Basic income as a human right

Post Reply New Topic

It worked extremely well for the lawfully armed Korean store owners during the 1992 (Rodney King) Riots in Los Angeles. Other stores burned (presumeably by Molotov cocktails among other weapons) after being looted, while the Korean stores were spared with nary a scratch. Gee, ya think it had anything to do with the lawful rifles aimed at the aggressors?

I have the sneaking suspicion that there are people here who would see nothing wrong with this scenario.

is that an example of total societal breakdown(which would happen if you just gave up on a % of the populace)? also, how does what looks like ~15 people outnumber the rounds in a mag?(like I mentioned above)

there aren't enough bullets and guns to kill us all.

In California, magazines are limited to 10 rounds. In my state, there is no limit to the number of rounds a magazine may contain. But, whatever the magazine capacity, it takes about two seconds to release an empty magazine and replace it with a loaded magazine.

so what? you can't shoot them all nor can you wait for the cops to come because society's broken down.

e: removed youtube video

Last edited by Fugu on 02 Jul 2015, 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Because of reloaders, no one really knows the number of ammunition rounds exist in the United States. Even if it is just 1,000 rounds for every one of the 300 million firearms, that would be 3 billion rounds.

The funny thing about shooting into crowds (even if that were a good idea) is that the crowd almost always disperses like a bunch of Olympic sprinters. The result is the same with a lot less ammunition spent or paperwork to complete.

except that this hypothetical has a crowd of really hungry people at your door and there's no weight of government to come save you. unless you can fabricate(?) your own rounds, you're gonna run out / have someone find a makeshift shield(hell, a piece of wood with phonebooks attached would suffice) and kick in your door.

but the starving crowds will eventually come back bigger and more riotous than before and from all angles, and chances are that eventually the shooter will succumb to them. even if one does manage to mow all of them down until none are left alive, and one with a handful of other lucky and hardy survivors remains, what kind of world would one inherit? and how could one sleep knowing the mass murder one just committed? I would not want to be in such a world with such cold-blooded people because it could always be me that is the next one to be offed for one reason or another.

Maybe such a shield would protect someone against my .357-sig rounds:



But, my 5.56-cal. M4 rifle rounds would cut through a phone book(s) easily:

according to mythbusters(http://mythbustersresults.com/dive-to-survive) a phonebook will stop .45 cal and below, though the tests noted a failure to stop higher calibers. I would question how fast a bullet would be traveling after traveling through the phonebook though. would it still be fast enough to not deflect off a bone or something?

I mean desperate population, as in the population that would be left with little to no hope of anything but starving or being rightfully killed when trying to survive at someone else’s expense, however big or small that population is. I admit I might not be characterizing them harshly enough, because I think I’m more likely to end up as one of them than as an honest, law-abiding citizen defending himself against them, but I’m still trying to be rational.





How many people are you two implying would be part of those mobs? If there were so many people depending on the government parasitizing others to feed them for each contributing member of society, civilization would have collapsed long ago. No matter how numerous, those in the starving mobs would have to be a minority, so there’s no way a crowd too large to shoot dead is going to attack every home. Only a few unlucky people would meet that fate, and sooner or later law-abiding citizens would join forces against their common assailants, so looting a home here and there wouldn’t help the desperate robbers for long. Only a few particularly brave and cunning among them might be able to seize those homes for themselves and eventually come to be regarded as their rightful owners. So what? They’ll have earned it by proving their strength and courage, and then proceed to defend their belongings like the rest of the law-abiding population. That’s what’s been done throughout history.



Great idea! After every shooting, take the bodies and cook them. Not only are you preventing the wave of lawlessness from lasting longer than it needs to, by stopping other starving marauders from eating the corpses and living a little longer—as a productive citizen, you’re adding value to the meat and can sell it for a profit

how many times throughout history has society ceased to exist? your nonsense narrative isn't based in reality.

e: also

everyone depends on the government, not just welfare recipients.

I'm telling you, it's based on the Libertarian Party platform!