Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 4. (Read 36619 times)

According to NAP, two wrongs do make a right.

Two wrongs don't make a right.  But three lefts do.

M

Oh, they already have insulted me in this and other thread already. Its only fair game.

On the contrary, I'm actually quite excited about the future
(Yes, I have been depressed in the past when I was much younger, and yes, I have consulted a psychiatrist, as well as used anti-depressants to help me get better, and although I may still have some manic brain episodes where flashes of information, ideas, or daydreams just start rapidly going through my head, keeping me up at night or distracting me during the day, and though I sometimes think I may be a bit insane compared to other "slower" people around me, I'm perfectly happy with my life now  )


You are correct. People have been saying this, and it has been happening on a small scale (mainly inflation and collapse, as opposed to everyone being able to get guns) in many countries around the world, including my home country.
Sorry I misunderstood your question. I can address that too.

• If police is still around, they will be a branch of a dying government, which will struggle to hold power using the common dictatorial tactics: band with church, brainwash and disarm populace, use fear of outside threats to band people together and promote jingoism, us fear of inside traitors and unpatriotic types to turn neighbor against neighbor and keep everyone so afraid they can't step out of line. This is the same tactic that has been used for centuries, more recently in 1930's Germany, Soviet Union, now in Russia, and is slowly creeping up in USA. Assuming oligarchs can still make money by taking control of natural resources and gaining their wealth from that instead of direct taxation, these people will continue to be able to hold power, including using the police to maintain control and "disappear" detractors, either into prisons or just out of existence. Such a state will be relatively poor and technologically stunted, with people at the top making money while everyone else being relatively poor due to severe limits in economic freedom and outside investment (other businesses would likely stay out of a risky country like this, and will at most only buy their resources), as well as lack of incentive to innovate. With guns becoming easy to print, 3D printers themselves may become regulated, or the state may end up spending a lot of their resources keeping down an armed and disgruntled populace.
  I would not want to live in such a "safe, gun free, government controlled" country, as I already know where it ultimately ends up, and we have plenty of real world examples of such places (including the country I moved out of)
  
• Private security really depends on the method it uses. There could be two: a service provided by people where the business controls specific territories in a natural monopoly, OR automated technological equipment that can be manufactured and delivered from anywhere to any customer.
  Private service would have to focus on providing the best service they can to entice people to pay for their services. If they charge too much, or are too brutal and unjust, people will simply cancel their subscriptions, print their own guns, and take chances on their own. There is obviously a risk of competing businesses trying to combat each other, but it is much cheaper to settle things through negotiations, or compete on price, service, and quality, than to actually try to kill off the other group's employees. Gang turf war is obviously possible, but not likely to happen often, and is very likely to take any measures possible to avoid involving civilians, since they are the paying customers. "Extortion" at most would come in the form of such security companies freely advertising which homes they are NOT protecting, leaving the place open for burglars, however, such tactics will be mildly effective if homeowners have their own security and are armed.
  Automated tech security would come in the form of more advanced home security systems, such as sensors that can distinguish between the owner and an intruder, and thus can always stay on instead of only working when the owner is away. Other sensors will scan for and detect weapons, such as by recognizing sounds made by guns, and eventually will use defensive non-lethal systems, such as microwave lasers (burn), directed sound blasters, tazers, and possibly even gas, as well as lethal systems such as small projectile launchers and turrets. Drones will also become a lot more ubiquitous, following the user around, recording everything they see to post to the cloud, and possibly using onboard defensive systems to defend the user from attackers if needed. Though likely, just the idea that anyone attempting to attack them will be recorded and instantly known will deter most attacks. Personal clothing will come into play, too, with new stab and bullet proof materials being much more widely available for everyday wear, as well as personal tracking technologies that will post your position to a private online location to deter kidnapping. Regarding problems, only ones I can think of are defects in manufacturing, hackers taking over poorly secured protective devices, and some people not being able to afford the more expensive defensive devices, and having to rely on just their own clothing and their own guns. The benefit, though, is that the protection from devices being used by others will likely spill over to provide protection for everyone around them, so someone defenseless being mugged will be caught on camera, and someone trying to pull a gun on someone else will be instantly identified as a threat and either warned or disarmed.
  Thinking much father into the future, once nanotech comes into play, things like bullet and stab wounds will not really matter any more, as such damage will be quickly and easily repaired. A more serious issue will be not guns, but nano- and bio-tech  weapons that are designed to damage or take apart your body. At that point, entirely different personal security measures will have to come into play.
  This is the country I plan to live in.
  
• Potential problems with the judicial system is the same we have now. People will live in groups that agree to follow specific codes of conduct, many of which will be universal across many groups, and some other people will have issues with some parts of the code, and will break those rules. If caught, they will be tried and judged, and if found guilty, either asked to pay for reparations, exiled, or killed, depending on the nature of the crime and the person's situation. Really no different than the way things are now. Some groups will appoint judges electorally, others will use paid-for arbitrators that the accuser and the accused will both have to agree on. If the accused doesn't even agree to arbitration, then they will likely be considered guilty by default, and simply ostracized or exiled. Yes, obviously there may be a situation where the accused is innocent, and all the arbitrators available are on the accuser's side, but, again, that's no different from what we often have now. Just learn to live with and deal with it.
  One major change on the horizon will be regarding personal reputation. People will carry devices, or have their identity, linked to a reputation database where they can rate others they deal with, and be rated by others, as well as be designated as belonging to specific groups and organizations. When dealing with someone, you'll know if they are trustworthy based on their reputation. If arbitrators collude with the accuser, and mark the accused as untrustworthy, or as having had committed a crime, they risk losing their reputation in turn if the accused proves to be innocent. Plus, the accused can still rely on the positive reputation given to him by others, and those he deals with can just ignore the negative claims of those who have since proven themselves untrustworthy. In short, everyone will be the judge of everyone they come into contact with, and the role of the judicial system will be mainly for the purpose of resolving disputes, not for the purpose of judging someone for a crime and sentencing them to some sort of punishment.
  

So, you guys keep on planing on how to pass better gun control laws, while I'll be busy preparing myself for life in that almost-inevitable world (and not just preparing, but helping it happen, by using and supporting Bitcoin and other new technologies).

Sorry for the long text, but that's what I see the world ending up as within the next 50 to 100 years.

It says something about the person when insults start coming out.

M

Why would 'potential problems' matter one bit?  Such things arise spontaneously, as you noted they always will and always have.   One classic example would be the Sicilian Mafia, which IIRC it's forebearers date to Roman times.

Throughout history, at times the State becomes top heavy, and burdens the population with too many complex rule sets.  The structure in which an individual lives becomes impossible to deal with. 

Those structures collapse of their own weight, of course causing a great deal of suffering in the process.

I didn't say I was intelligent. Only that my personality type is the kind that tends to overanalyze everything, or overplan for every contingency far into the future, instead of just going on gut instinct and winging it. Doesn't mean I come to the right conclusions. That I might seem intelligent is simply your opinion's reflection of me. I never claim that I am personally (or try not to).
And yes, I'm quite aware of that effect. The rather amusing irony is that Dunning Kruger is used quite often by SA goons against bitcoiners, when they claim that Bitcoiners don't understand finance, economics, or math, because they, the SA goons, do, and thuse understand that bitcoiners wrong. That itself is actually a Dunning Kruger effect, in that the SA goons are SO convinced that Bitcoin doesn't make sense, and are so confident of their own superiority with regards to finance, that they can't even recognize the way more advanced understanding of econ and finance when presented by bitcoiners. It's effectively Dunning Kruger types suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect and accusing the actually smart ones of suffering from it.


* Anti-gun laws become obsolete as people are able to print guns and other weapons in private from home.
* Government security struggles to adjust, as tax revenue plummets due to increased cryptocurrency adoption and weakening of government fiat currencies, while at the same time having to contend with more heavily armed criminals.
* Citizens continue to lose trust in government as their currency inflates, and the quality of provided services decreases.
* Government responds to these issues with increased intensity of violence, such as swat team style raids and arrests for increasingly minor infractions, and by adding more things to the list of items it considers illegal (possible even use of cryptocurrency itself).
* The end effect is more expensive use of police powers, combined with reduced tax revenues, resulting in police answering only a limited number of calls for help, and leaving many issues that government considers minor (such as robberies) unresolved.
* As people realize the police is not as effective as they want them to be, they start to purchase or print their own guns for their own defense.
* Initially the rash of shootings increases, as criminals figure out (are more frequently surprised) that they are up against armed citizens, and citizens figure out how to handle their new guns properly. The police is either dismissive of the issue, too busy focusing on their own raids, or is caught in the middle, with increased police casualties and resulting increase in police brutality.
* As the situation comes to a head, and people believe they have had enough, they start to form their own street patrols, which quickly evolve into certain specific people taking charge, and forming their own private police force. Some of these will be neighborhood watches where everyone contributes, some of these will be gangs forming to protect their turf, and some will be started by enterpreneureal types who want to start a private security business. Regardless, they all focus on keeping the neighborhood secure by taking care of only their own small parts of town, where they actually know the people and the areas, instead of a single huge organization trying to take care of the entire city.
* As these groups build more and more reputation, they will be trusted more than the government provided police, who, as more people protest their brutality, will either form into a group protecting a sort of police dictatorship status, or will dissolve if they realize that they are simply not needed any more.
* In the end, for most areas guns will be as necessary, or unnecessary, as they are now, with protection being provided by private local groups, and possibly even competing groups, as well as advances in technology and security systems. In some areas guns will be a necessity due to rampant gang violence (same as in inner cities now), and in some areas guns will be a necessity simply because people will decide that it's cheaper to carry guns and provide their own protection instead of paying someone else, with the private security only providing investigative services.

Oh praise you, you superior being. everyone should be on their knees infront of your unlimited knowledge and wisdom, just because you took some highly biased and limited test of you personality.

I bow to your limitless intellect.


(btw. people who says they are smarter then other people are often not, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

Please tell me what issues you thought through.

You won't be talking like that if the deer decides to shoot back..

I guess, being Canadian, where Automatic Rifles are already illegal, and handguns, highly regulated, I don't see the issue with banning them. Obviously, you aren't going to be hunting deer, with a fucking M16, and unless your home is undersiege by some forien power, an M16 for home defense, doesn't make much sense either...

Does Private Security reduce the public cost of policing? 

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.

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."

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.

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!"