Poll for Gun Control Advocates

[vampire]

I'm not really trying to "prove" anything, but it does show how much culture matters.  And cali is not the most restrictive from a legal perspective, that honor goes to Wisconsin, Illinois or the District of Columbia, all of which (until very recently) are no-issue states.  Cali is a may-issue state, but has more restrictive 'valid reasons' than Liechtenstein according to the link I referenced, because Cali doesn't honor "personal protection" as a legitimate cause unless you're a member of the state justice apparatus already, such as a prosecutor.  Granted, I could get a shotgun in Cali for inside my own home, and I can't determine if that is the case in Liechtenstein, but all of these comparisons are apples to oranges, due to variations in local culture and demographics.  Both San Fransico & Detroit are very liberal politcally, and have very restrictive gun regulations, with populations well in excess of Leichtenstin; but while San Fran is about as dangerous as my own mid-sized mid-eastern city (which is to say, not very dangerous) Detroit is one of the most dangerous places on Earth.  There is no definitive evidence that gun control has any non-neglible effect on crime, and all the evidence in the world that it does have an effect on the legal availability of firearms and only the legal availablilty of firearms.  We can both produce plenty of studies that confirm our biases, no doubt.  What you guys seem to lack ability to do is justify why?  By what logic do you guys justify subjugating my daughter to her armed rapist?

DC isn't a state. Wisconsin is a shall issue as of 2012. And I forgot about IL. And MI is a shall issue also.

I am not arguing that stats prove either way, I was saying multiple times that there is no correlation between crime rate and gun control in USA.

edit:

My believes are simple: can drive, can have a gun after a certification. Same DUI laws applies to guns, private business/cities can forbid guns with a popular vote (last one for cities). Long guns... Personally I don't care, full auto long guns aren't that useful. Forbid may be concealed full auto guns.

[1714876310]

1714876310

[1714876310]

1714876310

[mdude77]

The national gun control method has been proven to disarm law abiding citizens, NO ONE ELSE.  History has shown that time and time again:

And yet once I moved to England I learned that even with comparable rates of crime in the country the fatalities from crime were significantly lower.  National gun control works, and we have concrete examples of that.  We don't have examples of peaceful utopias brought about by giving everyone more weapons.

I'm not talking fatalities.  I'm talking crime.  

police and military generally do what they are told.  case in point, what happened in new orleans when Katrina hit.

They maintained order, that is exactly what they were supposed to do.  

They did NOT maintain order, they stripped law abiding citizens of their right to bear arms, forcibly when necessary, stealing their weapons, and only by lawsuit where citizens able to get them back.  At that point the weapons were almost useless because of the careless way they were stored.  

How is that protecting people?

There will always be some mistakes made by any institution, but they do not make the whole institution flawed as a result.  On the whole our military is made of patriotic heroes who want to do their best to protect us.  It's shameful that you are slandering them this way from the safety of your keyboard while they risk their lives to protect your spoiled existence.  Without our strong American military you and your family would be speaking German or Russian now and there is nothing you could have done to prevent it.  Show some fucking respect.

Dude, just because you disagree with me doesn't warrant vulgar language.  

If you want to know what's shameful, it's that there are apparently millions of others like you who have bought into the endless propaganda the government spews forth.  But, then again, that's what the public system teaches people to do, don't think for yourself, do what you are told, believe everything you hear, and most important, trust the government.

None of the wars of the last century were required.  They served the purpose of the oppressors involved, generating billions upon billions of profits for the banking system and military industrial complex.

I respect those who defend their country from enemies foreign and domestic.  Going into a third world country and bombing the hell out of innocent civilians, destroying their infrastructure, and killing and maiming millions of innocents because an empire needs to feed their military industrial complex is NOT my definition of defending their country.  The "insurgents" in Iraq and Afghanistan are the ones who get my respect, doing their very best to defend themselves against an uninvited foreign oppressor who arrogantly says they came to liberate, yet years later they are still there with no apparent intent on leaving.  Just like the dozens of other countries they've entered, never to leave.

Pray for our troops, yes, pray indeed to bring them home from the horrors the oppressive empire called the US Federal government are forcing them to do.

M

[TheBitcoinChemist]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19439679

You know what this looks like to me?

KKK in 1950's Mississippi, only wearing all black instead of white.  You know what else black people in 1950's Mississippi have in common with Hungarian Roma in 2012?

No practical access to defensive firearms.

So gun control advocates, why do you hate racial minorities the world over, anyway?  I Know!  It's a convient "final solution" to the overpopulation problem, right?!

[AntiCap]

/sigh... we were doing so well there, and then you lapsed back into terrorism.

It's simple, really. Only an objective threat matters. Because you "feel" threatened doesn't matter one whit, if you're not actually threatened. If you are actually threatened, you are being aggressed against, whether you "feel" threatened or not.

I could care less about the fissionable material. It's the fact that the bomb is primed to explode that is the problem. You are more than welcome to draw first and shoot - always remembering that if it turns out he was reaching for his keys to get into his apartment, you may well find yourself in some hot water.
And no, I am not saying you cannot "defend" your family, but that if you choose to stop him from firing by instead shooting him, you are going to need to be responsible for your actions. I notice that you have not mentioned the one course of action which would handily stop a shooter just out for some target practice - as he has informed everyone of - from shooting until your family is clear: Stepping in front of the rifle. That would cause any responsible shooter to immediately safe his weapon, if not completely put it down. Are you afraid to take risks with your own safety to ensure that of your family's?

Again, only an objective threat matters. And an armed nuclear bomb is an objective threat to all within the range of the device. A holstered weapon is not an objective threat to anyone, much less someone who has a nuke wired to his vitals.

What makes you think it would be on their spare time? If there is a bounty, there will be bounty hunters. And I have already explained that (and why) I believe such trades would be significantly rarer in an AnCap society, and we're powerless to stop them now, regardless, so we're pissing into a fan here anyway.

1) You expect me to act rational? I just told you I'm prepared to carry a nuke. I want to get the robber back. That's what matters to me. Others are collateral, and not my concern. I might even conceal my weapon if showing it means I won't get lunch.
2) No threat in unholstering and taking the safety off my gun, right? Not even aiming it in your general direction. I'm not aiming at you, you see. Honest. When does it go from a subjective threat to an objective one? When the bullet leaves the gun? Or just before that, when I actually take aim at you? At which time you're allowed to aim back, right?
3) Yet I can carry an AK47 or similar on the streets, and that's not a threat, right? Safety on, not aiming at anyone. How long does it take me to aim and fire that gun? Am I threatening everyone within distance?
Someone determined to shoot while there are people between him and the target is clearly not reasonable. If he can shoot at targets on the other side of the park, ignoring people that might be in the way, I can clearly do something similar and empty my gun into the ground, ignoring someone just out for some target practice.

4) A rapid fire gun in a quick draw holster is a threat? Or not?

5) You didn't answer what you expected the end result to be if we were to give nukes to Al-quaeda and similar organizations. And how many mushroom clouds do you think will be necessary before people assembles some bounty hunters? And let's hope the seller doesn't sell in bulk. You know that OBL considered it a religious duty to acquire nuclear or biological weapons? Do you think he was the only one? And we're not powerless to stop them now. It's just hard. Only states have nukes now, and they're very regulated. North Korea is the only one that has managed to build them lately, and they're torturing their population to be able to do it.

[myrkul]

1) You expect me to act rational?

Yes, actually. Though based on our previous conversation, that's clearly an unreasonable expectation.

2) No threat in unholstering and taking the safety off my gun, right? Not even aiming it in your general direction. I'm not aiming at you, you see. Honest. When does it go from a subjective threat to an objective one? When the bullet leaves the gun? Or just before that, when I actually take aim at you? At which time you're allowed to aim back, right?

Well, let's say I'm armed as well, and watching you. You unholster and unsafe your weapon. The logical thing for me to do is the same thing. You start pointing it in random directions, I might get into a ready stance and ask you to put your gun away. You point it at me, and that's a threat, and I will respond in kind.

3) Yet I can carry an AK47 or similar on the streets, and that's not a threat, right? Safety on, not aiming at anyone. How long does it take me to aim and fire that gun? Am I threatening everyone within distance?
Someone determined to shoot while there are people between him and the target is clearly not reasonable. If he can shoot at targets on the other side of the park, ignoring people that might be in the way, I can clearly do something similar and empty my gun into the ground, ignoring someone just out for some target practice.

You understand that you can carry an AR15 right now, right? Slung and safed, it's hurting nobody. You're not threatening anyone until you are ready to fire, ie unsafed, and pointing it at people.
And yes, You clearly can. But just like him, if you hit someone doing that, you will have to pay the consequences, which will be much more severe for you, because there is no way you can prove you didn't notice you were pointing your weapon at someone, while all the witnesses will back up the fact that whoever he hit was moving into the path of the bullet. He is ignoring the risk of hitting someone, you are ignoring the fact that you will hit someone.

4) A rapid fire gun in a quick draw holster is a threat? Or not?

Nope. The speed with which you can ready your weapon is immaterial. Only a readied weapon is a threat. And an armed nuke is "readied".

5) You didn't answer what you expected the end result to be if we were to give nukes to Al-quaeda and similar organizations. And how many mushroom clouds do you think will be necessary before people assembles some bounty hunters? And let's hope the seller doesn't sell in bulk. You know that OBL considered it a religious duty to acquire nuclear or biological weapons? Do you think he was the only one? And we're not powerless to stop them now. It's just hard. Only states have nukes now, and they're very regulated. North Korea is the only one that has managed to build them lately, and they're torturing their population to be able to do it.

Yes, thank you for proving my point. Nukes are hideously expensive, and developing them is an extremely capital intensive process. Very few people will be able to get one, and those that do will not waste them on terror attacks. A "dirty bomb" is much more effective, and cheap, for a terrorist's purposes. Even for your stated purpose, a conventional explosive would be more effective, and less likely to incur "collateral damage", as you put it. (And no, calling it collateral damage does not excuse it, no more than calling rape "a roll in the hay" does)

[AntiCap]

Yes, actually. Though based on our previous conversation, that's clearly an unreasonable expectation.

Well, let's say I'm armed as well, and watching you. You unholster and unsafe your weapon. The logical thing for me to do is the same thing. You start pointing it in random directions, I might get into a ready stance and ask you to put your gun away. You point it at me, and that's a threat, and I will respond in kind.

You understand that you can carry an AR15 right now, right? Slung and safed, it's hurting nobody. You're not threatening anyone until you are ready to fire, ie unsafed, and pointing it at people.
And yes, You clearly can. But just like him, if you hit someone doing that, you will have to pay the consequences, which will be much more severe for you, because there is no way you can prove you didn't notice you were pointing your weapon at someone, while all the witnesses will back up the fact that whoever he hit was moving into the path of the bullet. He is ignoring the risk of hitting someone, you are ignoring the fact that you will hit someone.

Nope. The speed with which you can ready your weapon is immaterial. Only a readied weapon is a threat. And an armed nuke is "readied".

Yes, thank you for proving my point. Nukes are hideously expensive, and developing them is an extremely capital intensive process. Very few people will be able to get one, and those that do will not waste them on terror attacks. A "dirty bomb" is much more effective, and cheap, for a terrorist's purposes. Even for your stated purpose, a conventional explosive would be more effective, and less likely to incur "collateral damage", as you put it. (And no, calling it collateral damage does not excuse it, no more than calling rape "a roll in the hay" does)

1) The world is full of people who aren't rational. I thought you knew that. Or do you ignore it to fit the world into your ideology?
2) Why is that a logical thing to do? I'm not threatening anybody. Do you think I am threatening anyone? If not, why would you unholster your weapon? And if you think I am threatening you, then I can assume the same when you unholster your gun, and hence take aim at you. No? Are you saying there's an subjective threat here?
3) Slung? I don't know where you got your combat training, but I was instructed to keep my gun in my hands at all times. So, how much time do you think it'll take me to ready and fire that gun? A second? Two? And speed is immaterial, right? No threat in me carrying that around, but people around me would probably unholster their weapons and get into a ready stance? Or not, since I'm not a threat. Your lack of consistency is confusing.
4) Fine, so the nuke won't me armed. It'll arm itself and set a 90 sec timer after I push the button, or if I flatline. Better?
5) You still hasn't answered my question about what you think the outcome will be of allowing Al-quaeda or similar organization to acquire a nuke, or similar weapon of mass destruction. It's a free for all, right? OBL was very well financed. There are many people who'll gladly donate money to Al-quaeda. So, please explain why 3, or 1, mushroom cloud is better than none.
My purpose isn't terrorism. The purpose is getting back at the robber. If you're an APSD person others just don't matter.  Excuses are for people who care about others.
Yes nukes are expensive, but not out of reach for a well financed organization, which may or may not have benevolent purposes.

[myrkul]

You're getting herder to parse. do me a favor, and hit the enter key one extra time each time, 'k? White space is your friend. Increases readability, makes it easier to reply to.

1) The world is full of people who aren't rational. I thought you knew that. Or do you ignore it to fit the world into your ideology?

No, I don't ignore the fact that there are irrational people, but people who do not act rationally, at least (they're welcome to think whatever crazy things they want) will not do well in an AnCap society. Or any society, really.

2) Why is that a logical thing to do? I'm not threatening anybody. Do you think I am threatening anyone? If not, why would you unholster your weapon? And if you think I am threatening you, then I can assume the same when you unholster your gun, and hence take aim at you. No? Are you saying there's an subjective threat here?

No, by pulling your gun out and unsafing it, you're not threatening me...yet. It looks like you're about to threaten someone, though. Since it appears as though you're preparing to commit an act of aggression, it only makes sense to prepare myself to defend against it.

3) Slung? I don't know where you got your combat training, but I was instructed to keep my gun in my hands at all times. So, how much time do you think it'll take me to ready and fire that gun? A second? Two? And speed is immaterial, right? No threat in me carrying that around, but people around me would probably unholster their weapons and get into a ready stance? Or not, since I'm not a threat. Your lack of consistency is confusing.

I'm being plenty consistent. Your inability to understand logic is what's confusing you. You only keep your gun in your hands at all times when you're someplace you expect to have to use it - like a battlefield. Unless you don't even sling your rifle when you're inside the barracks? I admit, I've never been in the military, So I'm not aware how they do it in the drone factories.

4) Fine, so the nuke won't me armed. It'll arm itself and set a 90 sec timer after I push the button, or if I flatline. Better?

Getting better, yes. It can still go off without conscious control from you, however. Remove the connection to your vitals, and we have a deal.

5) You still hasn't answered my question about what you think the outcome will be of allowing Al-quaeda or similar organization to acquire a nuke, or similar weapon of mass destruction. It's a free for all, right? OBL was very well financed. There are many people who'll gladly donate money to Al-quaeda. So, please explain why 3, or 1, mushroom cloud is better than none.
My purpose isn't terrorism. The purpose is getting back at the robber. If you're an APSD person others just don't matter.  Excuses are for people who care about others.
Yes nukes are expensive, but not out of reach for a well financed organization, which may or may not have benevolent purposes.

We've already discussed that we can't prevent terrorist groups from getting nukes now. By your own statements, if Al-Queda had wanted a nuke, they would have had one. They didn't, so I'm not worried about them - or any other terrorist group - getting them. The biggest terrorist organizations on the planet already have them.

If you wanted to get back at the robber, you would devise a mechanism to strike back specifically at him. I get that you don't care about others. Why else would you carry a nuke into a city? You not caring about others does not change the objective nature of your actions, only your subjective view of them. Your purpose may not be terrorism, but that's the result.

[AntiCap]

No, I don't ignore the fact that there are irrational people, but people who do not act rationally, at least (they're welcome to think whatever crazy things they want) will not do well in an AnCap society. Or any society, really.

No, by pulling your gun out and unsafing it, you're not threatening me...yet. It looks like you're about to threaten someone, though. Since it appears as though you're preparing to commit an act of aggression, it only makes sense to prepare myself to defend against it.

I'm being plenty consistent. Your inability to understand logic is what's confusing you. You only keep your gun in your hands at all times when you're someplace you expect to have to use it - like a battlefield. Unless you don't even sling your rifle when you're inside the barracks? I admit, I've never been in the military, So I'm not aware how they do it in the drone factories.

Getting better, yes. It can still go off without conscious control from you, however. Remove the connection to your vitals, and we have a deal.

We've already discussed that we can't prevent terrorist groups from getting nukes now. By your own statements, if Al-Queda had wanted a nuke, they would have had one. They didn't, so I'm not worried about them - or any other terrorist group - getting them. The biggest terrorist organizations on the planet already have them.

If you wanted to get back at the robber, you would devise a mechanism to strike back specifically at him. I get that you don't care about others. Why else would you carry a nuke into a city? You not caring about others does not change the objective nature of your actions, only your subjective view of them. Your purpose may not be terrorism, but that's the result.

1) Yet studies have shown that many executives and similar people of power have streaks of sociopathy.  Not doing well you said?

2) If there isn't a threat there, why would you pull your gun? Why does it look like I'm about to threaten someone? That's you experiencing a subjective threat. Not an objective one.

3) Whenever you move around with it you keep it in your hand. When you eat you keep it next to you. In the barracks it's usually under lock and key, for convenience. So, is me carrying that kind of gun a threat?

4) Hell no. That way it won't kill the robber if he shoots first. He should not be able to win by being faster than me.

5) Sure we can. They don't have it because it's illegal to sell to them and that's something we police very hard. Al-quaeda does want WMDs, but we work very hard to keep it from them. And being indifferent to the lives of others isn't terrorism. It's similar to shooting a gun through a park where children are playing. It's just indifference to the result.
So, arming Al-quaeda with WMDs, what do you expect the outcome to be?

And a little extra whitespace. Easier to read now? I simply forgot last post. Sorry about that.

[myrkul]

1) Yet studies have shown that many executives and similar people of power have streaks of sociopathy.  Not doing well you said?

Sociopathy does not preclude rationality.

2) If there isn't a threat there, why would you pull your gun? Why does it look like I'm about to threaten someone? That's you experiencing a subjective threat. Not an objective one.

As I explained, It appears you are about to commit an act of aggression. Thus I am preparing to defend myself.

3) Whenever you move around with it you keep it in your hand. When you eat you keep it next to you. In the barracks it's usually under lock and key, for convenience. So, is me carrying that kind of gun a threat?

No, but carrying it like that may elicit some of the above preparation. You are, after all, not a soldier in an occupied country. Well, unless you are. But then, both your carrying it like that and the preparation are perfectly warranted.

4) Hell no. That way it won't kill the robber if he shoots first. He should not be able to win by being faster than me.

Boo-fucking-hoo. You should not be able to kill random strangers without at least some conscious input.

5) Sure we can. They don't have it because it's illegal to sell to them and that's something we police very hard. Al-quaeda does want WMDs, but we work very hard to keep it from them. And being indifferent to the lives of others isn't terrorism. It's similar to shooting a gun through a park where children are playing. It's just indifference to the result.
So, arming Al-quaeda with WMDs, what do you expect the outcome to be?

You have already admitted we cannot stop them from getting them now. If they want them, they can get them. Or do you know where every ex-USSR warhead is? I'm pretty sure not even the Russians do. The only thing making something illegal does is put it into the black market, where it cannot be monitored, controlled, or even easily observed.
And as I said, the biggest terrorist organizations already have nukes. I don't expect much to change by a smaller one getting one.

[AntiCap]

1) Yet studies have shown that many executives and similar people of power have streaks of sociopathy.  Not doing well you said?

Sociopathy does not preclude rationality.

2) If there isn't a threat there, why would you pull your gun? Why does it look like I'm about to threaten someone? That's you experiencing a subjective threat. Not an objective one.

As I explained, It appears you are about to commit an act of aggression. Thus I am preparing to defend myself.

3) Whenever you move around with it you keep it in your hand. When you eat you keep it next to you. In the barracks it's usually under lock and key, for convenience. So, is me carrying that kind of gun a threat?

No, but carrying it like that may elicit some of the above preparation. You are, after all, not a soldier in an occupied country. Well, unless you are. But then, both your carrying it like that and the preparation are perfectly warranted.

4) Hell no. That way it won't kill the robber if he shoots first. He should not be able to win by being faster than me.

Boo-fucking-hoo. You should not be able to kill random strangers without at least some conscious input.

5) Sure we can. They don't have it because it's illegal to sell to them and that's something we police very hard. Al-quaeda does want WMDs, but we work very hard to keep it from them. And being indifferent to the lives of others isn't terrorism. It's similar to shooting a gun through a park where children are playing. It's just indifference to the result.
So, arming Al-quaeda with WMDs, what do you expect the outcome to be?

You have already admitted we cannot stop them from getting them now. If they want them, they can get them. Or do you know where every ex-USSR warhead is? I'm pretty sure not even the Russians do. The only thing making something illegal does is put it into the black market, where it cannot be monitored, controlled, or even easily observed.
And as I said, the biggest terrorist organizations already have nukes. I don't expect much to change by a smaller one getting one.

1) So now it's rational to carry a nuke into a city to get back at a robber, not caring about others that could be hurt?

2) Why does it appear that I'm prepared to commit an act of agression? Please explain that. There's no objective threat there. You might "feel" threatened, but that doesn't matter one whit. Right? If there isn't an objective threat there's no need to pull your gun. Or is there a subjective threat here somewhere? One that you're responding to?

3) So there is a threat? Why else would you prepare yourself? You do not prepare yourself for non-threats do you? It would be fun if you did though. "Ahh, a kitten in a blanket, I must draw my weapon and prepare to defend myself from this non-threat!"

4) That's not for you to decide how I use my property.

5) It's not perfect, but we do manage to stop them. Not all of them all the time, but most of them, most of the time. Why do you think there hasn't been an nuclear incident yet? I'm sure the black markets are well investigated, and most trades are allowed, only the high profile ones are intercepted. Every sane person is scared to death by these weapons, as they should be. Governments are at least semi-rational, and won't generally nuke random people. That can't be said for groups willing to bomb trains, subways, busses etc.
And you still haven't answered what you believe the outcome will be of handing a nuke over to Al-quaeda or similar organization. Is that question really so hard to answer?

[myrkul]

1) So now it's rational to carry a nuke into a city to get back at a robber, not caring about others that could be hurt?

Why do you keep trying to put words into my mouth? You brought up irrationality. Not me. I just called it a terroristic act.

2) Why does it appear that I'm prepared to commit an act of aggression? Please explain that. There's no objective threat there. You might "feel" threatened, but that doesn't matter one whit. Right? If there isn't an objective threat there's no need to pull your gun. Or is there a subjective threat here somewhere? One that you're responding to?

Because you are pulling your gun out and removing the safety. Unless we're at a gun range, that indicates you might soon shoot someone. Don't be surprised if people around you act on that indication.

3) So there is a threat? Why else would you prepare yourself? You do not prepare yourself for non-threats do you? It would be fun if you did though. "Ahh, a kitten in a blanket, I must draw my weapon and prepare to defend myself from this non-threat!"

Silly man, kittens can't shoot you. But a soldier carrying his weapon like he's in a war zone can, and all too often, does.

4) That's not for you to decide how I use my property.

Not when it harms others.

And you still haven't answered what you believe the outcome will be of handing a nuke over to Al-quaeda or similar organization. Is that question really so hard to answer?

I've already told you. The largest terrorist organizations already have nukes. I don't expect much to change by a smaller one getting one.

[AntiCap]

1) So now it's rational to carry a nuke into a city to get back at a robber, not caring about others that could be hurt?

Why do you keep trying to put words into my mouth? You brought up irrationality. Not me. I just called it a terroristic act.

2) Why does it appear that I'm prepared to commit an act of aggression? Please explain that. There's no objective threat there. You might "feel" threatened, but that doesn't matter one whit. Right? If there isn't an objective threat there's no need to pull your gun. Or is there a subjective threat here somewhere? One that you're responding to?

Because you are pulling your gun out and removing the safety. Unless we're at a gun range, that indicates you might soon shoot someone. Don't be surprised if people around you act on that indication.

3) So there is a threat? Why else would you prepare yourself? You do not prepare yourself for non-threats do you? It would be fun if you did though. "Ahh, a kitten in a blanket, I must draw my weapon and prepare to defend myself from this non-threat!"

Silly man, kittens can't shoot you. But a soldier carrying his weapon like he's in a war zone can, and all too often, does.

4) That's not for you to decide how I use my property.

Not when it harms others.

And you still haven't answered what you believe the outcome will be of handing a nuke over to Al-quaeda or similar organization. Is that question really so hard to answer?

I've already told you. The largest terrorist organizations already have nukes. I don't expect much to change by a smaller one getting one.

1) You're the one claiming that one can't be successful and irrational at the same time. I say sociopaths are good examples of the contrary. The kind of people who could do just what I described. Doing something with total disregard for others. If you just do it because fuck you, then it's not terrorism. Just disregard for others.

2) What indication? Why does drawing a gun indicate an intention to shoot someone? You say the same things over and over with different words. Just admit that there's no objective threat here and that you're responding to a subjective one.

3) So there is an objective threat now, from someone with a gun that isn't pointing at you and has the safety on?

4) So you get to decide how I use my property now? Very good. I've been saying that all along. We're getting somewhere.

5) Really? You don't think that giving nukes to someone with the stated purpose of destroying a specific region, nationality or ethnicity will have any adverse effect? What do you expect them to use the WMDs for? Decoration?

[MoonShadow]

1) You're the one claiming that one can't be successful and irrational at the same time. I say sociopaths are good examples of the contrary. The kind of people who could do just what I described. Doing something with total disregard for others. If you just do it because fuck you, then it's not terrorism. Just disregard for others.

I've been ignoring this latest nuke debate because I don't think that it has merit, but this one needs to be addressed.  Sociopathy does not imply irrationality.  Usually the contrary, sociopaths can be very civil & rational people, and still not care a lick what happens to anyone else.  This is exactly why sociopaths who do not tend to have other mental issues are over-represented among both political classes in every Western democracy and the top leadership of major international corporations.  It's also related to the fact that sociopaths that do have other mental issues tend to end up in a prison cell for a violent felony at some point.

[myrkul]

Moonshadow has adequately answered your first point, I don't feel I need to add anything.

2) What indication? Why does drawing a gun indicate an intention to shoot someone? You say the same things over and over with different words. Just admit that there's no objective threat here and that you're responding to a subjective one.

No, I'm preparing to respond to a threat. Drawing a gun and preparing to fire, if you're not at a shooting range, is indication that such a response may be necessary.

3) So there is an objective threat now, from someone with a gun that isn't pointing at you and has the safety on?

No. That's what I've been trying to say all along.

4) So you get to decide how I use my property now? Very good. I've been saying that all along. We're getting somewhere.

No, you don't get to harm others. You can do whatever you want with your property. Except harming others who haven't done anything to you.

5) Really? You don't think that giving nukes to someone with the stated purpose of destroying a specific region, nationality or ethnicity will have any adverse effect? What do you expect them to use the WMDs for? Decoration?

I expect them to not use it. If they only have one, using it will remove their threat, and they'll be flattened by the response. Threatening to use it is much more effective. If anything, it might encourage peace.