Topic: Poll for Gun Control Advocates - page 7. (Read 17920 times)

One can fire fully auto, making it even more dangerous.   Though,  I'm not comparing the danger between the two. I'm pointing out how gun control alters the availability between them.  Both should be banned.  That one already has been controlled is simply pointed out to preempt suggestions that such bans don't work.

What is the difference between a semi-auto AR15 and fully auto M-16?

I'm a gun control advocate and yes there were guns in my home growing up and I have used them for alligator hunting.  (delicious, but I'm vegetarian now)

What changed my mind was moving to London.  The culture shift from Florida to London was crazy, but one of the things you noticed was that the police generally don't even need to carry guns.  There is still a lot of criminal violence but it tends to be less deadly.  I'm not at all convinced prohibition in general, and of weapons specifically, can't work.  We have too many examples where they have worked just fine.  Consider the danger of automatic weapons, for example.  Though a weapon like a Tommy gun or a fully automatic AK would be a good tool for mass murder, the long term automatic weapon bans in the US have put such weapons out of reach of casual buyers.  You could still get one if you are a collector and you want to pay out a lot, but they are not the types of weapons commonly used by criminals.  We could do the same thing for other guns if we wanted.

As for military stuff like Tanks and nukes, we have a government of the people and for the people.  The military and police use these kind of weapons in our name and if we don't like the government we vote them out instead of shooting them out.  I'm not a legal scholar so I can't tell you how to interpret the second amendment, but if I had my way all of that junk would definitely remain banned.

Yes, but enough about yourself, we're talking about weapons here. I've taken the liberty of correcting your spelling errors.


Well, if I have a gun drawn and aimed at your head, you certainly can't win any fight with me, either. The problem lies not in the fact that you have a device which prevents me from winning any fight with you, but in the fact that the device also threatens everyone within range. A bomb is not a shield.


Assuming that the mugger was using a nuclear hand grenade, yes. But he's not. He's using a firearm. Use proportional force, ie another firearm. You're not just carrying a big gun. You're pointing that gun at everyone in range, and saying, "Better not fuck with me, or I'll blow you all away!"


It's public property. That's where the problem lies. It's his land too. Get your friends out of his shooting range, if you feel they're being threatened.


Again, a loaded gun is fine, as long as it's not being pointed randomly at people. A nuclear device is fine, as long as it's not armed. Armed is not loaded. Armed is hammer cocked and pointed.


A tool is a tool. A nuclear bomb is a tool to make a very large explosion. That explosion can be used for good (say, asteroid mining) or evil (blowing up a city). Guess which category your retributive vest falls under.

The crazy is strong with this one, I can tell.

1) Yes, I can do whatever I want with it but no I can't? Make up your mind. I have certainly not pointed a gun at anybody, not even figurativly. I have a device that prevents you from winning a fight with me.

2) I'm incentivizing. You're the one calling it terror. I'm just carrying a big gun. There could be some collateral damage, I agree, but the mugger could miss me while shooting at me and hit the nursing home behind me, so that damage could happen anyway.

3) The park shooting wasn't my example actually, but I quite enjoy it. How can you fire a rifle without handling it in the open first (or waving it around if you will)?. So I can wave a gun around, and if someone kills me for it they will have to pay my family restitution? Let's just pretend you didn't want to ban me from my gun-waving earlier.
And the park shooting guy, he's preparing to shoot through the park right now, and I see this as a threat to my family and friends still in there somewhere, and he's adamant about shooting right now, assuring me that he will pay restitution if he hits anyone in my family. Can I use my own gun to shoot him before he hits anybody, or do I have to wait until somebody dies?

4) So a gun is fine, but a loaded gun isn't? Again, I'm not harming anybody. And if they feel that I'm somehow threatening them I'm cool with them pointing a gun at me. No biggie. They might percieve me as a threat, but that's not my problem. And anybody in that room with a gun could also pe percieved as a threat.

I also happen to have a few asshole cousins. They also love nuclear bombs and they hate your way of life. They will do anything to hurt you. Sorry about that. But I'm sure the nuke they're buying has a legit purpose.

The right to bear arms is what protects all other rights.

Criminals don't obey laws.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.  (Government agents too.. but I repeat myself.)

M

What needs to be addressed about that?  Nation states function in an environment of functional anarchy, kept in check by their own sanity and the consequences of aggression.  I'm not an anarchist, though, so I shouldn't have tp defend that position. I was merely pointing out the double standard among gun control advocates, for I have met exactly zero that advocate disarming the police.

You have failed to address the fact that governments point nukes at each other precisely because governments, taken as entities, exist in an AnCap society. In an AnCap society, there are households, with parents, guardians, etc. who lay down rules for the rest of the residents. Likewise, in the AnCap society of this world where the governments are the households, there are rules. In general, in a household, or a within a state, the rules are that no member should point a weapon at another.

So as to prevent a hijack by FistAsshole, I'll copy my previous post here:

Mykul is using 'reducum ad absurdum' to highlight the rediculouslessness of the current system.  Of course anyone willing to build and carry around a nuke is a threat to everyone around him, same for a bomb vest.  The real point here is not that you gunbanners actually believe that you can remove weapons from society, because you don't advocate removing weapons from governments or it's agents.  There is the big, pink elephant in the room.  That governments have nuclear missiles pointed at each other all of the time, and are a constant threat to each other, and all of us happen to be in the way.  So we are under threat every minute of our lives.  So the real point here is not that someone should or should not be prevented from possessing a nuke; because the practical reality is that it's not governments that actually prevent this, it's the high cost of such a weapon and it's limited usefulness to anyone with his head on straight.  But the same argument applies to any military grade weapon that a person could afford and have a practical use for, and therefore any less military/offense in design and more defensive in design as well, such as a home-defense shotgun or a handgun; the opinions of what others believe are appropriate notwithstanding.  I've shot many a full-auto machine gun, and they a a great time.  A minigun costs about $40 per second to actually fire, so it's not exactly a poor man's hobby; but who are you to say what I can't do for fun?

Yes, crackpot websites like Mises.org, and Wikipedia, and crackpot authors like Frederic Bastiat, and Murray Rothbard.


Feel free to take all your further insults of me to the thread I linked above, rather than cluttering up other threads with your bullshit.

Insights into the mind of myrkul: witness where myrkul entertains, even leans towards the notion that the Colorado shooting was all faked: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1046661

Is this the mind of someone whose ideas you wish to take seriously?

That's cute. At least I've never been so immature as to present my opinion of you outside the context of some thread where you're pontificating on the mechanisms of your fantasy world. Instead, I say it like it is to your face, or where you'll hear me loud and clear, like right here, and directly addressing your unending garbage, all based on crackpot websites.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1062338

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

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


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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

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

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.

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?