Gun free zone - page 17. | Bitcointalksearch.org

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Quote from: myrkul on December 17, 2012, 05:48:11 PM

Quote from: TheButterZone on December 17, 2012, 05:45:12 PM

Nuclear warheads are not arms, nor in any way covered by the right to self-defense. Genocide, yes.

Maybe not self defense, no. But if you have to use it, you're probably fucked anyway.

Of course, they'd be great for asteroid mining.

Or maybe planetary defense. I almost hope an asteroid were on a collision course with earth that astrophysicists in every nuclear country could agree upon, so that all the nukes on earth can be retrofitted for space and fired out of the atmosphere all at once at it.

Axios

donator

Activity: 131

Merit: 100

Axios Foundation

Quote from: TheButterZone on December 17, 2012, 05:45:12 PM

Nuclear warheads are not arms, nor in any way covered by the right to self-defense. Genocide, yes.

I agree. I am departing from these arguments. Since my believes are that the crime can be prevented with a totalitarian regime and it isnt something I want to deal with it.

While Canada vs USA crime comparison is interesting there are too many variables which aren't comparable:

a) Size, USA is about 10 times larger
b) Ethic, Canada has 80% white people, 2.5% black, 8% asian vs 72% white, 12% black, 5% asian (uh I sound racist, but I am not)
c) Social, Canada has better HDI than USA.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: TheButterZone on December 17, 2012, 05:45:12 PM

Nuclear warheads are not arms, nor in any way covered by the right to self-defense. Genocide, yes.

Maybe not self defense, no. But if you have to use it, you're probably fucked anyway.

Of course, they'd be great for asteroid mining.

TheButterZone

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1032

RIP Mommy

Nuclear warheads are not arms, nor in any way covered by the right to self-defense. Genocide, yes.

Axios

donator

Activity: 131

Merit: 100

Axios Foundation

Quote from: myrkul on December 17, 2012, 03:03:38 PM

I do argue for private citizenry to own tanks and nukes. What good is a militia if it doesn't have the tools to fight off an invading army?

US vs Iraq or Afganistan
USSR vs Afganistan

While the last one could be argued that Afganistan won, it's hardly a case after a million dead. USSR lost in total about 15k and they didn't have any of latest techs as night vision googles or bullet proofed jackets.

An organized army will always crash a militia. Owning a gun at home wouldn't stop US government from wiping out any resistance.

The recent event prove that private citizens cannot have nukes, you cannot give a nuclear warhead to a sick person.

Brunic

hero member

Activity: 632

Merit: 500

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on December 17, 2012, 03:46:20 PM

Quote from: Brunic on December 17, 2012, 03:25:00 PM

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on December 17, 2012, 02:57:03 PM

"Why don't gun advocates fight for the right of private citizens to own large tanks and atomic weapons?

Because that's insane?

It depends on the Megatons.

I think you are quite deluded if you consider the "Arab spring" s/t real. It seemed to me more like regime change directed from abroad in one way or the other (blatantly in Libya and Syria, more subtly in Egypt and Tunisia) and much more deluded if you believe that police and armed forces are intended for the "protection of the community".

"Hey guys, I have an idea to permit atomic weapons to individuals, let's just put a limit on the megatons their bomb can have!" Grin

As for the Arab spring, I have a couple of friends from that part of the world (Tunisia mostly), and that revolution was real. The people was sick of that regime, and they really had nothing to lose. As for the new government taking place, on that, I agree that there is a lot of small politics behind closed doors. But there's never a conspiration for a revolution, people revolt when they had enough, you can fake that.

Deluded about the police and armed forces? It depends on the country, sure, but not in mine, certainly not. Sure, there's always a bunch of bad apples and bad situation, but in general, I'm really satisfied with those forces.

conspirosphere.tk

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1064

Bitcoin is antisemitic

Quote from: Brunic on December 17, 2012, 03:25:00 PM

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on December 17, 2012, 02:57:03 PM

"Why don't gun advocates fight for the right of private citizens to own large tanks and atomic weapons?

Because that's insane?

It depends on the Megatons.

I think you are quite deluded if you consider the "Arab spring" s/t real. It seemed to me more like regime change directed from abroad in one way or the other (blatantly in Libya and Syria, more subtly in Egypt and Tunisia) and much more deluded if you believe that police and armed forces are intended for the "protection of the community".

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:39:42 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 17, 2012, 03:37:32 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:32:48 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 17, 2012, 03:30:22 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:23:28 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 17, 2012, 03:21:08 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:12:53 PM

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces.

Note also that the armed forces, with the exception of the navy, were not intended to be a permanent thing. The founders spoke out regularly against a standing army. They knew the dangers.

And far, far too many people concentrate on the first three words, and ignore the last four.

There's no ignoring the last four here. We shall not infringe upon the right to have a well regulated militia in the absence of armed forces.

You want to show me where it mentions Armed forces? Cause I sure as shit don't see that anywhere in the amendment. Nor does it say "The right of the people to join a militia" It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." You'll note it also doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear some, tightly restricted Arms." the last half of the amendment is clear, unqualified, and simple. We should have access to the same weaponry available to the military forces that we may need to defend against.

Hey dumbfuck,

It says well regulated militia, and it was written when no armed forces existed.

Really? Armies didn't exist? Then who the hell were they fighting? Pretty sure if they wanted a permanent army, they'd have put that in there, instead of relying on the militia, which they stated was "necessary to the security of a free State."

Give the idiot four stars.

OK, you can have four stars.

The second amendment was because they didn't want armed forces.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on December 17, 2012, 03:37:32 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:32:48 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 17, 2012, 03:30:22 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:23:28 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 17, 2012, 03:21:08 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:12:53 PM

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces.

Note also that the armed forces, with the exception of the navy, were not intended to be a permanent thing. The founders spoke out regularly against a standing army. They knew the dangers.

And far, far too many people concentrate on the first three words, and ignore the last four.

There's no ignoring the last four here. We shall not infringe upon the right to have a well regulated militia in the absence of armed forces.

You want to show me where it mentions Armed forces? Cause I sure as shit don't see that anywhere in the amendment. Nor does it say "The right of the people to join a militia" It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." You'll note it also doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear some, tightly restricted Arms." the last half of the amendment is clear, unqualified, and simple. We should have access to the same weaponry available to the military forces that we may need to defend against.

Hey dumbfuck,

It says well regulated militia, and it was written when no armed forces existed.

Really? Armies didn't exist? Then who the hell were they fighting? Pretty sure if they wanted a permanent army, they'd have put that in there, instead of relying on the militia, which they stated was "necessary to the security of a free State."

Give the idiot four stars. He gets it now! He actually gets that the 2nd amendment was because they didn't have armed forces. Congratulations.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:32:48 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 17, 2012, 03:30:22 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:23:28 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 17, 2012, 03:21:08 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:12:53 PM

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces.

Note also that the armed forces, with the exception of the navy, were not intended to be a permanent thing. The founders spoke out regularly against a standing army. They knew the dangers.

And far, far too many people concentrate on the first three words, and ignore the last four.

There's no ignoring the last four here. We shall not infringe upon the right to have a well regulated militia in the absence of armed forces.

You want to show me where it mentions Armed forces? Cause I sure as shit don't see that anywhere in the amendment. Nor does it say "The right of the people to join a militia" It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." You'll note it also doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear some, tightly restricted Arms." the last half of the amendment is clear, unqualified, and simple. We should have access to the same weaponry available to the military forces that we may need to defend against.

Hey dumbfuck,

It says well regulated militia, and it was written when no armed forces existed.

Really? Armies didn't exist? Then who the hell were they fighting? Pretty sure if they wanted a permanent army, they'd have put that in there, instead of relying on the militia, which they stated was "necessary to the security of a free State."

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on December 17, 2012, 03:30:22 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:23:28 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 17, 2012, 03:21:08 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:12:53 PM

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces.

Note also that the armed forces, with the exception of the navy, were not intended to be a permanent thing. The founders spoke out regularly against a standing army. They knew the dangers.

And far, far too many people concentrate on the first three words, and ignore the last four.

There's no ignoring the last four here. We shall not infringe upon the right to have a well regulated militia in the absence of armed forces.

You want to show me where it mentions Armed forces? Cause I sure as shit don't see that anywhere in the amendment. Nor does it say "The right of the people to join a militia" It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." You'll note it also doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear some, tightly restricted Arms." the last half of the amendment is clear, unqualified, and simple. We should have access to the same weaponry available to the military forces that we may need to defend against.

Hey dumbfuck,

It says well regulated militia, and it was written when no armed forces existed.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:23:28 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 17, 2012, 03:21:08 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:12:53 PM

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces.

Note also that the armed forces, with the exception of the navy, were not intended to be a permanent thing. The founders spoke out regularly against a standing army. They knew the dangers.

And far, far too many people concentrate on the first three words, and ignore the last four.

There's no ignoring the last four here. We shall not infringe upon the right to have a well regulated militia in the absence of armed forces.

You want to show me where it mentions Armed forces? Cause I sure as shit don't see that anywhere in the amendment. Nor does it say "The right of the people to join a militia" It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." You'll note it also doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear some, tightly restricted Arms." the last half of the amendment is clear, unqualified, and simple. We should have access to the same weaponry available to the military forces that we may need to defend against.

Brunic

hero member

Activity: 632

Merit: 500

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on December 17, 2012, 02:57:03 PM

Is this an argument against the 2nd amendment or radically for?
from Nassim Taleb:

Quote

"Why don't gun advocates fight for the right of private citizens to own large tanks and atomic weapons? A semi/automatic rifle is too potent for self defense, and too weak against government tyranny"

http://www.businessinsider.com/nassim-talebs-super-simple-argument-for-banning-semi-automatic-and-automatic-weapons-2012-12

Why, indeed?

Because that's insane? All this so you want to be able to overthrow your government? Either you overestimate your own government, either US population have a really low self-esteem.

Go look at how well-equipped the population in Tunisia, Egypt or Libya were last year. They didn't had weapons to overthrow their own government, they just took the streets and kicked their dictators out of their seat. I have a hard time believing that in case of need, Americans are incapable of doing the same without guns.

The way I see it, guns are simply a tax in disguise. You already pay for protection with your taxes, for army and police forces but hey, you're getting stolen right? It's a lot better to pay overpriced metal parts for more protection, because the whole world is there to get you. Roll Eyes

If you really want to contribute to the protection of your community, why don't you just join army or police forces?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on December 17, 2012, 03:21:08 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:12:53 PM

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces.

Note also that the armed forces, with the exception of the navy, were not intended to be a permanent thing. The founders spoke out regularly against a standing army. They knew the dangers.

And far, far too many people concentrate on the first three words, and ignore the last four.

There's no ignoring the last four here. We shall not infringe upon the right to have a well regulated militia in the absence of armed forces.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on December 17, 2012, 03:12:53 PM

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces.

Note also that the armed forces, with the exception of the navy, were not intended to be a permanent thing. The founders spoke out regularly against a standing army. They knew the dangers.

And far, far too many people concentrate on the first three words, and ignore the last four.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note the modifier 'well regulated'. Also, note that a well regulated militia was necessary prior to the creation of the armed forces.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: conspirosphere.tk on December 17, 2012, 02:57:03 PM

Is this an argument against the 2nd amendment or radically for?
from Nassim Taleb:

Quote

"Why don't gun advocates fight for the right of private citizens to own large tanks and atomic weapons? A semi/automatic rifle is too potent for self defense, and too weak against government tyranny"

http://www.businessinsider.com/nassim-talebs-super-simple-argument-for-banning-semi-automatic-and-automatic-weapons-2012-12

Why, indeed?

I do argue for private citizenry to own tanks and nukes. What good is a militia if it doesn't have the tools to fight off an invading army?

conspirosphere.tk

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1064

Bitcoin is antisemitic

Is this an argument against the 2nd amendment or radically for?
from Nassim Taleb:

Quote

"Why don't gun advocates fight for the right of private citizens to own large tanks and atomic weapons? A semi/automatic rifle is too potent for self defense, and too weak against government tyranny"

http://www.businessinsider.com/nassim-talebs-super-simple-argument-for-banning-semi-automatic-and-automatic-weapons-2012-12

Why, indeed?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: gyverlb on December 17, 2012, 02:29:00 PM

There's nothing to see in your chart for at least these reasons:
the x-axis consist of position of countries in a list, not the actual gun ownership ratio, so it skews results in unpredictable ways

But the list is ranked by gun ownership ratio. If I lumped all the countries with a similar gun ownership ratio together, that would skew the results in a very predictable way: upward in all but the highest gun ownership ratio countries. In other words, you are calling for me to massage my data in a favorable manner. I think the chart works fine as is.

Quote from: gyverlb on December 17, 2012, 02:29:00 PM

if you want to study the link between gun ownership and murder rates you must eliminate as much as possible any other factor that might be linked to murder rates, mixing countries in a state of civil war or where people are fighting to get limited resources with "developed" countries can't lead to any useful conclusion. And that's only the first few obvious causes of high murder rates I could think of.

Then why does Somalia have such a low murder rate? (lower, as I point out, than Canada's)

Quote from: gyverlb on December 17, 2012, 02:29:00 PM

We should probably be patient and wait for a darwinian solution

I can accept that.

gyverlb

hero member

Activity: 896

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on December 17, 2012, 01:02:51 PM

OK, So I made a little chart, with the countries ranked, left to right, with lower to higher gun ownership. I then put the murder rates along the Y axis. Everything is in per 100 citizens, though it really doesn't matter, since we're just trying to show a correlation between gun ownership and murder rates, if there is one, and as long as all the murder rates are in the same unit, the relative rates will be the same.

So without further ado, the chart:

So, as you can see, there is no strong correlation between gun ownership and intentional murder.

There's nothing to see in your chart for at least these reasons:

the x-axis consist of position of countries in a list, not the actual gun ownership ratio, so it skews results in unpredictable ways
if you want to study the link between gun ownership and murder rates you must eliminate as much as possible any other factor that might be linked to murder rates, mixing countries in a state of civil war or where people are fighting to get limited resources with "developed" countries can't lead to any useful conclusion. And that's only the first few obvious causes of high murder rates I could think of.

Anyway people defending the right to bear arms want to be able to defend themselves and their family, their motivation is purely emotional even resorting to logical fallacies without realizing it (see my earlier exchange with Rudd-O for an obvious example). They make me think of the people preferring to spend hours trapped in traffic here in France instead of using public transportation in the cases where it's both faster and cheaper: they want to be in control even if it's detrimental to them.
I'm not sure the problem can be solved by the US, there are too many people there thinking with their guts. We should probably be patient and wait for a darwinian solution

Topic: Gun free zone - page 17. (Read 21968 times)