Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Geek Love > Totally Off Topic

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
Anthem Legion of Dawn...
Last post by SpectralThundr
Today 12:18 PM
4 Replies, 82 Views
Liberals gone wild
Last post by SpectralThundr
Today 12:14 PM
2,933 Replies, 397,952 Views
Weekend Gamer: What are...
Last post by brandonjclark
Today 11:58 AM
1 Replies, 92 Views
A small request
Last post by Azrael
Today 11:51 AM
28 Replies, 892 Views
Blizzard Begins...
Last post by EL CABONG
Today 10:35 AM
12 Replies, 701 Views
Metro Exodus goes gold,...
Last post by Wizzkidd
Today 07:32 AM
6 Replies, 411 Views
Marvelís Spider-Man -...
Last post by Wizzkidd
Today 07:31 AM
5 Replies, 471 Views
Beyond Good & Evil 2...
Last post by DrizziTx
Today 04:26 AM
24 Replies, 1,226 Views
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-26-2018, 06:48 PM   #41
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I'm probably pretty far on the opposite side of you ideologically on gun control
I figured, and reading the post confirmed but we can go in order. And I agree even grudging acknowledgement from anyone about *a problem* these days seems to be like pulling teeth. But I think it is too large to ignore.

Quote:
There has been a long standing gymnastic contortion in how we discuss gun violence in which there are over a hundred thousand deaths and injuries by guns each year but we see some trying to argue that guns have nothing to do with that.
This is where we have to start being very precise because words are important and tossing in something like ďviolenceĒ is a very misleading term. Not every injury or death caused by a firearm is violent unless you believe the very act of anyone pulling any trigger is violence in and of itself regardless of context.

For purposes of this conversation Iíd like to see if we can settle on a definition of the term ďgun violenceĒ to mean deliberate usage of the firearm to cause harm to another, regardless of the harm was caused to the intended target (so the violence can be committed against an innocent party as in the case of a drive by shooting).

Also, you should probably add a citation.

Quote:
1. {snip}I think we can all agree that the framers did not anticipate that the 2nd amendment {snip} balanced against an increasingly ridiculous pie in the sky imaginary tyrannical government defense.
First, what the framers did or would or couldnít imagine is really immaterial. Unfortunately they arenít around to tell us or slap us in the face if we get it wrong.

Second, have you seen what our government is up to? And you donít think it is possible they can grow too big for their britches? They file criminal charges against PILES OF CASH so they can steal it from citizens. They are brazen about spying on their own citizens. Choosing to home school your child is a RED FLAG to social services. Being convicted of failure to pay taxes can be more severely punishing to a persons life than being convicted of manslaughter.

Quote:
I would also argue that nowhere in the 2nd amendment is the idea that people should have a right to own and bear arms for "The primary legitimate purpose of a handgun in civilian ownership is self defense."
The 2nd doesnít put any purpose based restriction on the firearm usage. It doesnít say ďonly for huntingĒ. This point of argument simply confuses the issue. My point about handguns is that they generally serve no purpose except to kill or hurt people. I was having a sort of monologue there about if that should make them different than other ďarmsĒ which have other uses (i.e. hunting or sport).

Quote:
Right or wrong, the constitution was not intended as a death pact, or to create domestic terrorism and insecurity in our free state., so, just as you mentioned, if a law is not having its desired effect, we should get rid of it.
First let me address the last sentence. Weíre talking about the Bill of Rights. Not something as paltry as a law.

Iíd argue part of the terror is present because regular folks are being preyed upon thanks to being law abiding and the bad guys not following the laws. It is just as easily argued people might feel safer knowing there were people around them capable of protecting them if the shit hit the fan. Especially since statistically areas with higher rates of carry and CCL show lower crime rates.

Quote:
2. Why? I'm not saying you are wrong or that I disagree, but I don't know what is wrong with this from your perspective.
Because itís the most efficient way to solve the problem. 500 new laws on the books is a waste of everyoneís time especially if you know someone out there is going to legally challenge each of those laws.

Quote:
3. Handguns. {snip}. You can get guns without any background checks or anything buy or trade as easily as an old xbox console from the local classified ads. Whatever you call it, that seems like a bad idea.
First, while you can of course acquire a second hand gun easily doing it as you describe is illegal... well pretty much every state unless it is a family transfer.

Quote:
4.) I don't know about any legitimate uses for AR-15s, but hunting rifles and shotguns used by hunters, I completely agree. I would support an assault weapons ban immediately.
Fun fact. Tons and tons of AR-15s are just 22 caliber hunting rifles with a pistol grip. I learned how to shoot on a .22 when I was growing up. It wasnít an AR-15 but it was semi-automatic as well.

Deaths from anything that is actually considered ďassault weaponĒ class are so insignificant they donít even register on the chart, partially because that class of weapon is already heavily restricted.

Quote:
5) Again, why exactly?
I explained this. Itís an issue of fairness. If you are deemed old enough and competent enough to use even more dangerous weapons to fight and die for your country you deserve ALL the rights that go along with that sacrifice as a civilian.

If you are in the Army and only 18 are you only qualified to use a weapon while you are in your uniform? Did you suddenly become untrained when you got off duty?

Quote:
6) I support immediately funding as much gun violence research as necessary and getting rid of the amendment that states research can not be used to advocate gun control.
I support non-partisan funding. This is the difference. The funding which has been proposed has all been proposed to be funded by those on the far left with the expectation of producing results favorable to the far left agenda. Do you want to end up in another chasing of the tail like with the Global Warming he said/she said?

Plus there is already lots of non-partisan research out there. As I mentioned there have been many multi-dimensional studies done since the 70s all which show crime and violence rise in cases where guns are more strictly regulated.

Quote:
Unlike you, I think a registry would be a good idea, but I also don't think the government is likely to start confiscating guns on a whim.
I donít understand why, after all the other abuses, big and small, the government commits to against its citizens every day you canít see how they wouldnít eventually come for guns.

I can see California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsome (maybe soon Governor) and anti-gun zealot doing exactly that. They already proposed a similar thing when they retroactively made a bunch of citizens criminals by outlawing certain magazine sizes a year or so ago and wanted to go door to door to get them.

Quote:
{Snip, collecting and getting rid of all guns in America...} However, if I knew with absolute certainty that it would end all gun crime and innocent deaths {snip} it seems like a very small price to pay or ask for in order to preserve security of a free state.
Of course this isnít possible as proven by places which have banned guns. We need a real solution.

As for a secure and free State: thatís part of the duty we have as citizens as well. Abdication of this responsibility to the State is the worst sort of shirking and will lead to the opposite effect; a less free State for all. We have ceded much to the State already in the name of safety and security including water bottles, shoes, and fingernail clippers.

Quote:
I noticed that your OP did not really say anything about mental health
I didnít want to belabor the point, I think thereís a big problem here as I mentioned in a follow up post but it is one which, globally there does not seem to be a will to meaningfully address. Lots of lip service though but how many actual mental health grants or additional funding was part of the approved budget over last year?

Especially, as pointed out, in the case of Menís health.

Quote:
Here is a more exhaustive discussion of the 2nd amendment-
I found the premise of this completely intellectually dishonest from the start. The 2nd amendment wasnít something dusted off about militias. Guns have been part of America since the founding and even through much of the earliest 20th century many families still hunted for food!

Hell I lived in Missouri in 1978 not more than 60 miles out from Kansas City and the community I was in had several families which still hunted for dinner on a regular basis. Iíve picked my teeth clean with bones from many a small critter.
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 07:11 PM   #42
Evil Avatar
Citizen Game
 
Evil Avatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 33,394
Blog Entries: 20
The guy who killed my Step-brother wasnít legally allowed to own or buy a gun. Gun laws are bullshit because criminals donít obey the law.
__________________
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.
Evil Avatar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 08:05 PM   #43
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Avatar View Post
The guy who killed my Step-brother wasnít legally allowed to own or buy a gun. Gun laws are bullshit because criminals donít obey the law.
Don't you think the problem is that guns are everywhere? It is so easy to get a gun illegally because they are so ubiquitous. If they were rarer then black market guns would become more expensive and out of the reach of most criminals because criminals are mostly poor.

This isn't some impossible dream, it has been realized in almost every other 1st world nation.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 08:13 PM   #44
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
I'm not sure you know what anecdotal means. This is not my personal experience. The information on all of these attacks is readily available.
You're not providing any information of relevance. In the absence of evidence, I'm left with your word. It's not worth anything to me, thank you, especially not as regards your restricting my constitutional rights.

Quote:
This isn't some impossible dream
It's the wet dream of leftists and totalitarians everywhere, and it's not happening.

Good luck. You'll need it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
"...boys lining up outside a room to take a turn gang raping a woman?...I went to frat parties where shit like this was going down
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
I certainly went to frat parties where girls were getting roofied
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 09:34 PM   #45
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
You're not providing any information of relevance. In the absence of evidence, I'm left with your word. It's not worth anything to me, thank you, especially not as regards your restricting my constitutional rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islami...3present)#2014

Some of these attacks involve bombs and are reasonably competent attackers. Restricting guns wouldn't stop a determined and competent adversary. But more than half of the attackers in 2017 are not competent and they just used whatever they had easy access to. Also this doesn't even include lone wolf crazy people who are even less competent if you want me to include data for them as well.

"A man was killed by soldiers patrolling Orly Airport as part of Opťration Sentinelle after he attempted to seize a female soldier's gun. He had also shot and injured a female police officer earlier with a pellet gun"

That is really incompetent. All he had was the pellet gun so he just went with that and tried to upgrade in the middle of the attack.



I don't think this is a good hill for you to die on. There are good ways to defend gun rights, but trying to say that restricting access to guns wouldn't improve the outcome of these attacks is just a bad path for you to go down.

You should instead be focusing on why are these attacks happening at all and how banning guns isn't a real solution because the attacks will continue as we see in China and Europe. We shouldn't give up our rights for what is essentially a stopgap measure that won't even fix the actual problem here. That is a way better line of reasoning instead of just being obstinate and pretending that sick people don't frequently just use whatever armaments they have easy access to in these attacks.

You should be arguing along the lines of free speech. We shouldn't give up our rights out of fear, whether it is legitimate or not. Also I think your logical footing would be stronger if you either rejected the automatic weapons ban or had a different interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd amendment that allows the automatic weapons ban in a very narrow way, because otherwise you have basically conceded that the 2nd amendment is meaningless. Specifically I think you should be using District of Columbia v. Heller and United States v. Miller which allow you to argue a more nuanced interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Last edited by Eats; 02-26-2018 at 10:02 PM..
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 09:46 PM   #46
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
It's the wet dream of leftists and totalitarians everywhere, and it's not happening.
This is a side question but I'm just wondering. Is every other 1st world country "leftist" by your definition of whatever that means?

Is Australia? Is the UK?

Is there any other country in the world that isn't either leftist or totalitarian by your standards?

To clarify this a bit, a country like Russia where they lost democracy. I am classifying that as totalitarian but maybe you have a different word for it. Is there any country other than the US that isn't leftist and also has a democracy by your standards?
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 10:09 PM   #47
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Don't you think the problem is that guns are everywhere?
Yes and no. This is one of the reasons I go back to the idea of biometrics. It can do the same job without the infringement.

The weapon becomes dead weight if it isn't activated/re-authorized in the time increment without a work-around that I would hope comes at about the same expense and with the same issues as procuring a black market weapon.

Quote:
This isn't some impossible dream, it has been realized in almost every other 1st world nation.
The United States has always been noted as being somewhat unique in this regard. The data I've seen from the results of countries which have tried to reverse course shows the reduction of crime and violence is no where near the magnitude people claim we'd see with gun bans and/or confiscation, assuming the political will could be mustered to change the 2nd in the first place.

I would have concerns about other societal changes we're seeing in other first world countries where the authorities are unable to maintain the peace and leaving the population terrorized with no recourse themselves.

I have to wonder how much of the very well documented instances of no-go-zones, harassment, uncountable minor crime, and out of control capital crime could have been averted if EU citizens in particular had more freedom and the tools, including firearms to defend themselves.

Heck, they aren't even allowed pepper spray!
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 10:14 PM   #48
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 660
biometrics like in Judge Dredd to fire the gun? Wouldn't the gun require batteries to operate?

Also there are no-go-zones, harassment, and out of control capital crime all over the US as well....?

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-...d-States/Crime
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 10:44 PM   #49
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
biometrics like in Judge Dredd to fire the gun? Wouldn't the gun require batteries to operate?

Also there are no-go-zones, harassment, and out of control capital crime all over the US as well....?
Yes, the US is in rough shape as well, right now it isn't quite as dire since we have the room to spread out. We certainly have our share of bad sites however we have nothing similar to Molenbeck(sp) in Sweden where they have been known to throw grenades at cop cars which come into the city after dark.

As for biometrics you must have missed my expanded suggestion. Perhaps, most likely, there would need to be a power source. But power cells for this application could last forever. Otherwise it wouldn't be like Judge Dredd where each use would require authorization. There are concerns about the reliability under pressure and in variable environmental conditions. Like in the rain, sweat, blood, mud, etc. That is the excuse for dismissing biometrics right now.

Please remember this is for Civilians.
1) Gun is purchased and and a "parent" print is recorded to the guns internal memory (never stored or accessible; it is only a one way process).

2) Gun owner can add "child" prints for additional authorized users.

3) Gun is activated by finger print for X amount of time (say 24 or 36 hours) so when the person gets dressed or whatever and grabs their gun they activate it for the day then environment becomes a non-issue. The token lasts long enough the user doesn't have to worry about it failing at the moment of crisis. Then after the time passes it shuts down and just becomes a piece of metal. Of course it can be defeated but anyone who wants a gun will get a gun now, even in the most strict anti-gun environment so it is all about raising the barrier to entry of illegal and improper use.

4) When ownership of the firearm is transferred the "parent" print must be changed and all "child" prints wiped.

Fingerprint technology is very advanced (see the iPhone!) and over time these weapons can work to stop many accidental shootings and shootings from stolen weapons with almost no further erosion to the 2nd Amendment.

Like I said, I'm not arguing there's a problem which should be addressed. I'm trying to find a compromise which fits the spirit and letter of the 2nd amendment while also taking a small bite out of the problem. And since technology is going that direction anyway why not just double down on it now?

Last edited by vallor; 02-26-2018 at 10:57 PM..
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2018, 11:23 PM   #50
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 660
You realize guns are legal in Sweden.

I had an idea in a similar vein where you could use bluetooth beacons similar to the Tile for government sanctioned gun free zones on consumer guns. Inside the gun free zones the weapon wouldn't fire.

This would also require batteries though.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 12:18 AM   #51
Evil Avatar
Citizen Game
 
Evil Avatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 33,394
Blog Entries: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Don't you think the problem is that guns are everywhere? It is so easy to get a gun illegally because they are so ubiquitous. If they were rarer then black market guns would become more expensive and out of the reach of most criminals because criminals are mostly poor.

This isn't some impossible dream, it has been realized in almost every other 1st world nation.
No, the problem is that criminals donít obey the law. Most of the guns criminals use arenít even purchased through legitimate channels. They are smuggled across our borders and sold illegally on the streets.

While the AR-15 gets the big high-profile media attention when these incidents happen, most shootings are done with small caliber handguns. Little .22ís, 9mmís and .38ís smuggled in from Mexico and sold out of the back of a van somewhere. Itís flashy to talk about 17 dead kids in Florida right now, but more people than that were shot and killed with handguns in Chicago just last weekend. And they will be again this weekend.

Passing a lot of laws that restrict the rights of legitimate citizens to own guns will not do a thing to prevent that.
__________________
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.
Evil Avatar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 12:22 AM   #52
Evil Avatar
Citizen Game
 
Evil Avatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 33,394
Blog Entries: 20
A lot of this failure is in the hands of our court system. The criminal who killed my step-brother (which you may remember was only about a year and a half ago) was given a SMALLER sentence for his 2nd weapons offense than his first!

He did like 3.5 years for his first weapons charge, and only 2.5 years the second time in some kind of a plea bargain deal. If the legal system had done the correct thing and given him a longer sentence the second time, Brian would still be alive.

People who use guns in crime should probably have like a 10 year minimum on their first offense and a longer one for their second. If we just put these people away forever, the problem kinda solves itself.
__________________
I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.
Evil Avatar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 12:29 AM   #53
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Avatar View Post
Most of the guns criminals use arenít even purchased through legitimate channels. They are smuggled across our borders and sold illegally on the streets.
You're right a ton of weapons are smuggled across our southern border. About 2000 guns a day are smuggled across the border. Bought in the US and smuggled into Mexico. The vast majority of guns in Mexico are smuggled in from the US. You have it completely backwards.

I can't find a single reference to smuggling weapons in the other direction. Honestly since so many are being smuggled out of the US it seems ridiculous to think they would be smuggling the same product in both directions.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...e-from-the-u-s

https://journalistsresource.org/stud...-mexico-border

https://www.insightcrime.org/news/an...der-every-day/

Nearly 2.2% of U.S. domestic arms sales between 2010 and 2012 were attributable to firearms trafficked across the U.S.-Mexico border. That represents 212,887 weapons that are purchased annually and then trafficked to Mexico.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 01:51 AM   #54
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
You realize guns are legal in Sweden.

I had an idea in a similar vein where you could use bluetooth beacons similar to the Tile for government sanctioned gun free zones on consumer guns. Inside the gun free zones the weapon wouldn't fire.

This would also require batteries though.
Is there a problem with having a requirement of a small power source? Life critical devices of all sorts require power sources but this doesn’t prevent them from being utilized. If we trust pacemakers to the energizer bunny we should be able to do the same with a glock.

Again, in the scenario the user is activating the weapon at a time when there is no crisis as a preemtive measure as part of their regular “getting ready for work or sleep” routine. If activation fails due to dirty hands or a dead battery or whatever there is time to solve the problem.

Having guns turning on and off arbitrarily concerns me because IMO the owner of the gun is the one who should be in control of their weapon.

I can see some promise in the idea for sure because you could also set up portable gun free zones for demonstrations or speeches and so on. Police could carry portable broadcast units which disable all non-LEO firearms within 100 meters. It could be a really great thing.

But this could also open the door wide, wide open to abuse.

Now the government doesn’t have to worry about taking guns, registering them, or anything. Should they ever decide to disarm the population they don’t even have to round up the guns they just have to boost a signal? I don’t like that idea one bit.

Plus, some 6 year old would probably figure out how to make a faraday cage out of bazooka bubblegum wrappers to block out the signel.

And of course there is always the problem of someone simply hacking, blocking, or otherwise messing with the signel. I am not sure the tech exists right now to manage but it is another idea to follow up on.

And yep, while many countries in the EU allow weapons (you can even get a gun in Australia you just have to join a shooting club) you certainly aren’t allowed to have hand grenades or lob them at police so the point still stands .

People who know me from this board know I like me a good crusade. I think this is one I may try to take on and see if I can’t get some traction somewhere while I slowly get around to getting work.
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 02:42 AM   #55
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
You're right a ton of weapons are smuggled across our southern border. About 2000 guns a day are smuggled across the border. Bought in the US and smuggled into Mexico. The vast majority of guns in Mexico are smuggled in from the US. You have it completely backwards.
Yeah, most of the info I’ve seen the last few years points to other states as the largest contributors of illegal guns in places where controls are otherwise strict HOWEVER once again these are situations where the acquisition and transfers were done illegally.

As Evil is saying: how do you stop a criminal from breaking the law? It might be the case that, as I mention in a point from my original post, if the laws were stringent across the board it MIGHT make it harder for people to get guns however only 20% of gun crimes are committed with legal firearms so I wonder if this datapoint is really a valid piece of information for the gun control argument.

Criminals are criminals, you think a little thing like someone telling them they can’t have a gun is going to stop them?

According to the Bureau of Justice statistics nationwide 8% of folks on parole have it revoked; at least this was the case in 2016. With a little quick digging I found in Texas in 2014 17.5% of parole revocations were due to weapon related offenses. I am sure we can find more information out there to give a better average but it seems telling right off the bat (sorry, it’s late and I am tired).

A long time ago the mayor of Boston blamed a 13% spike in firearms related crime on newly released inmates.

This is people who know they go back to prison for the remainder of their term if they are caught with a weapon or know they will have the book thrown at them if they get caught committing another crime, with a firearm to boot, and they did it anyway!

Also, though it might seem a fine point, keep in mind for 5 years the U.S. Government was the proud smuggler of it’s own weapons to Mexico via the Fast and Furious program (which, to date no one has been held accountable).
vallor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 02:58 AM   #56
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Now the government doesnít have to worry about taking guns, registering them, or anything. Should they ever decide to disarm the population they donít even have to round up the guns they just have to boost a signal? I donít like that idea one bit.
This is totally impossible with current BLE technology. The max range on a beacon is 450 feet and I don't think you could amplify it that easily. The energy drop off is seems like it is exponential with range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Plus, some 6 year old would probably figure out how to make a faraday cage out of bazooka bubblegum wrappers to block out the signel.
You could say this about any form of gun control/anti-theft mechanism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
And of course there is always the problem of someone simply hacking, blocking, or otherwise messing with the signel. I am not sure the tech exists right now to manage but it is another idea to follow up on.
If the signal uses a rotating private key it couldn't easily be stolen by hackers if that is what you mean. It could be secured pretty well. You could certainly get around it with something like a faraday cage, but I don't really think that matters.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 03:09 AM   #57
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Yeah, most of the info I’ve seen the last few years points to other states as the largest contributors of illegal guns in places where controls are otherwise strict HOWEVER once again these are situations where the acquisition and transfers were done illegally.

As Evil is saying: how do you stop a criminal from breaking the law? It might be the case that, as I mention in a point from my original post, if the laws were stringent across the board it MIGHT make it harder for people to get guns however only 20% of gun crimes are committed with legal firearms so I wonder if this datapoint is really a valid piece of information for the gun control argument.

Criminals are criminals, you think a little thing like someone telling them they can’t have a gun is going to stop them?

According to the Bureau of Justice statistics nationwide 8% of folks on parole have it revoked; at least this was the case in 2016. With a little quick digging I found in Texas in 2014 17.5% of parole revocations were due to weapon related offenses. I am sure we can find more information out there to give a better average but it seems telling right off the bat (sorry, it’s late and I am tired).

A long time ago the mayor of Boston blamed a 13% spike in firearms related crime on newly released inmates.

This is people who know they go back to prison for the remainder of their term if they are caught with a weapon or know they will have the book thrown at them if they get caught committing another crime, with a firearm to boot, and they did it anyway!

Also, though it might seem a fine point, keep in mind for 5 years the U.S. Government was the proud smuggler of it’s own weapons to Mexico via the Fast and Furious program (which, to date no one has been held accountable).
If guns weren't so ubiquitous then illegal guns would be much more difficult and expensive to acquire. If bullets had to be made and sold underground they would be more difficult to acquire, and also probably less effective. It would make all of it very expensive.

If right now it we made it illegal only to sell guns and ammo, the price of guns would go through the ceiling overnight. This would be its own deterrent because criminals are mostly poor.

This isn't about telling people they can or can't have guns, it is about using market forces to solve the problem. If bullets cost $50 each then people wouldn't do drive-by shootings anymore. They also wouldn't use automatic weapons very often because each clip would cost a fortune.

People holding up banks and gas stations need money, which means they don't have enough to buy super expensive black market guns and ammo for those guns. Especially when they could just use knives.

I'm not sure I actually advocate doing this, but I do think it would have a huge effect on the amount of gun violence we see in the US.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 04:08 AM   #58
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
This is a side question but I'm just wondering. Is every other 1st world country "leftist" by your definition of whatever that means?
Any country that confiscates weaponry from law abiding citizens is acting on leftist totalitarian ideology.

It's not happening here, but you can try. Good luck.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
"...boys lining up outside a room to take a turn gang raping a woman?...I went to frat parties where shit like this was going down
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
I certainly went to frat parties where girls were getting roofied
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 05:43 AM   #59
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
Any country that confiscates weaponry from law abiding citizens is acting on leftist totalitarian ideology.

It's not happening here, but you can try. Good luck.
You really dodged everything I said. You didn't answer any of my questions from either of those posts.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2018, 05:59 AM   #60
Phoenix1985
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,257
Japan's methods seem to hold up when it comes to gun control, and should be applied here.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintBlitzkrieg View Post
Also, Telltale signed with xbox, with fear that if they released Jurassic Park on the PS3, the dinosaurs would get loose.
Phoenix1985 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:35 PM.