Gun Control on the Blockchain?
ingenesist.com
ingenesist.com
As to the linked proposal, it doesn't strike me as very informed… I still fundamentally don't understand the infatuation with insurance (other than as a backdoor way to limit ownership). Insurance may cover acts of negligence, but doesn't it exclude suicide/suicide attempts and criminal acts, right? What events are being insured, and who is paying out?
What incentive do I have to change from the status quo if the change won't result in a net benefit for me?
Owning a gun does not reduce the odds that you or someone you care about being being killed by a gun. So, you benefit just as much from gun control as everyone else.
PS: One option is to simply jack up the cost of each bullet. At 100$ a pop that still useful for hunting or self defense so no constitutional issues, but your not going to see teens firing thousands of rounds. ;)
So, let me state the obvious and dispel this notion: The last thing we want are unpracticed hands ahold of guns in our communities.
Basic competence with a handgun takes many thousands of rounds of practice.
We would be much better off effectively banning guns in the US, but that's not going to happen.
PS: You can practice just fine using rubber (wax etc) bullets. (which are still very dangerous.) There not ideal, but basic competence works just fine.
And while I respect your opinion about gun legislation, I disagree about the effects of disarming the populace living inside the belly of empire.
I'm actually looking forward to traveling to places where guns are banned, but I don't think it's the right choice for the USA.
The government's guns, too? Yeah, let's freeze hell and make that happen!
Irrelevant.
So, you benefit just as much from gun control as everyone else.
Which is "Not at all".
PS: One option is to simply jack up the cost of each bullet. At 100$ a pop that still useful for hunting or self defense so no constitutional issues, but your not going to see teens firing thousands of rounds. ;)
This would make me and a lot of people like me very rich.
And factually dubious. It's an impossible metric to track, yet statists everywhere trumpet it as though it's established science.
1) Violence is no less typical in the UK; as I understand it, you are more likely to be attacked with a knife in London than with a gun in any US city, and
2) In several crucial ways, the UK and the US are completely different - not least of these is that the US is the center of hegemonic influence in the world. For sociopolitical reasons, it may not be wise to allow this hegemon to be armed and unchecked, and this might not be so for other developed nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
United States intentional homicide rate: 3.8
United Kingdom intentional homicide rate: 1.0
In other words there were marginal, if any, benefits to disarming.
In fact, there was an increase in certain kinds of violent crimes. It may well have been a net negative.
No thank you.
To the extent that both of these are important, this solution seeks to provide a system that does what the current one cannot.
Biometric locks were a better idea that got shot down by the NRA. At least that one had the potential to reduce gun deaths, certainly far better than the current solution of "get everyone moar guns".