But this is kind of a no-brainer statement that applies to everything: shooting wildly into the air, juggling chainsaws in the park, playing with dynamite dangerously close to publicly traversed property, etc etc etc. Even allowing others to set the rules isn't out of the question, or outside of what voluntarists/libertarians/anarcho-capitalists believe: If you are on someone's property, you follow their rules, and if you inadvertently damage someone else's property, you compensate them for it.
So, why even bring it up? No one disagrees with you that we shouldn't ruin other people's land.

Does this also apply to the tens of thousands of people being shot by police and the military? Why do you presume that most of those that got shot didn't actually deserve it?



Tell that to colonial Americans fighting Britain, or the Lybian rebels who recently deposed Qaddafi.

I meant, "If millions of dollars have to be stolen from people, and used for SOMETHING, I'd personally rather see it go to something productive instead of wasteful." I in no way meant that I want to see millions of dollars applied towards the underlying problem of crime, I specifically meant that I want to see millions of dollars STOP being used on things like gun control, and, if must be, used for something productive instead. Ideally, of course, I'd rather not have any money taken by nannies to take care of us, and such education come from the communities themselves, instead of the state.
TL;DR: I am willing to recognize the reality we are forced to live under, and am capable of proposing solutions without the need to tear down the entire system as a whole, regardless of how much better I believe things would be otherwise. If you were thinking that you caught me with a "gotcha," I am sorry to disappoint you.


That's what we have been asking you about: what is the degree that we must go to? Should we ban some guns? All guns? All guns and some knives and bows? All guns, knives, bows, baseball bats, spears, and vehicles over 500lb? And how do we decide? You propose that it's a matter of degree. I propose you're not focusing on the right thing to begin with.


No, I don't mean like the NRA. Frankly, I don't even know what the NRA culture is like. I don't follow, or care about them, since they have very little actual influence and rarely speak out about things. I meant that, yes, Japan's culture is "better," in a sense that they typically have much *much* higher respect for others, and elders, ingrained into them from a very early age, as compared to the cultures of European and American countries. So in that sense, even if every person in Japan owned a gun, the crime rate there would likely be lower than in Switzerland and wherever else.



Actually, it has about equal parts "don't need one" , "too lazy to go through all the hoops to get one" , and "don't want to spend so much to buy one."
Regardless, what's your point? Just because I happen to not need a gun, must we force everyone else to not have one, too, even if they do need one?

Ok, ok! Let me ask you something then. Please explain how edge effects, trophic cascades, and species migration have anything to do with coercion. 

Really? I probably missed that. Personally, I know that criminals buy their guns from other gun owners, either on the street, over the internet, or at gun shows. I know this because the media has been harping about "background checks" for almost a year now. I can't imagine that everyone else is actually as dumb as you claim them to be. Maybe?



Is it because the actual ban will be ineffective at stopping criminals from buying them from other gun owners, on the street, or over the internet, and because it will do absolutely nothing but distract us from the underlying issue of crime itself? I mean, to paraphrase, guns don't cause crimes, people cause crimes. Personally, I'd rather see the millions of tax dollars going to stop the underlying problem of crime, than ineffectually attempting to patch one of many of its enablers.


Yes, we have. I noticed Japan still has crime. And in the end, I've dismissed them as inadequate, because they con't control for the radically different cultures and respect for others between Japan and other countries. Are there any better statistics that can account for the radically different cultures?

By the way, I don't own a gun, nor do II consider myself a gun nut in any sense (though I have had experience with sniper rifles)

So, you stated a series of facts that have nothing to do with coercion, morality, force, law, or whatever, and are now upset because we ignored something that was, by your own admission, off topic?

The question isn't "where to they get the guns." We all know the answer to that, and have moved on a long time ago (while you are apparently still assuming we have no idea). You trying to prove a point by making others admit that "criminals can buy guns from almost anywhere" doesn't really solve or prove anything. The real question is what can we do about it, and if there IS anything we can do about it. That question, naturally, veers off into "If we ban this tool, won't people use others for similar purposes?"

Huh... Where do they claim criminals get guns from then? Aside from gun buyers, gun owners, and gun sellers (and making them themselves) the only other options I can think of are that they are found on the street, are spontaneously created, or come from windows into other universes.


Citing cars, knives, and spears doesn't mean they don't admit that "guns allow criminals to commit their crimes easier." They admit that, and simply point out that there are a whole lot of other things that also allow criminals to commit their crimes easier. You are so focused on trying to convince everyone of this point, when no one disagrees with you, and is just asking "Why not ban those other things, too, and where do we stop?"




Of course. Which is why Japan has no homicides, manslaughter (accidental killing), or other crimes. Right?

I assure you, the feeling is mutual.


Yes, the biology lessons were enlightening. If you'll remember, I proposed that we teach people about how their actions affect their surroundings, and explain to them that certain of their actions may damage other people's property. Now, remind me please, did you simply explain how the things you mentioned work? Or did you explain how they work, and propose that we coerce people into doing things to mitigate changes? If the former, we are in agreement. If the later, you have your answer.

Why?

Uh, congratulations? Though, I am sorry to disappoint you, but I'm pretty sure everyone here would admit to #1, #2, and #3 (you need to add from 3D printers to #2 BTW). It's just that this isn't the issue. No more so than I am sure you will admit that

1. You don't like the idea of falling
2. You admit that, ultimately, all falling comes from the existence of gravity
3. You admit that gravity makes falling and resultant deaths and injuries easier.

Banning gravity is not the answer here. Oh, also, I have traded more than $1,000 BTC for USD without registering with FinCEN or getting a Money Transmitter License, I have illegally downloaded music, movies, and software, I have viewed porn and drank alcohol when I was underage, I have crossed the street while the light was red, and I have lied on domain registration applications about my real name and address, meaning I am a criminal. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun?

Expect to spend at least $2,500 just to start (don't bother with GPU any more), wait at least 2 to 3 months before you actually get your rig, Google Bitcoin Mining Calculator to get estimates on how much you'll make, and use at least 1.5 times the current difficulty to figure out how much you'll make by the time you actually get your rig.

You can use this to get an idea for hardware specs out there.

Skimming through some of the posts here, I get the feeling that maybe instead of setting up a Bitcoin town, you guys should set up an INTJ/INTP town.

Only as much as I condone that jumping off a building causes one's face to be lethally smashed in. Do I like it? No. But I don't pretend that there is something that can be done about it. As much as I'd love to be able to float in the air, or keep criminals from getting tools to help them commit crime easier, I understand that my wishes are just that, wishes.

I could ask you a similar question btw: Do you condone the current state where criminals can download files (or transact financially) illegally using peer-to-peer technology? And thus, by extension, do you condone the soon-to-be state where criminals can download blueprints for guns, and quickly and easily print a many of them as they want right at home?
Whether you condone it or not, your opinion on the matter, and mine, is meaningless.

I'll be curious to see what kind of "Steampunk Bitcoin" stuff people will come up with 50 years from now.

I only said that they want us, the non-coercion types, to be submissive to coercion, and hope to teach us such. In a way I guess it's like trying to teach a recently freed slave about all the benefits of being a slave

I think you may be forgetting that the $10,000 isn't just sitting in a money bag somewhere, but is likely being used to invest in something else, which in turn gives someone a job or a place to live. For example, my parents make about twice that a month, but only get to use about $1,000 of that on themselves, the rest going to pay for places for others to live in.

I don't advocate doing the impossible, as you propose.

I'm just curious how they expect to teach anti-coercion types to be submissive to coercion. That's, like, the opposite of what those types want.

Except that "teaching" abstinence literally consists of just, "Kids, don't have sex. End of lesson," and turns out that it doesn't even work.