RE: CRYPTOGRAPHIC TOKENS: A Solution to the US's gun problem?
Intriguing topic, I wish I would have caught this commentary when you talking about it while the post was live, but anyway here you go. I have been able to access maybe a half dozen weapons at any point in my life, that is if I really made it my life's mission to do so. But that was never an option. Let me repeat, never an option to steal a weapon number one, and then escalate exponentially in an attempt to harm someone else or even murder anyone, let alone a bunch of people. Guns are always available, along with everything else on the planet that you wish to blindside someone with attacking a fellow human in the most evil and cowardly way possible, a massacre. Not to make it overtly political, because it's not a left/right issue in my opinion. I think it is a result of a lot of compromises over time that have made this even contemplated by someone who has lost their humanity. Enforce existing laws as they are written is a great start. People don't rob police stations. Once in a tens of million times a gun is grabbed in a court room, and there is only one person in the room armed, 99.999% of the time. Do we have too many people? Maybe that's a problem?(that's my 2 cents on how ridiculous getting rid of guns is going to eliminate criminal violence) They don't have AI models that act on their own, they are just like a computer, they do what they are told virtually every time. Computers make nuclear ICBM arsenals possible, should we ban the pc? Or mandate the power or build type of a computer you need. "You crypto miners don't need Xstyle (lol I don't even know what a cpu setup for a BTC miner would be) computer setup to email." The craftsman is the first place to check for a mistake, not the inanimate tool they are using to carry out their will. Not always, and not often enough to amend the Constitution. I hope the sarcasm was picked up to point out what in my opinion what is a bit ridiculous, with even more ridiculousness. I don't have any personal animosity towards people that would like to see less guns, one bit, in fact I am fairly compassionate to the idea as it does truly mean well. But I do disagree that is any kind of real solution to the rise of malcontents chasing down mass media or (sickening) pop-culture infamy, until there is a full accountability under the law we all have a whole lot of hypothetical theories and no real practical answers. In my opinion that is the next place this 'discussion' (hypothetical one we seem to never have) should go, should it ever start.
many of the people who go on mass shootings have a common trend that they were on some kind of antipsychotics at some point, so i think their mind set is very different from someone who could never have sick thoughts. I think we are all capable of having those type of thoughts since they stem from something very internal to us.
I think most people who want to ban ARs, still think the person is at fault, but they keep thinking, they are crazy, lets stop the crazy guy from getting something that could kill me. no one else wants to kill me, but that crazy person. therefore anyone, including myself, dont need a gun for "protection".
Right on antipsych meds are never talked about when these happen. We never seem to factor that in, that is very true. I think when history looks back at this time they will comment at how we were able being able to carry day to day with the entire population messed up on pills and chemicals that interact horribly. Like we look at early colonial period times when they drank whiskey because the drinking water was like a slurry of toxic chemicals. They finally figured out that if you boil the water like you boil the fermented corn/wheat to make whiskey you don't have to get smashed every day, which we look at today in a very similar vain. I personally would give room on the AR-15 being carried for sure. But being owned and lawfully locked and protected for the most dire emergencies I must disagree there though. Your electronic monitoring idea that you mentioned in the article should definitely be explored though, that is a great compromise of being able to own them but yet maintain the fullest responsibility humanly possible. I feel the ability to carry is a "ideally never used insurance policy" to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I would hate to die because someone all messed up for whatever reason charges their ex-spouse standing right next me and then wants to spray the place after finishing the most cowardly of all deeds possible. I would want to lawfully have some chance in that event. Also, how many of these shooting suspects/convictions are NRA members, or concealed carry permit holders? Don't worry, lol we will definitely find out the first person that fits that description should it happen. I am very glad to discuss this with someone who deeply thinks out this argument, I hope I didn't upset you too much where I disagree, to a point, but I am very glad to have a real discussion with this that takes their time and evaluate realities than emotion. By the way, did you notice that up to this point, neither one of us mentioned a specific name or a specific political party by name. Full disclosure I did mention the NRA so I broke the identity affiliated argument. You may be the first person I have seen that has this discussion without injecting emotional rhetoric toward identifiable people/groups of a nationally (divisive) recognizable party, group. Major kudos for that sir.
This comment has received a 0.54 % upvote from @speedvoter thanks to: @cryptkeeper17.