|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
cheekychap
|
 |
February 21, 2015, 01:19:04 AM |
|
Well this has been from the very beginning. Always best to have a trade in a public area, and try at all costs to be as secure as possible. |
|
|
|
kolloh
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1023
|
|
February 21, 2015, 01:45:38 AM |
|
Yeah that is pretty scary. Thieves will try to take advantage of any opportunity they can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
croato
|
|
February 21, 2015, 01:55:34 AM |
|
Allways make deals in public place, coffe shop or something. Ppl must realise Bitcoin is money and thieves will allways go for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q7
|
|
February 21, 2015, 02:05:16 AM |
|
It goes to show how valuable bitcoin is and I'm surprised there are still a lot of people who seems to be oblivion about it.
|
|
|
|
Indefinitely
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 26
Merit: 0
|
|
February 21, 2015, 02:06:19 AM |
|
Easy fix. Open carry and trade in a public place with lots of cameras. Criminals are stupid but they aren't that stupid.
Since NY citizens don't have the same rights as normal people (and can't carry the tools required to protect themselves), I suggest they trade in the police station lobby.
I was thinking of that, the best place to conduct a transaction would be a Police Station, Bank, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Beliathon
|
|
February 21, 2015, 03:03:07 AM |
|
Easy fix. Open carry and trade in a public place with lots of cameras. There is no open carry in new york city, nor will there ever be. Easy fix, trade in a public place in Manhattan. No one is gonna do a stabbing in public and get away with it there. You don't need to transact at a bank, any busy Starbucks is fine as there will be loads of people around. There are 9 million people in NYC, and hundreds of in person bitcoin transactions per day. This isn't a "wave of bitcoin robberies", just a good headline for clickbait. Don't feed the "news"-trolls. |
|
|
|
|
Beliathon
|
|
February 21, 2015, 03:09:48 AM |
|
Since NY citizens don't have the same rights as normal people (and can't carry the tools required to protect themselves)
Despite popular redneck belief, having a gun on you does not render your soft, fleshy body immune to tiny bits of metal accelerated to deadly velocity. The only way to be safe(r) from gun violence is to wear one of these everywhere you go:  Some relevant facts:   In other news, angels aren't real. Surprise! |
|
|
|
funtotry
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
Ever wanted to run your own casino? PM me for info
|
|
February 21, 2015, 03:12:44 AM |
|
Bitcoin is money and therefore thieves will try to steal it because it is money and they can easily exchange it for cash, and it is MUCH easier to launder than paypal. Paypal can just freeze account if reported stolen.
|
|
|
|
funtotry
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
Ever wanted to run your own casino? PM me for info
|
|
February 21, 2015, 03:14:45 AM |
|
Since NY citizens don't have the same rights as normal people (and can't carry the tools required to protect themselves)
Despite popular retard belief, having a gun on you does not in any way, shape, or form render your body immune to tiny bits of metal accelerated to deadly velocity. Some relevant facts: I would like you to source your data and provide evidence for this. All I see is some image with no facts backing anything up, and the urls are wcpeace.org which looks like a conspiracy theory website which is poorly designed, and someones random blog. |
|
|
|
|
Beliathon
|
|
February 21, 2015, 03:24:55 AM |
|
No, but put yourself in the shoes of a criminal. Do you prey upon those who have the means to defend themselves (and hurl tiny bits of accelerated metal back at you), or those who do not? “If everybody were armed, we would all be safer” This tired old argument? That's all you've got? Really?  This argument promotes the micro-equivalent of mutually assured destruction (two armed and rational actors not engaging in conflict because it would destroy both) to justify higher levels of gun ownership, but it fails to work out when applied to reality. Statistics show that guns do not make people safer, thus this pro-gun argument is demonstrably untrue on its face. Higher levels of gun ownership do not produce a safer society and often lead to a higher numbers of deaths due to gun violence. According to the Violence Policy Center’s analysis, states with higher per capita gun ownerships have far higher levels of gun homicide—there are 3 to 5 gun deaths per 100,000 in the bottom five gun ownership states, while there are 17 to 20 gun deaths per 100,000 in the top five gun ownership states. These statistics provide a great deal of evidence that gun ownership levels in a state correlate with gun deaths, and prove that the gun lobby’s argument of universal gun ownership is simply a fantasy. To further drive the statistics that guns don’t make us safer home, we can simply look at the research surrounding household safety and gun ownership. In houses with firearms present, the average homicide rate is 3 times higher than in houses without guns and the suicide rate is between 3 and 5 times higher. Gun accidents due to improper storage or use of firearms claim the lives of hundreds of children a year. In households with firearms, domestic violence is both more prevalent than in houses without weapons, and has a much higher likelihood of resulting in violent deaths. In all possible rubrics—self-defense, accidents and suicide—gun ownership is detrimental to the safety of those who live in a gun-owner’s household; this is not to say that there are not cases of people defending their homes with their guns, but it is undeniable that gun ownership opens people up to numerous other risks. In addition to the statistical evidence supporting the fact that more guns don’t make us safer, we can simply look at the mechanics of a shooting. Shootings are chaotic and, if everybody has a gun, there is a very real potential for a crossfire—nobody would know who the original shooter was, thus everybody would shoot at everybody else. In this crossfire, bullets would likely hit civilians (imagine a room filled with a crowd and three people shooting at each other) and the casualty count would increase. Once the police arrive, it would be difficult to determine who the original shooter was, and it is also likely that the police may end up shooting the people who didn’t start the gunfight. In response to the “everybody should be armed” argument, people should simply ask the gun activist whether or not they support Iran getting a nuclear weapon. By the logic that the gun activist applies, everybody is safer when everybody is armed, and this would translate to support for Iranian weapons; in reality, these people almost always say that Iran isn’t a rational actor and that giving them a nuke endangers everybody around them. When they say this, you should simply tell them that not every gun owner is rational and that unrestricted gun ownership is the micro-equivalent to letting every country have nukes. I won't force you to adhere to my methods and you don't force me to adhere to yours. Agreed? No, I don't agree. I'm coming for your guns, because you have just demonstrated publicly that you're not intelligent enough to own them. In fact, I'm coming for all the guns, and I've got the weight of all future civilization behind me. The older you get, the less relevant your tired worldview will become. Your grandchildren will not be armed, and there's nothing you can do to change that. Yes, you may be dead and gone by that time, but no one will notice. |
|
|
|
funtotry
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
Ever wanted to run your own casino? PM me for info
|
|
February 21, 2015, 03:29:02 AM |
|
No, but put yourself in the shoes of a criminal. Do you prey upon those who have the means to defend themselves (and hurl tiny bits of accelerated metal back at you), or those who do not? “If everybody were armed, we would all be safer” This tired old argument? That's all you've got? Really? This argument promotes the micro-equivalent of mutually assured destruction (two armed and rational actors not engaging in conflict because it would destroy both) to justify higher levels of gun ownership, but it fails to work out when applied to reality. Statistics show that guns do not make people safer, thus this pro-gun argument is demonstrably untrue on its face. Higher levels of gun ownership do not produce a safer society and often lead to a higher numbers of deaths due to gun violence. According to the Violence Policy Center’s analysis, states with higher per capita gun ownerships have far higher levels of gun homicide—there are 3 to 5 gun deaths per 100,000 in the bottom five gun ownership states, while there are 17 to 20 gun deaths per 100,000 in the top five gun ownership states. These statistics provide a great deal of evidence that gun ownership levels in a state correlate with gun deaths, and prove that the gun lobby’s argument of universal gun ownership is simply a fantasy. To further drive the statistics that guns don’t make us safer home, we can simply look at the research surrounding household safety and gun ownership. In houses with firearms present, the average homicide rate is 3 times higher than in houses without guns and the suicide rate is between 3 and 5 times higher. Gun accidents due to improper storage or use of firearms claim the lives of hundreds of children a year. In households with firearms, domestic violence is both more prevalent than in houses without weapons, and has a much higher likelihood of resulting in violent deaths. In all possible rubrics—self-defense, accidents and suicide—gun ownership is detrimental to the safety of those who live in a gun-owner’s household; this is not to say that there are not cases of people defending their homes with their guns, but it is undeniable that gun ownership opens people up to numerous other risks. In addition to the statistical evidence supporting the fact that more guns don’t make us safer, we can simply look at the mechanics of a shooting. Shootings are chaotic and, if everybody has a gun, there is a very real potential for a crossfire—nobody would know who the original shooter was, thus everybody would shoot at everybody else. In this crossfire, bullets would likely hit civilians (imagine a room filled with a crowd and three people shooting at each other) and the casualty count would increase. Once the police arrive, it would be difficult to determine who the original shooter was, and it is also likely that the police may end up shooting the people who didn’t start the gunfight. In response to the “everybody should be armed” argument, people should simply ask the gun activist whether or not they support Iran getting a nuclear weapon. By the logic that the gun activist applies, everybody is safer when everybody is armed, and this would translate to support for Iranian weapons; in reality, these people almost always say that Iran isn’t a rational actor and that giving them a nuke endangers everybody around them. When they say this, you should simply tell them that not every gun owner is rational and that unrestricted gun ownership is the micro-equivalent to letting every country have nukes. I won't force you to adhere to my methods and you don't force me to adhere to yours. Agreed? No, I don't agree. In fact, I'm coming for you guns. I'm coming for all the guns, and I've got the weight of all future civilization behind me. The older you get, the less relevant your tired worldview will become. Your grandchildren will not be armed, and there's nothing you can do to stop it. Whoa whoa you are pulling facts out of your ass. Please stop being so ignorant and using false facts to support your false arguments. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_stateSeems like the evidence is contrary. Higher gun ownership generally correlates to lower gun violence. Look at this for example: District of Columbia: 3.6% gun ownership and 16.5 gun murders, highest gun murder per capita in the USA and lowest gun ownership Hmm, whos right here? |
|
|
|
|
Beliathon
|
|
February 21, 2015, 03:30:09 AM |
|
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_stateSeems like the evidence is contrary. Higher gun ownership generally correlates to lower gun violence. Look at this for example: District of Columbia: 3.6% gun ownership and 16.5 gun murders, highest gun murder per capita in the USA and lowest gun ownership Hmm, whos right here? Yeah, still me genius. Correlation is not causation. By the way, I'd sure love to see one of you address this point: In response to the “everybody should be armed” argument, people should simply ask the gun activist whether or not they support Iran getting a nuclear weapon. By the logic that the gun activist applies, everybody is safer when everybody is armed, and this would translate to support for Iranian weapons; in reality, these people almost always say that Iran isn’t a rational actor and that giving them a nuke endangers everybody around them. When they say this, you should simply tell them that not every gun owner is rational and that unrestricted gun ownership is the micro-equivalent to letting every country have nukes. Fuckin cognitive dissonance man, everywhere you go. So irritating. |
|
|
|
funtotry
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 420
Merit: 250
Ever wanted to run your own casino? PM me for info
|
|
February 21, 2015, 03:32:19 AM |
|
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_stateSeems like the evidence is contrary. Higher gun ownership generally correlates to lower gun violence. Look at this for example: District of Columbia: 3.6% gun ownership and 16.5 gun murders, highest gun murder per capita in the USA and lowest gun ownership Hmm, whos right here? Yeah, still me genius. Correlation is not causation. Umm you stated before that top 5 gun ownership is top 5 gun ownership, that is a lie, and the real FACTS prove the opposite, higher gun ownership is actually lower gun murders. Please check your sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_stateBefore pasting irrelevant anti-gun photos and statements |
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1006
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
February 21, 2015, 03:43:11 AM |
|
When I carry large amounts of cash into NYC dark alleys, I always bring Chuck Norris.
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
Gleb Gamow
In memoriam
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1145
|
|
February 21, 2015, 04:16:05 AM |
|
Easy fix. Open carry and trade in a public place with lots of cameras. Criminals are stupid but they aren't that stupid.
Since NY citizens don't have the same rights as normal people (and can't carry the tools required to protect themselves), I suggest they trade in the police station lobby.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Beliathon
|
|
February 21, 2015, 04:26:52 AM |
|
In response to the “everybody should be armed” argument, people should simply ask the gun activist whether or not they support Iran getting a nuclear weapon. By the logic that the gun activist applies, everybody is safer when everybody is armed, and this would translate to support for Iranian weapons; in reality, these people almost always say that Iran isn’t a rational actor and that giving them a nuke endangers everybody around them. When they say this, you should simply tell them that not every gun owner is rational and that unrestricted gun ownership is the micro-equivalent to letting every country have nukes.
Still waiting. |
|
|
|
btcminer021
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
Mine hard!
|
|
February 21, 2015, 04:36:21 AM |
|
FWIW It's very difficult to get a gun permit in NY and you're not allowed to bring them to the city unless you're a PO or similar.
|
|
|
|
nutildah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 7940
|
|
February 21, 2015, 07:20:54 AM |
|
Hah, I knew it, contrary to the current rumors, criminals are stupid!
|
|
|
|
Cameltoemcgee
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 54
Merit: 0
|
|
February 21, 2015, 08:38:57 AM |
|
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_stateSeems like the evidence is contrary. Higher gun ownership generally correlates to lower gun violence. Look at this for example: District of Columbia: 3.6% gun ownership and 16.5 gun murders, highest gun murder per capita in the USA and lowest gun ownership Hmm, whos right here? Yeah, still me genius. Correlation is not causation. By the way, I'd sure love to see one of you address this point: In response to the “everybody should be armed” argument, people should simply ask the gun activist whether or not they support Iran getting a nuclear weapon. By the logic that the gun activist applies, everybody is safer when everybody is armed, and this would translate to support for Iranian weapons; in reality, these people almost always say that Iran isn’t a rational actor and that giving them a nuke endangers everybody around them. When they say this, you should simply tell them that not every gun owner is rational and that unrestricted gun ownership is the micro-equivalent to letting every country have nukes. Fuckin cognitive dissonance man, everywhere you go. So irritating. The USA has invaded 22 countries in the last 20 years... of those 22, how many had nuclear weapons? 0. How many deaths have resulted from these invasions? the government won't release figures but its estimated at somewhere between 10 and 20 million... Oh and in case you missed it check out funtotry's response... might help you sort your dissonance out, if thats too uncomfortable for you, maybe you'd feel more at home posting on the fox news or cnn forums? |
|
|
|
|
|
