Topic: Poll for Gun Control Advocates - page 8. (Read 17866 times)

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?

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.

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?

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 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.

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.


I'm done talking to you on this.

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.

Remember this?

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Why do I have to advertise it? Are concealed weapons not allowed in your world?
And why my estate? I didn't hurt anybody. Go pester the robbers estate. He was the one who triggered the device.

So long as you advertise that fact. One robber comes along who doesn't know, and your estate will have one hefty class-action suit to deal with.

Screw that, I want a Californium-251 mini-bomb on me, capable of producing say 100 tonnes of TNT-blast, all connected to a hidden switch, as well as an EKG and an EEG, so if I get killed in a robbery people will know, and the robber won't survive. That would give criminals incentives not to rob me, and people nearby incentive to keep me safe as a baby.

i wanna know when the citizenry get to have some sabo orbiting rounds

Threatening him with violence isn't a working incentive. Criminals are threatened by institutionalized violence every day. Doesn't really scare them straight now does it? If you want to help, which I'm all for, you need early intervention in schools, extra resources dedicated to helping kids in danger. Social programs to help single parents. Early diagnosis and treatment of kids with mental disabilities.  That's how you reduce crime.
Education, and help to find a job for those who already are committing crimes. Tools for them to handle their issues. That's what to do if you want to help people to "go straight".

None of the above is relevant for the topic however.

I see crimes as a result of social problems. Adding a lot of guns to the mix doesn't solve the problems. It attacks the symptoms, with a lot of extra bloodshed.

Great! Then let's give him an incentive to "go straight" on his own, namely, safety. Rather than keeping him away from society, why don't we offer him opportunities within society to better his position without using violence?