Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2017, 03:28:57 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: As a gun control advocate, have you or a close family member ever owned a firearm?
Yes - 28 (19.9%)
No - 21 (14.9%)
I am not a gun control advocate. - 92 (65.2%)
Total Voters: 141

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Poll for Gun Control Advocates  (Read 17525 times)
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 22, 2012, 02:04:53 PM
 #101

Incentives don't work if nobody knows about it. You wouldn't be safe if your nuclear bomb-vest was concealed. You'd just be a walking timebomb. As to which estate gets to deal with the class action suit, since any and all possible witnesses have been vaporized, the only one we can conclusively prove to have been at the scene is you, with your vest. And since you're not around, either, to point the finger at the robber, well, guess who gets the blame for the smoking crater in the middle of the city?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
1513049337
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513049337

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513049337
Reply with quote  #2

1513049337
Report to moderator
1513049337
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513049337

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513049337
Reply with quote  #2

1513049337
Report to moderator
1513049337
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513049337

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513049337
Reply with quote  #2

1513049337
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
AntiCap
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 22, 2012, 02:18:58 PM
 #102

Incentives don't work if nobody knows about it. You wouldn't be safe if your nuclear bomb-vest was concealed. You'd just be a walking timebomb. As to which estate gets to deal with the class action suit, since any and all possible witnesses have been vaporized, the only one we can conclusively prove to have been at the scene is you, with your vest. And since you're not around, either, to point the finger at the robber, well, guess who gets the blame for the smoking crater in the middle of the city?
Well, in your world he'd have to assume I'm armed. Which would deter him. Right?

I'll just have to stream a camera feed to the cloud to prove my innocence should a class action arise. Problem solved.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 22, 2012, 11:01:48 PM
 #103

Incentives don't work if nobody knows about it. You wouldn't be safe if your nuclear bomb-vest was concealed. You'd just be a walking timebomb. As to which estate gets to deal with the class action suit, since any and all possible witnesses have been vaporized, the only one we can conclusively prove to have been at the scene is you, with your vest. And since you're not around, either, to point the finger at the robber, well, guess who gets the blame for the smoking crater in the middle of the city?
Well, in your world he'd have to assume I'm armed. Which would deter him. Right?

I'll just have to stream a camera feed to the cloud to prove my innocence should a class action arise. Problem solved.

But you specifically said that the criminals would be incentivized not to attack you, and the people around you incentivized to keep you safe. Those incentives would not work in the least if your nuke-vest is a secret. There's a distinct difference between "assuming you're armed", and "assuming your death will wipe out a significant section of the city"

And even assuming the EMP from your demise doesn't wipe the record of it, the robber killed you, but you killed all the others. especially if you didn't advertise the fact that your death would create a crater 3 city blocks in size.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
AntiCap
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 23, 2012, 05:02:51 AM
 #104

Incentives don't work if nobody knows about it. You wouldn't be safe if your nuclear bomb-vest was concealed. You'd just be a walking timebomb. As to which estate gets to deal with the class action suit, since any and all possible witnesses have been vaporized, the only one we can conclusively prove to have been at the scene is you, with your vest. And since you're not around, either, to point the finger at the robber, well, guess who gets the blame for the smoking crater in the middle of the city?
Well, in your world he'd have to assume I'm armed. Which would deter him. Right?

I'll just have to stream a camera feed to the cloud to prove my innocence should a class action arise. Problem solved.

But you specifically said that the criminals would be incentivized not to attack you, and the people around you incentivized to keep you safe. Those incentives would not work in the least if your nuke-vest is a secret. There's a distinct difference between "assuming you're armed", and "assuming your death will wipe out a significant section of the city"

And even assuming the EMP from your demise doesn't wipe the record of it, the robber killed you, but you killed all the others. especially if you didn't advertise the fact that your death would create a crater 3 city blocks in size.
Yeah, my bad. I won't rely on others. That sounds socialist. I won't incentivize people around me. The fact that I'm armed, with a rather powerful weapon, should deter criminals. It's all about who has the "biggest gun". And mine will be F-ing huge. And I'm not hiding it, I'm just not flaunting it. Shouldn't certain death for the robber and everyone around him be a great deterrent?

I'll make sure the evidence is safe. I'm sure google can provide safe storage. And why is it me who's responsible? Not a single death would have happened if the robber had just let me be. If my car is hit by another car, causing me to spin out of control and hit a pedestrian, am I responsible for the pedestrians death? Same thing.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 23, 2012, 07:10:26 AM
 #105

Yeah, my bad. I won't rely on others. That sounds socialist. I won't incentivize people around me. The fact that I'm armed, with a rather powerful weapon, should deter criminals. It's all about who has the "biggest gun". And mine will be F-ing huge. And I'm not hiding it, I'm just not flaunting it. Shouldn't certain death for the robber and everyone around him be a great deterrent?

I'll make sure the evidence is safe. I'm sure google can provide safe storage. And why is it me who's responsible? Not a single death would have happened if the robber had just let me be. If my car is hit by another car, causing me to spin out of control and hit a pedestrian, am I responsible for the pedestrians death? Same thing.

Deterrents only work if the people being deterred know about them. If you want to be kept safe by your vest-nuke, it had better be very obvious to all who see you that your death will mean theirs.

You need to read up on what nukes do to electronics. Your storage would not be safe. And a car is not a retributive booby trap. A car is a device designed to get you from one place to another. If you spin out and hit a pedestrian after being struck by another vehicle, that is by definition an accident. The vehicle is not designed to spin out and strike pedestrians. Your vest is simply completing it's designed purpose when it detonates, killing anyone in the vicinity. Since the designed purpose was chosen by you, you are at fault for the destruction your death causes.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
AntiCap
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 23, 2012, 08:53:54 AM
 #106

Yeah, my bad. I won't rely on others. That sounds socialist. I won't incentivize people around me. The fact that I'm armed, with a rather powerful weapon, should deter criminals. It's all about who has the "biggest gun". And mine will be F-ing huge. And I'm not hiding it, I'm just not flaunting it. Shouldn't certain death for the robber and everyone around him be a great deterrent?

I'll make sure the evidence is safe. I'm sure google can provide safe storage. And why is it me who's responsible? Not a single death would have happened if the robber had just let me be. If my car is hit by another car, causing me to spin out of control and hit a pedestrian, am I responsible for the pedestrians death? Same thing.

Deterrents only work if the people being deterred know about them. If you want to be kept safe by your vest-nuke, it had better be very obvious to all who see you that your death will mean theirs.

You need to read up on what nukes do to electronics. Your storage would not be safe. And a car is not a retributive booby trap. A car is a device designed to get you from one place to another. If you spin out and hit a pedestrian after being struck by another vehicle, that is by definition an accident. The vehicle is not designed to spin out and strike pedestrians. Your vest is simply completing it's designed purpose when it detonates, killing anyone in the vicinity. Since the designed purpose was chosen by you, you are at fault for the destruction your death causes.

I have to inform the criminals that I am armed? Shouldn't the fact that people could be armed deter criminals, wasn't that the original idea? Do people have to carry their guns in the open for your plan to work?
I don't have a death-wish so I'd probably inform any robber that hurting me would mean certain death, but I might withhold details. Then everything is fine, right? I don't want to rely on my speed with a gun to be able to defend myself.


Yes, I know what EMP is, that's why I'm streaming it all to the cloud. Away from my current location.

And my vest is designed to keep me safe from robbers. It's not designed to explode, that would kill me. It would only do so if someone already killed me, and act as a deterrent for other criminals knowing what might happen. So who's fault is it in the car example? Who should pay restitution? I would argue that it isn't me being hit. In either case I have taken no action to hurt anyone, other peoples actions has caused others to be hurt. Am I responsible for other peoples actions?
Oh, and I thought you didn't believe in "designed purpose" as in the example with the guy using a gun for target practice in a kids park?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 23, 2012, 09:31:50 AM
 #107

I have to inform the criminals that I am armed? Shouldn't the fact that people could be armed deter criminals, wasn't that the original idea? Do people have to carry their guns in the open for your plan to work?
I don't have a death-wish so I'd probably inform any robber that hurting me would mean certain death, but I might withhold details. Then everything is fine, right? I don't want to rely on my speed with a gun to be able to defend myself.


Yes, I know what EMP is, that's why I'm streaming it all to the cloud. Away from my current location.

And my vest is designed to keep me safe from robbers. It's not designed to explode, that would kill me. It would only do so if someone already killed me, and act as a deterrent for other criminals knowing what might happen. So who's fault is it in the car example? Who should pay restitution? I would argue that it isn't me being hit. In either case I have taken no action to hurt anyone, other peoples actions has caused others to be hurt. Am I responsible for other peoples actions?
Oh, and I thought you didn't believe in "designed purpose" as in the example with the guy using a gun for target practice in a kids park?

Remember this?
There's a distinct difference between "assuming you're armed", and "assuming your death will wipe out a significant section of the city"

Yeah, that still applies. If you want to defend yourself, wear a bullet-proof vest, not a nuclear bomb one. The bullet-proof vest is designed to protect you. The nuclear bomb vest is designed to explode when you die. You build a device that is designed to ensure that you take anyone nearby with you, that's on you when it does exactly what it was built to do. Have you ever considered you might come to accidental harm?

The funny thing is that you said this in the other thread:
I find the weird things that myrkuls ideology makes him say hilarious.

Yet you're the one spouting idiotic notions like a concealed nuclear bomb is supposed to be a deterrent. Everything I say is logical. Everything you say is from out in left field.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
AntiCap
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 23, 2012, 09:50:18 AM
 #108

I have to inform the criminals that I am armed? Shouldn't the fact that people could be armed deter criminals, wasn't that the original idea? Do people have to carry their guns in the open for your plan to work?
I don't have a death-wish so I'd probably inform any robber that hurting me would mean certain death, but I might withhold details. Then everything is fine, right? I don't want to rely on my speed with a gun to be able to defend myself.


Yes, I know what EMP is, that's why I'm streaming it all to the cloud. Away from my current location.

And my vest is designed to keep me safe from robbers. It's not designed to explode, that would kill me. It would only do so if someone already killed me, and act as a deterrent for other criminals knowing what might happen. So who's fault is it in the car example? Who should pay restitution? I would argue that it isn't me being hit. In either case I have taken no action to hurt anyone, other peoples actions has caused others to be hurt. Am I responsible for other peoples actions?
Oh, and I thought you didn't believe in "designed purpose" as in the example with the guy using a gun for target practice in a kids park?

Remember this?
There's a distinct difference between "assuming you're armed", and "assuming your death will wipe out a significant section of the city"

Yeah, that still applies. If you want to defend yourself, wear a bullet-proof vest, not a nuclear bomb one. The bullet-proof vest is designed to protect you. The nuclear bomb vest is designed to explode when you die. You build a device that is designed to ensure that you take anyone nearby with you, that's on you when it does exactly what it was built to do. Have you ever considered you might come to accidental harm?

The funny thing is that you said this in the other thread:
I find the weird things that myrkuls ideology makes him say hilarious.

Yet you're the one spouting idiotic notions like a concealed nuclear bomb is supposed to be a deterrent. Everything I say is logical. Everything you say is from out in left field.

You're the one saying that guns work as a deterrent. Well, do they or don't they? I could say the same. If you want to defend yourself, get a bullet proof vest, not a gun.

If the bomb should go off by accident I suppose that I do have to pay restitution to those affected, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 23, 2012, 10:00:08 AM
 #109

You're the one saying that guns work as a deterrent. Well, do they or don't they? I could say the same. If you want to defend yourself, get a bullet proof vest, not a gun.

If the bomb should go off by accident I suppose that I do have to pay restitution to those affected, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

A gun is used to defend yourself. A bomb vest that explodes when you die is not used to defend yourself, it's used to deliver retribution to your attacker.

Well, I have seen criminals in prison saying they were scared shitless of armed victims, and that they sought softer targets if they knew their victims could defend themselves. So shove your pro-criminal safety BS where the sun don't shine, because that's the only place it can survive.

I'm done talking to you on this.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
AntiCap
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 23, 2012, 10:36:31 AM
 #110

You're the one saying that guns work as a deterrent. Well, do they or don't they? I could say the same. If you want to defend yourself, get a bullet proof vest, not a gun.

If the bomb should go off by accident I suppose that I do have to pay restitution to those affected, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

A gun is used to defend yourself. A bomb vest that explodes when you die is not used to defend yourself, it's used to deliver retribution to your attacker.

Well, I have seen criminals in prison saying they were scared shitless of armed victims, and that they sought softer targets if they knew their victims could defend themselves. So shove your pro-criminal safety BS where the sun don't shine, because that's the only place it can survive.

I'm done talking to you on this.

So if the robber gets a shot off hitting you in the gut that will cause you to bleed out you shouldn't fire back and "deliver retribution to your attacker"? Interesting position.
But fine, I'll have a switch on it too. "Leave now or we both die". See, now it's an offensive weapon too. I can defend myself with it. The best the robber can do is lose, he can never win. With a gun he has a chance of winning. Not now. Even if he shoots me he loses.

I understand that you're in a difficult position. Nobody wants to allow somebody to walk around with a nuclear bomb on them. The whole idea is absurd, yet your ideology tells you that there's no way you can prevent it, all you an do is look at the crater and say "Oh, well, somebody might have to pay restitution". I find that amusing.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 23, 2012, 11:06:06 AM
 #111

So if the robber gets a shot off hitting you in the gut that will cause you to bleed out you shouldn't fire back and "deliver retribution to your attacker"? Interesting position.

By all means. just leave the kids in the school on the next block out of it.

And now I'm done talking to you at all, until you start acting sane. Welcome to the ignore list.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
AntiCap
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 23, 2012, 11:23:24 AM
 #112

So if the robber gets a shot off hitting you in the gut that will cause you to bleed out you shouldn't fire back and "deliver retribution to your attacker"? Interesting position.

By all means. just leave the kids in the school on the next block out of it.

And now I'm done talking to you at all, until you start acting sane. Welcome to the ignore list.

So that's how you win arguments? "Waah, you don't agree with me so I'm going to ignore you because I'd rather talk to people who agree with me".

There is a risk that people will get hurt if the bomb goes off, but risk != harm, right? Anything could happen. The trigger could click on the bomb, a divine intervention, anything.
The reasonable response here would be "No, we shouldn't allow people to carry nukes". But you can't say that. Can you?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 23, 2012, 12:12:21 PM
 #113

So if the robber gets a shot off hitting you in the gut that will cause you to bleed out you shouldn't fire back and "deliver retribution to your attacker"? Interesting position.

By all means. just leave the kids in the school on the next block out of it.

And now I'm done talking to you at all, until you start acting sane. Welcome to the ignore list.

So that's how you win arguments? "Waah, you don't agree with me so I'm going to ignore you because I'd rather talk to people who agree with me".

There is a risk that people will get hurt if the bomb goes off, but risk != harm, right? Anything could happen. The trigger could click on the bomb, a divine intervention, anything.
The reasonable response here would be "No, we shouldn't allow people to carry nukes". But you can't say that. Can you?

No, I disagree with many people who are not on my Ignore list. I put people on ignore for being assholes. See my "discussion" with Rarity for details.

Here's how an AnCap society might handle an asshole like you carrying a nuke rigged to explode upon their death:

If you advertise the fact that you are carrying such a device, you will find that everywhere you go, everyone has mysteriously disappeared. You would indeed be completely safe from robbers. And shopkeepers. And traffic jams, so at least there's that. Or, of course, you may be disallowed to enter any area, because the owners don't like the risk of you tripping, breaking your neck, and destroying their property. Either way, good luck getting lunch.

If you don't advertise it, and someone spots the fact that you have a bomb strapped to you, you will be treated as a terrorist. If you're lucky, they'll simply draw on you and order you to disarm the bomb. Since your only recourse is to do so, or to trigger it, and as you say, it's a defensive system, not an attack system, you'll disarm it. If you're unlucky, the last thing you (and everyone in the vicinity) will hear is "he's got a bomb!" Assuming your defense system does not backfire on you and kill you and everyone around you, you will then be expelled from the property. Once again, good luck getting lunch.

You're welcome to own nuclear explosives. You're welcome to carry them. You are not welcome to arm them and carry them around keyed to your vital signs. That makes you a terrorist, and you will be treated as such.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
AntiCap
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 23, 2012, 12:30:24 PM
 #114

So if the robber gets a shot off hitting you in the gut that will cause you to bleed out you shouldn't fire back and "deliver retribution to your attacker"? Interesting position.

By all means. just leave the kids in the school on the next block out of it.

And now I'm done talking to you at all, until you start acting sane. Welcome to the ignore list.

So that's how you win arguments? "Waah, you don't agree with me so I'm going to ignore you because I'd rather talk to people who agree with me".

There is a risk that people will get hurt if the bomb goes off, but risk != harm, right? Anything could happen. The trigger could click on the bomb, a divine intervention, anything.
The reasonable response here would be "No, we shouldn't allow people to carry nukes". But you can't say that. Can you?

No, I disagree with many people who are not on my Ignore list. I put people on ignore for being assholes. See my "discussion" with Rarity for details.

Here's how an AnCap society might handle an asshole like you carrying a nuke rigged to explode upon their death:

If you advertise the fact that you are carrying such a device, you will find that everywhere you go, everyone has mysteriously disappeared. You would indeed be completely safe from robbers. And shopkeepers. And traffic jams, so at least there's that. Or, of course, you may be disallowed to enter any area, because the owners don't like the risk of you tripping, breaking your neck, and destroying their property. Either way, good luck getting lunch.

If you don't advertise it, and someone spots the fact that you have a bomb strapped to you, you will be treated as a terrorist. If you're lucky, they'll simply draw on you and order you to disarm the bomb. Since your only recourse is to do so, or to trigger it, and as you say, it's a defensive system, not an attack system, you'll disarm it. If you're unlucky, the last thing you (and everyone in the vicinity) will hear is "he's got a bomb!" Assuming your defense system does not backfire on you and kill you and everyone around you, you will then be expelled from the property. Once again, good luck getting lunch.

You're welcome to own nuclear explosives. You're welcome to carry them. You are not welcome to arm them and carry them around keyed to your vital signs. That makes you a terrorist, and you will be treated as such.
I'm sorry you think I'm an asshole. I don't think the same about you. A bit funny in a weird way, but not an asshole.

Advertising the device doesn't seem like a good idea then. I do like lunch.

Having a weapon makes me a terrorist? Not my intent?
What right do people have to order me to disarm my weapon. Don't I have the same rights as everybody else to carry a weapon?

I don't think my device makes me a terrorist. It makes me very dangerous, but not a terrorist. And someone with a regular gun is also very dangerous, should something out of the ordinary happen to them. Psychosis or so.

And I'm a peaceful guy. I wish no harm. There are people who do. But you still don't want to prevent people from owning nukes?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 23, 2012, 12:53:57 PM
 #115

Having a weapon makes me a terrorist? Not my intent?
What right do people have to order me to disarm my weapon. Don't I have the same rights as everybody else to carry a weapon?

I don't think my device makes me a terrorist. It makes me very dangerous, but not a terrorist. And someone with a regular gun is also very dangerous, should something out of the ordinary happen to them. Psychosis or so.

And I'm a peaceful guy. I wish no harm. There are people who do. But you still don't want to prevent people from owning nukes?

No, I do not want to prevent people from owning nukes. There are plenty of legit reasons to own, and even use, a nuke. As mutually assured destruction for muggers... no. Killing completely innocent people because you had a fatal accident is a terroristic act.

Someone with a regular gun can be disabled by shooting them. In the mean time, they, can only kill people one at a time. A nuke let off in a city will cause massive devastation. If you truly wish no harm, then don't take actions which may cause harm without your intent to cause it. That means don't cart around a nuke keyed to your vitals.

As to what right they have to order you to disarm your weapon, compare it to a loaded, cocked pistol being waved around. Just as in that situation, you are threatening everyone around you with random death. A disarmed nuke hurts nobody, but an armed one could kill everyone in the vicinity. The man waving the loaded, cocked gun around would be ordered to safe and holster his weapon unless he wants to get shot. It would be no different for some asshole with a bomb strapped to himself.

Now, are you willing to admit that your example was ridiculous?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
AntiCap
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 23, 2012, 03:02:33 PM
 #116

Having a weapon makes me a terrorist? Not my intent?
What right do people have to order me to disarm my weapon. Don't I have the same rights as everybody else to carry a weapon?

I don't think my device makes me a terrorist. It makes me very dangerous, but not a terrorist. And someone with a regular gun is also very dangerous, should something out of the ordinary happen to them. Psychosis or so.

And I'm a peaceful guy. I wish no harm. There are people who do. But you still don't want to prevent people from owning nukes?

No, I do not want to prevent people from owning nukes. There are plenty of legit reasons to own, and even use, a nuke. As mutually assured destruction for muggers... no. Killing completely innocent people because you had a fatal accident is a terroristic act.

Someone with a regular gun can be disabled by shooting them. In the mean time, they, can only kill people one at a time. A nuke let off in a city will cause massive devastation. If you truly wish no harm, then don't take actions which may cause harm without your intent to cause it. That means don't cart around a nuke keyed to your vitals.

As to what right they have to order you to disarm your weapon, compare it to a loaded, cocked pistol being waved around. Just as in that situation, you are threatening everyone around you with random death. A disarmed nuke hurts nobody, but an armed one could kill everyone in the vicinity. The man waving the loaded, cocked gun around would be ordered to safe and holster his weapon unless he wants to get shot. It would be no different for some asshole with a bomb strapped to himself.

Now, are you willing to admit that your example was ridiculous?
Who are you to decide what use I make of my property? If it's mine I should be able to do what I please with it.
And I believe that terrorism is supposed to have an agenda, to coerce. From wikipedia Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. . Although it also says that there's no common definition exists. If I fall and break my neck, triggering the device and killing people, that's an accident. A preventable one at that, but still an accident. Not terrorism.

You're not being consistent. Earlier it was fine to fire a rifle through a park, now it's not fine to wave a gun around.
As to having a bomb strapped to me, where's the harm? I believe that was your question in another thread too.

Yes the example is ridiculous, but so is the notion that nukes should be available to whatever person or group wants one.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 23, 2012, 07:02:10 PM
 #117

Yes the example is ridiculous.

Thank you, that's all we have to say.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
AntiCap
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 23, 2012, 07:23:08 PM
 #118

Yes the example is ridiculous.

Thank you, that's all we have to say.

I'm using your ridiculous ideas. You're the one who believes that I should be allowed to carry a nuke. Your ideology doesn't do anything to prevent it. It's an extreme example, but one that could happen.

How about answering the other questions, or do you admit your inconsistency and the fallacy of your system? It's a nice simple theory, that would never work in the real world.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
August 23, 2012, 07:54:33 PM
 #119

Yes the example is ridiculous.

Thank you, that's all we have to say.

I'm using your ridiculous ideas. You're the one who believes that I should be allowed to carry a nuke. Your ideology doesn't do anything to prevent it. It's an extreme example, but one that could happen.

How about answering the other questions, or do you admit your inconsistency and the fallacy of your system? It's a nice simple theory, that would never work in the real world.

I'm being perfectly consistent. I'll address your idiocy one statement at a time.

Who are you to decide what use I make of my property? If it's mine I should be able to do what I please with it.

Certainly it is, and you're welcome to do whatever you want with it. Just understand that if you go onto someone else's property with a device designed to destroy it if any harm comes to you, you will not be allowed to stay. If you pull a weapon and point it at someone, don't be surprised if you get shot. And that is exactly what you are doing, arming a nuke, pointing a gun at everyone nearby, even people who don't know you're there.

And I believe that terrorism is supposed to have an agenda, to coerce. From wikipedia Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. . Although it also says that there's no common definition exists. If I fall and break my neck, triggering the device and killing people, that's an accident. A preventable one at that, but still an accident. Not terrorism.

Your stated reason for carrying the nuke is to receive protection. You're threatening harm to everyone even remotely near you as a defense against mugging. If that isn't the "systematic use of terror", I don't know what is.

You're not being consistent. Earlier it was fine to fire a rifle through a park, now it's not fine to wave a gun around.

Again, perfectly consistent. Firing a rifle through a public park isn't the same as waving a gun around. You specifically stated that the shooter had set up targets, and as I said, if he wanted to avoid confusion, he should inform the people in the park that he's about to do some target practice. If you want to avoid being confused with a suicide bomber, you should inform everyone that the explosive strapped to you is wired to your vitals, and nothing will happen as long as you're safe. Of course, recall what I said about lunch.

As to having a bomb strapped to me, where's the harm? I believe that was your question in another thread too.

Oh, there's no harm to strapping a bomb to you. As I said, you're welcome to carry a nuclear device. An armed bomb is another matter. That's the equivalent of pointing a gun at every individual within range of the explosion.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
August 23, 2012, 07:57:40 PM
 #120

Having a weapon makes me a terrorist? Not my intent?
What right do people have to order me to disarm my weapon. Don't I have the same rights as everybody else to carry a weapon?

I don't think my device makes me a terrorist. It makes me very dangerous, but not a terrorist. And someone with a regular gun is also very dangerous, should something out of the ordinary happen to them. Psychosis or so.

And I'm a peaceful guy. I wish no harm. There are people who do. But you still don't want to prevent people from owning nukes?

No, I do not want to prevent people from owning nukes. There are plenty of legit reasons to own, and even use, a nuke. As mutually assured destruction for muggers... no. Killing completely innocent people because you had a fatal accident is a terroristic act.

Someone with a regular gun can be disabled by shooting them. In the mean time, they, can only kill people one at a time. A nuke let off in a city will cause massive devastation. If you truly wish no harm, then don't take actions which may cause harm without your intent to cause it. That means don't cart around a nuke keyed to your vitals.

As to what right they have to order you to disarm your weapon, compare it to a loaded, cocked pistol being waved around. Just as in that situation, you are threatening everyone around you with random death. A disarmed nuke hurts nobody, but an armed one could kill everyone in the vicinity. The man waving the loaded, cocked gun around would be ordered to safe and holster his weapon unless he wants to get shot. It would be no different for some asshole with a bomb strapped to himself.

Now, are you willing to admit that your example was ridiculous?
Who are you to decide what use I make of my property? If it's mine I should be able to do what I please with it.
And I believe that terrorism is supposed to have an agenda, to coerce. From wikipedia Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. . Although it also says that there's no common definition exists. If I fall and break my neck, triggering the device and killing people, that's an accident. A preventable one at that, but still an accident. Not terrorism.

You're not being consistent. Earlier it was fine to fire a rifle through a park, now it's not fine to wave a gun around.
As to having a bomb strapped to me, where's the harm? I believe that was your question in another thread too.

Yes the example is ridiculous, but so is the notion that nukes should be available to whatever person or group wants one.

Myrkul has dragged you down the rabbit hole, into his world view, which:

- Lacks commons sense
- Prefers to be built upon ignorance
- Encourages absurdity
- Has not been tested on any meaningful scale (for obvious reasons)
- Is hypocritical
- Is contradictory
- Requires arguments supporting it that conveniently leave out practicalities
- Is coercive
- Leaves no place to go where one is not subject to the whims of others
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!