said it would be easy. But your statement just proves a point I made earlier. We can't stop it from happening now. If the bad guys can get them, why prevent the good guys?

I agree with your point earlier. I just don't think going after dealers will work, even if you only want to hold them liable/accountable. We can only punish gun owners, and even then only AFTER they reveal their gun ownership.

Bingo!!

+1

M

Well, it's much easier to catch bad guy owners than merchants, that's true. But most people don't really like operating in the black market. It's risky, your clientele tends to be assholes, and most importantly, you have to hide it. If you can be quite profitable in the white market, and the risk of loss from black market transactions exceeds the cost of due diligence, then we can expect to see very few black market merchants. So we have three options: Increase the profit of white market business, increase the cost and risk associated with black market transactions, or reduce the cost of due diligence. The internet is doing a pretty good job of reducing the cost of due diligence, and by removing restrictions on weapons, you would reduce it even further, and also increase the profit of white-market business by moving more business into the white.

Hey, imagine that. Fewer laws, fewer criminals.

That is referencing "Assault Weapons" which is mostly a made up legal term for scary guns.  The article is talking about semi-automatic weapons.


It isn't particularly pleasant that a cop may sell such a weapon, but such weapons are available in any gun store so it's not a huge deal.

The question here is about a P90 which is a fully automatic sub-machinegun of the type banned by previous laws, not the assault weapons ban.  You are not googling very well and you don't seem to have any understanding of guns or gun law.  That is a bad thing both for gun supporters and gun control advocates.  It just muddies up the conversation.


Again, the P90 question has nothing to do with semi-auto weapons.  You can easily buy a semi-auto P90 if you want.


No, you are confused as all hell.


And yet the gun control on fully automatic weapons worked.  And gun control works in England making crime far less deadly.  I'm sympathetic to arguments that gun rights are a freedom worthy of protection, though I disagree with it, but the argument that you can't control guns has no basis in reality.

Well again you are entitled to your opinion but I think I will stick with the experts and scientists on this.


You know where you're family is located?  What if someone got up to go to the bathroom or get a midnight snack?  You don't know jack.  You're gonna stop to turn the light on before shooting the armed armored robbers exposing yourself to sudden bright light while you're unable to shoot because you took your hand away but the cold blooded murderer robbers still can?  Dude, you're in a fantasy world.  I hope for your family's sake you start to think this through better.  Gun accidents happen all the time and such irresponsible users are a major reason we need gun control, to protect certain folks from hurting themselves and their families unintentionally.

Cops just injured 9 people in New York with their arms. You're implying some dim-witted government employee can do a better job at protecting and possibly saving a home than a private citizen.

Yes, police officers are much more worthy of trust with guns.  Anyone forced to shoot because someone pointed a gun at them on a crowded street runs the risk of hitting others.  And if multiple people in the crowd try to stop the shooter and they aren't in uniform they run the risk of confusing each other for the shooter and making the situation even worse. Something like that almost happened during the Gabby Giffords incident.  It again sounds like I'm talking to someone who doesn't have much experience with firearms. Most of it was ricochet off the big anti-car bomb planters as far as I know.  The whole situation could have been avoided had the murderer they were confronting not had access to a handgun in the first place, of course.

However, as I mentioned the ideal scenario is that cops don't have them either aside from very special circumstances like in England.

You missed a key point.  Only a completely insane individual would pull a gun in a public place if he knew at least 50% of the individuals around him were armed and knew how to use it safely.  The "gun free" zones are killer havens because the killer knows they are likely to encounter little resistance.

Cops are nothing more than people in uniforms.  There are countless cases of them abusing their power and presumed authority.  I'm not sure I'd trust one with a gun more than I would a law abiding citizen.  The latter is far less likely to abuse his power and only use it for self defense measures. 

M

And yet this guy pointed a gun straight at two armed police officers and isn't crazy as far as I know.  Adding extra guns to the scenario just makes it more dangerous.  The national gun control method has been proven to work well in practice and is the best way to go.  

I'm aware there are bad apples among the police, but they are generally heroes of the community who train hard and do their best to protect us all and enforce the laws the government we voted for has written. 

What if the government becomes corrupt and unresponsive to its citizens and needs to be overthrown? How are we supposed to get our guns back and ready?

Our heroes in the military are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the government.  In the case of a corrupt government that abandons Democracy they will restore order and the police will side with their local communities against any abuse.  Sometimes the police or armed forces make mistakes and it has led to deaths and civil unrest, but as institutions their records are extremely strong.

You know, that's a really good response actually. :) It's good to meet you.

In theory.... https://rt.com/usa/news/chesterfield-veteran-facebook-arrest-106/

You too.  https://i.imgur.com/6nCyxs.jpg

Hey Coincomm, maybe he'll answer you....





But I wouldn't hold your breath.

It's also an unrealistic assumption that those who are in control of the government at that time would be unprepared for a military coup, nor that any significant number of young officers would be free thinkers capable of seeing past the indocrination and propaganda campaign that would have preceded such a tyrannical government taking control.  It is for this very reason that the Department of the Army (plus Air Force) and the Department of the Navy (plus the Marine Corps) each, independently, answer to an appointed civilian in the executive branch, namely the Secretary of Defense.  In the hopes that a single carismatic leader wouldn't be able to take control of the entire military alone, but doesn't help if the civilian government in charge of the military is the problem.  There would be a great number of veterans who could see through such b.s., removed as they are from the immediate influence of the military culture, and veterans outnumber active miltary by a large margin at any given time, but if the veterans are effectively prevented from owning the tools of their former trade (for example, labeled as 'mentally defective' and therefore ineligible to own firearms http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2012/aug/23/judge-orders-brandon-raub-released-hospital/ ) then they are a neutered threat to tyranny.  Same goes for the organized training of firearms safety to children.  (http://www.adl.org/special_reports/rage-grows-in-America/introduction.asp which is attacking the appleseed project http://appleseedinfo.org )

It's an unrealistic assumption that they would be unprepared for an armed popular uprising or that the people would not fall under the sway of a tyrannical government as well.  What we know for sure is that the military is full of heroes who have already signed on to put their lives on the line for the sake of the constitution.  They have proved over the history of our Republic to be a force for good, marching to end armed popular insurrections like the Whisky Rebellion and the Civil War and fighting against tyranny overseas.  Our military is an institution worthy of trust and staffed by our friends, family, and neighbors.  The same goes for the police.

...and that Kent State thing...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_state_shooting

The Whiskey Rebellion is an great example of exactly what I'm talking about.  Those men were being directly targeted, and had a fair gripe.  They were too far from the markets on the East Coast to do anything other with their surplus corn than make whiskey with it, and suddenly they were being heavily taxed for their relatively rare form of income after fighting a war of independence that was, at it's root about the uneven and oppressive taxation imposed upon them by a distant authority.  They were ignored through normal channels, so when they refused to pay the taxes that the new government demanded of them, the revered President Washington sent the US military into a soveriegn territory to force compliance.  Do you think that the officers & enlisted men of that army unit considered the ramifications of their actions?  Do you?  The very fact that we refer to it as "The Whiskey Rebellion" in history books is propaganda, because it wasn't a rebellion in arms until the army showed up, it was a tax revolt.

You are practicing revisionist history.  The Army was sent out only after 500 armed men attacked the home of a tax inspector.  The tax was entirely just and was going to be used to pay down the debt for the very war you are talking about.  The tax was later repealed by Democratic action rather than hot headed and pointless violence.  You don't found a stable country by refusing to pay your debts and allowing citizens to spit on Democratically passed laws.  I'll take George Washington as my leader over any Libertarian ever born.

You'll be voting Ron Paul, then?

Whether it was just or not was a matter of perspective, and considering that it was one of the core causes of the rise of the Democrat-Republican party (which eventually split ways after the Whigs faded away) and elected Tom Jefferson to repeal it, it obviously wasn't as popular a perspective as you seem to believe.  And yes, a couple hundred men 'attacked' a tax inspector by public humilation known as 'tar and feathering'.  They did him no permanent physical harm, and certainly didn't shoot at him;(apparently they did, after one of his men shot & killed one of the rebels, that's what happens when you shoot first) this after said tax collector had been using strong arm tactics to extract those taxes in his region.  You can't win this, the facts are that the tax was uneven, unpopular and enforced with violent zeal by government agents from afar.  This is why the tax revolt happened, and in reality the tax never did raise the revenue that Alex Hamilton promised that it would, in part because it was so commonly evaded.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion)  The only people known to perish during this whole episode were tax protestors, not government agents of any flavor.

That a tax is unpopular does not make it unjust.  Nobody likes paying taxes.  It was fully legally passed and legitimate.


They attacked him by tarring and feathering him and burning his house to the ground after having previously taken shots at him.  That is not "just public humiliation."  This was also only one incident of many acts of violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion) and lawbreaking that led to Washington deciding to put down the insurrection.  You are simply making shit up, and it exposes the weakness of your argument when you have to resort to it.

1) Well, at least I got the robber back, and that what matters to me. A shame about the others. Sucks to be them I guess.

2) A little quick googling does seem to indicate that there is such thing as subjective threat. As well as objective threat. You have a very strong opinion about what a threat is, but that doesn't make it true.

3) It's not my fault that people are afraid of a little fissionable material in my pocket. Why do you get to decide what a threat is. I see what I think is a gang member in a dark alley reaching for his gun, I'm not allowed to draw faster and shoot? I have to wait until he points his weapon at my head before I can shoot?
So what you're saying is that I can't defend my family, not until the park shooter kills one or more of them? Which is a bit late imho. I see where your system is consistent, it's just a dumb system. I have to wait until he does irreversable damage.

4) Again, your opinion. They're safe from my bomb until it goes off and I'm safe from their guns until they shoot me. See, everybodys safe. Why do get to decide what a threat is? Just repeating "because I say so" doesn't really convince you know.

5) How? The trade will obviously be done via a few more or less respectable individuals, many will disappear after the transaction, cash is good for making people forget. It took the US how many years to find OBL? Biggest army/intelligence network in the world? But I'm sure a few good men working on their spare time could do it faster. Unless they had to keep to the "non agression principle" and not coerce people to tell them what they want to know.

/sigh... we were doing so well there, and then you lapsed back into terrorism.

It's simple, really. Only an objective threat matters. Because you "feel" threatened doesn't matter one whit, if you're not actually threatened. If you are actually threatened, you are being aggressed against, whether you "feel" threatened or not.

I could care less about the fissionable material. It's the fact that the bomb is primed to explode that is the problem. You are more than welcome to draw first and shoot - always remembering that if it turns out he was reaching for his keys to get into his apartment, you may well find yourself in some hot water.
And no, I am not saying you cannot "defend" your family, but that if you choose to stop him from firing by instead shooting him, you are going to need to be responsible for your actions. I notice that you have not mentioned the one course of action which would handily stop a shooter just out for some target practice - as he has informed everyone of - from shooting until your family is clear: Stepping in front of the rifle. That would cause any responsible shooter to immediately safe his weapon, if not completely put it down. Are you afraid to take risks with your own safety to ensure that of your family's?

Again, only an objective threat matters. And an armed nuclear bomb is an objective threat to all within the range of the device. A holstered weapon is not an objective threat to anyone, much less someone who has a nuke wired to his vitals.


What makes you think it would be on their spare time? If there is a bounty, there will be bounty hunters. And I have already explained that (and why) I believe such trades would be significantly rarer in an AnCap society, and we're powerless to stop them now, regardless, so we're pissing into a fan here anyway.

Our government officials are also sworn to uphold the constitution.  Shows how far that goes.

M

Pointing a gun at a police officers is crazy in my book.

The national gun control method has been proven to disarm law abiding citizens, NO ONE ELSE.  History has shown that time and time again:

- gun registration which leads to gun confiscation which leads to oppressive government, and in many cases, genocide
- when things go south, police look out for themselves and family first.  there aren't enough police to protect everyone, as shown with riots
- police and military generally do what they are told.  case in point, what happened in new orleans when Katrina hit.

YOU may trust someone else to protect you, but I do not.  You may trust government officials, police, military, what have you, but I do not. 

I'm responsible for me and my family, no one else.

M

Criminals tend to be stupid people who make bad decisions.  Call that "crazy" if you want but we are left with the fact that it occurs often enough that we can throw out the idea that arming everyone will stop people from shooting. 


And yet once I moved to England I learned that even with comparable rates of crime in the country the fatalities from crime were significantly lower.  National gun control works, and we have concrete examples of that.  We don't have examples of peaceful utopias brought about by giving everyone more weapons.


They maintained order, that is exactly what they were supposed to do.  There will always be some mistakes made by any institution, but they do not make the whole institution flawed as a result.  On the whole our military is made of patriotic heroes who want to do their best to protect us.  It's shameful that you are slandering them this way from the safety of your keyboard while they risk their lives to protect your spoiled existence.  Without our strong American military you and your family would be speaking German or Russian now and there is nothing you could have done to prevent it.  Show some fucking respect.

You've been ignoring me Rarity, and at this point, I view that as a good thing, because it means that what I am about to say will get no response. My refutation of your idiocy will not receive more idiocy. It will simply stand, on it's own.

No, you're right, it won't stop people who want to shoot people from shooting that first time. But it sure as hell will stop the next shot.

Kennesaw, Georgia. Crime is down 50% since the law requiring everyone to have at least one gun in the house was passed.


I have yet to hear anyone explain how blowing up brown people on the other side of the planet and defending poppy fields protects me.

I'm not the one making shit up.  Note that I'm teh one who posted the Wikipedia link that says that there was one possible case of a US soldier being shot, but that can't be confirmed, while there are multiple cases of protestors being shot by US agents.  There is no credible historian of the era that would claim that the protestors provoked the encounter, they agree that the tax collector is responsible for that.  Washington sending in troops was very likely due to receiving a one sided report of the events, along with his tendency to trust officers of his administration over stories of government violence and overreach.

As as for lawbreaking, you commit an average of three felonies per day.  That's just as much an excuse towards action today as it was then.

Thanks for this, I had no idea about that.

Your worldview is not based on facts.  In every society that has banned handguns for citizens, violent crime rates have increased.  None have decreased since their ban.

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome

http://rense.com/politics6/britgun.htm

http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constitution/english-warning-to-americans-dont-give-up-your-guns/

inb4 "biased sources" ::)

Oh hey I almost forgot, you find those citations for your legal P90 fantasy yet or are you just tossing that down the memory hole?

As for the whiskey rebellion, you can read the Wikipedia article as well as anyone, you are just clearly hoping nobody else does so you can lie about it.  There were multiple acts of lawbreaking and violence as part of the insurrection prior to Washington marching and shooting at a tax inspector and burning down his house down is obviously an act of violence.  


Yeah, great libertarian peaceful protest where you threaten to murder people who disagree with your politics.


Violent retribution against citizens for obeying the law.  How dare you try and stop this, Washington!?


More violent attacks against government agents.



How DARE they shoot back when armed men are surrounding their house and threatening them!  Libertarians certainly oppose that sort of thing!


Dude, you're understanding of this topic is sub-elementary school or you are just lying.  Stop it already.  It was a widespread violent insurrection and the response was proper.  
A police officer isn't "provoking" you when he pulls you offer to enforce the law just because you think your special and the law doesn't apply to you.


No, I don't.  It's really kind of boring discussing this topic with someone who makes up random factoids like this.

Stop making shit up.  My claim is that gun control lowers fatalities from crime, not that it reduces the rate of crime.  That is a far more complex problem. 

Uh that's BS.

Correlation isn't causation. For an example, in NYC for the same time period: 1982-2005, the crime rate is down 57%.

Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

We've been down this road before. I'm willing to let my statement go, if you (and Rarity) will stop claiming that gun laws stop criminals from using guns.

Then let's please revisit one of my links that you obviously didn't bother to read..

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

     4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.
<snip>
 
        * Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16

    5. Fact: Many nations with stricter gun control laws have violence rates that are equal to, or greater than, that of the United States. Consider the following rates:


    High Gun
    Ownership Countries
       

    Low Gun
    Ownership Countries

    Country
       

    Suicide
       

    Homicide
       

    Total*
       

    Country
       

    Suicide
       

    Homicide
       

    Total*
    Switzerland    

    21.4
       

    2.7
       

    24.1
       Denmark    

    22.3
       

    4.9
       

    27.2
    U.S.    

    11.6
       

    7.4
       

    19.0
       France    

    20.8
       

    1.1
       

    21.9
    Israel    

    6.5
       

    1.4
       

    7.9
       Japan**    

    16.7
       

    0.6
       

    17.3

     

    * The figures listed in the table are the rates per 100,000 people.
    ** Suicide figures for Japan also include many homicides.
    Source for table: U.S. figures for 1996 are taken from the Statistical Abstract of the U.S. and FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The rest of the table is taken from the UN 1996 Demographic Yearbook (1998), cited at http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html.

@Moonshadow clean your table up and make sure that you verify the sources.

I can easily access FBI stats vs lets say Canadian stats.

edit:

Swiss don't have ammo for the semi auto rifles (and when they had a clip, it was sealed only for war), CCW is impossible to get.
Israel doesn't allow CCW also.. And pretty much an anti gun country.

Both of the countries are similar to NYC, in terms of gun laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Denmark 0.9
France 1.1
Israel 2.1
USA 4.2

Canada is an unfair comparison.  The culture is so dramticly different as to make any direct comparisons difficult.  Which is true with pretty much every nation, so I don't put much stock in such comparisons anyway, but I used that to point out the fundamental error of Rarity's premise.  Gun control does not lead to reduced incidents of violent crime within that culture.  In every nation that has an outright ban on civilian owned handguns, the rate of all forms of violent crime have increased over a period of years since.  I'm not trying to compare Britain to the US, I'm comparing Britain before and after.


Are you really kidding here?  The Swiss have a national milita that trains annually with firearms that they are required by law to keep in their homes with ammunition.  That would be every single adult & able bodied male citizen between 18 and 45.  Do you really think that the Swiss need CCW?  Do you think that an intruder is going to think "hey, they can't shoot me because their magazines are sealed"?


Another milita nation, not a anti-gun culture.  The only nation in the world that requires all women to serve in the military & in combat positions.  Again, CCW is inmaterial in Israel.


Laws, maybe.  That's debatable.  Gun culture, no.  LEt me see a NYC militia march in the parade some time, and if they aren't booed I'll concede you might have a point here.

WTF? Canadian's culture is dramatically different? Wow. I never heard that one before? Well so who has the closer culture to USA than Canada? I really want to know!


May be should stop reading silly websites?


Vampire is always right, repeat after me. Swiss must keep their semi auto disassembled, and don't even have ammo for it. Buying ammo is highly illegal there.


Outside of army and police, and settlers that live in West Bank - guns are illegal in Israel. Mostly because that arabs wouldn't buy them. Again, vampire is right.


Really? There are plenty militarized cops in NYC, same as in Israel. Israel doesn't have militia.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2011/4/8/1302255691715/NYPD-Patrol-Wall-Street-i-007.jpg

Vampire, I don't think that you know what a militia is.

Quick quiz, gun banners!  Which European nation fits this description?

"...carrying a firearm in plain view in a public place is allowed without a permit, with some restrictions..."

"...an understanding of firearms safety and the law, tested in a theoretical and/or practial training course is not required for a firearms license"
emphasis is mine

"...private possesion of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under license..."

"...annual homicides by firearms total

2008:  1
2007:  0
2006:  0
2005:  0"

No, that was not per 100,000 or some such, that was total.

This nation would be considered a "may issue" state if it was here in the US, per this data point...

"Applicants for a gun owners license in (redacted) are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, collection, personal protection, security"

Additionally, this particular nation is consider to be by some to be the closest example of a libertarian state in our modern world, including by hardcore libertarians such as Lew Rockwell fellows.

No cheating, google searching or wikipedia is not allowed.  Any guesses?

Uh Vatican? The smallest country? Monaco after?

The vatican doesn't issue weapons permits, so no.  Not Monaco either.

So what it is? I don't recall any other country with 0 murder rate. It should be tiny enough, after Monaco there are like Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino.

Liechtenstein

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/liechtenstein

http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/naylor1.1.1.html

Fig fail. A country that is more restrictive than 40 states. LOL

But less restrictive than ten, no?  Do you think that supports your position?

Notablely less restrictive than the Swiss, which is a country with one of the highest rates of gun  possesion in the world.  It's not the restrictiveness of guns laws that is the determinate factor, but the availabilty of same.  The core flaw in gun control logic is that laws passed by governments automaticly have the intended effects on the availabilty of firearems.  The Swiss deliberately arm thier entire population, teach them to use them, and then expect them to abid the publicly defined use of them.  This is the very definition of "a well regulated militia".  For that matter, the framers of the Constitution got the idea from the Swiss.  But if you think that, should some violent nutjub takes his weapon into the twon square and stars popping pedestrians, that the guy who opened his ammo box and shot that nutjob has to worry about being prosecuted for opening his sealed box, you're deluded.

No. I somewhat padded my answer, and I wanted to see if you gonna fall for it too.  I can't recall a state that is more restrictive than Liechtenstein.

Liechtenstein is about as restrictive as California, which is like the most restrictive state. You can try to argue about open carry, but Liechtenstein has restrictions also, and California allows open carry in unincorporated areas.

40 states are shall issue.
11 states are may issue, with few shall issue in practice.

I am not sure what are you trying to prove to me? That gun control reduces crime?

edit:

I am out of here. We can compare EU countries with their low crime rates to US crime rates all day long, EU guns laws are much more restrictive than here. US is a melting pot of many ethnicities, while EU countries (especially smaller ones) have more or less monolithic cultures. Comparing them is not a good idea.

A borderline-homicidal Caucasian is more likely to kill a Negroid than he is to kill another Caucasian, considering primal xenophobia and all.

In a thread full of cans of worms, that's a big one. I think we'd all rather leave that one closed.

Bullshit. (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/ovracetab.cfm)

I'm not really trying to "prove" anything, but it does show how much culture matters.  And cali is not the most restrictive from a legal perspective, that honor goes to Wisconsin, Illinois or the District of Columbia, all of which (until very recently) are no-issue states.  Cali is a may-issue state, but has more restrictive 'valid reasons' than Liechtenstein according to the link I referenced, because Cali doesn't honor "personal protection" as a legitimate cause unless you're a member of the state justice apparatus already, such as a prosecutor.  Granted, I could get a shotgun in Cali for inside my own home, and I can't determine if that is the case in Liechtenstein, but all of these comparisons are apples to oranges, due to variations in local culture and demographics.  Both San Fransico & Detroit are very liberal politcally, and have very restrictive gun regulations, with populations well in excess of Leichtenstin; but while San Fran is about as dangerous as my own mid-sized mid-eastern city (which is to say, not very dangerous) Detroit is one of the most dangerous places on Earth.  There is no definitive evidence that gun control has any non-neglible effect on crime, and all the evidence in the world that it does have an effect on the legal availability of firearms and only the legal availablilty of firearms.  We can both produce plenty of studies that confirm our biases, no doubt.  What you guys seem to lack ability to do is justify why?  By what logic do you guys justify subjugating my daughter to her armed rapist?  Maybe gun control would exchange the rapist's primary weapon from a handgun to a legth of iron pipe or a knife, but what consolation is that?  So that I can say at her funeral, "at least he didn't shoot her"?  Even if gun control laws did suppress overall crime rates, who are you to deny my daughter her basic human right of self-preservation?

Seriously, dude; where did you pull that bullshit from? 

Is Xenophobia a primal instinct?

Myth busted.

I wouldn't hold your breath on this one. When the best answer they can give is "I'm afraid of them", they tend to avoid the question.

Canada is a much more continuous culture, being primarily a colony of the British Empire; while the US is the result of 200+ years of global immigration, most of which was not from the British Empire after 1880.  We have the Italian 'mafiso' culture, both directly from Italy and indirectly from other European & colonized cultures affected by 'mafiso' culture themselves.  We have 300+ years of an independent 'frontiersman'/'cowboy' culture that developed here.  We have Jews, Christians, Catholics & Mormans; all of whom have had their own periods on both sides of violent persecution.  We have native & imported aboriginal cultures, some of which are so deeply intergrated into the local population even the US government doesn't bother to note a distinction. (http://www.yuchi.org/ is just one example, since they still exist where my wife's family is from, another is the Black Wolf Cherokee tribe of Kentucky, which was, according to my grandmother, my great-grandfather's family)

I'm sorry, but there is no culture quite as diverse in this world as the US, and diversity often leads to tension and conflicts that would not likely occur within a more uniform national culture.


At least I can site websites that actully support my claims.  The Swiss often need a permit to buy ammunition, but what says that they have to keep it disassembled?   And who is going to be checking to make sure that a father of three has his Sig in teh proper state of storage?


As noted, like the Swiss, Israel is a militia state.  Therefore all able bodied citizens, that are not convicted criminals, physically impaired, mentally unstable or contentious objectors are members of the extended state military structure, somwhere along the scale of fully enlisted and active miltary service to inactive reserve status.  (BTW, this is also how the USMC treats it's relationship with retired marines; as one I am a marine till I die)  Unlike the Swiss, this includes women over 18; whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, (although they give mulsims a pass if they want it, in practice).  Once again, the fact that their milita is well regulated does not undermine my position.  Regardless of what the laws say, the weapons are both present and distributed across the population.  The fact that Israel does not permit guns that they don't issue to the population is functionally irrelevant.

Cops are not militia, they represent the state as a matter of occupation.  As bitcoinchemist noted, you don't seem to know what a militia actually is in this context.  It has nothing to do with survivalists drinking beer and shooting up trees waiting for the UN invasion.

Good thing you acknowleged your misconseption.  I was ready to label you as a troll for making obviously contentious and offensive claims without any support.

DC isn't a state. Wisconsin is a shall issue as of 2012. And I forgot about IL. And MI is a shall issue also.

I am not arguing that stats prove either way, I was saying multiple times that there is no correlation between crime rate and gun control in USA.

edit:

My believes are simple: can drive, can have a gun after a certification. Same DUI laws applies to guns, private business/cities can forbid guns with a popular vote (last one for cities). Long guns... Personally I don't care, full auto long guns aren't that useful. Forbid may be concealed full auto guns.

I'm not talking fatalities.  I'm talking crime.  

They did NOT maintain order, they stripped law abiding citizens of their right to bear arms, forcibly when necessary, stealing their weapons, and only by lawsuit where citizens able to get them back.  At that point the weapons were almost useless because of the careless way they were stored.  

How is that protecting people?


Dude, just because you disagree with me doesn't warrant vulgar language.  

If you want to know what's shameful, it's that there are apparently millions of others like you who have bought into the endless propaganda the government spews forth.  But, then again, that's what the public system teaches people to do, don't think for yourself, do what you are told, believe everything you hear, and most important, trust the government.

None of the wars of the last century were required.  They served the purpose of the oppressors involved, generating billions upon billions of profits for the banking system and military industrial complex.

I respect those who defend their country from enemies foreign and domestic.  Going into a third world country and bombing the hell out of innocent civilians, destroying their infrastructure, and killing and maiming millions of innocents because an empire needs to feed their military industrial complex is NOT my definition of defending their country.  The "insurgents" in Iraq and Afghanistan are the ones who get my respect, doing their very best to defend themselves against an uninvited foreign oppressor who arrogantly says they came to liberate, yet years later they are still there with no apparent intent on leaving.  Just like the dozens of other countries they've entered, never to leave.

Pray for our troops, yes, pray indeed to bring them home from the horrors the oppressive empire called the US Federal government are forcing them to do.

M

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19439679

You know what this looks like to me?

KKK in 1950's Mississippi, only wearing all black instead of white.  You know what else black people in 1950's Mississippi have in common with Hungarian Roma in 2012?

No practical access to defensive firearms.

So gun control advocates, why do you hate racial minorities the world over, anyway?  I Know!  It's a convient "final solution" to the overpopulation problem, right?!

1) You expect me to act rational? I just told you I'm prepared to carry a nuke. I want to get the robber back. That's what matters to me. Others are collateral, and not my concern. I might even conceal my weapon if showing it means I won't get lunch.
2) No threat in unholstering and taking the safety off my gun, right? Not even aiming it in your general direction. I'm not aiming at you, you see. Honest. When does it go from a subjective threat to an objective one? When the bullet leaves the gun? Or just before that, when I actually take aim at you? At which time you're allowed to aim back, right?
3) Yet I can carry an AK47 or similar on the streets, and that's not a threat, right? Safety on, not aiming at anyone. How long does it take me to aim and fire that gun? Am I threatening everyone within distance?
Someone determined to shoot while there are people between him and the target is clearly not reasonable. If he can shoot at targets on the other side of the park, ignoring people that might be in the way, I can clearly do something similar and empty my gun into the ground, ignoring someone just out for some target practice.

4) A rapid fire gun in a quick draw holster is a threat? Or not?

5) You didn't answer what you expected the end result to be if we were to give nukes to Al-quaeda and similar organizations. And how many mushroom clouds do you think will be necessary before people assembles some bounty hunters? And let's hope the seller doesn't sell in bulk. You know that OBL considered it a religious duty to acquire nuclear or biological weapons? Do you think he was the only one? And we're not powerless to stop them now. It's just hard. Only states have nukes now, and they're very regulated. North Korea is the only one that has managed to build them lately, and they're torturing their population to be able to do it.

Yes, actually. Though based on our previous conversation, that's clearly an unreasonable expectation.


Well, let's say I'm armed as well, and watching you. You unholster and unsafe your weapon. The logical thing for me to do is the same thing. You start pointing it in random directions, I might get into a ready stance and ask you to put your gun away. You point it at me, and that's a threat, and I will respond in kind.


You understand that you can carry an AR15 right now (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehIt8l19C5k), right? Slung and safed, it's hurting nobody. You're not threatening anyone until you are ready to fire, ie unsafed, and pointing it at people.
And yes, You clearly can. But just like him, if you hit someone doing that, you will have to pay the consequences, which will be much more severe for you, because there is no way you can prove you didn't notice you were pointing your weapon at someone, while all the witnesses will back up the fact that whoever he hit was moving into the path of the bullet. He is ignoring the risk of hitting someone, you are ignoring the fact that you will hit someone.


Nope. The speed with which you can ready your weapon is immaterial. Only a readied weapon is a threat. And an armed nuke is "readied".


Yes, thank you for proving my point. Nukes are hideously expensive, and developing them is an extremely capital intensive process. Very few people will be able to get one, and those that do will not waste them on terror attacks. A "dirty bomb" is much more effective, and cheap, for a terrorist's purposes. Even for your stated purpose, a conventional explosive would be more effective, and less likely to incur "collateral damage", as you put it. (And no, calling it collateral damage does not excuse it, no more than calling rape "a roll in the hay" does)

1) The world is full of people who aren't rational. I thought you knew that. Or do you ignore it to fit the world into your ideology?
2) Why is that a logical thing to do? I'm not threatening anybody. Do you think I am threatening anyone? If not, why would you unholster your weapon? And if you think I am threatening you, then I can assume the same when you unholster your gun, and hence take aim at you. No? Are you saying there's an subjective threat here?
3) Slung? I don't know where you got your combat training, but I was instructed to keep my gun in my hands at all times. So, how much time do you think it'll take me to ready and fire that gun? A second? Two? And speed is immaterial, right? No threat in me carrying that around, but people around me would probably unholster their weapons and get into a ready stance? Or not, since I'm not a threat. Your lack of consistency is confusing.
4) Fine, so the nuke won't me armed. It'll arm itself and set a 90 sec timer after I push the button, or if I flatline. Better?
5) You still hasn't answered my question about what you think the outcome will be of allowing Al-quaeda or similar organization to acquire a nuke, or similar weapon of mass destruction. It's a free for all, right? OBL was very well financed. There are many people who'll gladly donate money to Al-quaeda. So, please explain why 3, or 1, mushroom cloud is better than none.
My purpose isn't terrorism. The purpose is getting back at the robber. If you're an APSD person others just don't matter.  Excuses are for people who care about others.
Yes nukes are expensive, but not out of reach for a well financed organization, which may or may not have benevolent purposes.

You're getting herder to parse. do me a favor, and hit the enter key one extra time each time, 'k? White space is your friend. Increases readability, makes it easier to reply to.

No, I don't ignore the fact that there are irrational people, but people who do not act rationally, at least (they're welcome to think whatever crazy things they want) will not do well in an AnCap society. Or any society, really.

No, by pulling your gun out and unsafing it, you're not threatening me...yet. It looks like you're about to threaten someone, though. Since it appears as though you're preparing to commit an act of aggression, it only makes sense to prepare myself to defend against it.

I'm being plenty consistent. Your inability to understand logic is what's confusing you. You only keep your gun in your hands at all times when you're someplace you expect to have to use it - like a battlefield. Unless you don't even sling your rifle when you're inside the barracks? I admit, I've never been in the military, So I'm not aware how they do it in the drone factories.

Getting better, yes. It can still go off without conscious control from you, however. Remove the connection to your vitals, and we have a deal.


We've already discussed that we can't prevent terrorist groups from getting nukes now. By your own statements, if Al-Queda had wanted a nuke, they would have had one. They didn't, so I'm not worried about them - or any other terrorist group - getting them. The biggest terrorist organizations on the planet already have them.

If you wanted to get back at the robber, you would devise a mechanism to strike back specifically at him. I get that you don't care about others. Why else would you carry a nuke into a city? You not caring about others does not change the objective nature of your actions, only your subjective view of them. Your purpose may not be terrorism, but that's the result.

1) Yet studies have shown that many executives and similar people of power have streaks of sociopathy.  Not doing well you said?

2) If there isn't a threat there, why would you pull your gun? Why does it look like I'm about to threaten someone? That's you experiencing a subjective threat. Not an objective one.

3) Whenever you move around with it you keep it in your hand. When you eat you keep it next to you. In the barracks it's usually under lock and key, for convenience. So, is me carrying that kind of gun a threat?

4) Hell no. That way it won't kill the robber if he shoots first. He should not be able to win by being faster than me.

5) Sure we can. They don't have it because it's illegal to sell to them and that's something we police very hard. Al-quaeda does want WMDs, but we work very hard to keep it from them. And being indifferent to the lives of others isn't terrorism. It's similar to shooting a gun through a park where children are playing. It's just indifference to the result.
So, arming Al-quaeda with WMDs, what do you expect the outcome to be?

And a little extra whitespace. Easier to read now? I simply forgot last post. Sorry about that.

Sociopathy does not preclude rationality.

As I explained, It appears you are about to commit an act of aggression. Thus I am preparing to defend myself.

No, but carrying it like that may elicit some of the above preparation. You are, after all, not a soldier in an occupied country. Well, unless you are. But then, both your carrying it like that and the preparation are perfectly warranted.

Boo-fucking-hoo. You should not be able to kill random strangers without at least some conscious input.

You have already admitted we cannot stop them from getting them now. If they want them, they can get them. Or do you know where every ex-USSR warhead is? I'm pretty sure not even the Russians do. The only thing making something illegal does is put it into the black market, where it cannot be monitored, controlled, or even easily observed.
And as I said, the biggest terrorist organizations already have nukes. I don't expect much to change by a smaller one getting one.

1) So now it's rational to carry a nuke into a city to get back at a robber, not caring about others that could be hurt?

2) Why does it appear that I'm prepared to commit an act of agression? Please explain that. There's no objective threat there. You might "feel" threatened, but that doesn't matter one whit. Right? If there isn't an objective threat there's no need to pull your gun. Or is there a subjective threat here somewhere? One that you're responding to?

3) So there is a threat? Why else would you prepare yourself? You do not prepare yourself for non-threats do you? It would be fun if you did though. "Ahh, a kitten in a blanket, I must draw my weapon and prepare to defend myself from this non-threat!"

4) That's not for you to decide how I use my property.

5) It's not perfect, but we do manage to stop them. Not all of them all the time, but most of them, most of the time. Why do you think there hasn't been an nuclear incident yet? I'm sure the black markets are well investigated, and most trades are allowed, only the high profile ones are intercepted. Every sane person is scared to death by these weapons, as they should be. Governments are at least semi-rational, and won't generally nuke random people. That can't be said for groups willing to bomb trains, subways, busses etc.
And you still haven't answered what you believe the outcome will be of handing a nuke over to Al-quaeda or similar organization. Is that question really so hard to answer?

Why do you keep trying to put words into my mouth? You brought up irrationality. Not me. I just called it a terroristic act.

Because you are pulling your gun out and removing the safety. Unless we're at a gun range, that indicates you might soon shoot someone. Don't be surprised if people around you act on that indication.

Silly man, kittens can't shoot you. But a soldier carrying his weapon like he's in a war zone can, and all too often, does.

Not when it harms others.


I've already told you. The largest terrorist organizations already have nukes. I don't expect much to change by a smaller one getting one.

1) You're the one claiming that one can't be successful and irrational at the same time. I say sociopaths are good examples of the contrary. The kind of people who could do just what I described. Doing something with total disregard for others. If you just do it because fuck you, then it's not terrorism. Just disregard for others.

2) What indication? Why does drawing a gun indicate an intention to shoot someone? You say the same things over and over with different words. Just admit that there's no objective threat here and that you're responding to a subjective one.

3) So there is an objective threat now, from someone with a gun that isn't pointing at you and has the safety on?

4) So you get to decide how I use my property now? Very good. I've been saying that all along. We're getting somewhere.

5) Really? You don't think that giving nukes to someone with the stated purpose of destroying a specific region, nationality or ethnicity will have any adverse effect? What do you expect them to use the WMDs for? Decoration?

I've been ignoring this latest nuke debate because I don't think that it has merit, but this one needs to be addressed.  Sociopathy does not imply irrationality.  Usually the contrary, sociopaths can be very civil & rational people, and still not care a lick what happens to anyone else.  This is exactly why sociopaths who do not tend to have other mental issues are over-represented among both political classes in every Western democracy and the top leadership of major international corporations.  It's also related to the fact that sociopaths that do have other mental issues tend to end up in a prison cell for a violent felony at some point.

Moonshadow has adequately answered your first point, I don't feel I need to add anything.

No, I'm preparing to respond to a threat. Drawing a gun and preparing to fire, if you're not at a shooting range, is indication that such a response may be necessary.

No. That's what I've been trying to say all along.

No, you don't get to harm others. You can do whatever you want with your property. Except harming others who haven't done anything to you.

I expect them to not use it. If they only have one, using it will remove their threat, and they'll be flattened by the response. Threatening to use it is much more effective. If anything, it might encourage peace.