Because the people aren't starving. There's an excellent book titled The Great Wave which shows a strong correlation between food prices and revolutions. During the French Revolution, many people had a clear cut choice: starve to death and watch your family do the same, or starve while fighting the aristocracy (and maybe steal some of their bread). I believe that if conditions get so poor in the US that people can no longer afford food, then people will find a way to revolt. At that level, it's simple survival.
I can assure you, there are will be plenty of fast food available :-) Even for free. And true that, mostly most of the revolutions were due to hunger. The russian one happened because workers were starving. Where we are headed that doesn't matter. One way or another we gonna have the system Neal Stephenson envisioned within one generation, and I have no issues posting that here, the existing power structure has already accepted that they will only play some minor role as one of these distributed systems. Are you referring to The Diamond Age? |
|
|
|
I question whether a blockchain, even a merged-mined alt-chain, is necessary to communicate this data. There are significant downsides to including more data than is minimally necessary into any blockchain style structure. It would be better for light clients, since they need open Internet access anyway, to be able to fetch this kind of data from one (or more) of several trusted webservers. Something like a podcast feed, only (perhaps encrypted) data collected by a specialized full node. Any client should be able to verify that the data fed to it is valid in a number of different ways to protect itself from trickery.
Just to be clear, the additional data I am recommending is a single additional hash per block. That's true, which I believe is only another 4 bytes added onto the existing 80 byte header; but as I said, it doesn't really solve the bootstrapping problem itself. The 'light' clients still have to download entire blocks with inputs matching their addresses, whenever the network is upgraded to allow specific block requests. And it's not like just downloading the 80 byte headers is a significant burden, as all the headers to date would be less than 16 Megs. So adding 4 bytes to every header wouldn't be a burden to any full clients, but nor would it be particularly useful for them, and it would increase the blockchain headers total size by 5% for qustionable gains even for light clients that keep only headers. And if these blockchain header type light clients have to trust full nodes to deliver them blocks matching their addresses anyway, and they do, why can't those same full nodes provide the data these light clients need to be certain they are using the longest chain outside of the blockchain? 4 bytes is still 4 more bytes, replicated onto every full or header-only blockchain in the world, forever & ever. |
|
|
|
|
I question whether a blockchain, even a merged-mined alt-chain, is necessary to communicate this data. There are significant downsides to including more data than is minimally necessary into any blockchain style structure. It would be better for light clients, since they need open Internet access anyway, to be able to fetch this kind of data from one (or more) of several trusted webservers. Something like a podcast feed, only (perhaps encrypted) data collected by a specialized full node. Any client should be able to verify that the data fed to it is valid in a number of different ways to protect itself from trickery.
|
|
|
|
Well that was quickly.
Yeah, it looks like the same guys that produced the printed AR-15 lower receiver mentioned last week. |
|
|
|
http://defensedistributed.com/Gun control is quickly approaching an era of practial irrelvance. As copyright faced it's endgame during the last decade, centralized mass manufacturing faces it's own moment in this decade. If these designs work, new single shot weapons will be able to be produced without a machinist.
|
|
|
|
|
It's an interesting proposal, but there are only a few types of client that would benefit from this, so to cut this into the main blockchain isn't ideal. Would it still work if an intergrated parrallel chain were produced, say, for a Stratum-like overlay network? I can see how this would be good for part-time/disconnected clients and fresh installs trying to get up into operation quickly, but I'm not sure that it really solves the bootstrapping problem that independent light clients have, which is mostly that they have to parse the blockchain at all, just to determine their own balance.
|
|
|
|
What prevents me from claiming that I'm an insurance company, then licensing random people for a $2 fee?
Bankruptcy. Care to elaborate? All I see is money coming in and paper leaving. Oh, and dangerous people who can't tell the accelerator from the brake leaving with that paper. Sooner or later some moron is going to end up in court due to some poor decision while driving, and the first question the court is going to want to know is, "Which insurance company do you have?" and even knowing full well that he paid $2 to avoid an insurance company's costs and minimum standards, he's going to name the guy who sold him the paper. If the court can find him, he will share in the bad driver's bad day. This would simply be a cost of doing business for a real insurance company, but for some guy just printing off falsehoods on his computer printer one such event would destroy him. Anyone else with any sense isn't going to either try starting such a fake business, nor depend upon such a business. Sure, some morons are going to do this sometimes, but that's why you have an 'uninsured driver' clause in your current auto insurance, because that happens now. There is little that governments, or ancap insurance/security businesses, can do about the freeloader problem. The best that a government can do about it is put the uninsured driver in jail if they are caught, but even that is rare unless some other crime is committed, such as vehicular manslaughter or DUI. |
|
|
|
What prevents me from claiming that I'm an insurance company, then licensing random people for a $2 fee?
Bankruptcy. |
|
|
|
In my own defense, most of the time licensing in the context of gun ownership is used as the equivalent of a government permit to purchase a firearm, not an operator's permit. I, personally, don't object to the idea that governments can expect that gun owners who intend to venture armed into public spaces should be expected to pass a reasonable safety & practical shooting exam. With a few notable exceptions, such as Vermont, nearly every state that has adopted 'shall issue' citizens' concealed carry laws also compel those who seek such a permit to pass safety training, a practical shooting exam & a background check before getting such a license. The framers of the US Constitution expected an educated citizenry, including on the topic of weapons, and such a training requirement doesn't infringe upon one's right to 'keep & bear' arms under normal circumstances; so long as the requirements are not deliberately so difficult as to effectively hamper same. The data Myrkl posted about Vermont seems to support your position that a training requirement can reduce accidents, but is that because the training is effective or simply because the greater difficulty in aquiring the permit in other states filters out the less determined. Self-selection is a powerful force.
States don't need to license, a private institution can license also. Lets take cars, I believe that insurance companies would be also good private institution for licensing drivers, same as we have private institutions licensing for Series 7, GMAT, CFA, CPA, etc. While that's true, I'm not an anarchist of any flavor. I do believe that governments are instituted for specific reasons, and one of those reasons is to promote public safety (not ensure it). At the federal level, that means maintaining a defensive military. At the local level, that means police. I do believe that, at the state level, the creation & enforcement of standards of driver education & behavior is a valid task for state governments. However, I tend to balk at the idea that a state government has much say in the same set of standards for defensive firearms use; mostly because I consider it a conflict of interests. One of the valid defensive uses of firearms is against a tyranical government, and the very existence of wide spread gun ownership tends to prevent the rise of such a government. So it's unwise to trust governments to set those standards, although that is what tends to happen. Widespread gun ownership also promotes proficiency of use of those same weapons in the event of national conflicts, and discourages the ambitions of a foreign power. One such modern example of this is how Hitler deliberately avoided Switzerland during WWII, always intending to come back around to them once the rest of Europe was conquered. Another comes to us after the fall of the Soviet Union; once their secret files were opened up, we discovered that their military did a study on the feasibility of invading & occupying US territories during the 1980's. The used the greater Chicago area as their example, and determined that it would require at least a full division just to subdue and occupy Chicago; mostly due to the number of privately owned firearms in Illinois. Thus, the Soviet Union didn't have the numbers to invade the US and expect to succeed, despite the rather large military they had at the time, which was several times the size of the total US military under Ronald Regan. They only considered legally owned firearms in the area, because the data for illegal weapons was too difficult for them to pin down, and it's not like Illinois has nearly as many legal firearms available as other states such as Texas, Kentucky or Wyoming. Nor were there any centralized registration of firearms ownership that they could rapidly pursue. All this, also despite that we now know that the Soviets managed to compromise one of our major encryption codes used to communicate with military commanders in the European theater; and therefore could have reasonablely expected to manage the US military in a conventional war. (I do not believe that the use of nuclear weapons by the US, as a last resort or otherwise, was even considered) The Soviets never screwed with US allies in Europe mostly because they had our codes there, we had field nukes there, and they knew when field officers had authorization to use them. However, they generally didn't expect that the US military would use nukes upon their own territory in a conventional war, and thus were discouraged against a Wolverines scenario, in large part, by the numbers of small arms dispursed across the United States & the generally high level of civilian experience with those same small arms. |
|
|
|
I find myrkul's data suitable enough (though there may be more firearm accidents e.g. child shot self in foot than car *off* accidents such as child climbed into trunk). Cars are pretty dangerous. They are huge and sometimes explode. They careen through the streets and can exert forces of 300 times gravity's pull in a head-on collision. For reference, astronauts have to train extensively to withstand 7 G's. Meanwhile guns don't get shot very often. What I have yet to concede is licensing. Who suggested such a thing? I have a permit for my firearm, and I had to take classes in both the legal ramifications as well as a practical shooting test. Are you saying that I cannot, as a father of children who own firearms & with a military background, teach my children to handle weapons responsiblely? Do I need a piece of paper issued by some government agency that says I know how to teach my own children to act safely? I'll be the one to teach them how to drive, the driver's test is the only part that a government agent is involved. Does the idea that such a government training course might exist make you feel better? http://appleseedinfo.org/Actually, you can probably teach them to handle guns just fine. You're also not a bad driving instructor, most likely. Licensing != training. Licensing is where you prove that you have had adequate training. A parent can teach a child how to drive. Once the child has received adequate training, the child goes off and proves that they are suitably experienced and less likely to kill other people in a car accident. Voila, the child is now a legal car driver. A parent can teach a child how to properly handle guns. Once the child has received adequate training, the child goes off and proves that they are suitably experienced and less likely to kill other people in firearm accidents. Voila, the child is now a legal gun carrier and can enjoy all the benefits of self defense yada yada. In some fields, including driver education, the training course can optionally be provided by a private organization which is in turn certified by the gov't. That's cool too. Competition and all that, etc. -------- Certainly, criminals can get guns illegally. Cars too. I hope, however, that the majority of car-owners own them legally; same goes for guns. Therefore, I'd prefer that the majority of car-owners (the legal ones) be suitably educated in not killing people; same goes for guns. Most people I know have no problem with needing to carry a driver's license. In my own defense, most of the time licensing in the context of gun ownership is used as the equivalent of a government permit to purchase a firearm, not an operator's permit. I, personally, don't object to the idea that governments can expect that gun owners who intend to venture armed into public spaces should be expected to pass a reasonable safety & practical shooting exam. With a few notable exceptions, such as Vermont, nearly every state that has adopted 'shall issue' citizens' concealed carry laws also compel those who seek such a permit to pass safety training, a practical shooting exam & a background check before getting such a license. The framers of the US Constitution expected an educated citizenry, including on the topic of weapons, and such a training requirement doesn't infringe upon one's right to 'keep & bear' arms under normal circumstances; so long as the requirements are not deliberately so difficult as to effectively hamper same. The data Myrkl posted about Vermont seems to support your position that a training requirement can reduce accidents, but is that because the training is effective or simply because the greater difficulty in aquiring the permit in other states filters out the less determined. Self-selection is a powerful force. |
|
|
|
Here's an interesting study.... http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm...notablely by the CDC, which is openly anti-gun. I'll quote some highlights... ... Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent: certain studies indicated decreases in violence associated with bans, and others indicated increases....
...Approximately 689,000 applications to acquire a firearm (2.3% of 30 million applications) were denied under the Brady Law from its first implementation in 1994 through 2000 (25); the majority of denials were based on the applicant's criminal history. However, denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means.
Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings: some studies indicated decreases in violence associated with restrictions, and others indicated increases...
...Waiting periods have been established by the federal government and by states to allow time to check the applicant's background or to provide a "cooling-off" period for persons at risk of committing suicide or impulsive acts against others. Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results: some indicated a decrease in violent outcome associated with the delay and others indicated an increase....
...Licensing and registration requirements are often combined with other firearms regulations, such as safety training or safe storage requirements. Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes; the findings were inconsistent...
...Therefore, evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of shall issue laws on violent outcomes...
...The most recent study, which included the most recent states to pass CAP (Child Access Prevention) laws and had the longest follow-up time, indicated that the apparent reduction in unintentional firearm deaths associated with CAP laws that carry felony sanctions was statistically significant only in Florida and not in California or Connecticut...
...
The study reported that schools with and without metal detectors did not differ in rates of threatening, fights, or carrying of firearms outside of school, but the rate of carrying firearms to, from, or in schools with detection programs was half that of schools without such programs. The effectiveness of zero tolerance laws in preventing violence cannot be assessed because appropriate evidence was not available. A further concern is that "street" expulsion might result in increased violence and other problems among expelled students...
...On the basis of national law assessments (the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 in Canada), international comparisons (between the United States and Canada), and index studies (all conducted within the United States), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence. The findings were inconsistent and most studies were methodologically inadequate to allow conclusions about causal effects. Moreover, as conducted, index studies, even if consistent, would not allow specification of which laws to implement...
...In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence. |
|
|
|
Does an automobile with its ignition on equate to a loaded and cocked gun? What are the hours for automobiles with their ignitions turned on vs. the hours in which a gun is loaded and cocked? Presumably, under both conditions, the device is being operated and providing utility.
Please redo your equations factoring in the above.
Why would it need to be cocked? I would presume that a cop's sidearm is providing it's utility by simply being availble for use, and it's not normal for a cop to be patroling with his weapon 'cocked' or otherwise in any condition than loaded with the safety on. (assuming there is a safety, as a handgun without a safety is only legal for police to own, and there are such police districts) My (loaded with safety on, no round in chamber, not 'cocked') handgun inside my biometric safe near my bed is providing my family utility while I sleep; once again simply for being available in short order. In many ways, gun ownership with the goal of self-defense is insurance; and thus is performing it's primary function of risk reduction even when not directly in use. |
|
|
|
Then I must concede that, in general, cars are more dangerous than guns. I have yet to concede that removal of mandatory licensing for automobiles would lower the accident rate.
Who suggested such a thing? I have a permit for my firearm, and I had to take classes in both the legal ramifications as well as a practical shooting test. Are you saying that I cannot, as a father of children who own firearms & with a military background, teach my children to handle weapons responsiblely? Do I need a piece of paper issued by some government agency that says I know how to teach my own children to act safely? I'll be the one to teach them how to drive, the driver's test is the only part that a government agent is involved. Does the idea that such a government training course might exist make you feel better? http://appleseedinfo.org/
I also have yet to concede that gun accidents are insignificant, ignorable, or less frequent than chainsaw accidents.
Hopefully the conceding of a point is something new in this thread and it inspires you to enlighten me further.
I'll do what I can. |
|
|
|
That's because there are more cars and more drivers for more hours in the day than guns and gun owners. Additionally, without certification and regulated safety devices, there would be even more car deaths.
I doubt that, show me the data. In the meantime, I've got this.... http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States"In 2001, 70% of Americans drove to work in cars.[4] New York City is the only locality in the country where more than half of all households do not own a car (the figure is even higher in Manhattan, over 75%; nationally, the rate is 8%)." So, based upon that last stat, we can assume that 92% of US housholds have cars. http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx"Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property" So just over half as many households in the US own firearms as own cars, yet the chart in the top link implies that the average gun owner is about 72 times more likely to die from an auto accident than from a firearm accident. Sure, the gun owner likely uses his car much more than his firearm; but is the rate of use relevent? It's normal to use a car everyday, while it's not normal to fire a weapon everyday. No matter how you slice it, though, any American is way more likely to die from an auto accident than a gun accident even if we were to double the rate of gun accidents in order to be comparable to the car ownership rate. Did you think that guns ownership was uncommon in the US? |
|
|
|
If chainsaws become a large factor in preventable American deaths, then I will support any bill which can reduce accidental chainsaw deaths. This includes certification for chopping wood, juggling, or any other chainsaw-related activity which kills a substantial number of people not operating chainsaws.
Fortunately for the residents of the USA, accidental non-operator chainsaw deaths aren't very common here.
Given that a relatively large number of people who don't own guns are injured or killed each year in gun accidents, I believe it worthwhile to attempt to reduce that number. If requiring free certification for legal gun ownership translates into every legal gun owner being educated on proper storage and handling of guns, then I support that, because I believe that the latter translates into fewer accidents and therefore fewer deaths.
Accidents involving guns, particularly involving persons who don't own any, are relatively rare. You are much more likely to die in an auto accident, even with all of the drivers' permits & regulated safety devices, than die (or even be injured) by accident with a firearm even when you own them. |
|
|
|
(and yes, the premiums on a rocket launcher would probably be such that private individuals would not own them)
It's funny that you should mention this, as it's technically easier to get a Class II "Destructive Device" license from the BATF, in order to legally buy a bazooka or hand grenade, than it is to aquire a concealed carry permit in NYC. I could do it within 6 months, if I had the money. |
|
|
|
So back to guns, you want to incentivize (word?) proper gun usage, but not prohibit irresponsible gun handling?
That's the idea, yes. Now, let's examine the case (to get away from that irrational fear I mentioned earlier) of a chainsaw juggler. Under ideal conditions, the chainsaw juggler harms no-one, not even himself. However, accidents happen, and well, it's a frigging chainsaw flying up in the air. What to do if it should land on someone? Clearly, this was improper handling of the chainsaw, and decidedly not it's intended usage model. The answer, in this case is clear: Hold the juggler accountable for his actions. Now to translate that over to guns: If a man is doing something irresponsible with a firearm, there is a chance he may hurt someone. If he does, then we should hold him accountable for his actions. The end result of an accident (he hurts someone) is the same. Why should the response to that accident be any different? Now, it should be noted that there is a clear difference between juggling a chainsaw and waving a chainsaw around menacingly, just as there is a difference between waving a gun around and, say, doing some exhibition-style pistol twirling. Waving a weapon around (any weapon) is a stupid move, and I'm not saying people should be doing that left and right. Someone who did that would (and should) get a fairly strong defensive response. But saying something is illegal opens a whole can of worms that, IMO, should not be opened for actions that do not cause harm to another person. Waving a pistol around as in pistol twirling and juggling chainsaws should only be doable with a license to perform and the requisite and approved insurance and safety measures in place - i.e someone making sure the performer is juggling the chainsaw a safe distance from the audience. This is not unreasonable. Wave your pistol around on the sidewalk, or juggle your chainsaw in a crowd, and you deserve to be arrested or detained. Sure, but in no reasonable case should there be a performance license in order for someone to buy a chainsaw in order to use it for it's intended purpose. The same should (generally) be true for a (presumedly responsible adult) who desires to buy a firearm to be used for it's (legal) intended purpose, whether that is hunting & shooting or self-defense. |
|
|
|
Popping back in for a second. Vampire - You keep posting anecdotal evidence. FirstAscent - Accidents ≠ crime.
Getting shot by a gun, whether accident or a crime still results in injury or death. I personally and sincerely think you would have to actually be a victim of an accidental shooting before that concept would sink into your small brain (assuming you didn't get shot in the brain) to drive home the point that basing your flimsy and biased arguments on criminal shootings alone is not enough. Since your reasoning has moved from intent of the object to accidental risk of the object, you might want to suggest a more comprehensive object banning policy. Feel free to suggest items which don't have some other purpose than killing and which, when handled by children, can cause severe injury or death. For example, kitchen knives almost qualify, except they're useful for cooking, whereas guns are not. Cars? Too useful to get from A to B. Power drills? Useful for fabrication. Plastic bags? Useful for food storage. Last time I checked, guns don't work for cooking, transportation, fabrication or food storage. Ok, so now you've moved on to restricting guns because of BOTH the risk of accident AND their purpose. The risk of accident argument opens up a slippery slope to restricting other things. The object intent argument is irrelevant to accidents, and gun laws aren't preventing crime. You're working backwards from a conclusion. You're kind of strange, precisely because of your fervent desire to incessantly argue against obvious things by using obscure logic and wordplay. What part of the following do you not understand? If an object has great utility to everyday living vs. the chance of it being dangerous, then there should naturally be less restriction on its use precisely because of that. EDIT: you may find some valid arguments to validate your case out there, but attempting to refute in particular what I've said here only makes you look like a desperate fool. Find another avenue and gain some respect. First Accent, please reas your own writings, and tell me how this same complaint doesn't apply as well to yourself. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
