An idea for "Gun Control".

In the wake of the the recent shooting, I've been wracking my mind for methods that can be discussed in order to prevent tradgedies such as this. Anyway, I thought of a possible (and simple) way and need intelligent discussion to see its advantages, flaws, feasibility and why such measures (w/c I feel is a no brainer) wasn't undertaken or at least discussed (if in case it wasn't) long ago in the first place.

I've heard that a technology exists that allows weapons to simply not fire (one example is the hypothetical-yet-very-much-possible biometric pistol grip shown in 007) when held/used by someone who isn't the owner. This tech should be hardwired into the firing mechanism itself and would be impossible to disable without disabling the entire gun itself. Don't know if such a thing is even possible with existent tech, but I'm sure it would be possible eventually if the need for it is high enough. But let's say for the sake of discussion that this tech, is indeed possible.

Let's also take out the fact that there is already about 300 million guns out there in the US without this tech for the sake of the discussion.

With tech like this existing, each civilian-owned gun (military guns and law enforcement should no doubt be excempt from this) should be fit with a reciever that automatically locks the gun (and quite possibly alerts the authority if such a weapon enters a defined area) if it enters a defined "no gun" area. This would be schools, malls, cinemas, parks, etc. Tho, ppl authorized to carry within that area could be given authorized guns designed to not shut down within those areas.

Basically a transmitter is placed in all "safe areas" and any civilian firearms with the reciever that fall within the transmitter's radius is automatically locked and unable to fire. Teachers, security guards, doctors/nurses or any ppl considered "at risk" due to their profession putting them in the proximity of potential victims of shootings would also be able to carry portable "shutdown" transmitters.

I am aware of the whole "then only criminals who buy illegal guns would be able to use guns everywhere" argment as well. But illegal guns are hard to come by for the average nut and this measure would at the very least limit the number of these rampage shootings.

Thoughts?

1) Cost of guns would skyrocket with that tech added

2) It would be seen as an infringement on the 2nd Amendment, eg "The gov'ment trying to control us and telling us where we can't shoot and being able to disarm up electronically should they need to oppress us and what if der terrorist get a hold of it!?"

3) Why do you hate America?

1) I seriously doubt that an automated lockdown transmitter/reciever mechanism would be pricey at all (with current tech) as my iphone can do much more than that. 😛

2) I don't see how it infringes on the "right to bear arms" as it still allows you to bear and own guns. Just not fire them in "safe areas". The safe areas themselves as well as the portable shutdown devices could be made far more heavily regulated than the guns themselves and would require intense scruitiny prior to authorization to minimize the risk of the non authorized to get a hold of em.

3) I know you're just kidding but I decided to tackle the points because they are arguments and contain some logic in them.

The second parody is a legitimate point imo. Not sure I like the idea of people being able to "turn off" your gun. It also would useless in preventing random flashes of gun control.

The only "gun control" that has a hope of working is an overhaul of US society; that is, people are going to find ways to get guns and kill people if that's what they want, utterly regardless of how tightly regulated gund are, thus, getting people to simply NOT want to shoot people is the trick.

When the economic status of impoverished neighborhoods improves, and mentally ill people are able to get the help they need, gun violence will become less common.

There's two simple truths about gun control that would help quite a bit, but it's impossible to bring them up without exciting the extremes.

1 - It's possible to limit access to criminals or the unstable without endangering general gun rights. We don't approach this issue because the gun lobby is powerful and politics is tricky.

2 - Nearly every attack, both domestic and foreign, has happened where guns have been banned. This is true to an absurd, statistically significant extent. In many cases the killers have avoided more populated or closer identical targets to go to a place with such bans. A loosening of "concealed carry" laws would likely have beneficial effects, and they could be tracked, recorded, and compared quite easily (as the data already exists).

The gun lobbyists like to pretend the sky is falling when any form of control is mentioned. The hippies do the same when it seems like we're headed toward more violence. So it's a fruitless debate, despite having reasonable answers.

what about the intellectual types that just remove said restrictions so they can fire their guns in the purposed safe areas? I also think pro gun people would see it as a complete infringement....allowing the government to dictate the usage of said gun. Even if that's not an infringement on the second amendment it is still an infringement on the rights of the people. It would be like saying "you can own this but we get to control it". Plus I think giving the Government more power then it already has is a terrible idea.

The way to stop violence is to stop raising our children in a violence-saturated world.

And I'm not talking about what's on the news.

We have boatloads of videos games coming out every year where the objective is to kill as many people as possible (COD, Halo, etc). We have movies that depict unbelievable slaughter and killing. We have music glorifying death and dismemberment (whether it be rock, rap, or otherwise)

And you don't think that has anything to do with the recent EXPLOSION in murder and violence? 100 or so years ago this type of debauchery was unheard of. Is that because people didn't have guns? No, the population had more guns than we do now! It's because they were raised to ABHOR VIOLENCE! Not GLORIFY it.

Once we stop that and try to reverse the effects it already has on our society, the less we'll see these violent acts, I think.

And we won't have to "ban guns", like the far-left would have you believe.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
And you don't think that has anything to do with the recent EXPLOSION in murder and violence? 100 or so years ago this type of debauchery was unheard of. Is that because people didn't have guns? No, the population had more guns than we do now! It's because they were raised to ABHOR VIOLENCE! Not GLORIFY it.

See: Native Americans

See: The US government's approach to solving the "Indian problem"

As one example of why what you claimed is "Wtf!?"

Originally posted by Bat Dude
The way to stop violence is to stop raising our children in a violence-saturated world.

And I'm not talking about what's on the news.

We have boatloads of videos games coming out every year where the objective is to kill as many people as possible (COD, Halo, etc). We have movies that depict unbelievable slaughter and killing. We have music glorifying death and dismemberment (whether it be rock, rap, or otherwise)

And you don't think that has anything to do with the recent EXPLOSION in murder and violence? 100 or so years ago this type of debauchery was unheard of. Is that because people didn't have guns? No, the population had more guns than we do now! It's because they were raised to ABHOR VIOLENCE! Not GLORIFY it.

Once we stop that and try to reverse the effects it already has on our society, the less we'll see these violent acts, I think.

And we won't have to "ban guns", like the far-left would have you believe.

You "cannot change society" overnight. And you cannot almost for sure change it in a way you'd want it to change. Society changes the way it wants to.

A technological solution could solve the problem, quickly, tho. Or at least make it so that a reasonable temp solution could be made until the real societal culprit for these mass shootings could be found and legislated against (doubtful to happen soon, tho).

Again, "gun-blocker" (let's call it that for this discussion's sake) transmitters could be heavily regulated by the gov so that only affected and at risk places and individuals could have them (they could make it far harder than owning a gun). Hell, make it so that "gun-blocker" tech could only be usable in static places and not by individuals.

The point is, guns should be impossible to fire in "safe areas" such as schools/malls/cinemas/etc where weapons like that shouldn't even be allowed. I don't see any feasible scenario why it would be unreasonable to create tech-controlled "gun-safe" areas.

Except maybe a zombie apocalypse.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
The way to stop violence is to stop raising our children in a violence-saturated world.

And I'm not talking about what's on the news.

We have boatloads of videos games coming out every year where the objective is to kill as many people as possible (COD, Halo, etc). We have movies that depict unbelievable slaughter and killing. We have music glorifying death and dismemberment (whether it be rock, rap, or otherwise)

And you don't think that has anything to do with the recent EXPLOSION in murder and violence? 100 or so years ago this type of debauchery was unheard of. Is that because people didn't have guns? No, the population had more guns than we do now! It's because they were raised to ABHOR VIOLENCE! Not GLORIFY it.

Once we stop that and try to reverse the effects it already has on our society, the less we'll see these violent acts, I think.

And we won't have to "ban guns", like the far-left would have you believe.

Crime rates have actually steadily dropped in the last 50 years, across pretty much every crime we have statistics for, with only 1-2 brief exceptions where there was a small spike before the decline continued. We live in a much safer country than 100 years ago.

Placing blame, even partially, on video games or music is also testable, and has also been largely debunked. It's possible to find anomalous data to the contrary, but popular consensus sides squarely on the side of it not having harmful affects.

The same can be said for levels of religious adherence and crime in a country, which are, if anything, inversely correlative.

Obviously I don't think glorification of violence is good, and my above comments tend to side with less gun restrictions in certain situations. But a hearkening to the "good ol' days" is terribly flawed, rooted more in intuitive emotion and nostalgia than anything resembling empirical data.

Originally posted by Digi
There's two simple truths about gun control that would help quite a bit, but it's impossible to bring them up without exciting the extremes.

1 - It's possible to limit access to criminals or the unstable without endangering general gun rights. We don't approach this issue because the gun lobby is powerful and politics is tricky.

2 - Nearly every attack, both domestic and foreign, has happened where guns have been banned. This is true to an absurd, statistically significant extent. In many cases the killers have avoided more populated or closer identical targets to go to a place with such bans. A loosening of "concealed carry" laws would likely have beneficial effects, and they could be tracked, recorded, and compared quite easily (as the data already exists).

The gun lobbyists like to pretend the sky is falling when any form of control is mentioned. The hippies do the same when it seems like we're headed toward more violence. So it's a fruitless debate, despite having reasonable answers.

1. I understand that the politics of it makes things damn near impossible for things that touch in 2nd amendment rights to be done. However, this is exactly why I made this discussion. To think of ways to approach the problem in ways that would not be considered political suicide if suggested by a politician. I saw gun-safe zones as a possible and reasonable solution that could be suggested.

2. Gun-safe zones and gun-blocker tech would make it much harder for average looney to get their hands on weapons and use them on unprotected civilians. They'd have to source it thru a rather proficient gun runner and I doubt gun runners would try to import military-grade tech and sell it to looney civilians and stay in business for long.

Terrorists are another thing entirely, but, like I said, let's focus on the "average nut" for now.

The "gun-blocker" is going to become obsolete mighty fast when, several months after its released, there's three hundred videos on youtube showing you how to jail-break your gun in 5 minutes.

That's not even considering the fact that there's already billions of guns that exist that won't have these transmitters, meaning a massive gun trafficking black market would open up. If this gun-blocker was set-up tomorrow, it would be decades before we'd start to.see the benefits, since the people who want to commit crime will just... illegally buy guns that don't have transmitter s on them.

Propagating jailbreaking tech should be just as illegal as selling military-grade weapons and would be considered illegal for youtube to keep on the air.

Also, the guns should be downright impossible to "jailbreak" for this tech to be at all feasible in implementation or at least made so that any instance of "jailbreaking" would alert the authorities right away (like taking "jailbroken" weapons to a firing range would result in the firing range calling the authorities due to the weapon's gun-blocker hardware not being picked up by their system). The same way as owning an RPG or Minigun would be currently downright impossible to do, non-blockabke weapons should be placed in the same category as military grade weapons.

Already touched up on the "then only criminals who buy illegal guns would be able to use guns everywhere" argument above.

I think this can all be summed up as:

"There oughta be a LAW!"

Originally posted by Bat Dude

And you don't think that has anything to do with the recent EXPLOSION in murder and violence? 100 or so years ago this type of debauchery was unheard of.

Like I said, my idea is the most Intelligent and realistic, Make it law and mandatory for every US citizen 18 and over to carry a firearm at all times and places, Shit like this will get shut down really quick.

/Thread

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Like I said, my idea is the most Intelligent and realistic, Make it law and mandatory for every US citizen 18 and over to carry a firearm at all times and places, Shit like this will get shut down really quick.

/Thread

You would be replacing the odd loon killing some people with daily mass shootings across the entire US caused by ignorance, misunderstandings and would be saviors of humanity. You would turn people who normally wouldn't shoot others into gunfighters.

Or do you think people suddenly become calm, intelligent and rational because someone forced a gun into their hand?

They still have to obey law

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
They still have to obey law

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to walk into a school and murder 20+ people now. But you're right, having a gun means people will follow the law all the time.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Like I said, my idea is the most Intelligent and realistic, Make it law and mandatory for every US citizen 18 and over to carry a firearm at all times and places, Shit like this will get shut down really quick.

/Thread

Actually the most stupid idea I've ever heard about anything.

Guns shouldn't be a right, they should be a privilege. That's the first thing that absolutely must change in this country if we're at all serious about stopping these types of things. This thinking is foolish and based on the thoughts of a group of people who had no idea what this modern society would be like, and how ridiculously powerful these weapons would be. When the founders wrote the constitution guns could fire 1 bullet and then required 15 seconds to reload. Guns being a right is based on tradition and not reasonable thought. Tradition is never a good reason to accept something, it is folly.

People need to remember that guns are tools of killing and nothing else, that is literally their only purpose - to kill something or to attempt to kill something. You should be required to pass written tests and show that you physically know how to use this extremely dangerous apparatus, like you do when you get a driver's license. You are forced to get a driver's license because cars can be dangerous if you do not respect them, and so you are required to show that you are capable of driving safely. The same should happen with guns nationwide.

Also, no logically sound reason for assault weapons to be legal. They should be completely banned immediately.

I believe bullets should be taxed to hell. There is no reason why someone should have as much ammo as this person did.