Assault weapon bans

[Biomech]

The NAP is not a suicide pact, it's basic tenet is that you do not INITIATE force, not that you never use force.

wrong. The NAP is a pile of explosives just waiting for a spark.

I see.

So, you have no cogent argument, just a dislike of non violent solutions.

There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. Since you clearly believe that no system can exist without the initiation of violence, we cannot reach a reasonable compromise.

Have a nice life, far from me.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

[FirstAscent]

Should they be found to be guilty, then a compensatory ruling would be handed down.

By whom? How many times does this need to be asked?

[Biomech]

Should they be found to be guilty, then a compensatory ruling would be handed down.

By whom? How many times does this need to be asked?

Read the whole post. Cherry picking has it's place, but in this case is an obvious fallacy.

[Rassah]

Should they be found to be guilty, then a compensatory ruling would be handed down.

By whom? How many times does this need to be asked?

Just to interject, you know how nowadays you have things like feedback ratings on eBay and credit scores with various companies? I envision that soon enough a lot of that will be consolidated into a single distributed reputation system that will allow anyone who deals with you to see if you are trustworthy or not, and whether to do any business with you or to avoid you. The "whom" will be "everybody" the criminal wants to interact with. The threat of not being able to buy food or lodging will be quite a lot more severe than a threat of getting free food and housing for a few years, so there will be a lot more incentive to maintain your reputation, and try to fix it when it gets ruined.

[kokjo]

There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. Since you clearly believe that no system can exist without the initiation of violence, we cannot reach a reasonable compromise.

initiation of violence is necessary sometimes, for example by a state to make its citizen behave nicely to each others.

The NAP on the other hand, fails big time when the first trigger has accidentally been pulled. If(When!!) the first trigger has been pulled, the NAP immediately gives everyone the right to pull his to "protect" himself and "others", only to be a target for more bullets. The NAP is indeed a pile of guns and explosives and "legally" acquired nuclear weapons(because there is no law) just waiting for the little spark of someone greeting the wrong someone else with their middle finger raised.

I just wants laws to remove guns, to remove explosives, and to remove nuclear weapons. So that people can exercise their right of free speech/gestures safely. Don't you want that? Are you against free speech?

[NewLiberty]

I just wants laws to remove guns, to remove explosives, and to remove nuclear weapons. So that people can exercise their right of free speech/gestures safely. Don't you want that? Are you against free speech?

The laws you want are backed by guns, explosives, and nukes.
Furthermore, the history of free speech in totalitarian states is somewhat less than perfect.  
Some have even quipped that the well-armed society... is a polite society.

Would not your ideal state be that one in which they are allowed but the people choose not to have them, and people are civil to each other not because they have to be?

If so, why be so uncivil and draw your gun-laws on the innocent law-abiding folks who choose to protect themselves in a dangerous world?  Not everyone's daughter/wife/mother is a martial artist who can fend off those who may jealously covet their beauty or treasure.

We all here cherish life, have the best result in mind and seek the same end, some just seek it without this desire to violate the ability of the weak to defend themselves.  Intelligent people may disagree on this ends-justifying-the-means process, but wanting more law does not necessarily make you a free-speech advocate.  There are already laws against threatening someone (assault).  So your speech is not impaired by your fear of safety from your fellow citizens so much as it may be by the many laws against free speech.

If you have been on a US University lately, you may have some knowledge of the "free-speech" zones.  These institution of broader enlightenment have reduced free-speech to only be allowed in constrained places and times.  http://thefire.org/cases/freespeech/  These gun-free zones have some of the least free speech in the United States, and they reasonably ought to be the opposite, places where ideas can be debated in more freedom than elsewhere.

[NewLiberty]

http://thefire.org/cases/freespeech/

[Reaper3]

There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. Since you clearly believe that no system can exist without the initiation of violence, we cannot reach a reasonable compromise.

initiation of violence is necessary sometimes, for example by a state to make its citizen behave nicely to each others.

The NAP on the other hand, fails big time when the first trigger has accidentally been pulled. If(When!!) the first trigger has been pulled, the NAP immediately gives everyone the right to pull his to "protect" himself and "others", only to be a target for more bullets. The NAP is indeed a pile of guns and explosives and "legally" acquired nuclear weapons(because there is no law) just waiting for the little spark of someone greeting the wrong someone else with their middle finger raised.

I just wants laws to remove guns, to remove explosives, and to remove nuclear weapons. So that people can exercise their right of free speech/gestures safely. Don't you want that? Are you against free speech?

Nicely said

[kokjo]

I just wants laws to remove guns, to remove explosives, and to remove nuclear weapons. So that people can exercise their right of free speech/gestures safely. Don't you want that? Are you against free speech?

The laws you want are backed by guns, explosives, and nukes.

...and i don't dispute that.

But they are not pointed at me, as they would be in a NAP based society.

[NewLiberty]

I just wants laws to remove guns, to remove explosives, and to remove nuclear weapons. So that people can exercise their right of free speech/gestures safely. Don't you want that? Are you against free speech?

The laws you want are backed by guns, explosives, and nukes.

...and i don't dispute that.

But they are not pointed at me, as they would be in a NAP based society.

I don't know much about NAP, how would guns be pointed at you? 
I thought that the principle was essentially that the first to draw a weapon, loses. 
Help me understand how I am wrong about this?  As a younger man I'd have argued your side of this, so I could easily be mistaken.
You mentioned the "innocent mistake" followed by other "innocent mistakes", but that seems like a thin justification for the expense of this broadly expanded government authority.

[FirstAscent]

I just wants laws to remove guns, to remove explosives, and to remove nuclear weapons. So that people can exercise their right of free speech/gestures safely. Don't you want that? Are you against free speech?

The laws you want are backed by guns, explosives, and nukes.

...and i don't dispute that.

But they are not pointed at me, as they would be in a NAP based society.

I thought that the principle was essentially that the first to draw a weapon, loses.  

Why, in NAP, is the first to draw a weapon, the loser? Can you demonstrate, through a description of a process, taking into account as many realistic factors as possible, why that is the common outcome. Please factor in witnesses, or lack of, money and affluence, possible histories of persons involved, and so on. Please explain how NAP better resolves this than traditional systems.

[NewLiberty]

I just wants laws to remove guns, to remove explosives, and to remove nuclear weapons. So that people can exercise their right of free speech/gestures safely. Don't you want that? Are you against free speech?

The laws you want are backed by guns, explosives, and nukes.

...and i don't dispute that.

But they are not pointed at me, as they would be in a NAP based society.

I thought that the principle was essentially that the first to draw a weapon, loses.  

Why, in NAP, is the first to draw a weapon, the loser? Can you demonstrate, through a description of a process, taking into account as many realistic factors as possible, why that is the common outcome. Please factor in witnesses, or lack of, money and affluence, possible histories of persons involved, and so on. Please explain how NAP better resolves this than traditional systems.

As I mentioned, I am no expert on NAP.  Bitcoiner Ryan Charles writes about it though.
http://ryanxcharles.com/archive/properties-of-non-aggression/ states that "If you believe in the non-aggression principle, you believe it is immoral to start fights with people, but not (necessarily) to defend yourself from someone who is attacking you." (From this I paraphrased, "first to draw a weapon, loses.")

From reading it, it seems that our current legal framework aspires to be philosophically following the NAP, and has only failed from over-reaching: "although aggression can sometimes be rational, it can never be moral".  Likely you will find much better explanations than I can offer, but from what positions you've carved out, it doesn't appear that this NAP philosophy is your foe, only that you don't adhere to it because it limits the means (using guns to remove guns) to your desired end (less guns).  So even if your position is rational, it is also immoral.

[Mike Christ]

Likely you will find much better explanations than I can offer, but from what positions you've carved out, it doesn't appear that this NAP philosophy is your foe, only that you don't adhere to it because it limits the means (using guns to remove guns) to your desired end (less guns).  So even if your position is rational, it is also immoral.

I believe this is the #1 point; if one has any desire for violence as a moral and legitimate means to solve non-violent problems, NAP makes no sense whatsoever.  The moment someone identifies the center of any society, politics, as a violent means to solve both violent and non-violent problems, the NAP becomes both plausible and preferable, and thus the libertarian standpoint is to replace the aggression at the center of society with non-aggression: I predict, once this occurs (and can only occur in the individual, never in politics), the violence we experience throughout the world, stemming from our current violent center of society, will change to peace experienced throughout the world, stemming from a peaceful center of society.

This is why authority is on the exact opposite side of the spectrum; authority is always backed with violence, and those who seek peace in this world will never find it through the libertarian polar opposite, authoritarianism, e.g. the state.  So, to seek peace, we must be peaceful, and many of us already are; to say it's okay for government to cheat, steal, kill, and threaten is to admit cheating, stealing, killing and threats as moral practices.

Which we, I hope, generally agree to be false.

[Spendulus]

Likely you will find much better explanations than I can offer, but from what positions you've carved out, it doesn't appear that this NAP philosophy is your foe, only that you don't adhere to it because it limits the means (using guns to remove guns) to your desired end (less guns).  So even if your position is rational, it is also immoral.

I believe this is the #1 point; if one has any desire for violence as a moral and legitimate means to solve non-violent problems, NAP makes no sense whatsoever.  The moment someone identifies the center of any society, politics, as a violent means to solve both violent and non-violent problems, the NAP becomes both plausible and preferable, and thus the libertarian standpoint is to replace the aggression at the center of society with non-aggression: I predict, once this occurs (and can only occur in the individual, never in politics), the violence we experience throughout the world, stemming from our current violent center of society, will change to peace experienced throughout the world, stemming from a peaceful center of society.

This is why authority is on the exact opposite side of the spectrum; authority is always backed with violence, and those who seek peace in this world will never find it through the libertarian polar opposite, authoritarianism, e.g. the state.  So, to seek peace, we must be peaceful, and many of us already are; to say it's okay for government to cheat, steal, kill, and threaten is to admit cheating, stealing, killing and threats as moral practices.

Which we, I hope, generally agree to be false.

Actually, no, it will never work that way.  The reason is that even though you, and many others, replace 'aggression at the center of society with non-aggression', there will always be the 1/2 percent of humanity who is mentally ill and violent, who is psychotic, or who is sociopathic and inclined to hurt others, and many other cases, which although rare as a percentage, in a city of 50,000 or 100,000 will together create the need for a police force to keep order.  There is nothing wrong with this, and there is everything right with it, and this can't be talked away with statements like...

authority is on the exact opposite side of the spectrum; authority is always backed with violence, and those who seek peace in this world will never find it through the libertarian polar opposite, authoritarianism, e.g. the state.

The primary argument in this discussion is whether the greatest good would be for the state to be the sole force of control toward the elements of violence and lawlessness, or whether in some fraction this duty should be shared by the people, which implies their owning firearms.  I am certain there is a happy medium.

[Rassah]

I think personal security (private gun ownership, security systems, new tech advances), together with private security services that people voluntarily pay for, is that happy medium.

[FirstAscent]

I think personal security (private gun ownership, security systems, new tech advances), together with private security services that people voluntarily pay for, is that happy medium.

Hardly. But you've never been prone to think things through.

[TheButterZone]

I think personal security (private gun ownership, security systems, new tech advances), together with private security services that people voluntarily pay for, is that happy medium.

inb4:
"No, no, no! If only private security were contracted for public safety, instead of killing the tens of millions that government did, they would have made the human race go extinct in the 20th century!"

[Mike Christ]

Actually, no, it will never work that way.  The reason is that even though you, and many others, replace 'aggression at the center of society with non-aggression', there will always be the 1/2 percent of humanity who is mentally ill and violent, who is psychotic, or who is sociopathic and inclined to hurt others, and many other cases, which although rare as a percentage, in a city of 50,000 or 100,000 will together create the need for a police force to keep order.  There is nothing wrong with this, and there is everything right with it, and this can't be talked away with statements like...

authority is on the exact opposite side of the spectrum; authority is always backed with violence, and those who seek peace in this world will never find it through the libertarian polar opposite, authoritarianism, e.g. the state.

The primary argument in this discussion is whether the greatest good would be for the state to be the sole force of control toward the elements of violence and lawlessness, or whether in some fraction this duty should be shared by the people, which implies their owning firearms.  I am certain there is a happy medium.

Tell me--how many officers do you know spend their entire day by your side, from the moment you wake up to the moment you go to sleep, to ensure, if someone happens to shoot you, you will be protected.  None, of course; so when you say, "The primary argument in this discussion is whether the greatest good would be for the state to be the sole force of control toward the elements of violence and lawlessness, or whether in some fraction this duty should be shared by the people, which implies their owning firearms", what I hear is, "I really don't know where I'm getting at as I yet to understand this argument, but I'll just throw something together anyway since I don't like what that guy said".

"or whether in some fraction this duty should be shared by the people, which implies their owning firearms."  As we answered the question above--no agent of the state will ever be able to protect everyone from harm at all times--it must always be a duty owned by the individual to protect himself, in the very least until he can be helped by a professional peacekeeper, which doesn't actually necessitate a state, which throws the argument that any state given supreme authority, even over just a citizen's ability to protect himself (which would lead to a plethora of other crimes against him), completely out the window.  So now we must address the "happy medium".

To make an analogy, lets say you have the choice for cancer.  Now, you have these options: No cancer, or cancer.  But!--there is a happy medium here, a wonderful center, in which we can both compromise on; you can have just a little bit of cancer.  See, a happy medium; except, the medium here isn't preferable, and we all unequivocally say, "No, I don't want a medium, I don't want any cancer whatsoever."  To say, slavery is okay if it's done in moderation isn't better than "No slavery" or "Everyone be slaves", as we would rather there be no slavery.  The happy medium of rape: we can either have no rape, everyone get raped, or find our happy medium and have just a little bit of rape here and there.  No, we don't want any rape.  The happy medium of marriage: we can have freedom to marry who we choose, no freedom to marry who we choose, or a happy middle where government tells you whether you can marry same gender or not.  No, we would rather have the freedom to marry who we choose.

So the happy medium here is, we can protect ourselves, we cannot protect ourselves, or we can somewhat, occasionally, protect ourselves (of course, against people who do not have this handicap, because TDGAF about law anyway.)

But what I would really like to understand about you, is why you believe changing what a law-abiding citizen can do to defend himself against crime, would change the rate of crime (i.e. the greater good.)  Would the criminal say, "Egads, there's a law against gun ownership!  My evil plots, foiled again!"  Violence as a solution to violence, at its finest; keeps people distracted, anyway.  But as an aside, what criminals actually do, is notice that people are less armed than they used to be, and so it's just that much easier to rob a person.  The happy medium, here, is no happy medium; it's a painful medium, a completely unnecessary medium.  What we should be concerned with is why crime occurs, not how to stop it after the criminal is fashioned; we already know how to stop crime, it's by disincentive, e.g., "I have a gun, and if you try to rob me, I will shoot you, and if I can't shoot you, my friend will."  What we need to understand is why crime occurs, not in the .5% we idolize, but in normal people who commit crime out of necessity.

Anyway, I'm still baffled as to your reasoning here:

"...there will always be the 1/2 percent of humanity who is mentally ill and violent, who is psychotic, or who is sociopathic and inclined to hurt others, and many other cases, which although rare as a percentage, in a city of 50,000 or 100,000 will together create the need for a police force to keep order."

I agree, there will always be violent people.  But I don't see why we should put these violent people on a pedestal and call them kings, for the sake of "peace and order."  That sounds exactly like the opposite thing we should do.  And you're right, simply saying this won't change a thing; what I'm trying to do is convince people, through rational thought, why seeking peace through violence cannot, will not, ever, never ever, never ever ever, not in the millennium, not in the next millennium, work.  It's when people, lots of people, believe the same thing; that's when changes are made.

What I am proposing isn't off-topic; to solve the problem of people having guns, you would need a society which has no need for them; forcing people not to have guns still leaves you with a violent, crime-ridden society, except the people now can't even protect themselves; it's a pre-mature utopia, to say the least, and at worst, it's a complete dystopia, where people still have guns (illegally, as law has nothing to do with the lawless.)  I can't help the 1/2 percent, but I can help the people who commit crime out of necessity, which account for the majority of crimes today.  To stop the crimes born from necessity, you create a society which has all it needs, especially so when it has far more than it needs, and it spills into want; with the blackhole that is authoritarian socialism, our happy medium between anarchy and fascism isn't working out very well--where our kids are expected to pay off a debt they had nothing to do with to pay for their parent's welfare, on welfare because the money that was taken in taxes was squandered on war, interest, and more welfare, and in debt from loans made, without permission, etc. etc. etc.--and I really don't believe a dictatorship is the next logical step, despite our hurdling towards it now.

When people, all people, have all they need to be successful in life, they will be successful.  It is when we play this game of musical chairs, where somebody has to be the loser; that's where your violence, theft, rape, and threats come from; the gun just happens to make all those easier, much as the sword did in a prior time period, and removing the gun from the equation, or even controlling who has the guns, will never solve the underlying issue.

[RodeoX]

...
Do whatever you want, but understand I will never allow myself to become a class B citizen.
...

Same here. I will peacefully maintain my weapons. It is up to government violence to try taking it away. Are you willing to commit violence in your misguided search for peace and the illusion of safety?  Because the best you can hope for is a happy illusion. the kind of thing we might tell a child during a tornado.  "You'll be fine sweetheart, we're safe here in our mobile home."

[Rassah]

I think personal security (private gun ownership, security systems, new tech advances), together with private security services that people voluntarily pay for, is that happy medium.

Hardly. But you've never been prone to think things through.

I am an INTJ. I think everything through about 50 steps ahead and 30 year into the future. I think you're just concerned about things that are non-issues.