1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Legal problem with the whole seasteading concept

Home Forums Research Law and Politics Legal problem with the whole seasteading concept

This topic contains 108 replies, has 30 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of Jeff-Chan Jeff-Chan 4 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 109 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #7452
    Avatar of thief
    thief
    Participant

    Yeah, but the percentage of people killed by tazers is about the same as the percentage who survive gunshot wounds (without medical attention, in both cases). The percentage is pretty miniscule.

    With a tazer, you’re not going to attack someone for no good reason, ‘cos they’ll come back and do the same to you. So most uses will be self defence, and accidental deaths are the aggressors own fault.

    It’s not an oxymoron at all. The most you could say is that all weapons are non-lethal, since even gunshots can be survived. But you can’t say that all weapons are lethal. People are lethal, not weapons.

    - Nick

    #7453
    Avatar of Carl-Pålsson
    Carl-Pålsson
    Participant

    Having options is good, but too many options can create confusion. Particularly in a stressful situation. I think Tasers are making cops trigger happy. Google “Oscar Grant”.

    The fact that the Taser is very similar to a pistol in handling (pistol grip, trigger) makes it possible to confuse the two.

    #7455
    Avatar of thief
    thief
    Participant

    Ah, ok that makes sense. But there’s still no defining line between guns (eg. 99% kill chance) and tazers (eg. 1%). So while I’d like to see a world where we all use something that rarely kills, for now we’re better off with giving everyone guns.

    - Nick

    #7454
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    The most you could say is that all weapons are non-lethal

    Actually, weapons like the taser and rubber bullets are reffered to as “less-than-lethal” because you cannot guarentee that they won’t kill the target. The term “non-lethal” is not used anymore.

    #7460
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    I’d like to see a world where we all use something that rarely kills

    If your kid accidentially discharges your Taser X-26, or you accidentially fire one at your son who’s sneaking into the house late at night, they get back up. Not the same for a firearm. You would also see fewer robbery-related homicides…since most robbery-related gun deaths would not be deaths if the robber is using a X-26. Sure, you still get robbed but you’re not dead!

    we’re better off with giving everyone guns

    I’m still pretty opposed to this idea. I know many MANY people in my life who would never even hold a gun, let alone discharge one…even at a range. Just handing every single person a firearm will do nothing to stop crime. I try to imagine my 60-year-old mother-in-law fumbling in her purse for her 9mm and I burst out laughing.

    There is an unbelievable amount of training, both physical and psychological, that goes into handling a firearm even in controlled condition. You put someone into an adrenaline-pumping combat situation, usually at very close ranges, and the chance for all kinds of mayhem skyrockets. I’ve seen…with my own eyes…trained soldiers fumble with their weapons, trying desperately to switch the weapon from SAFE to SEMI, because they were tossed into a chaotic combat situation. And these were even SIMULATED combat situations, and they freaked out.

    So you can’t just hand every citizen a firearm…you need to train each and every one of them as well as the best trained law enforcement officer so that they can actually defend themselves (or someone else) when the poop hits the spinning blades.

    And you need to arm EVERYONE…not just those who choose to carry a weapon. The reason crime exists even in places where a large number of the populace is armed is because criminals know that not everyone is armed. They can roll the dice and take a chance that this old lady parking her car isn’t packing heat. So to have firearms act as a deterrent then you need for EVERYONE to be armed. If only 10% of your population is armed then 90% of them aren’t and are still potential victims.

    #7462
    Avatar of thief
    thief
    Participant

    Having even as little as 10% of the country armed still dramatically reduces the crime rate. Currently anyone can rob a place in the middle of the day and be almost certain they’re not in immediate danger.

    Lowering that certainty by 10% (in a room of only 10 people. The % goes steadily up), will make most criminals think twice.

    Can someone call up statistics on Switzerland (I need to sleep now)? But they should hold alot more evidence for an armed populace than against.

    - Nick

    #7467
    Avatar of Alan
    Alan
    Participant

    Years of research in the United States has not given a clear victory to either side in the gun control debate. When adjusted for other factors, such as the ethnic mix, poverty rate, and so forth, crime rates – including murder – were similar in places where the only significant difference was whether private ownership of firearms was legal or not. It would appear that if someone wants to rob or murder you bad enough, they will find a way.

    However, comparisons of gun ownership rates among nations shows a strong tendency: more private ownership of guns is correlated with less violent conflict. In fact, many of the places with the most violence have gun ownership rates of less than 1%. Of course there are other factors, but you can imagine that when a criminal gets hold of a gun and knows that almost no one possesses the means to stop them, they have a tendency to do whatever they want.

    Most important of all, however, is this sobering fact: Far more people were murdered by governments in the 20th century than by ordinary criminals. The most important reason for citizens to possess weapons is not to stop the ordinary thief, but to be prepared to stand against tyrants.

    And both my grandmothers kept guns to defend themselves. True, training is good, but most common criminals aren’t exactly well-trained assailants either. If they possessed the capacity to be trained, they would have probably pursued a better-paying profession. Guns give power to people who don’t possess physical strength, including old men, women, and children. There’s a reason why some guns earned names like “equalizer” or “peacemaker” in the 1800s.

    #7468
    Avatar of Jeff-Chan
    Jeff-Chan
    Participant

    A. Ordinary people successfully defend their lives with firearms all the time. They have a much lower rate of inappropriate use of force then the police. If someone is trying to rob or rape *you*, then it’s pretty obvious that defensive force is justified. The situations the police deal with tend to be much more complex and less obvious. Training is absolutely needed, but most ordinary people do the right thing, and this is bourne out in the objective facts about use of force.

    B. The experiment for wider carrying of firearms has already been done in America. Florida was one of the first large states in recent times to make concealed carry permits available on an objective basis:

    1. Pass an FBI background check

    2. Take a training class and pass a written test about the use of force, gun safety, etc.

    3. Pass a live firing qualification test

    The live firing quailfication is usually the same as what the police get.

    In Florida, the rate of concealed carry permits is about 2% of the population. *At the same time* the violent crime was increasing in other states, from 1988 to 1991 violent crime fell about 20% in Florida after the objective qualifications for CCW (concealed carry weapon) permits was passed. That’s about as close to a controlled experiment as it’s possible to get. The facts are available for anyone who cares to look. http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/fsac/UCR/index.asp

    More recently, most U.S. states have gone these objective tests for CCWs. Only a very few states still have discriminatory CCW laws where a police chief or sheriff can deny a carry permit for arbitrary (non-objective) reasons. California is one and two states like Wisconsin has no CCWs. States with “discretionary” (non-objective) criteria for CCW usually mean that only the wealthy and politically well connected get them, i.e., those who can make major political contributions to a chief law enforcement officer, are politicians, etc. graph of state CCW reform

    C. Regarding Switzerland, there are are more than a million machine guns or semi-automatic versions of the machine guns in the homes of ordinary civilian militia members, and it has a very low murder rate. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

    #7476
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    There has been no difinitive study showing that an increase or decrease in firearms has a direct impact on crime rates. For every study that someone can cite showing one thing, I can cite another study that shows the opposite. There are just too many variables. For instance, everyone always shows how the homicide rate in Washington D.C. skyrockted after the 1976 ban on firearms. But a 1991 New England Journal of Medicine study showed how homicide and suicide rates involving firearms DROPPED after the ban…and that other cities showed the same increase in crime rates even though they didn’t have a weapons ban.

    I will agree 100% that gun control laws do not stop violent crime. I believe those laws decrease the rates, since criminals who normally want to get a gun might find it much more difficult and decide not to commit the crime. But there will always be individuals who can get the weapons if they want them bad enough.

    But my point was about guns being a deterrent, not their being able to stop a violent crime in progress. If every person in your country is armed and well-trained then you would see a deterrent effect. But that will never be the case, and I don’t think you will ever even get a significant majority to carry firearms. If only 2% are carrying a weapon, what are the chances in a state the size of Florida that one of those folks will be around when I decide to commit my crime? There are over 18.3 million people in Florida, that means only 366000 CAN carry (they might all not be carrying on a particular day). That gives me, as a criminal, pretty good odds. Now if 90% of the population were carrying then everyone you see becomes a potential crimestopper.

    Much better to ban firearms completely and allow unlimited carrying of less-than-lethal weapon systems. Make the possession, sale, use, or importing of firearms a high crime punishable by death/exile/life imprisonment and enforce it mercilously. Now you can put an X-26 or C2 taser in the hands of every man, woman, and child and the entire populace can act as a police force with huge decreases in the number of accidental or intentional deaths.

    You will still need a small, elite force trained in the use of firearms…something like a national SWAT team that responds to such things like invasion, pirate attack, etc. But these people will be highly trained and only used in these extreme circumstances.

    #7481
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    The new product line information from Taser is out, and I am in heaven. The new X3 is super awesome cool. You can now get three shots before needing to reload, and it has all the electronic logging that you could want. Plus it’s now much more protected from environmental issues…they even mention it is resistant to salt fog!! Great for being on a seastead!

    Plus the XREP is now shipping, which is even more super awesome. A nice Mossberg loaded with a few of these is all you would need to stop any sort of crime…even those being committed with a firearm. Not too many average criminals are accurate out to 30+ meters!

    #7482
    Avatar of Adam
    Adam
    Participant

    Going back to the meritum of the subject matter discussed here, the following legal considerations have to be observed:

    1. International Law is not a ‘institutionalized’ legal system (of the kind you have in your own country). The laws resulting from conventions bind only the parties to those conventions. In fact, there are no ‘policing’ mechanisms to ensure even parties to conventions to obey international agreements. It is all up to singular countries to detemine whether they shall, or shall not obey international law.

    2. ‘Territory’ appears to be one of the neccesary components for the recognition of statehood. But how do you define territory? Imagine we have a platform structure that is ‘attached’ to the seabed floor in some way – that could automatically ensure ‘territory’ even in the conventional sense to exist.

    3. The possibility of buying islands? Has anyone thought of that? Imagine the following scenario: We buy a small island and then build a seasteding city around it? Territory issue resolved??

    Just some thoughts for further discussion :)

    Cheers !

    #7483
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    But how do you define territory?

    We’ve come to some agreement in another thread that a large seastead, anchored in place, would be able to claim “State” status under the Montevideo Convention. Territory doesn’t have to be land…it can be the seastead itself and (maybe) some of the surrounding ocean.

    The possibility of buying islands?

    There are plenty of islands for sale online, but buying that island means you are still bound by the laws of the country that island is part of. Unless you want to secede, but that is a whole different ballgame.

    #7492
    Avatar of Carl-Pålsson
    Carl-Pålsson
    Participant

    Adam wrote:

    1. International Law is not a ‘institutionalized’ legal system (of the kind you have in your own country). The laws resulting from conventions bind only the parties to those conventions. In fact, there are no ‘policing’ mechanisms to ensure even parties to conventions to obey international agreements. It is all up to singular countries to detemine whether they shall, or shall not obey international law.

    Excellent point. We shouldn’t go overboard trying to follow UNCLOS etc to a tee when there is nobody to enforce it anyway. Instead we should probably first and foremost aim for being good neighbors and not ruffling any feathers we don’t have to. Use common sense, be peaceful, and be aware that we are the new kids on the block.

    Regarding firearm stats there is a great big distinction between it being legal to OWN firearms and it being legal to CARRY (loaded) firearms in public. The former exists in a lot of places, the latter really only in the United States, as far as I know.

    In Sweden where I live it is required for gunowners to store all their weapons in a safe with a minimum weight of 150kg or bolted to the frame of your house/apartment. It goes without saying that these weapons will seldom be useful in defending against an assault.

    #7502
    Avatar of i_is_j_smith
    i_is_j_smith
    Participant

    We shouldn’t go overboard trying to follow UNCLOS etc to a tee

    Agreed, especially since there are many States that have not even signed or ratified it…including the United States.

    #7503
    Avatar of Adam
    Adam
    Participant

    i_is_j_smith wrote:

    We shouldn’t go overboard trying to follow UNCLOS etc to a tee

    Agreed, especially since there are many States that have not even signed or ratified it…including the United States.

    Precisely :-)

    Besides, there are States which are not even represented in ‘commonly acknowledged organizations’ like the International Maritime Organization (yet another treaty creation) like Taiwan (for obvious political reasons).

    Actually had a research internship at IMO and have learned that there are many ways to bypass ‘international’ legislation :)

    Cheers !

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 109 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate