Originally posted by BackFire
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.
I disagree. If we wish to say that people have the right to self defense then the state has a responsibility to ensure that right, to say that a person has a right and then prevent them from exercising it is Libertarian. Guns are the best method available for people to defend themselves. While it's absurd to force people to own guns I do think that the government should manufacture a pistol for American citizens much in the same way that it should ensure the availability of healthcare.
Forcing people to show that they are competent before letting them own an extremely dangerous piece of equipment is not preventing them from exercising any right other than owning said piece of equipment. It has nothing to do with the right to defend one's self. You still can, just not with a gun. It would simply mean you don't have the right to defend oneself with a gun until you prove you are capable of using one properly.
Also the comparison with health care is absurd and not worthy of a response.
Originally posted by BackFire
Forcing people to show that they are competent before letting them own an extremely dangerous piece of equipment is not preventing them from exercising any right other than owning said piece of equipment. It has nothing to do with the right to defend one's self. You still can, just not with a gun. It would simply mean you don't have the right to defend oneself with a gun until you prove you are capable of using one properly.
Re: Re: An idea for "Gun Control".
Originally posted by RobtardLulzx2.
1) Cost of guns would skyrocket with that tech added2) 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?
Re: An idea for "Gun Control".
Originally posted by Nibedicus
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.
It is possible....and without much difficulty. A passive RFID implanted into the hand of the "owner", which has been setup with a mutual authentication mechanism (and paired to the gun), can provide the authentication and activation mechanism necessary to release the gun for firing. In other words, the following criteria would have to be met before the gun would fire:
1. The owner, the one implanted with the passive RFID, is the only person that can fire the gun.
2. The gun's powersource must be adequate enough to not only power the passive RFID for authentication purposes, but also to "release" the gun for firing. Battery technology is sufficient enough to provide: a) a long-lasting power source that can sit in a "non-use" state for years b) low-mass as to not increase he mass of the gun c) small size to keep guns, if desired, to a low-profile.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
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.
This is also possible with another, unrelated, passive RFID in the gun. It could activate when entering a "no gun area". However, this would be easily overcome by any criminal because they'd remove the passive RFID from the gun. You could make the passive RFID hardwired into the firing mechanism of the gun...making it impossible to fire if that passive RFID is removed from the gun. You could make it out of reach of everyone without very expensive equipment by micronizing the circuitry to prevent a "rewire" or fooling the circuit to make it believe it is still wired. And the "program" that verifies the completed circuit can be hardwired on masked-programmed ROM (cannot be changed after fabricated).
So here is how it works: when the gun holder walks into a "no-gun" zone, the RFID detectors will activate the passive RFID in the gun, disabling the gun from being able to fire.
However, none of the technologies I have outlined do anything at all for people that can make their own guns which nullifies all of my plans. Gun controls fail, massively, here. In the information age, finding plans to fabricate your own gun takes about 30 seconds. You can even make your own bullets.
Let me put it another way: humans have this amazing ability to consistently overcome restrictions. If you technologically restrict their access to something tens of millions of people want, they will innovate and/or emancipate. Let me introduce you to the following:
1. DRM.
2. Blu-Ray encryption.
3. iOS and Android security.
4. Restriction of weapons on plans and air traffic facilities.
5. The US Military force
Originally posted by Nibedicus
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.
Incorrect: illegal guns are extremely easy to come by especially in America. You just have to know where to look...and a criminal usually does. It takes about 10-20 minutes on the internet to start finding sources. For the technically savvy, it takes 5 minutes to find illegal arms in a completely anonymous, untraceable, encrypted manner (deep web).
A "nut" is even worse to deal with because the "nut" will usually be obsessed and/or out of reach of normal reason. Really, I think almost all of these types of attacks are perpetrated by "nuts."
Originally posted by Robtard
1) Cost of guns would skyrocket with that tech added2) 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. False. All technologies I mentioned are very cheap. Passive RFIDs are already in the products you purchase and are even manufactured with the intention of being "thrown away." The authentication mechanisms already exist: they are simply algorithms. The most expensive components I mentioned will be the batteries and those will be cheaper than a small box of bullets.
2. False. It is only an infringement if it bars people from the right to bear and keep arms. If what you said were true then the already existing state laws, which have various levels of licensing requirements, would have already been deemed unconstitutional (I bet some have...I am not familiar with all Federal Court cases concerning the Second Amendment).
Originally posted by Digi
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.
When it comes to violence per person or homicides per person? No, we do not live in a much safer country than 100 years ago. It is multiple times worse, now, than it was in 1900.
However, other regulations like food and work safety certainly make it more difficult to die...know what I mean? But, no, we are as a people are much much more violent than we were in 1900.
Lil B is the criminologist around these parts, she could tell you (us). much more about this stuff such as the reasons. I have guesses by they are uninformed lay guesses.
Originally posted by Digi
The same can be said for levels of religious adherence and crime in a country, which are, if anything, inversely correlative.
So you're saying that the higher the religious adherence, the less violence, the lesser the religious adherence, the greater the violence? Or did you mean "directly correlative"?
If you meant the latter,
http://www.pewforum.org/age/religion-among-the-millennials.aspx
The millennials commit a far larger percentage of crimes, both property and violent crimes, than their more religious Gen-Xer parents. The millennials are also significantly less religious. So by the same poor logic used to say more religion creates more violence, less religion creates more violence...by the numbers.
But if you meant more religion means more gun violence, that is not backed by some numbers. The real answer is "how" the religion is used and the culture of the people.
http://www.yale.edu/faith/downloads/x_volf_violence.pdf
What part of "turn the other cheek" is in the "turn the middle east into a glass bowl? Exactly.
Originally posted by BackFire
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.
👆
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
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.
Not with my solutions. 🙂 You'd have to have a powerful microscope to "jailbreak" your gun. People would be better off buying black-market guns than trying to solder microscopic circuits.
Originally posted by BackFire
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.
Ummmm...holy shit, you're horribly wrong.
Maybe for you that is the only purpose for a gun. In which case, yes, you need to be kept away from any and all guns.
Originally posted by BackFire
Also, no logically sound reason for assault weapons to be legal. They should be completely banned immediately.
"assault weapons" is such a vague and nebulous phrase that it makes it useless for discussion. Give me an example or at least a definition of what you mean by "assault weapons" so I can properly disagree with you. 🙂
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...to say that a person has a right and then prevent them from exercising it is Libertarian.
The opposite is true. I would word what you said as follows:
"...to say that a person has a right and then prevent them from exercising it is American."
Originally posted by BackFire
Forcing people to show that they are competent before letting them own an extremely dangerous piece of equipment is not preventing them from exercising any right other than owning said piece of equipment. It has nothing to do with the right to defend one's self. You still can, just not with a gun. It would simply mean you don't have the right to defend oneself with a gun until you prove you are capable of using one properly.
Bam! This is an excellent point and one of the arguments I use. Also, a double space after a period is not necessary.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Ummmm...holy shit, you're horribly wrong.Maybe for you that is the only purpose for a gun. In which case, yes, you need to be kept away from any and all guns.
Explain what their other purpose is, then. There is none. They were created with the sole intent to kill things efficiently.
Originally posted by dadudemon
"assault weapons" is such a vague and nebulous phrase that it makes it useless for discussion. Give me an example or at least a definition of what you mean by "assault weapons" so I can properly disagree with you. 🙂
How about the weapon used in this massacre. Why is it necessary for someone to own a military grade weapon like the AR-15?
Originally posted by BackFire
Explain what their other purpose is, then. There is none. They were created with the sole intent to kill things efficiently.
There are multiple purposes. No gun I have used has ever been used to kill a living thing nor was it maintained or adjusted for that purpose: just target shooting. Must people target shoot with their guns.
Originally posted by BackFire
How about the weapon used in this massacre. Why is it necessary for someone to own a military grade weapon like the AR-15?
Well, that's easy to answer: it is never necessary to own anything that does not contribute to your basic needs like food, clothing, shelter. However, my cousin, who lives here in OKC, owns an AR-15 and he loves to target shoot with it (when he can afford the ammo). His defense for home invasion? A 12-gauge. 🙂
I own no guns and do not want one in my home until I can either afford a really good gun-safe (not happening because I am still poor) or my children are at least 12.
Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
I feel the same about free speech
I feel the same way about voting.
Any person that did not know of some of Obama's major policies/actions while in office should automatically have been barred from voting. It goes without saying that millions would have been barred from voting for Romney.