Welcome to Gaia! ::

black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,450 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Kiumaru
black_wing_angel
Kiumaru
low iq 111
abolishing money is a terrible idea. guns don't kill people, people kill people.


Guns don't kill people, but they allow people to kill others quickly and more efficiently than ever before.


Which just means that Grandpa can defend himself better.


And Grandpa can get killed more easily too.

It's a two way street.


Exactly.

"It makes killing easier!" is a completely moot point. It makes it easier for someone to kill you, but it also makes it easier for you to stop them.

In the age of the sword, "Grandpa" wouldn't make it out his front door. Swords were a weapon that required a lot of strength and agility on the part of the wielder. The older you get, the slower and weaker you get. At some point, you'd just as well not even try.

But a gun does not discriminate. If you have the physical strength to lift possibly 27 ounces of material, and pull possibly 3 lbs of trigger resistance, you can end a life. Including the life of someone trying to end yours. It completely off-sets the advantages of youth and size. Grandpa can still die. That doesn't change. But at least now, he can also LIVE.
deadguy
No you don't. That's not how money works. Money has no intrinsic value. It's only a measurement of something's value. The only way to change how much money is "worth" is to change the amount in circulation, and I can assure you you have no control over that.


Well, you can also change it if you somehow change the perception of how much money is worth to people.

This is essentially why currency itself fluctuates in the exchange market. People value certain currencies more or less than another and their perceptions and actions can change the values. Of course, I suppose you could argue that the perception is not what really changes the value but the act of changing the amount of circulation. But it's ultimately the perception which sets off the act.

If everyone suddenly thought the dollar was worthless without even comparing it to a foreign currency, the dollar would lose all value.
black_wing_angel
Exactly.

"It makes killing easier!" is a completely moot point. It makes it easier for someone to kill you, but it also makes it easier for you to stop them.

In the age of the sword, "Grandpa" wouldn't make it out his front door. Swords were a weapon that required a lot of strength and agility on the part of the wielder. The older you get, the slower and weaker you get. At some point, you'd just as well not even try.

But a gun does not discriminate. If you have the physical strength to lift possibly 27 ounces of material, and pull possibly 3 lbs of trigger resistance, you can end a life. Including the life of someone trying to end yours. It completely off-sets the advantages of youth and size. Grandpa can still die. That doesn't change. But at least now, he can also LIVE.


But it makes killing easier and more efficient. In the past during a sword and shield era, it would take much longer and it would be much more difficult to kill twenty people, especially in a matter of half a minute. It would be near impossible to do so. With guns, it's possible to kill even forty people in a matter of minutes whereas in pre-gun eras it would be a feat of strength and stamina to achieve such an act.

Guns may allow those who were previously unable to defend themselves to defend themselves, but it also allows for much more casualties all around.
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,450 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Xero Entak
black_wing_angel
Xero Entak
deadguy
Mutt
Yeah, the rich will want to maintain their position of power, but won't be able to because we vastly outnumber them and we ultimately determine the value of money.
No you don't. That's not how money works. Money has no intrinsic value. It's only a measurement of something's value. The only way to change how much money is "worth" is to change the amount in circulation, and I can assure you you have no control over that.
Are you shitting me dude. If all people stop accepting money and claims it has no value.


Good luck making that happen.

Quote:
Money is not only determined by circulation but by the productivity of the country backing it. If we all decided it was worth nothing and stopped accepting it, it would be out of circulation, therefor dead. Nobody spending = NO ******** CIRCULATION!


Except....we HAVE to spend. There's a reason we have what is called a "cost of living". Because if you can't afford the COL....you'll find survival very difficult. And wouldn't you know it? People tend to like surviving...
If we had a scientific way of taking care of all our needs, we wouldn't need to spend sweet ******** all.


What do you know? We don't. And probably won't, for a very, very, very, ******** very long time.

In all likelihood, we will have already destroyed this planet, and our entire biological kingdom with it, hundreds of years before that day would dawn.

Quote:
Education should be the main motive and making people smarter. Not indebted to something that isn't even real. Not saying it will happen in the next 50 years, but it may happen really far into the future.


Again, we're more likely to meet Armageddon, long before that happens.
Xero Entak's avatar

Newbie Noob

1,600 Points
  • Gaian 50
  • Member 100
  • Dressed Up 200
black_wing_angel
Xero Entak
black_wing_angel
Xero Entak
deadguy
No you don't. That's not how money works. Money has no intrinsic value. It's only a measurement of something's value. The only way to change how much money is "worth" is to change the amount in circulation, and I can assure you you have no control over that.
Are you shitting me dude. If all people stop accepting money and claims it has no value.


Good luck making that happen.

Quote:
Money is not only determined by circulation but by the productivity of the country backing it. If we all decided it was worth nothing and stopped accepting it, it would be out of circulation, therefor dead. Nobody spending = NO ******** CIRCULATION!


Except....we HAVE to spend. There's a reason we have what is called a "cost of living". Because if you can't afford the COL....you'll find survival very difficult. And wouldn't you know it? People tend to like surviving...
If we had a scientific way of taking care of all our needs, we wouldn't need to spend sweet ******** all.


What do you know? We don't. And probably won't, for a very, very, very, ******** very long time.

In all likelihood, we will have already destroyed this planet, and our entire biological kingdom with it, hundreds of years before that day would dawn.

Quote:
Education should be the main motive and making people smarter. Not indebted to something that isn't even real. Not saying it will happen in the next 50 years, but it may happen really far into the future.


Again, we're more likely to meet Armageddon, long before that happens.
You're right, the transition to a Type 1 society, will either make us or break us.
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,450 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Kiumaru
black_wing_angel
Exactly.

"It makes killing easier!" is a completely moot point. It makes it easier for someone to kill you, but it also makes it easier for you to stop them.

In the age of the sword, "Grandpa" wouldn't make it out his front door. Swords were a weapon that required a lot of strength and agility on the part of the wielder. The older you get, the slower and weaker you get. At some point, you'd just as well not even try.

But a gun does not discriminate. If you have the physical strength to lift possibly 27 ounces of material, and pull possibly 3 lbs of trigger resistance, you can end a life. Including the life of someone trying to end yours. It completely off-sets the advantages of youth and size. Grandpa can still die. That doesn't change. But at least now, he can also LIVE.


But it makes killing easier and more efficient. In the past during a sword and shield era, it would take much longer and it would be much more difficult to kill twenty people, especially in a matter of half a minute. It would be near impossible to do so. With guns, it's possible to kill even forty people in a matter of minutes whereas in pre-gun eras it would be a feat of strength and stamina to achieve such an act.

Guns may allow those who were previously unable to defend themselves to defend themselves, but it also allows for much more casualties all around.


Welcome to Earth. People kill. People die.

By the sword, by the gun, by the fragment grenade, or by the nuclear ******** warhead. Anyone who wants to kill you, has a way.
black_wing_angel
Kiumaru
black_wing_angel
Exactly.

"It makes killing easier!" is a completely moot point. It makes it easier for someone to kill you, but it also makes it easier for you to stop them.

In the age of the sword, "Grandpa" wouldn't make it out his front door. Swords were a weapon that required a lot of strength and agility on the part of the wielder. The older you get, the slower and weaker you get. At some point, you'd just as well not even try.

But a gun does not discriminate. If you have the physical strength to lift possibly 27 ounces of material, and pull possibly 3 lbs of trigger resistance, you can end a life. Including the life of someone trying to end yours. It completely off-sets the advantages of youth and size. Grandpa can still die. That doesn't change. But at least now, he can also LIVE.


But it makes killing easier and more efficient. In the past during a sword and shield era, it would take much longer and it would be much more difficult to kill twenty people, especially in a matter of half a minute. It would be near impossible to do so. With guns, it's possible to kill even forty people in a matter of minutes whereas in pre-gun eras it would be a feat of strength and stamina to achieve such an act.

Guns may allow those who were previously unable to defend themselves to defend themselves, but it also allows for much more casualties all around.


Welcome to Earth. People kill. People die.

By the sword, by the gun, by the fragment grenade, or by the nuclear ******** warhead. Anyone who wants to kill you, has a way.


Yes, people kill and people die. But the advent of firearms and weaponry has only made it so much easier. The scale at which someone can kill has multiplied a hundred times over.
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,450 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Xero Entak
black_wing_angel
Xero Entak
black_wing_angel
Xero Entak
Are you shitting me dude. If all people stop accepting money and claims it has no value.


Good luck making that happen.

Quote:
Money is not only determined by circulation but by the productivity of the country backing it. If we all decided it was worth nothing and stopped accepting it, it would be out of circulation, therefor dead. Nobody spending = NO ******** CIRCULATION!


Except....we HAVE to spend. There's a reason we have what is called a "cost of living". Because if you can't afford the COL....you'll find survival very difficult. And wouldn't you know it? People tend to like surviving...
If we had a scientific way of taking care of all our needs, we wouldn't need to spend sweet ******** all.


What do you know? We don't. And probably won't, for a very, very, very, ******** very long time.

In all likelihood, we will have already destroyed this planet, and our entire biological kingdom with it, hundreds of years before that day would dawn.

Quote:
Education should be the main motive and making people smarter. Not indebted to something that isn't even real. Not saying it will happen in the next 50 years, but it may happen really far into the future.


Again, we're more likely to meet Armageddon, long before that happens.
You're right, the transition to a Type 1 society, will either make us or break us.


My money is on "break us".

The fun part? If I'm right, you owe me money. If I'm wrong, I owe you nothing, because my money no longer exists. emotion_dealwithit
Kiumaru
black_wing_angel
Kiumaru
black_wing_angel
Exactly.

"It makes killing easier!" is a completely moot point. It makes it easier for someone to kill you, but it also makes it easier for you to stop them.

In the age of the sword, "Grandpa" wouldn't make it out his front door. Swords were a weapon that required a lot of strength and agility on the part of the wielder. The older you get, the slower and weaker you get. At some point, you'd just as well not even try.

But a gun does not discriminate. If you have the physical strength to lift possibly 27 ounces of material, and pull possibly 3 lbs of trigger resistance, you can end a life. Including the life of someone trying to end yours. It completely off-sets the advantages of youth and size. Grandpa can still die. That doesn't change. But at least now, he can also LIVE.


But it makes killing easier and more efficient. In the past during a sword and shield era, it would take much longer and it would be much more difficult to kill twenty people, especially in a matter of half a minute. It would be near impossible to do so. With guns, it's possible to kill even forty people in a matter of minutes whereas in pre-gun eras it would be a feat of strength and stamina to achieve such an act.

Guns may allow those who were previously unable to defend themselves to defend themselves, but it also allows for much more casualties all around.


Welcome to Earth. People kill. People die.

By the sword, by the gun, by the fragment grenade, or by the nuclear ******** warhead. Anyone who wants to kill you, has a way.


Yes, people kill and people die. But the advent of firearms and weaponry has only made it so much easier. The scale at which someone can kill has multiplied a hundred times over.
Nations that also have gun laws have a lower murder/crime rate.
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,450 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Kiumaru
black_wing_angel
Kiumaru
black_wing_angel
Exactly.

"It makes killing easier!" is a completely moot point. It makes it easier for someone to kill you, but it also makes it easier for you to stop them.

In the age of the sword, "Grandpa" wouldn't make it out his front door. Swords were a weapon that required a lot of strength and agility on the part of the wielder. The older you get, the slower and weaker you get. At some point, you'd just as well not even try.

But a gun does not discriminate. If you have the physical strength to lift possibly 27 ounces of material, and pull possibly 3 lbs of trigger resistance, you can end a life. Including the life of someone trying to end yours. It completely off-sets the advantages of youth and size. Grandpa can still die. That doesn't change. But at least now, he can also LIVE.


But it makes killing easier and more efficient. In the past during a sword and shield era, it would take much longer and it would be much more difficult to kill twenty people, especially in a matter of half a minute. It would be near impossible to do so. With guns, it's possible to kill even forty people in a matter of minutes whereas in pre-gun eras it would be a feat of strength and stamina to achieve such an act.

Guns may allow those who were previously unable to defend themselves to defend themselves, but it also allows for much more casualties all around.


Welcome to Earth. People kill. People die.

By the sword, by the gun, by the fragment grenade, or by the nuclear ******** warhead. Anyone who wants to kill you, has a way.


Yes, people kill and people die. But the advent of firearms and weaponry has only made it so much easier.


Which is just as much a good thing, as it is a bad.

Again, moot point.

Quote:
The scale at which someone can kill has multiplied a hundred times over.


Which isn't an entirely bad thing. It's just as easy to kill an army of Nazis, as it is a horde of hippies.
Xero Entak's avatar

Newbie Noob

1,600 Points
  • Gaian 50
  • Member 100
  • Dressed Up 200
black_wing_angel
Xero Entak
black_wing_angel
Xero Entak
black_wing_angel


Good luck making that happen.



Except....we HAVE to spend. There's a reason we have what is called a "cost of living". Because if you can't afford the COL....you'll find survival very difficult. And wouldn't you know it? People tend to like surviving...
If we had a scientific way of taking care of all our needs, we wouldn't need to spend sweet ******** all.


What do you know? We don't. And probably won't, for a very, very, very, ******** very long time.

In all likelihood, we will have already destroyed this planet, and our entire biological kingdom with it, hundreds of years before that day would dawn.

Quote:
Education should be the main motive and making people smarter. Not indebted to something that isn't even real. Not saying it will happen in the next 50 years, but it may happen really far into the future.


Again, we're more likely to meet Armageddon, long before that happens.
You're right, the transition to a Type 1 society, will either make us or break us.


My money is on "break us".

The fun part? If I'm right, you owe me money. If I'm wrong, I owe you nothing, because my money no longer exists. emotion_dealwithit
I gotta admit, that is funniest s**t I read all day rofl
Takiko Yuki
Yes, people kill and people die. But the advent of firearms and weaponry has only made it so much easier. The scale at which someone can kill has multiplied a hundred times over.
Nations that also have gun laws have a lower murder/crime rate.

I feel like we're getting sidetracked. I was actually responding to a metaphor by adjusting the metaphor.

But, to be fair, it's not as simple as "gun laws = lower murder/crime rates". It may also come from the fact that different countries have different cultures and we may be a violent culture. Of course, one might argue that the proliferation of guns may have helped foster such a culture, though.
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,450 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Takiko Yuki
Kiumaru
black_wing_angel
Kiumaru
black_wing_angel
Exactly.

"It makes killing easier!" is a completely moot point. It makes it easier for someone to kill you, but it also makes it easier for you to stop them.

In the age of the sword, "Grandpa" wouldn't make it out his front door. Swords were a weapon that required a lot of strength and agility on the part of the wielder. The older you get, the slower and weaker you get. At some point, you'd just as well not even try.

But a gun does not discriminate. If you have the physical strength to lift possibly 27 ounces of material, and pull possibly 3 lbs of trigger resistance, you can end a life. Including the life of someone trying to end yours. It completely off-sets the advantages of youth and size. Grandpa can still die. That doesn't change. But at least now, he can also LIVE.


But it makes killing easier and more efficient. In the past during a sword and shield era, it would take much longer and it would be much more difficult to kill twenty people, especially in a matter of half a minute. It would be near impossible to do so. With guns, it's possible to kill even forty people in a matter of minutes whereas in pre-gun eras it would be a feat of strength and stamina to achieve such an act.

Guns may allow those who were previously unable to defend themselves to defend themselves, but it also allows for much more casualties all around.


Welcome to Earth. People kill. People die.

By the sword, by the gun, by the fragment grenade, or by the nuclear ******** warhead. Anyone who wants to kill you, has a way.


Yes, people kill and people die. But the advent of firearms and weaponry has only made it so much easier. The scale at which someone can kill has multiplied a hundred times over.
Nations that also have gun laws have a lower murder/crime rate.


Not entirely true, actually. States like Vermont and Florida, which have moderately relaxed carry laws, seem to have the lowest crime rates.

The answer to crime is not to take the guns away from all people, but to give them to good people. Because you CAN'T keep them out of the hands of bad people. That's why they're bad. They break laws. Gun control laws are just another law for them to take joy in breaking.

The only people that actually obey those laws, are the people most deserving OF having guns.
black_wing_angel
Kiumaru
Yes, people kill and people die. But the advent of firearms and weaponry has only made it so much easier.


Which is just as much a good thing, as it is a bad.

Again, moot point.

Quote:
The scale at which someone can kill has multiplied a hundred times over.


Which isn't an entirely bad thing. It's just as easy to kill an army of Nazis, as it is a horde of hippies.


I think their cons outweigh the pros as it would have been extremely difficult to kill a twenty people in the past and I may have struggled to even kill a single person.

And the army of Nazis is largely threatening because of their possible possession of firearms and such.
black_wing_angel
Not entirely true, actually. States like Vermont and Florida, which have moderately relaxed carry laws, seem to have the lowest crime rates.

The answer to crime is not to take the guns away from all people, but to give them to good people.


The answer to crime is to foster such a culture so that crime isn't such a prevalent phenomenon and, thus, reduce the need to be armed at any given moment.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games