Bitcoin Forum
August 28, 2015, 02:46:40 PM *
News: New! Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.11.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... 198 »
41  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Get (pledge) out of New York! on: August 11, 2015, 10:47:23 AM
 Sign me up.

(p.s. the title could be more descriptive, I thought maybe this was a thread about lemony fresh furniture cleaner)

42  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: August 11, 2015, 09:57:27 AM
You don't have a fucking clue where I live or don't live. It's a bit creepy to see how someone can be so obsessive that they latch on to some old quote or post they found. Do you also break restraining orders and go through your ex-boyfriend's rubbish disposal to find old receipts? Well, at least the US has equal opportunity so that mentally deranged people such as yourself can obtain infinite guns without being "discriminated" against.

And you don't have a clue what ideologies I espouse, but that doesn't stop you from making shit up. BTW, its public record, so if it is a problem for you maybe you should stop talking in public. Additionally the only reason I did it is because you are too much of a coward to disclose your country of residence so that comparisons of US demographics and your own country's demographics could be made, but you are so dedicated to your bias you can't allow a fair debate now can you?
43  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Transgender on: August 11, 2015, 09:54:25 AM
Tennessee lesbian couple faked hate crime and destroyed own home with arson for insurance claim, jury rules
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/tenn-lesbian-couple-faked-hate-crime-arson-home-court-article-1.2315755
44  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: August 11, 2015, 07:29:29 AM

You falsely believe that taxing firearms will some how reduce the availability of firearms, but you have no problem skipping over that step and just claiming it is a fact taxes will reduce the prevalence of firearms.

I've explained it several times. Since you're obviously "skipping over" what I've already written because you're unable (or unwilling) to see reason, I've got nothing more to add.


You are nothing but a fucking parrot anyway repeating what others tell you to think. I still think it is hilarious your reference is a branch of MAD magazine, always a trustworthy scientific journal. Have fun fucking chlamydia infested koalas or whatever the fuck it is you do in that island sandpit of yours. I look forward to the day China decides it wants your resources and your people have nothing to defend yourselves with. Your nation started as a prison, but evolved into a nation of snotty entitled pansies. Funny how that works.

"But people familiar with gun culture will recognize it as something far sillier: a bunch of grown men collecting firearms like little girls collect Barbie dolls (we're not being insulting -- it's a running joke among gun enthusiasts)."
http://www.cracked.com/article_20396_5-mind-blowing-facts-nobody-told-you-about-guns_p5.html

The consumer fire-arms industry (which is what you're really talking about, and has nothing to do with weapons that could realistically hold off the government), is selling a fantasy so that "big boys" can also have their Barbie Doll accessories.

Aussie want a cracker?
45  Other / Politics & Society / Re: How does Russia view the West? on: August 11, 2015, 01:57:26 AM
The western countries are afraid of Russia, because it is a very big and very powerful country. That kind of a country in the hands of some kind of a mad man would mean World War 3. But this is not the case with Russia and Vladimir Putin, he is not a threat for the western countries.

I don't think it is so much about fear, but about resources. Both sides know there is increasing conflict over resources, and sooner or later unless firm lines are drawn one side will start testing the others defenses and borders.
46  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: August 10, 2015, 09:20:00 PM

You keep saying there is a cost to gun ownership, but you are never willing to address the costs of your own plan which with then be an additional burden on top of existing burdens. Just because your plan is completely logically flawed doesn't mean you can just point back at me and keep crying about the costs (which you don't pay BTW). Everyone who lives within the US or even visits pays taxes, so WE ALL PAY THE COST. You can jump up and down and cry that it is not true, but if the burden is put upon the tax payer (which it is), then we all pay for it, just like I pay to fund schools even though I have no children. We all enjoy certain liberties here which we all collectively pay for.

You're twisting so many things around, it's hard to know to where to start.

You falsely believe that "less guns" in society would somehow be socially costly. I showed that to be incorrect a couple of pages back, linking information that gun suicides far outnumber gun murders in the US. The article explains how there could be a lot less deaths in society if "law abiding citizens" didn't have so many guns lying around and within easy reach. They linked it to research proving that a lot of suicides are opportunistic, not premeditated, and that simple measures in other areas in society successfully reduced the amount of deaths. As examples, they talked about suicide-prevention fences on a bridge, which lo-and-behold, reduced the total suicide rate in the entire town despite there being other bridges. And when coal ovens were upgraded, the same thing happened: less opportunity = less death.


You falsely believe that taxing firearms will some how reduce the availability of firearms, but you have no problem skipping over that step and just claiming it is a fact taxes will reduce the prevalence of firearms.


Because there are so many MORE gun suicides than gun murders to start with, there would have to be a large spike in the murders to compensate for a slight decrease in the suicide rate. And that won't happen either because most gun murders ALSO occur at home, and most likely by a family member or spouse. Not home invasions.

You can site whatever cherry picked stats you like, it doesn't change the fact that your plan is unenforceable therefore worse than useless.


A spike in home invasions wouldn't make sense either. If it's not a relative or friend, then it's a stranger, and they most likely won't know if there's a gun in the house or not, or whether it's safely locked up or not. If there's a gun at home, it's useless all safely locked up. And if it's not locked up, then your family is a bigger risk to you in the first place.

There's no need to bring Mexican cartels into it, or arming the poor. The simple fact is that after adding up the biggest factors, having guns at home puts you at more risk of dying than not having guns at home.

Who said every gun owner has a family at home, or that their family is untrained in firearm safety? Again it boils down to you pointing out problems with no suitable or effective solution.

Having a pool at home automatically increases your risk of drowning. Having electricity in your home automatically increases your risk of fire or electrocution. Using a ladder automatically increases your risk of falling and being injured. Most injuries are in the home as well, should we just start taxing the shit out of all these things because they aren't needed in the survivalist sense? You are used to living in a country where they dictate to their subjects what they will do. Here, public support of laws are required otherwise they either aren't passed, aren't enforced, or are completely ignored. I know that is hard for some one who has been trained to be obedient and subservient their whole life to understand, but this is not just about guns or safety, it is about self determination, something which has little value in monarchies like where you live.




Suddenly all of your points rely on your supposed observations of me as a person. That is called an ad hominem attack, which is a fallacy and not considered an actual form of debate. Also I don't know where you get off labeling me an anarcho-capitalist libertarian just because I disagree with you. What the fuck makes you think you know me? Oh thats right, your deeply engrained confirmation bias does, because anyone who disagrees with your totally righteous plans must be anarcho-capitalist.

LOL
Questioning your character is completely relevant in a discussion about social concerns. Like you're so righteous to disguise your selfish aims (untouchable gun rights so you can defend yourself against the evil government) as caring about the poor and wanting everyone armed so that they can supposedly defend themselves against each other. You're SO gun crazy that you even managed to fake some social empathy.

What does my character have to do with the facts? I brought up things about your country and perception because as a direct result of your circumstances you are completely ignorant of the huge differences between your society and mine, and that creates huge rifts of bias you are unwilling to acknowledge. My criticisms are focused on the debate, your personal attacks are focused on your existing bias against myself as a person in which you apply labels to me without any kind of basis but your existing bias. Real debates do not include personal attacks. You have relied upon fallacy after fallacy to try to "win" this debate, and all you have done is buried yourself in a pile of bullshit ever deeper.

You are 55 times more likely to die at the hands of police than terrorists in the US, but we have no reason to fear our government right? The poor are more often victims of crimes, but that is just fake empathy to you. The elderly can't physically defend themselves without firearms, but that is again just fake empathy right? The same thing goes with the rape and assault of women. I wonder why there are more women raped per capita in Australia than in the US...

You are right tho, those are all just fake empathy, those people wont REALLY have to suffer, it is all just a  "red herring" like mental health, and even if they do have to suffer, it is worth it so you can feel like you did something with your social experiment right? My favorite kind of people are the ones who are generous and caring at the expense of some one else. It just so much easier when you just make others sacrifice for your ideals! It just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside with absolutely no personal sacrifices, just like socialism!

I am not going around demanding everyone own a gun, but gun control cultists have no problem telling together people they shouldn't own one, even if it is by force, force by the way that if utilized in this country would in fact result in civil war. Good plan dipshit! That ought to save a lot of lives!
47  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Police consider limited inquiry into Ted Heath child sex abuse claims on: August 10, 2015, 10:04:40 AM
Witnesses and or evidence vanishes in 3...2...1...
48  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: August 10, 2015, 08:30:48 AM

No, you fucking don't pay the costs. That's a fucking lie and you know it. In fact, I'm almost certain you're one of those people who fight tooth and nail against all types of "tax coercion", whether or not you use the infrastructure and other tax-funded things. You then justify it to yourself with a utopian Anarcho-Capitalist ideology or some Libertarian variation thereof. In other words, your factual stealing is acceptable in your mind because you really really don't like taxes, a lot more deeply and emotionally than the superficial way that most other people don't like tax. And you rationalise the greed by imagining an elaborate utopia where everything is private and tax-free.

It wouldn't be so bad if your preferred alternative was actually a good idea, but it's not. It never stands up to scrutiny. Guns are a glaring case where tax-free utopias fail: you guys want to have tax-free fun, even though you know that the social costs are NOT ZERO, and you know that you're NOT PAYING those costs. Other taxes don't count because everyone else has to pay that shit too!

And in some cases you have no means of privately paying reparations to someone's family if you accidentally injure or kill someone. Are all gun owners millionaires? Unlikely! Are they all comprehensively insured for that sort of thing? Un-fucking-likely. Would they all voluntarily pay insurance if there weren't any state or federal governments "coercing" them? Un-fucking-likely.

You're like one of those geriatric 90 year old smokers, who spend hours bitching about why do THEY have to pay exorbitant taxes on cigarettes, when it's all the OTHER old smokers who are a drain on the health system, and they're still healthy. Their BS argument conveniently ignores the fact that the government had their sorry ass covered during all those decades they spent smoking and risking their health despite being broke. In the US' case, admittedly the coverage might have been a bit weak due to your obsession with "private insurance or die on the streets" mentality, but it was definitely NOT ZERO.

Suddenly all of your points rely on your supposed observations of me as a person. That is called an ad hominem attack, which is a fallacy and not considered an actual form of debate. Also I don't know where you get off labeling me an anarcho-capitalist libertarian just because I disagree with you. What the fuck makes you think you know me? Oh thats right, your deeply engrained confirmation bias does, because anyone who disagrees with your totally righteous plans must be anarcho-capitalist. Additionally labeling me as such is a straw man attack. I never espoused those ideas, you are again inventing a narrative, attributing it to me, then expecting me to defend myself from it. Its amazing how you could glean all these concepts about what I believe without me saying these things, I guess you just know so much you even know things you don't know. Like I said tho, that is besides the point.

You keep saying there is a cost to gun ownership, but you are never willing to address the costs of your own plan which with then be an additional burden on top of existing burdens. Just because your plan is completely logically flawed doesn't mean you can just point back at me and keep crying about the costs (which you don't pay BTW). Everyone who lives within the US or even visits pays taxes, so WE ALL PAY THE COST. You can jump up and down and cry that it is not true, but if the burden is put upon the tax payer (which it is), then we all pay for it, just like I pay to fund schools even though I have no children. We all enjoy certain liberties here which we all collectively pay for.

Speaking of red herrings, your entire rant about smoking qualifies. Your spite for people who disagree with you bleeds though every word you write. You really do believe yourself smarter and more superior, and no one else can tell you any different, because you KNOW the truth (even if you don't have the facts or even a logical plan to back it up).

You think you know me well enough to talk about me like this? Tell ya wot cunt, go get a black dog up ya!
49  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Video: Aloft hotel robot butler that brings you room service. on: August 10, 2015, 07:25:07 AM
All they need to do now is mount a fleshlight in it and their sales will quadruple.
50  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: August 10, 2015, 07:19:30 AM
IMO, people should be given the choice whether whey want to own a fire-arm or not. In places like Texas, where home invasions are very common, the possession of a fire-arm can save many lives. However, the government should make it impossible for people with a criminal record, and those with mental issues from obtaining fire-arms.

Yeah man, I'm with you but it's a "double edge sword"...

On one hand, legal gun owners don't want their rights infringed - and honestly the government in the US will never succeed in taking personal gun ownership away. It just won't happen without a militia fight form legal gun owners.

On the other hand, you have a lot of crime from illegal gun owners and the mentally unstable. And they'll always find guns, regardless of the laws. Yet the legal gun owners aren't willing to support laws that help the government fight illegal gun ownership. It baffles me.

Legal gun owners in the US want their guns but aren't willing to be stewards or ambassadors of responsible gun ownership.

The problem with gun laws is they don't prevent anything, they simply punish violators after the fact. Also no one ever accounts for the amount of crimes STOPPED by guns. Since there are no official avenues for reporting these incidents, and people are afraid of having laws enforced against them for what would normally be considered legal firearms use, the defensive use of firearms are hardly ever kept track of. The majority of the time simply brandishing the weapon is enough to stop the criminal activity, with zero actual use of force.

"Yet the legal gun owners aren't willing to support laws that help the government fight illegal gun ownership."

What laws do you think would do this effectively without providing the government with an avenue with which to strip yet another right from the US population? Its easy to point out problems, finding effective solutions is much harder. Unfortunately most people are either very anti-gun or very pro-gun ownership, so there is usually not much middle ground found.
51  Other / Politics & Society / Re: EPA Dumps One Million Gallons of Wastewater Into Colorado River on: August 10, 2015, 05:33:54 AM

Its an environmental disasteroni, with toxic heavy metalsoni, and massive death of natureoni, and lots of people poisondoni, lets thank the Environmental Protection Agencioni for a move that is ironioni and completely boneheadedoni!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdeQZANLmH0
52  Other / Meta / Re: Why were my posts deleted? I thought this place was anti-censorship? on: August 10, 2015, 04:31:18 AM
As I stated in that thread (now deleted), I reported Bethalion's continual ranting about religion and God within a thread dedicated to the discussion of subjects related to "transgender" as the topic title suggests. Some times when you report posts, the moderator who responds will delete any responses to the off topic post, or other posts they might see in the surrounding area that are off topic.
53  Other / Politics & Society / Re: EPA Dumps One Million Gallons of Wastewater Into Colorado River on: August 10, 2015, 03:56:14 AM
54  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: August 10, 2015, 03:46:43 AM
I am not quoting you directly any more because you are too fucking lazy to format your posts properly.  Additionally since you refuse to disclose the bias of your resident nation, I decided to just review your post history. After examination of your post history I have concluded you are most likely from Australia. It makes sense after all, your snotty attitude, your assumption that you are familiar with our culture, your self proclaimed superiority, as well as your cult like following of gun control regardless of the lack of logic behind it. These are all traits I have regularly seen exhibited in Australian citizens.

Additionally now that I know your country of residence, I can point out some key differences between where you live, and where I live. None of these things are independent of the crime rate or violence in general.

-You live on an island, the US borders with Mexico meaning a regular supply of illegal immigrants flooding in from Mexico, South America, as well as other countries where illegal weapons are in large supply, and violence is high.

-Australia has about 10% of the population of the USA.

-You live under a Monarchy as a royal subject, we have constitutional rights

-You live in a more culturally homogenized nation, the USA is made up of a tremendous amount of cultures and peoples increasing the incidence of conflict.

-There are enough guns within US borders currently to have 10 for every Australian citizen, or one for every singe American. No amount of good will or taxation will make that not a fact.

-Freedom, independence, the right to self defense, and the right to have a representative government is something that the people of the US in the past have paid enormous costs for. As a subject this is not part of your culture. As it is part of our culture here, many people here do not feel the loss of those cherished concepts is worth abandoning for any price. The fact of the matter is no one knows how high of a cost abandoning those concepts could be. Dictatorships are not a thing of the past no matter how much you want to believe society is some how more civilized that it has been in the past.

I am sure there are many more differences, but I don't want to waste too much time with your idiocy. The fact of the matter is Australia and The United States are not directly comparable, no matter how much you pretend they are. Of course you know this, which is why you so cowardly refused to identify your own nation of residence.

Dunning Kruger effect in full force. Go back to school buddy.

Can you tell me exactly what expertise you have that I don't that some how makes this theory not apply to you?  Additionally this is one of those things that people with no logical argument cling to and use like a cudgel to try to make themselves sound more logical and scientific like Occam's Razor, or Godwin's law. You just hear other people use it and think it makes you sound smart so you throw it around as if it is an insult never truly understanding its real application or point.


Yeah, and nobody knows anybody, nobody recognises any faces, and petty mules never bow to any pressure from cops to reveal their contacts.

And it's still a red herring that distracts attention from the real issues:
deaths, injuries, and other social costs.

So the fact that your plan is fundamentally flawed on basic economic levels is a red herring? I don't see how that is possible. At this point I am fairly certain you don't even know the real definitions of half of these fallacies you are accusing me of. You ASSUME your logic is flawless, but you have no proof it would be effective here or anywhere. If people can make their own weapons cheaply at home, your whole taxation scheme is completely flawed. Your argument is that even though your logic is flawed, we should push ahead with your unproven social experiment, no matter what the cost, because it is "the right thing to do". You are ignoring lots of real world costs that would be incurred as a result of implementing your flawed system, which could arguably make things worse than they already are. Those are real issues you are ignoring. That isn't science or logic, that is called dogma.

Do you know anything at all about the cartel problem in Mexico? Of course not. No one is above being touched by them. Roll a few heads into a night club, abduct a few police and other civil servants, and trust me people get quiet pretty fucking quick. Additionally you make the assumption that they know anything to begin with. Its called compartmentalization.


You start by HAVING those taxes in the first place. Ultimately, it's just a policy statement to educate the ignorant masses that there exists such a thing as "social cost" associated with guns, and that YOU (if you're buying a gun) are obliged to pay for those costs. But if you're determined to be a parasite...

Enforcement comes after having the policy in place.

A policy statement. That's nice, lets make millions of people unable to defend themselves so you can make a policy statement. Brilliant. We already pay these costs every day, but what are the social costs of your plan? I guess that doesn't matter as long as you get to have your social experiment become reality. In this country we have rights. I know living in a monarchy as a royal subject that must be hard to understand, but don't be jealous. Again, your logic is to just push forward and hope that some time in the future your plan MIGHT make some kind of positive effect, with absolutely no assurances.


Obviously no singular tax is ever 100% effective in the real world, and I'm not denying that. But you seem to be focusing on the sub-100% effectiveness as an excuse for not having one at all. I already explained that even if a tax would only cover part of the market, it would still put a dent in prices across the board. But it might be more effective to just tax bullets instead. Because, you know X % of bullets can be expected to kill or injure people, which I'm sure you agree is a bad thing. They can put widows on food-stamps, people in hospitals requiring expensive surgery and rehab and that sort of thing, not to mention polluting the environment. And since you're obviously not a parasite, you'll be happy to cover the cost, amirite?

I seem to be focusing on the 0% effectiveness of your tax scheme, because not only will it cause more harm than good, it is also in violation of several rights that were paid for with blood by our people. There is no way in hell the people of the USA will ever abandon these concepts for some lofty ethereal promise of peace, which would then easily be violated by those willing to use force resulting in far more death and destruction. Gun control cultists like you believe society has reached some kind of pinnacle of humanity which now puts us above such antiquated concepts of war, violence, and crime. Sorry to burst your bubble, but humanity is just as fucked up as ever, even if your favorite bubble of society is isolated from this on your little island. BTW, we all pay taxes here just being consumers, so we all pay the costs associated with gun ownership. I don't have children, but I still pay to send other people's children to school. That's how taxation works.


Well, how about you shuddup and learn from the rest of the world, huh?
When US gun-related deaths (not only crime, but deaths in general) go down, then you can talk.
And, no, I see no reason to tell you where I live, especially when you sound like someone who's a highly-strung tyrannical fuck. "Freedom this... freedom that... FUCKING TELL ME WHERE YOU LIVE!" LMAO I think I'll pass.

What right does anyone living anywhere but here have a right to dictate what we do in our own internal domestic policies? Where the fuck do you get off thinking you have a right to dictate to other people living in a place much different than where you live, how to live. Crime in the US over the last 30 years HAS been going down, but don't let that mess up your confirmation bias. Lets talk about "gun deaths".  Did you know if we banned cars we could save thousands of lives every year? If we reduced the availability of cars and taxed the producers more heavily, there would be less cars and therefore less "car deaths". Lets put the enormous costs and hardships of such an idea aside, because it is "the right" thing to do.

As a royal subject, of course you can dismiss the concept of rights so easily, because you have no rights, so it costs you nothing to decry it.  I don't need you to tell me, I already know where you live and that you are a subject. I would expect nothing more from chattel.

55  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: August 09, 2015, 06:20:39 PM

And are those teenage science projects responsible for most of the social problems like murder and other gun-related deaths? Gimme a break. I dunno why I'm even bothering when you don't even have enough respect to reply to the points I've made.

3d printers enable anyone to make stuff, the nature of what is to be made follows from the device doing the making.  If it's plastic, then the apparatus is designed for that material - if it is sintered metal, then the design is for sintered metal.  Additive manufacturing is not going to be tool steel.
Not viable. I've debunked it above, so if you don't have anything new to add, I'll take it that I've won that point hands down.
.....

NO, you have "debunked" nothing whatsoever.  I have extensive experience with CNC and 3d printers, and I will assure you that production of certain firearms by amateurs is plausible, is happening, and is impossible to stop.

Now I'm just repeating myself...
It doesn't matter if it can be done, the market price will be dictated by the main suppliers, who will comply with tax regulations in order to stay legal.
Therefore your price would either be undercutting the market, which would be stupid, or it would get bumped up, giving you extra profit per unit. However, extra profit per unit means extra risk, as I already mentioned.

Yes, you are just repeating yourself. We keep giving you direct evidence why your premise is flawed but you just keep going like some kind of true believer parrot that thinks they can talk over reality and make it change. The extra risk itself provides extra profit. This is the same reason a gram of cocaine is practically worthless in Colombia, but by the time it gets to the US it is worth about $150. More risk = more cost = more profit, which more than makes up for any undercutting. Do you even have any basic concept of how supply and demand works? Supply goes down, price goes up, profit goes up, supply goes up, repeat.


For example:
a black market producer makes $50k worth guns or gun parts per month, for their ring or their paying customers or whatever. Meanwhile, a new tax is applied on the legal market, significantly affecting the price. The black market producer now has a serious problem:
The same quantity is now worth $1M.
It's a completely different "tax bracket", making them a much more appealing target in the eyes of both law enforcement who would do more chasing, and the courts, which would now impose bigger penalties.
Therefore, to reduce their risk exposure, the obvious thing to do would be either produce less to get back to the original $50k plan, or invest in more expensive security/tactics/bookkeeping, and hope that they don't get caught while they're out of their league.

The problem applies whether it's one guy in his garage doing cash jobs on the side, or an extensive crime syndicate

You are just pulling those numbers out of your ass. You have zero concept of how supply and demand works. Take an economics class. What you said is completely moronic and contrived to fit your viewpoint. Cartels don't have that much risk, because they can afford to pay mules to do that for them.

   Therefore you have a sort of "retro" gun control argument, not one that is oriented toward the world we are moving into.
Why retro? You provided zero evidence that it was practical or competitive. It's like you're telling me that I can make colour printouts from my B&W laser printer, just by purchasing 3 different toner cartridges, swapping them out and manually turning the paper upside down and placing it on the in-tray. "It can be done!"

Actually we did provide evidence, which you promptly ignored in order to move on with your mindless bias ranting.
Here it is again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiHdV5slQps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8FL_vgb01M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEJt_ujJWVA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElgTP3c-XcQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPWU3TcJ7zU

Making guns at home is quite practical, economical, and a lot easier than you think.

Maybe they could afford it, in theory. And? Could you spell out what you were trying to suggest from pointing out the existence of alternative manufacturing options?

If my guess is correct and what you're trying to say is "regulation won't work because people will just make their own guns", then I have several arguments to bust that criticism.

The point is criminals don't pay taxes. If they don't pay taxes, and they make their own weapons, then your entire strategy of using taxation as a method of restriction is completely useless, because they can make as many weapons as they want, and there will be ZERO paperwork tracking them as opposed to some. It is a pretty simple concept that seems lost on you.

The pricing and availability of weapons is connected between ALL of the different manufacturing methods. The existence of alternatives doesn't matter. If for example, a hefty sales tax is slapped on mass-produced guns coming out of factories, people still won't bother with the high cost and inconvenience and skill required to make their own weapons, unless it becomes economically viable for them to do so.

Bullshit. It IS already economically viable to make your own guns. If you taxed all of the machinery to make guns, you would be making EVERYTHING more expensive because these basic tools are used to make all kinds of legal parts we need to keep society running, and you STILL wouldn't stop it from happening.

I was talking about individual items on sale being subjected to sales tax. VAT and GST and has been tried and tested, and it works extremely well all around the world. You're just playing dumb because you're ideologically opposed to the idea. Tax-free utopia and all that shit. Welcome to the real world.

Yeah, we get it, you said it already like 3 times, and we have replied that your plan is worse than useless and why.
How the fuck do you enforce taxes on something someone can make in their home out of a block of metal on a $1000 machine? You aren't just playing dumb...

Tax free? Utopia? What? Now you are just being like a refractory 5 year old and repeating my own words back to me. You are also projecting. Your confirmation bias is dribbling all over the page attacking my "ideology" because I point out how your premises are logically flawed. Do you even know what the word utopian means? I will give you a hint, it is not a world with so much crime that you need a firearm to protect yourself and your family.

How do you force criminals that make their own weapons to pay taxes? Also even assuming no one can make their own weapons, how do you stop them from smuggling weapons from other countries? The existence of alternatives DOES matter, because they will simply choose the path of least resistance. THEY ARE FUCKING CRIMINALS. CRIMINALS DO NOT PAY TAXES. Are you really that dense?

The only people that taxes will restrict are LAW ABIDING gun owners. The real world... that's funny considering you are trying to make the real world fit your ideology in contradiction of logic, economics, or any form of common sense. Speaking of which, WHICH SOCIALIST HELLHOLE DO YOU RESIDE IN?


Bullshit. There is fundamentally no difference between a receiver milled at home and a professionally produced one.
I never said there was.
Yes, you did.

One-off proof-of-concept devices, costing $1000s in tooling-up + time and skill, are no match for commercial guns that are properly made and cost a small fraction of that.

Having trouble keeping up with your own bullshit are you? BTW, it doesn't costs thousands, and they are exactly the same durability and general quality as commercially produced firearms, and can be produced with little skill, currently even cheaper than commercially produced units.


Additionally by ridding the markets of the cheapest weapons, you deny the segment of the population at most risk the ability to defend themselves, the poor.
Gimme a fucking break. You're so blinded by your utopian Libertarian ideals, that you've constructed an entire fantasy world in your head where everything works differently and black is white.

Why not start giving prisoners their own guns to defend themselves against their fellow inmates? If that sounds ridiculous, then why the hell should an "open air prison" be any different?

There you go again using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Either that or you are so pissed off about the ideas of libertarianism that you can't see past your own bias and realize the fact that even IF we did support your idiotic taxing scheme, it still would be no more effective in reality, because criminals just don't pay taxes. It is a pretty simple concept. Unless you can control the actual manufacture of the weapons (you can't) your scheme is completely worthless.

Prisoners are convicted criminals. Are you equating the poor with convicted criminals? Speaking of worlds we live in... WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU LIVE?

The poor are the ones that live in high crime areas, and that are most likely to need a firearm to protect themselves.
Want versus need. Learn the difference.
Yeah, you are right... people certainly don't have a need to not be raped, beaten, and killed, it is just something they want and could go without.


Of course you don't give a shit about any of that as long as your utopian ideologies are satiated.
Roll Eyes
hypocrite^^

Me pointing out poor people being defenseless in high crime areas is pretty much the opposite of utopian, but don't bother using words according to their definition, you can just pretend they mean whatever you want. Speaking of hypocrites, WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU LIVE YOU FUCKING COWARD? Afraid we might find flaws in your own homeland? No, of course not, because you don't even have the balls to tell us what country you live in. Of course the whole world should fit under the rubric of your most likely tiny, socialist, homogenous western European nation. Its easy to talk like there is no crime when your country isn't accepting millions of illegal immigrants raising the crime rates.

P.S. Learn to use the quoting system properly you lazy fuck. I don't think I could live with myself if some one mistook your words for mine.
56  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: August 08, 2015, 06:01:06 PM
I still want to know what utopian lands he resides in.
57  Other / Politics & Society / Re: The Top 5 Ways Jon Stewart Was Full of Sh*t on: August 08, 2015, 05:23:44 PM
Quote
On a scale of bullshit I would put John Steward in a larger pile for sure, but IMO Maher's pile is also exceptionally large and steamy. I have seen him be a political shill for issues many times, just usually with a conservative bend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA1bsM2rZVU

Here's Bill Maher getting pissed off at politically correct people and he does it constantly, regardless of your opinions of him the man's for free speech, that much is certain and he frequently gets into fights with people on the left over it.

I didn't say he has no redeeming qualities. Stuart has redeeming qualities as well. The moment I see a some one shilling for one party or the other though is the moment I realize they are too simple to understand they are fundamentally the same entity. It is just a question of what flavor you want your shit sandwich to be. Cool ranch shit or BBQ shit?
58  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: August 08, 2015, 04:29:13 PM
    Maybe they could afford it, in theory. And? Could you spell out what you were trying to suggest from pointing out the existence of alternative manufacturing options?

    If my guess is correct and what you're trying to say is "regulation won't work because people will just make their own guns", then I have several arguments to bust that criticism.

    • The pricing and availability of weapons is connected between ALL of the different manufacturing methods. The existence of alternatives doesn't matter. If for example, a hefty sales tax is slapped on mass-produced guns coming out of factories, people still won't bother with the high cost and inconvenience and skill required to make their own weapons, unless it becomes economically viable for them to do so.

    Bullshit. It IS already economically viable to make your own guns. If you taxed all of the machinery to make guns, you would be making EVERYTHING more expensive because these basic tools are used to make all kinds of legal parts we need to keep society running, and you STILL wouldn't stop it from happening.


    • One-off proof-of-concept devices, costing $1000s in tooling-up + time and skill, are no match for commercial guns that are properly made and cost a small fraction of that. There's plenty of scope to reduce the overall quantity, weeding out an easy 50%~80% (at a guesstimate) of the cheapest weapons on the market, thus making the remaining ones harder to obtain for the poorest buyers. And the vast majority of the remaining buyers still wouldn't consider 3d printing technology to be a realistic option.

    Bullshit. There is fundamentally no difference between a receiver milled at home and a professionally produced one. Additionally by ridding the markets of the cheapest weapons, you deny the segment of the population at most risk the ability to defend themselves, the poor. The poor are the ones that live in high crime areas, and that are most likely to need a firearm to protect themselves. Of course you don't give a shit about any of that as long as your utopian ideologies are satiated.


    • Being able to make your own guns involves marketable skills, and it's obvious that you can make a lot of other stuff as well. This immediately provides a person with legal options for making a living, and they're unlikely to be involved in criminal behaviour in the first place.

    You assume that there are manufacturing jobs just sitting waiting for these people. There are not. Additionally not all crime is a result of poverty, some times people just lose their fucking minds.


    • "But oppressive taxes will drive buyers underground and illegal manufacturing will increase", you may cry.
      Doesn't matter, and it would only be temporary. A simple $100 tax on legal weapons will add up to $100 (possibly more if there's overshoot) to the bottom line on any CNC machinist making black market weapons. Therefore the total supply will still decrease. It's basic economics. There are countless real-world examples where supplier X encounters problems, therefore the unrelated supplier Y puts their prices up. RAM production was a classic case a few years ago, where problems at Korean plants meant that prices spiked everywhere.

    Temporary? You are completely ignorant of economics. A permanent added cost isn't some how magically not as expensive over time. It will always be more expensive, thus there will be MORE incentive to buy from underground sources, and the supply of illegal weapons will only increase.


    • "This will reward criminals while punishing legitimate manufacturers!"
      Incorrect. Criminal behaviour is still black-listed as criminal behaviour, at least proportional to the amount of crime committed. Therefore, if a black-market manufacturer increases their output because of supply problems elsewhere, they also become a bigger fish in the eyes of the law. The increased risk balances out the money.
    [/list]

    Again, you are completely ignorant of reality. Do you think these kingpins give a shit if a handful of their mules go to prison? They don't. If the money is there there will ALWAYS be an ENDLESS SUPPLY of people willing to break the law, and the more you enforce the law, the more they can charge for the weapons, increasing profits and motivation for supplying more weapons. Remember how well the drug war worked? There is functionally no difference between a restriction and a ban if there is economic incentive to violate it.


    The biggest impediment I'm seeing is this:
    Gun proponents keep coming up with half-baked excuses as to why society can't be made safer, why tax won't work, why you shouldn't even try, and dismissing vital social concerns like countless murders, deaths and injuries...

    And all for what? For selfish reasons like a personal desire for cheap, tax-free toys. Or your cultural Voodoo about "potentially defending yourself" against your flesh-and-blood peers in the government sector.

    Are you seriously suggesting that your Voodoo beliefs are more important than deaths that could even affect you or your family? That's utterly delusional. And selfish like I already mentioned several times.

    Half baked excuses? How about your half baked gun control idea like above. It is obvious you haven't spent more than a few minutes examining the subject otherwise you would realize all of your strategies are completely flawed and would only increase incentives for trafficking illegal weapons. You claim we are just making excuses to not have gun regulations that make us safer, but what we are saying is these gun regulations will make us LESS SAFE. Where do you get off putting us in danger to test your little half baked social experiments?


    Guns should be used only by the army and SWAT. I think that such restriction would make life much easier for all.

    In america it's seen as a hobby. You can see videos of people testing out guns and shoting out watermelons outdoors in some places that sometimes look like their backyard. It's pretty insane to anyone not living on there. I mean you can walk in on that area without knowing someone is shoting shit up and get shoot... pretty crazy.

    Most terrorist have this "hobby" too. Americans will have to let that go. For most cases a pepper spray is just enough.

    Again, I propose the challenge: Name one good reason why armymen or SWAT team members should automatically be granted more trust with a gun than your neighbors.

    Challenge accepted. Regardless of intellect, reasoning, or political/religious beliefs, their life experience will provide them with one simple fact that Pavlov could have tested on his dogs:

    Where there are guns, there is more potential for pain.

    Anyone with an IQ of 70 can make that epiphany. Or even if they don't 'think' it, they still have the correct biological reaction with a bit of adrenaline or fear to help them prepare for violence upon having a weapon come into view. Neighbours are far more likely to be foolish, naive, or stupid and irresponsible, compared to any professional who has actually seen or experienced suffering in conjunction with guns.

    Don't tell me you're another paranoid type who has fallen for that partisan nonsense about the population versus the government? Blue team versus Red team? Freedom lovers versus bureaucrats? Come on, I thought you were smarter than that. Wait for the late harvest, more CBD, less paranoia, or so they say.

    Speaking of terrorists, you are 55 times more likely to be killed by police than a terrorist.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/youre-55-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-police-officer-than-a-terrorist/5434934

    You are right though, it is just some voodoo belief that we would ever need to defend ourselves against our kind, loving, benevolent government. Because after all the government is not composed of people, people who are just as able as being criminal as anyone else. Also anyone with an IQ of 70 knows that you have an epiphany, you don't make them.

    The first act of every tyrant and dictator is ALWAYS finding a way to disarm the population to put them in a position where they can not resist abuse and the disposal of rule of law. Freedom is not a partisan issue. Just because you live in some fairy tail land where genocide and mass murder is erased from your mind does not mean the rest of the world is so naive. Speaking of which... WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU LIVE? Only a coward criticizes others while hiding details about themselves so as to avoid criticism. It is easy to point out all the flaws of others from a dark corner where no one can make the same critical examination of you and your culture.

    You are the worst case of confirmation bias I have come across in a very long time. You take an idea you have concluded upon, then you attempt to make your argument fit around your premise. The rest of the educated world studies the premises to find which one has facts supporting it, THEN makes a conclusion. You are in a constant fight to try to make reality fit your world view. Sorry, but that is not how it works. Can you make that epiphany?
    59  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Transgender on: August 08, 2015, 07:36:18 AM
    Quote
    That's the lynchpin of this whole debate. These activist groups don't speak for the majority of LGBT peoples. Most LGBT people would be more than happy to live in an environment of tolerance, like everyone has a right to. What these groups are demanding is acceptance, and no one has a right to force anyone else to accept their own world view. All of these overreaching policies these activist groups are trying to push effect all of us. Opposition to them is not equivalent to bigotry or hatred no matter how much they wish to cast it in this light.

    You hit the nail on the head and so eloquently. Thankyou.

    How is "acceptance" and "tolerance" different? They appear the same to me, as a tolerant society is built upon acceptance of all its members.


    In short, everyone has a right to tolerance. Tolerance means people allow each other to live their lives in peace even if they do not agree. Acceptance is basically synonymous with agreement or approval. There are two very different things. One individual does not have the right to force another individual to approve of their ideology. Everyone however does have a right to tolerance in this country. Without understanding and allowing both, this very diverse nation would rip itself apart, because the fact is we will never all agree on anything.

    I highly agree with your sentiment here, with the caveat that to me, "tolerance" and "acceptance" seem like synonyms to me. But let's take your differentiation of the two; I think it accurately describes everyone. Strip out gender identity and look at any two politically opposed entities and it plays the same. Liberals and conservatives are tolerant of each other, but they're both fighting for "acceptance" of their ideology by the other group (to use your differentiation of it). This is not a transgender-specific issue, but a question of how any one group interacts with any other group.

    They are in fact two different words with two different meanings, even if they are closely related, it is still an important differentiation. People have a right to be free from abuse and harassment, but to force another to agree with your ideologies is a fundamentally flawed concept that can only be achieved thru force if at all. Attempting to convince others of your ideology is not equivalent to demanding it as if it is something you are entitled to. Acceptance can only be earned, not forced.

    The economy of ideas demands that all ideologies are compared and the most efficient and effective of those ideologies will rise to the top by displacing the flawed ideologies. Anyone who violates this social contract does not deserve a place at the table with the rest of civilized society.

    After all, if you truly believe your ideas to be righteous and true, you should have no problem with them being tested in the crucible of civilization. Good ideas have a way of rising to the top by the force of their own momentum and by the increase in efficiency that is created by the solution to the current system's own imperfections.
    60  Economy / Goods / Re: WTS:GOLD/SILVER .999 CASH OUT FAST! RARE NORFEDs - LIVE PRICE-BIG ORDER DISCOUNT on: August 07, 2015, 10:35:11 PM
    update
    Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... 198 »
    Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
    Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!