Slashdot Mirror
New Jersey Enacts 'Smart Gun' Law
rmohr02 writes "New Jersey has just enacted legislation that would require all handguns to be able to recognize their owners and only fire when their owners grip them. Gun manufacturers will be required to implement this within three years of the NJ Attorney General's approval of an acceptable, commercially available model. One critic says 'No technology is foolproof--anyone who has a computer knows how many times it crashes.' I'm sure fellow /.ers will have something to say about that. Also on Google News"
If guns don't kill people, but people kill people, then wouldn't it follow that New Jersey should enact a "Smart People" law???
If your going to allowed to carry guns, at least
they should be made so someone else can't use them
against you. I am sure some gun nuts here, are
going to be against the idea, but i can't imagine
a reason why. And yeah it probably won't be secure at first, and they'll be underground gangs rechiping the guns. But it makes it harder for criminals to get guns and that has to be good.
I'm curious if when this legislation goes into effect if all new handguns issued to NJ police officers to contain this technology or if handguns for police have been exempted.
It never ceases to amaze me just how many dumb and stupid laws that politicians put in place. We've all had a laugh at the laws which prohibit beheading your wife in public on Fridays and other such nonsense, but what we don't realise is that that these laws are still being passed.
Look at Australia's internet censorship laws. Less than two years later, it was pointed out that they had come in to effect, but were totally unworkable and had never seriously been applied. This sounds to me like very much the same kind of law.
If people believe I'm wrong that these proposed laws, I'd like to know why you think it and how you think it could be implemented and enforced.
I wonder if these things will be hardened against EMP attacks. If not, it would not matter if they used a transponder ring or fingerprint recognition; either way a powerful radio signal is all a criminal would need to disable all the guns in a home before breaking in.
I'm especially interested in the transponder ring systems. I'm sure that hardware types will try cobbling together a universal ring...
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
Most of these type devices, that I have seen, involve a magnetic ring of some type. My only concern is what happens, when you take it off.
Nightmare scenario, you fall asleep without your ring on, and awaken to the sound of a burgler, but forget your magic ring.
Also the reliability of the device would have to be paramount, due to the device they will be installed upon. What happens when this breaks?
Education is the key. I grew up around guns, as did others in my neighborhood. Even as children we knew how to operate, and maintain them.
Responsible parents need to accept the liabilities associated with gun ownership, and lock up their firearms as appropriate, when there are children in the environment.
p.s. on a related, but barely, topic if parents would start parenting, instead of letting the tv, and computer raise their children, this issue would be practically moot.
This space intentionally left blank.
Every Shadowrunner knows that smart gun technology is something else all together (integration of the gun's sighting system into a cybernetic type of retinal display.)
I'm sorry, but the mainstream media is just going to have to find some other term.
Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
and the solution to THAT is responsible, diligent parenting
You mean a solution, not the solution. It seems that this technology would also be a solution, and given the percentage of brain-dead parents there are out there who own guns in reach of children, I think this solution will be much easier to implement than a "no brain-dead parents" law, however you might word that. And given the importance of not having holes in the heads of kids, and the frequency in which these accidents occur (much more than any other gun-related death), I think this is a very prudent decision.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
If they have a hand held ECM gun, you could render the gun useless. Does this mean, you could ECM the police too? The police already want ECM weapons for police cars and helicopters. They could stop cars, now they could stop your gun too.
But then, I feel secure. I have homeland security protecting me from Rapists and Murders. (I laughed while I typed that.)
"One critic says 'No technology is foolproof--anyone who has a computer knows how many times it crashes.' "
That is utter foolishness. A gun will not have an OS, it will be hard coded. My microwave doesn't 'crash' and I don't think my gun would either.
The more serious concern is how easy it would be to fool the gun. I can fool my microwave pretty easily, so I'd expect the same from a gun.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
One critic says 'No technology is foolproof--anyone who has a computer knows how many times it crashes.'
That's one of the most absurd statements I've heard against this kind of technology. A gun is not at all comparable in complexity to a PC. How many times does the computer running your car crash? What about the computer in your watch? The one running your kitchen appliances? They don't - because they're simple, one purpose devices, just like a handgun's trigger lock would be.
Seeing that if you have a gun in your house you are more likely to kill a family member than a criminal
Care to quote your statistical source?
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Being a NJ resident I am happy to finally see SOMETHING/ANYTHING being done to control gun violence. I'm just surprised the NRA couldn't lobby its way out of this, although I'm sure they tried like hell.
Anyway, being that many deaths by firearm occur in the home I think this will help on two fronts. First if someone steals your gun(it happens) it will be temporarly worthless to them, ie they can't kill you if they get to the gun first. They also can't use it to kill anyone once they're out of your house. Second it can hopefully prevent little Johnny from A) blowing his friends head off by mistake and B) prevent him from bringing it to school and harming anyone.
Yea big deal, you can still buy guns out of state and existing firearms don't have the technology. No shit. If all goes well NJ in the future will probably have significantly fewer accidental gun deaths then other states. That sure as hell would make me happy.
Don't forget, gun violence in the home is a serious problem as that's actually more likely then some stanger shooting you if your a gun owner.
I just hope the technology works and this isn't somehow overturned by gun nuts.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Smart gun technology is available today, and is completely practical. If you don't believe me, here's a simulator for the technology...
Buying a handgun legally in NY is pretty near impossible.
You need to get a permit from a local court, and have it endorsed every couple of years, or anytime to buy or sell a handgun.
At any time, some county judge can refuse to renew your permit and you are required to surrender your handgun to the local police without compensation. With a quality handgun costing well over $1200, this is a bad thing!
For all practical purposes, it is near impossible to get a firearm of any kind in NYC legally and impossible to get a firearm in any suburb of NYC. These laws have been very effective in removing weapons from the city. (hehe)
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Watch out, he might start writing essays again!!
What makes a man want to be a mouse? (Python's Flying Circus)
At any time, some county judge can refuse to renew your permit and you are required to surrender your handgun to the local police without compensation. With a quality handgun costing well over $1200, this is a bad thing!
E-gads. I dunno about NY, but here in Michigan the Glock 21 sititng next to me only ran $550 USD.. and I'd consider that a quality gun.
The article talks a lot about "the owner" and "the authorized user" of the weapon; I hope they're taking into account the possibility of multiple owners or else they may be giving the gun rights folks ammo (heh heh) for their inevitable fight to have the law repealed.
Trigger locks, smart guns. It's getting to the point where more people will just say f*** it. Smith your own. Any Open Source guns out there? What do you need? A Lathe, a milling machine, some metal stock. Decent tools are affordable for most of the middle class. Smith your own gun. And of course, the government will know even less about homemade weapons.
Think I'm full of it? Why did the Israelis drop a load into some Palestinian metal shop a few months ago? Yep. They were allegedly making weapons. I imagine any competent machinist (look in your local Yellow Pages under "Machine shops") could take the plans and make a decent piece. Actually, since they would be finely crafted pieces receiving more attention than usual, I bet they would be excellent guns. Unfortunately, a lot of not-so-expert machinists would try too, and fail.
Remember back-alley abortionists? Same idea.
So what will they do next? Lathe control? Then only criminals will have lathes. :)
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
- Will it be possible to "unencode" the gun? Specifically, if a person decided to resell their gun, obviously it would not make sense to let them resell it privately (since that would defeat the purpose of this capability), but they should be able to resell it to a licensed gun dealer, who could then in turn either send it back to the manufacturer or use a special tool to unencode it.
- Will bullets fired from these guns be traceable to the owner of the gun, and if so, will evidence along those lines be useable in court? It seems kind of like a lie detector-type situation (or, if you prefer, a "Gattacca"- or "Minority Resport"-type situation). If somehow someone figured out how to fire someone else's gun, and the bullet were traced back to the gun, then, because of this technology, a jury might be inclined to assume that there is only one possible person who could have fired it, when in fact there could theoretically have been someone else. They should be very explicit in describing how this can and cannot be used in court.
In general, though, this seems like a pretty solid idea that would be useful even if not 100% effective. If something malfunctioned and the rightful owner was not able to fire the gun, then they could take it back to the store and replace it, while alternatively if it malfunctioned and someone else was able to fire the gun, well then even in this worst-case scenario it would be no worse than it is now. I think, as long as they're careful about the two aforementioned issues, I can be proud of my home state (not that I shouldn't already be proud of it), and hopefully not have to hear too many New Jersey jokes as a result of this.The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
A gun is a very simple mechanical device. There is nothing in the world that will change that. You might as well use a retna scan for a toaster.
There will be a few lives saved by this, but it will create a new illegal market and bring all of the death involved with that market.
Get a free ipod.
Computer crashes have crippled E-3 Sentry radar aircraft and aborted 5-6 shuttle launches.
Arrogant and superficial "geeks" give software engineering a bad name.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Just carry a garage door opener with you that you can fine tune the signal on. I'm sure the crook will wait while you find the right frequency.
This seems like a great idea. I've seen law enforcement holsters, that require the officer's fingerprint to pull the weapon. It works in a fraction of a second, and the batteries last years. The idea of operation is, when the office draws the weapon, before he even starts pulling on it, it's already released to his fingerprint.. But no one else could steal his weapon and use it against him..
The question is, how soon can gun manufacturers implement this? 3 years? The unit I saw was kind of bulky, and wouldn't fit inside a weapon.. How secure would it be? Dealers have to be able to re-issue weapons, which means the technology and means will be in many stores in every city.. All you need is one guy to reassign guns, or one ex-gunsmith with a box to reassigning any gun any time.
I'm not sure, but it really does sound like New Jersey is passing the law, so they can just say "We're not banning guns, you just can't have any they're selling."
The law is forcing a change which may, not reinforcing an existing technology. If gun manufaturers do start implementing this change in all new sold weapons, I'd imagine the rate of stolen weapons would dramatically drop over the next 25+ years..
I don't know that it would make people any safer though. People commit crimes with their own weapons frequently.
I'd love to see the technology come around. I'd be very happy knowing my gun can only be shot by me, or someone I assign to it (girlfriend/wife/friends/non-minor children)
Of course, knowing how many people can't program their VCR's, how many will be able to figure out how to work their new "secure" handgun? How many instances will we be hearing about where someone was killed with their "secure" weapon in their hand that wouldn't fire?
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
I am from the midwest and we hunt deer with handguns. Thank god we don't have stupid legislators in our state. Some days I hunt with gloves on, especially when it is cold as a witches titty. There are othe days when the temps are nice and I don't wear the gloves. Are the sensors going to adjust to those factors? Something tells me the technology does not exist to implement this in a reasonable way.
Got Code?
IIRC a large percentage of police officers slain in the line of duty are killed by their own gun -- wrested away in an altercation. I have heard of this sort of tech especially for law enforcement. By extension, imagine the usefulness for combat troops if only the "good guys" could operate their weapons.
:)
It comes down to a Q of the technology's reliability. Real police seldom discharge or even brandish their weapon, esp. outside the cities; and of the ones who are shot, I imagine a fair number did not have their weapon ready to fire or even see it coming.
Now, we need a really smart gun that shoots only the right people, at the right time. Yes of course running Linux.
A compulsory law for all gun owners is of course a different policy question from police departments selectively implementing same. The legislation will however give development of the tech an economic shot in the arm -- without a market the guns would either be prohibitively expensive or not exist.
If the local PD starts using these things, how long do you think it'll take before someone figures out how to jam them?
Wouldn't that be an interesting use of the 802 card in your PDA.
If all you're after is deterrence, just get a knife. A great, big, "That's not a knife. This is a knife." kind of knife.
He painted a unicorn in outer space. I'm askin' ya, what's it breathin'?
I exaggerated a little. My brother just bought a H&K USP .40 for about $900.
Still, losing $500 or $900 or even $300 arbitrarily is a bad thing. Fortunately, my brother is friendly with police & court people, so he was able to transport his collection to his new home in NYC.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
It will be heavy and unreliable in its first few models.
One of the major manufacturers-- I think it's Smith & Wesson, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now-- has been demonstrating a prototype gun of this type since the mid-1990's. It's neither heavy-- I've held one myself-- nor, by reports, unreliable. If the gun is in proximity of a particular item, which in the demo was worn on the finger like a ring, it will fire. If not, it won't. When I saw it, if you wore the ring on either hand and used a two-handed grip, the gun would dry-fire. If you wore it on your left hand and held the gun in a single-handed grip on your right hand, the gun wouldn't fire.
Besides, your argument about hurting gun sales is probably bogus. I'm sure just as many people will flock to New Jersey to buy these new, safer guns as will go elsewhere to buy other models.
I write in my journal
Current technology is foolproof. You pick up a weapon, disable the saftey, aim and fire.
Compare the number of accidental gun deaths to the 65,000 people who die in accidents on US highways every year. Total firearm deaths are a fraction of that. Unfortunately accidents happen, but living under the illusion that a weapon can be "safe" is a nothing more than a empty lie.
Adding microprocessors, batteries and senory to a gun adds unneeded complexity and will kill far more people than it saves.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
i love getting flamed by gun nuts, so fire away (pun intended for ironic effect).
if you give a bunch of kindergartners hammers, how much time will pass before somebody gets whacked with a hammer? the point? if you arm more people, more bad things happen. that's pretty hard truth to refute. that's the top paradigm, every other observation of guns is subservient to that cold hard truth. more guns= more violence and death. the rest is just circumstances that lead to their use. if guns aren't around, you lessen the weaponry available for damage. less firepower= less damage capability. human passion and anger that can not find the strongest outlet for its violent expression expresses itself with less potential. not much can bash that truth away.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms. Which means that states can regulate, control and even ban firearms if they so desire!
In 1939, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in United States vs. Miller. The Court refused to strike down a law prohibiting interstate sales of sawed-off shotguns on the basis of the Second Amendment. Rejecting the argument that the shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia," the Court held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state militias.
Since then, both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right. At times the courts have even expressed exasperation with some gun advocates' misinterpretation of the Second Amendment:
In the 1976 case of United States v. Warin, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of an illegal gun-owner who argued that his Second Amendment rights had been violated. In pointed language, the court wrote: "It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant...all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."
If the Constitution guaranteed an individual's right to unregulated gun ownership, the NRA would be challenging laws like this one and The Brady Bill in the Supreme Court. That is not happening because the NRA knows that they would lose any such challenge. That's why they spend their time and money lobbying (threatening, rewarding, and bribing) Congress to limit gun legislation. If you want to make claims about the Constitution, do some case law research before you do.
If a gun is the only way I can protect my family from a person breaking into our home in the middle of the night....It is a life sustaining piece. What else am I susposed to do? Say please leave, I just dialed 911 and the police will be here in about 10 minutes?
That's OK, everyone will just drive down south to buy them in states where there are few rules, and no enforcement, like South Carolina and Florida. Most handguns used in crimes in NYC already come from those places.
"The gun is set to only fire from the hand of Mr. Thompson, the bullistics match this gun, the gun was registered under the name of Mr. Thompson, A partial of Mr. Thomspon's fingerprint was found on the gun, The is NO other logical conclusion that could possibly be made!"
The real reason for this law, of course, is to slip in yet another provision for the purpose of making guns useless. Once they're completely useless for any practical purpose, there will be much less resistance to any law banning guns altogether- "Well, I do think I should have the right to protect myself, but then it's not like I'd be able to fire a gun in time anyway. I won't bother contacting my representative." Already any killing can be ruled premeditated murder based only on the gun used being kept loaded and in a place where you could get at it if you need it. There have been laws proposed and passed requiring "gun locks" to be placed over triggers so that you need a key to use the gun. I'm sorry, but the self defence rule of reaching for your keys when you're being attacked should only apply when you aren't carying a gun.
There will always be people who are pro-gun and people who are anti-gun. I dont think there's a need to go for the cliche "If guns are outlawed..", just remember that if your potential attacker doesnt think you can get your gun to fire before he can get your arms behind you, he is a lot more likely to act. The other guy doesnt need to have a gun if yours doesnt work.
Guns are made not to protect, but to kill. I hated walking through school and seeing guns every day. It isnt thinking that someone else could grab that gun and use it, I hate it no matter who is holding the gun.
So yeah, I'm a moron, I guess. I want citizens to be able to protect themselves [read: kill the other guy] with a gun, but I dont want police walking the streets with them. Stupid dream, aint it?
Many people may consider this a step in the right direction: It's not gun restricting it's gun control, literally! This is what we've really been asking for the whole time, right?
The dream is to have complete control over the gun- exactly when and how it can be used. Know that the law's idea of when and how a gun should be used is NOT your own belief. If you are against guns, you want more restrictions, if you are for them, you want less. If you're the one holding the gun, you don't give half a shit either way, 'cause all that shit you're saving up for yourself. Some situation has placed a gun in your hands, and all you can care about is using it in the way that situation demands. If it means you're about to shoot someone the law would deem innocent, you do not respect the law. Dont begin to lie saying that you wouldnt want the option. You have the gun, he's in front of you, and the last thing on your mind should be "God, I hope this thing actually fires", even less "Shit! What was my keycode?!" [note to whoever is going to reply 'you say last and then even less, that is impossible': I know that, sometimes words are written to be impossible in order to express an eggageration.]
Whenever you are going to shoot a person, your desired action is not within the limits of the law. Remember this when considering how much control the law should have over your guns.
As I said last time I posted like this, my facts are probably not, and in general what I said could probably be viewed as entirely innaccurate. The point of this message is not to promote accuracy, but thought and discussion. Whether the thoughts or discussions it promotes are intelligent or not is entirely up to the reader. That said, it should be obvious that simply calling me an idiot or pointing out innacuracies is rather pointless, as anyone who has gotten to your post has probably made their way through mine, and so would know such things already.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Smartgun technology sounds great and all...but what happens if one's hands are dirty, has gloves on, etc or the software itself just flakes out...then what?...messages like these:
:;
"Your gun has performed an illegal operation. Unable to fire. Please powerdown, unload and reload ammunition, and press Restart to reboot."
"Identity scan failed. Please clean your hands and retry firing."
"Gun software 1.34 outdated. Software update download required now before you may continue firing."
"Your gun software license code G43R5-4T564-6DR63-AA665 doesn't match that of the gun owner indicated in our records. Important: 2nd Amendment protections don't apply to software licensing under the DMCA. We are watching you!"
Those are not the type of errors one would want to get when they and/or others are being threatened and they only have a split second to shoot.
And of course there are then all the privacy implications that come with requiring software (so-called smart technology) for guns. The government and especially the private sector will be able to better identify and track gun owners; heck I'm sure at some point they'll even be talk of GunXML and giving every gun its own IP!
Ron Bennett
You know, it'd be hell to try and put this sort of thing in a car.
Yet, cars kill more people and are used in more crimes - and don't (usually) need to be used in emergency situations where they must start or other people die.
And just think how globally opposed everyone would be to having these required in every car.
And that is why this pisses me off.
Take a few drunks off the road, then get back to me, thanks.
Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
Back in 1990, when I lived in New Jersey, there was a pro-gun rally at the State Capitol in Trenton, because newly-elected Gov. Jim Florio was trying to ban some kind of guns. The front page of the local paper had a picture of a black grandmother from Elizabeth or Newark, holding a pistol, who was quoted as saying something like "You think the police are going to show up in *my* neighborhood at night?" Maybe in your neighborhood, the police will show up 10 seconds after you dial 911, but it's not real common.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
That's all a gun is. Medieval technology. Literally. Columbus carried guns on the Santa Maria.They were ancient tech then. Anyone who wishes to make a crude (even multishot) firearm that would be perfectly usable for street crime purposes can find everything he needs at the local Home Depot. With a bit of ingenuity he'll find everything he needs at his local supermarket.
In terms of taking guns out of the hands of criminals laws such as this only serve to drive the market for Saturday Night Specials.
Nor will this technology do *anything* to prevent the legitimate owner of a gun from commiting murder or other crimes with it.
It's only real function is to act as a "safety" on the safety, and in that role it may actually save some lives. It may well cost a few as well. Time will tell, but in terms of being "anticrime" this is really just a "feel good" measure. It provides an illusion of safety that doesn't actually exist.
Kinda like a cheesy firewall riddled with known exploits and workarounds that every script kiddie in the known universe knows how to defeat.
Makes "Joe User" feel all warm and fuzzy inside though knowing that his system is "protected."
KFG
With the center-fire cartridge anyone can make a gun even if it's so simple as to hold it in a vice-grip and hit the firing pin with a nail. Ok, so the accuracy might not be so great. The point is that guns, even fully automatic guns, are not rocket science.
Any reasonably handy person with access to a lathe could make a single-shot handgun. Give me a mill and a lathe and some tooling and I'll turn out a copy of an Uzi. With a silencer.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Ultimately though a life is threatened by the gun [although not always unfairly]. To call it "life sustaining" is sugar coating for a weapon.
Instead of laying down and dying, which is hardly likely, you *could* try a knife or bat. People managed to defend themselves long before gun powder you know. Before police even. Now that we have police we don't need an armoury, just a phone an a bat [and a rifle to shoot food].
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
So now instead of a family owning one gun for protection, the father will have one ... and so will the wife. I'm not sure who was pushing this legislation, but maybe they didn't think this whole thing through.
Don't waste time with the Google News link. This story is an AP story, and the Google News link, at this time (1:45 AM EDT) contains only about 100 links to various papers' copy of the AP article. As a matter of fact, the only unique link is the one to this slashdot article.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
they have the highest high school graduation rate in the US
That could easily be explained as "they have lower standards for graduation."
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
But you can not just snap your fingers and make all the 'bad guys' guns turn into donuts. If they have ranged weapons I will have them also.
#1-Police. What happens if a cop's partner is disabled and he has the only remaining ammo between them. Is the other cop supposed to say, "hey mr. nice criminal, let me pop this clip into my gun so I can kill you?"
#2-Families where the kids can handle a firearm. I could handle (admittedly not perfectly by any stretch of the imagination) a 9mm at an early age, around 9-10 or so. I'm sick of the anti-gun nuts who say such rubbish as kids can't use guns effectively and responsibly. And so what if they can't in such a situation? It's better that the kid die trying than die a totally defenseless victim. Oh and, in close range... you don't have to be that good of a shot.
#3-What happens if the gun gets damaged and can't recognize its owner? Oh sheot, that's right. The gun ain't worth a damn now.
Here's the deal, we don't need gun control and here's why. If the crime is heinous, lock the perp up and punish them properly. Once they get out, they've paid their debt to society and give them their rights back. Anyone who disagrees is a fascistic prick whose "pro-freedom" views on any other issue are meaningless.
Your 2nd amendment right, not your right to vote, is what ultimately keeps the government in line. I'm amazed at how many people know jack shit about guns and then spout off anti-gun ownership rhetoric. A 30.06 is a much more powerful weapon than a M16 or AK-47. A M1 Carbine is even better. Both are now weapons civilians can own IIRC without any special permits. A M1 Carbine is an order of magnitude deadlier in the hands of a skilled fighter than a M16 because its shots are more powerful and accurate than a M16. You damn well better believe that a crowd carrying shotguns, 30.06s and the like would be taken VERY seriously by the government.
So let me ask this, are you people who believe in gun control stupid or just lack any desire to have a free country? How many totalitarian regimes that rose to power by disarming their populations does it take? Do we need to draw you guys diagrams showing these things point-by-point? I'm being serious here. You have no right to tell me that I can't own a 9mm because it makes you uncomfortable. Nor do you have a right to tell the local Klan or BPP thug to shut up because what he's saying is making you feel uncomfortable.
Maybe you people need to take remedial English because the last time I read the 2nd amendment it said, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You people seem hung up over a GD prepositional phrase. A well-regulated militia means a well-organized militia, not one whose ability to stay armed is being lynched with bureacratic red tape. It is the same thing as "Congress shall pass no law INSERT_ISSUE." What part of that is so hard to understand? And if you have any concerns about state gun control, may I suggest you read the 14th amendment which was partly ratified so blacks in the post-Civil War south could legally own firearms. At that time most southern states prohibited blacks from owning guns. Jim Crow, the first major gun control advocate in this country.
If you ask me, we need LESS laws, not MORE. We need to clear the courts from the stupid lawsuit and patent law CRAP, and free up court and prison space for the real criminals.
If you kill someone, you KILLED THEM, and you should get life in prison, or death. Not X years for killing them, X more for doing it with a gun, X more because your motive was racial. Look, I don't care if you killed a black or white or yellow or red person, you killed them, go to jail I don't care if he was Christian, Jew, Hindu, or what, you killed them. Your telling me an EXTRA law that makes it a race crime, a religious crime, makes the system better? By making MORE laws like that, you just dilute the system. Crime is crime, simple is simple. Kill, go to jail. Black man kills black man, less jail time because it wasn't a hate crime? Should we really say "white guy killed white guy, not racial, not religious, less of a sentence?" He was killed with a gun, not a knife, the criminal should do 105 years instead of 150 years?
All I can say is, it's just another step in the long and relentless process for the United States of America to drift into the New World order. I am going to rant, long and hard, prepare. This is a step to a socialist society, where we see "Democracy" become something that is nothing more than "Mob Rule" with a slight bit of organization.
Look, it's a feel good law, we all know that. The science and the technology are not presently available to comply with this law. This law requires all guns to "recognize they are in the hands of their owner" before they are able to fire, WHEN that technology becomes a reality. Let's be realistic, some lame as money grubbing company will come up with some half ass way to almost make this happen, because they want to monopolize the gun market in NJ. But, they will fail because no one buys guns in NJ anyway, because of the existing legislation. And it's just an exercise in "can we do it."
Now, don't get me wrong, if I wanted to own a firearm, and I knew I could get a high-tech one that wouldn't allow anyone to fire it except me, that would be cool. I would get one like that, if I wanted one at all, to be sure that I could defend myself and the invader of my home couldn't disarm me and shoot me with my own gun.
But, that's not what this law is about. This law is yet another measure of the Sarah Brady group to make guns harder to own. And, being a Libertarian, I have respect for other people's beliefs. However, I love my country, and I love my country because it is the country that is founded on individual freedoms.
If you were to tell me that there was a country in the world that would allow you to do anything you wanted, provided you did not bring harm to anyone else, I would respect that country as well. However, the USA is as close as we have now. Capitalist (work hard and earn a lot). Intelligence, perseverance, planning, and hard work should pay off. And people should be allowed to do what ever, worship whatever they want, think whatever they want, self destructive or not, risky or not, SOMEWHERE in the world. That is why the USA was founded.
The USA is becoming Socialist under pressure of the rest of the world. If you don't like it, you have a lot of other countries in the world to go to that believe what you do, we don't stop you from leaving. Yet every day people are willing to die (look at the boat people, the central Americans, the middle eastern people that are not the "popular" religion" in their country). People come here because of the freedom.
We are soo willing to give away our freedom to make "Soccer Moms" who are the minority, feel better.
I'll tell you what, give me the hard working, open minded, freedom loving, socialist, people from around the world who are NOT Christian like me ANYDAY over the bible thumping Southern Baptist Soccer Moms who want "smart guns" any day!
It is such a drag to find stats, and many sites don't provide attribution for them! For all one knows, the numbers are gossip.
According to the FBI, 46 of 594 officers slain feloniously 1992-2001 were killed by their own weapon. Another 49 were killed by weapons other than firearms.
FBI Uniform Crime Reports -- I pulled the pdf for "# Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted" for 2001, see Table 5.
Even 46 dead officers is too many. It would be helpful to have "wounded with own gun" or "3rd party shot with officer's gun" or "gun stolen and later used in crime" statistics, plus the cost and reliability of the gun modifications, before making an assessment. Oh yes, we should ask the cops what they think!
As for cables, sounds like a cheaper way to address this. I wonder about the cons.
There are also occasional surprise disarmings and discharge. Read that one! The magnet is very powerful, but I'm a little skeptical of the "molecular structure" reasoning in the article. I used to be an MRI tech -- what a horrible safety failure. These events can end less humorously, as with a boy killed by an oxygen bottle in New York about a year ago.
Don't just say no don't touch it. Explain to them it could blow their head off if they don't handle it properly. My parents did that with me and somehow I resisted the urge to play with a .357 in their closet. Teach them to respect guns and not fear them. That same logic goes for anything dangerous; animals, power tools, weapons, fireworks, you name it. Respect, not fear.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
It's kind of late in the game for me to start commenting now, but I feel like I should get this out. As somone who *was* involved in a gun accident, I think I can speak authoritatively on the subject. Let me first say that while I do not currently own a gun, I would if I had the money to spare on it at the moment. Secondly, let me say that I am missing several digits on one of my hands because of irresponsibility with a weapon. What this taught me was: "Never listen to someone who says a weapon isn't loaded, always verify that for yourself". Rest assured that this will be the first lesson my children learn (and these are not theoretical children at some point in the future, I've got two wonderful sons). My father taught me to shoot at an early age, and I plan on teaching mine to shoot as soon as they are able to hold a rifle. I think that the important point in this debate is the fact that children who are educated about weapons (be they guns, knives, words, jelly donuts, whatever) will not try to show off to their friends about how cool they are cause they found dad's gun. They will (for the most part) show them the respect they deserve. Putting chips in weapons that only allow one person to fire them is not the answer. Properly educating the youth of today is one aspect of the answer, another is giving the kids something to do rather than run the streets looking for acceptance with the local gang, or sitting in their room stewing about how mistreated they were at school. Noone is going to stop criminals from killing people with guns by only allowing legitimate weapons to fire when handled by the correct operator, I can show you 15 ways to make a zip gun that is every bit as deadly as your average .45, and another 10 that would drop any human in one shot, regardless of whether it killed him. Legislating gun ownership (or functionality) away is not the right way to go, no matter what kind of spin you put on it
Twinkies sure taste good for something that is 68% air.
Ah...smart guns. Now if they can only do the same for their owners.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Statistics Abuse: " According to these guys [ncpa.org], "10 percent of police who are shot are shot with their own guns" I've read numerous accounts of police shooting THEMSELVES. Maybe they should push some paper, empty wastebaskets, or wash the cars? Anything that does not involve handling a firearm.
"You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem." -- Edwards' Law
Not that I've resolved myself to come down on any particular side of any manifestation of the gun ownership issue, but it really doesn't seem like this is going to particularly help. The gun problem in the U.S. is a social problem: Even accounting for differences in guns owned per capita, no other industrialized country has as many gun deaths as the U.S. (About 50% of U.S. households have a firearm, compared to about 30% in Switzerland -- source here.)
I'm not going to pretend like I know all the answers -- why we have so many more gun deaths than other countries, what should be done about it, etc. -- but I'm fairly certain that this is treating the symptoms, not the cause.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Ok...not yet, but I'm sure if smart guns are widely required, then the next step will be smart ammunition that only operates in a specific, individual gun.
:;
Basically, the way smart ammunition would work is that a person would buy a box of ammunition like they do now, then when they get home, they activate the box (all ammunition in the box would obtain and store the guns serial number via RFID tags) in similar way to Windows XP activation.
Then even better for the manufacturers, is they could not only track every piece of ammunition, but they could even put an expiration date on it and require the person to either buy more and/or spend more on renewing their ammunition subscription, like for on a yearly basis.
A smart gun needs smart ammunition...too bad the user isn't required to be smart
Ron Bennett
the next logical step would be to only allow guns that can't be fired at police officers. not really technically difficult, police would only have to wear some sort of radio beacon, and the gun would refuse to fire in the direction of such a beacon.
the military would of cource also be issued such radio beacons.
now fast forward a few years; some president has decided that he doesn't care what the people thinks, and takes control of the country even though he didn't get the majority of the votes in an election. bit by bit he starts to take away the rights of the people. within the first few years, you can't even talk about a security bug is common software without risking arrest. a few years after this, he may start sending the army after the rest of his opposition, and thay will be unable to protect themself due to the gun control laws inplemented a few years earlier.
the following poen comes to mind:
Acts@core.mailboks.com Acrux@core.mailboks.com Adam@core.mailboks.com Adar@core.mailboks.com Ada@core.mailboks.com
something happened to my formatting, that should have been:
I'll tell you what, give me the hard working, open minded, freedom loving, people no matter what color thier skin, where they were born, no matter what, as long as they persue freedom and try to escape opressive socialist governments or opression, and I will accept those people from around the world who are NOT Christian like me ANYDAY over the bible thumping Southern Baptist Soccer Moms who want "smart guns" any day
This is a training problem... one you will have a hard time fixing with technology.
As a former firearms instructor, I can tell you that retention is tough. If you are fighting for your gun, it's real, no-shit, do-or-die time, and you had better win. I'm not going to discuss specifics in this forum. Even though I have hard time imagining some slashgeek going for a cop's gun, there's probably a few here who are crazy enough, and I'm not going to give anyone any sort of tactical edge.
The reasons police officers get killed with their own guns are many, and often simply come down to bad tactics. That said, I would NEVER trust one of these smart-gun gadgets for a duty weapon.
This is the same philosophy behind the "New York Trigger" that many police officers are required to have on their handguns. Instead of better "trigger control" during training, you get one of these heavy triggers. The trigger pull weight on a New York Trigger is about 12+ pounds, and was put in place to prevent accidental shootings, ostensibly because such a hard trigger pull is difficult to accomplish "by accident." Unfortunately, it causes accuracy to suffer (perhaps increasing bystanders getting hit by stray rounds?), and makes the guns unusable for some smaller-framed officers. Again, a misguided technology fix for a training problem.
I think this is just grandstanding by some NJ politicians. It's almost funny to see them mandate something that doesn't even exist. Unfortunately, this will impact regular gun owners disproportionately, and have little effect on crime guns.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
I see that this story has unleashed the obligatory pissing match between those who believe that the /. idea of freedom - freedom of information - goes hand in hand with the freedom to be armed, and those who believe that the idea of personal armament is an outdated and dangerous concept in modern society.
On Friday night, a good friend, colleague, and fellow slashdotter defended his household and family from intruders with a 12 gauge Mossberg shotgun. He stopped the robbery and scared the suspects off. The police caught them a short while later. No one was hurt. In reflecting upon this event, he and I look at the issue of gun control, and indeed the entire issue of gun culture, with a degree of clarity previously unachieved.
He, like many in our generation, is a reluctant gun owner. We've been bombarded with social engineering that seeks to cast gun ownership in a bizarre, almost psychotic light, which has created, in my opinion, a sort of cultural "gun guilt". Despite this, he recognized about a year ago that he needed a weapon for personal protection, and asked for my advice in selecting it.
I was raised around guns. I was taught to shoot at a very early age, and participated in official tournaments when I was 13. I own several weapons, including a shotgun and what some like to consider an "assault rifle". I've never been in doubt with regard to the necessity for weapons ownership in a free society, but even I have been affected by the discomfort weapons owners are subjected to in our culture these days. Before this recent event, I might even be known not to have a "ready weapon" for use in a home defense situation.
I was therefore his "gun nut friend", and took him to the range to learn to shoot safely and effectively. While fully capable of using it, and with a confident, demonstrated, and consistent application of gun safety practices, he never felt comfortable as a gun owner for precisely the same reason so many around here chime in gleefully when something as ridiculous as smart guns gets proposed. (Are you prepared to stake your life on the speed and accuracy of modern biometric identification?) He, and indeed I as well, are victims of the great lie of the modern American anti-gun culture, and it could have cost him his life.
So before you chime in on this one, and run with the crowd of those who believe guns are vehicles of evil and that those who own and use them are psychotic redneck madmen seeking only to kill schoolchildren, take a second to question your views, what cultural influences formed those views, and the possible agenda of those who exterted those influences. Your life may one day depend on it.
I have never owned a real gun, but I have always been fascinated by them. I know that their primary purpose is to kill (for whatever reason), but I just see them as pieces of machinery. I love the way they work, and how reliable they can be. They have been perfected over hundreds of years, and in my opinion they have gone as far as it is possible. You can't say this about too many machines people have created. It seems to me that tacking on a chip on a gun would desecrate it. It would ruin the fundamental design. I am sure it is being done for good and that it could help people, but it just feels wrong.
I like it too that you noticed.
My point is that the critic was not making a good analogy. Someone has since pointed out that they simply meant that the gun would fail, which of course it would at some point. That is why guns shouldn't be used in critical situations. Adding an unstable element to an unstable situation is asking for more trouble, not a pleasent resolution.
Microwaves are not used in critical situations, and if guns were not then there would be no problem. The problem is that some people do depend on them, when they should have a better option [for self defence].
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Second living in the inner city where police response time is lacking, having a gun that you might be able to unlock if given 10 minutes or praying that the gun recognizes you is to not that is needed.
Third "no technology is foolproof" this did not say that guns will crash like a Microsoft Windows operating system, this just means that it's unreliable. People advocating the use of gun locks and smart gun technology have been made to look foolish in public demonstrations as the locking system or ID system failed. So requiring this technology to be mandatory now before it is stable it just stupid.
Finally it always amazes me that people will not trust their fellow man, hell their own kid or spouse. If your afirad your wife is going to shoot you then why did you marry her if you don't trust her?? or do you think she's an idiot? And what about your kids? Well if there are guns in your house your kid might smoke pot and shoot his friend juggling it or something. oh yes it's not you or your family your afraid of it's everyone else. Stop being elitist you only think you're smarter then your neighbor.
Well, it's not /that/ easy. But it's not that hard either. The real problems are a)getting access to machinery which can produce to the right tollerances and b)accuracy of the finished weapon.
I list a) 'cause I've had to work with plenty of lathe's which say they do 1/1000, but end up being 1/100. That's a HUGE difference and one which can really influence (read: f*** up) the reliability of your work, bigtime.
Then there's b). It's no coincedence that barrels (the actual bore of the gun) are usually not milled or lathed, but made with a mold. Reason being you need that fancy helix shape to get spin on your bullet for accuracy...without it, your weapon might not even be accurate at 10m. And the best way to get that shape is (injection) molding.
Anyway, you are right...it does take some doing though. As for the silencer...I dunno, doesn't that also have some kind of chemical component? Or is it just layers of fine "grill work" dampening the blast...but if the latter, why do silencers degrade...clogging?
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
yes, that littl factoid about the 2nd ammendment is something that far too few people realize. The whole system of government was designed not only to not need to be overthrown, but to be over-throwable by the people in case the first part didnt work. I really wish more people understood that. There might be much less voter apathy if people knew what voting was for. The whole communist scare was obviously innitiated by people who realized this. If more people voted, there wouldnt be cause for concern that a communist party existed. Voting and keeping in touch with your representative is really the only thing to prevent the country from being quite legally overthrown every two years.
;)
It's those damned chinese!
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
My firearms instructor taught us to handle a gun safely, action open, gun unloaded, and we learned to do it without relying on the safety. Why? Some guns don't have safeties. Some guns have faulty safeties. Safeties are mechanical, and are thus subject to mechanical faults - as such, the resonsibility to keep the firearm safe and pointed in a safe direction is the reponsibility of the firearm handler, not the gun.
What is a Smart Gun? It's essentially one big-ass safety, regulated by some magic mechanism. As such, it's taking the liability for keeping the gun safe out of the hands of the person handling the gun, and putting it in the hands of the gun manufacturer (or inventor of the magic Smart Gun mechanism.) I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be the gun manufacturer or that inventor - the liability is just too high. The gun goes off - and they'll blame it on the gun, and not on the idiot who kept it loaded and pointed in an unsafe direction...
The bullets are encoded with your DNA. There is no way they can be forged.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Yup...about 1/4th is the fraction you're looking for I beleive...15.000 gun related violent crime deaths a year...not counting suicides etc.
BTW, you seem to be arguing on both sides of the fence in this thread, Duff...wassup with that?
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
The argument for handguns is primarily for concealed carry and close-quarter-combat (concealed carry is legal in portions of the US, ie Texas.) Shotguns and rifles are impractical for concealed carry, and rifles have too much penetration within a house. The liberals here in the states would rather you not have rifles or handguns at all, hunting be damned.
As for feeling safe, I'd recommend a good dog over a gun for your first line of defense any day. A gun is no good if you haven't enough warning to be prepared to use it. Set up a security zone around your house. Get a dog. Make sure your windows and doors are secure. Get an alarm. Then get a gun, and make sure you practice on a regular basis so you're able to use it when you need to.
This is 'feel good' legislation. This will accomplish nothing but make some people rejoice that they have enacted stronger gun control laws.
The irony is always lost on these people that the cities with the strongest gun control laws always have the highest crimes per capita.
There is one good thing out of this.
I live in the PDRM "People's Democratic Republic of Maryland" and I was on the fence about purchasing an AR-15 because I really don't have the money.
I will now purchase this weapon and a couple of pistols to make sure I get "yesterday's" technology.
MY weapons WILL fire when I pull the trigger. Because if I pull the trigger I NEED it to fire.
Care to quote your statistical source?
How about the American Bar Association? They're citing the Journal of Trauma and say:
Guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely...
There has been some arguement about the number most often bandied about by gun control advocates, which is 43:1. An article that argues that this number is unfair states:
According to the study's classification of the deaths, there were 389 noncriminal deaths for only 2 intruder deaths, for a ratio of 194.5 to 1 so quoting the "43 times" in relation to intruders is a misrepresentation of the findings.
I guess they're trying to show that guns kill more noncriminals than even gun control advocates suggest. That's not what I would do if I was debating the point, but oh well. *shrug*
There aren't that many handgun makers out there, and they tend to stick together.
There aren't as many shooters anymore, and they tend to stick together as well. Look at what happened to the old Smith and Wesson (now under new management and trying to clear the S&W name) when they tried to cut a preferential deal with the Clinton administration. Everybody boycotted their guns, and they went under.
The only mainstream manufacturer I know of that is looking into smart gun tech is Colt, and that's because they're more or less abandoning the civilian market in favor of strict military/law enforcement. For those markets, smart gun tech sort of makes sense, especially if they can land a big contract.
The result will be simple enough - firearms manufacturers, quite reasonably, will refuse to sell firearms in the state of New Jersey based on the liability issues involved.
.45 and recondition it than I would be willing to purchase a risk-intensive "smart gun"...
The first time a battery runs down, or a "smart gun system" fails to fire when necessary - resulting in the death or injury of the lawful firearm owner - the manufacturer of that so-called "smart gun" is going to be sued out of existence.
There are seldom many volunteers to be sued out of existence.
A firearm is a last-ditch tool of self defense, and like a fire extinguisher, introducing exciting new failure modes is a *very bad thing*.
Certainly, my *very first* priority if I were to purchase a so-called "smart gun" would be to dumb it down and remove the potentially fatal failure mode implicit in its' alleged "safety-system".
This, of course, does not even begin to address the notion that I'd be MUCH more willing to buy a WWI era
Lokinator
"A gun is one of those things that if you need it, you really really need it...and you need it WORK the first time..."
"It is morally wrong to initiate the aggressive use of force.." Of course, defensive force is fair game...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=48857&cid=4950 236
Read this thread just above you to see your long awaited answers about microwave tom foolery.
And yes you can etch "hard coded" programming into harware, they are called ROMs. Or just use a properly designed circuit.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
What do you mean? Like, putting in a cup of tea and then pressing the 'Dinner Plate' button?
cLive ;-)
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
This will do nothing but create a black market in cracking/disabling the protection on guns and get innocent women and children killed. And it raises many questions about implementation. Will only _one_ person be able to fire a given gun? How does one change ownership? Add/remove 'users'? Guess I can forget firing my buddies gun at the range, let alone a friendly strangers.
From the article:
"There are safety regulations on cars, on toys. It's clearly time we have safety regulations on handguns," McGreevey said at the signing ceremony.
I'm pretty sure that I could kill someone with any car and most kids toys available on the market. I seem to recall a guy named David taking out a giant with nothing but a slingshot, the ancient precursor of the gun. What no regulation can control is intent. If someone intends to do me harm I want to be able to protect myself, or at least have a chance to, like David did. Not being Ahnold, a gun gives me that. Why do people consider it nuts to desire to use the most effective means of self-defense available (next to common sense)? I consider it nuts not to.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
As for the silencer...I dunno, doesn't that also have some kind of chemical component? Or is it just layers of fine "grill work" dampening the blast...but if the latter, why do silencers degrade...clogging?
Its been a while, and I'll probably need to be corrected, but I believe that there are many ways to make a silencer. One way is to make a whole bunch of 'baffles' (layers of fine grill work). I wish I could find a good picture, but google's image search is failing me. Anyways, they serve two purposes, slowing down the round and diffusing built up gas pressure. The hole in the center of the baffle is like 1/1000ths of an inch bigger then the projectile going through it. Over time this will degrade the baffle so that the aforementioned hole is larger then tollerances allow. If this happens, then the round will not be slowed down enough and the silencer will fail.
For more information check out the original patent here
"However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
To be fair, even the best, brightest, most well-trained police officer will drop his or her gun once in a while; and even the strongest, most-agile police officer can be overpowered by another person or group of people.
Mistakes happen even to the best. Any weapon can be used against you.
I don't see a good reason in your post to not use gun cords. Is there a reason, other then machismo, to not use these gun cords? Do they reduce the functionality somehow?
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
When is someone gonna hack Linux onto one of these smart guns? Then we can have the first slashdotted gun in the world!
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
This is one of my favorite quotes...
If guns kill people, then...
-pencils missspel words.
-cars make people drive drunk.
-spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
To add to my argument...
Maybe we should make pencils that fix spelling errors, then I won't have to learn to spell.
Maybe they should make cars that smell alcohol and don't operate, then I won't have to learn responsiblity and self control.
Maybe we should have fat police, because I sure as hell have seen a lot more 80 year old chain-smokers than 80 year old chunkers. Sorry, I apologize to the poor chunkers who are helpless victims of McDonalds. (they made you eat it)
Maybe we should ban television and computers, then have mandatory exercise since heart disease kills so many people.
Maybe we should have a law banning all bones in food, since so many people and thier pets choke to death.
Maybe we should really stop making such stupid fscking laws, that don't really solve anything.
These are gun controls proposed by people who don't understand guns. The biggest example of this is "trigger locks". Trigger locks are effectively useless. A kid can pry one off with a screwdriver. Not only that, it is _very_ easy to discharge a firearm with one on. With freedom comes responsibility, I beleive we should require mandatory education to buy a gun and prosecute those who have guns stolen out of their cars or if one is stolen out of their home and they didn't bother having a safe or a full locking mechanism.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
Just the software.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
All this reminds me of a sci fi short story-turned-book that I read a while back. It was called The Weapons Shops of Isher and detailed how a group of shops distributed guns that would only fire for the owner and, even then, only fire when the owner wasn't firing at a person for anything other than self defense.
Anyone remember this?
C'mon, New York. Let's show the world we still have some balls [wtc2002.com].
Well, we certanly wouldn't want anyone to think we have any taste or anything.
I know I wouldn't want to have to look at that monstrosity every day of my life...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"I'm trying to grasp your problem with New Jersey's ability to "control gun violence." Your state seems relatively safe to me (stat-wise)."
I'll get back to you when its 0. I guess for you 366 isn't enough to be concerned about. So when do you worry? 800, 3000, 10000? Sorry I don't live in a state with more gun deaths.
"but technology cannot protect everybody.
But maybe it can protect somebody. What just because this isn't a cure-all for gun violence you outright reject it?
"Less than 1% of all homicides among school-aged children (5-19 years of age) occur in or around school grounds or on the way to and from school. (Centers for Disease Control [cdc.gov], 1997)"
Again what's an acceptable loss? 1 is too many. If this even prevents 1 death of a family member playing with a gun I'm for it. How about if this prevents a rampage 5 years from now?
"I've never ran into a "gun nut" that thought people using firearms in aggressive manners did not deserve: a) an a$$ whopping and b) prosecuted."
I've never run into a gun nut who didn't think any attempt to make us safe from them is a threat to their liberty. Every time ANY effort is made to make the rest of us safe from guns, the gun owners squeal. Well I say too bad. If it takes a bit a experimenting to see what actually does lead to reduced gun violence,oh well, that's the price you pay for owning something that's designed only to kill.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I believe, from what I understood, the reason why a silencer silences a gun isn't from the discharge, but from the speed of the bullet when it leaves the chamber. Just like the crack of a whip, I understand the bullet is faster than the speed of sound when it first leaves, thus making its own sonic-boom.
Could be wrong, not a gun know-it-all.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Firstly, it's a dumb idea. About as workable as a "Ballistic Fingerprint".
Secondly, I know a ton of Law Enforcment officers carry thier "issue" piece (Sig, Glock, etc) and at least a personally purchased backup, and often a "belly gun" and maybe even an ankle gun.
Well what the hell happens in a fight if couple officers are underfire, and for some reason the partner has to use one of the other officer's backups?
A dead cop is what happens.
Smart grips don't work, aren't going to work for a while, it's a dumb law.
Besides, what stops Bill from buying a pistol at a PA gunshow or from the Classifieds and driving across the state line?
If that situation boggles your mind, then you have never been there, and should really STFU. Anyone who's ever been in a confrontation like that or used a FaTS (Firearm Training Simulator) system knows how quickly these things happen in real life.
Can a wallet look like a gun? YES. They make holsters that look exactly like a wallet... what about those? take a look
As for falling down while shooting, that's easy. Most police are taught to shoot/move at the same time (standing still makes you a target), preferably towards some cover. It's usually a good idea to put some distance between yourself and a threat. You think you could accurately shoot, whilst running backwards, whilst tripping over debris and cracks in the sidewalk, all while dealing with the biggest adrenaline surge of your life? yeah... thought not.
You need to learn and experience some things before you second-guess the guys working the street. As it is, you really just sound like a cop-hater.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
I have often wondered about the insane, in my eyes, American love affair with the gun. Given that the majority of deaths due to gunshot wounds are due to accidents, this might be able to improve things along those lines. For all those people talking about how gun owners' families will now no longer be able to protect themselves, perhaps they should ask themselves just how many people actually ever do use a gun to protect themselves.
Here's a link...
This explains it
this thing has been around for ages. Probably wouldn't be a good idea for the geeks in this forum... think about handling your floppies with one of those buggers on.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
The Judge Dredd film had Judges with guns that not only would blow up if used by someone other than the owner but would also send the shooters DNA sample with the bullet into the victim.
Then again, that film was set a little into the future.
And it was awful.
Oh and if a gun malfunctions on you, you might not have the chance to take it back to the store. Worst-case scenario - gun does not work when you're standing off with a burglar, you shout "Sh...", burglar shoots or bludgeons you, widow sues gun maker, gun maker goes out of business, employees lose jobs, wife buys condo, children go to college, you're dead.
A gun is such a simple contraption that it's unimaginable that someone won't make or modify an existing one that won't be protected. It might help in officers being hurt when their gun refuses to fire in an emergency, but it certainly won't stop the criminals from using guns.
Not to mention that there are so many guns out there right now.
A better strategy would be to somehow chemically taint the gun powder to make it identifiable. Whenever you buy bullets (or plain gun powder), that gun powder is forever linked to you. If it ever shows up anywhere, you're busted. Also make it 100 times more expensive than it is now. Crime problem solved. Nobody can afford the bullets (at say $100 a piece), and when they do use them, they're 100% traceable to the buyer. If all bullets sold implement this feature, then in 10-20 years, nobody will have "old" untraceable bullets.
Now, I seriously doubt anyone is nuts enough to make their own gun powder from scratch...
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Ah owner indentifying guns. And here I was thinking that there were going to make ownership of these things mandatory.
<Vasquez> Lets Rock!
In Soviet Russia, The Bears arm you!
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Fail-unsafe
An article in c't (the article is in English) demonstrated methods for spoofing every major biometric ID technology, including ones too expensive and cumbersome to fit into anything recognizable as a gun. So you wake up to find your own gun pointed at your face and laugh... and wonder where the hole in your head came from.
Fail-safe
Someone has just broken into your house and your "smart gun" goes stupid right when you find out he is armed and NOT with a "smart gun". You think the biometric ID thingie is going to be any more reliable than any other electronic consumer gadget manufactured in the last few years?
Hint: the environment of a gun is even less benign than your living room. Ever hear of recoil, as in high-acceleration transients? If you'd like to get a full understanding of this, make sure you don't have a current backup of your stuff, take the hard drive on your computer, raise it over your head, and drop it on the sidewalk.
Hopefully, anyone who thinks this is a good idea, will discover why I don't agree from experience and I'll get to read about it on one of the 'Official Darwin' sites.
This is just another example of legislators trying to write biometric requirements into law without being remotely clued as to why no application related to public safety should be authenticated exclusively by biometric ID, whether it's software or a handgun.
People have been bending over and polluting the air telling us how wonderful the idea of a gun that can't be used against the owner is.
"Weapons used by law enforcement officers would be exempt until a separate decision on whether the requirement should apply to them."
Interesting that there doesn't seem to be a public demand for these from public safety officers who know their lives depend on the proper operation of their guns. Apparently, they feel that the device is potentially more hazardous to their health than the risk of having a gun taken by an attacker is. Is the safety of government employees more important than your safety or mine? Yours, maybe.
In the final analysis, a "smart gun locking device" is just something else that can go wrong. Like a DRM module added to your computer. Come to think of it, this IS a digital rights module by any reasonable definition of the term. The gun is available when a government-mandated thing says its available.
Interesting that a fair number of people who have said elsewhere "DRM over my dead body" seem to think this a good idea. People willing to challenge the government to keep their own files available don't quite seem to get the idea that people might want to keep their own guns available.
With respect to the idea that this will depend on an AG's evaluation of handgun safety, is he going to care if the gun always fires when the owner needs it to, or that it never fires when an unauthorized user has it?
Tech Public Policy stuff
Hmmm...kinda what I thought. Thanks for the great link, too. Never heard of Delphion before (EPO for me...handy that it's only a kilometer away from me :) ).
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
I like to talk on "Skeptics" forums. A surprising number of "skeptics" will put their blinders on when they want. Scott Adams was right, we're all weasels.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
happen to HOLLYWOOD? Has anyone thought about them? What are they gonna do abt their gun battles where actors always find guns in the dozens? What is going to happen to all the villians who never leave home w/o a gun ? Thos poor souls :p
|/________
|\A|ALYS|
Rule #3: Keep your finger OFF the trigger until you're on target and ready to fire.
Indeed. One of our thanksgiving rituals in my family is to get a whole bunch of firearms and shoot up some targets. I don't even have to think about it anymore... my finger isn't on the trigger when I'm not ready for the rifle to fire.
Oh, and a friend brought over his Thomson submachine gun... complete with drum magazine... wow that was fun to shoot. It's heavy... I can see why guys like Al Capone would fire it from the hip.
Drill Sergeant Hixon very quickly taught me not to call it a "gun"
Well, if it's an M16, it's a weapon or rifle. If it's an M249 or M60, it's a [machine] gun (and also a weapon). Drill sergeants never like to make that distinction, though, and you're better off just calling them all weapons, to avoid unnecessary push-ups.
If you're still on active duty, and get the chance, I strongly recommend the Unit Armorer's Course... Not that you want to be your Unit Armorer (the job sucks, and never passes command inspection with good marks) but the course sections on weapons is really nice.
What's your MOS? I was a 13F for 8 years up until earlier this month.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
#1. A pure democracy IS mob rule! That's why we're supposed to have checks and balances - so that we can rein in the tyranny of the majority (and what a woefully undereducated majority it is...)
Basically, the problem is that there is a certain know-it-all portion of the population, that believes that people should be protected from themselves, even if it means depriving them of essential liberties. Whether they be extremist members of the religious right trying to ban violent games (and short skirts), or the litigious left trying to ban everything (from guns to gasoline engines), these are the people who believe that they have the right to curtail the rights of other people "for their own good."
There have always been these kinds of people, but never have they been given so much currency in our current society, where the people who are supposed to vote are more than content to let "experts" put out what they should think and do. That's why essential liberties are being lost - not because there are people who are willing to take them away, but because we as a people are willing to let them.
Well, normally I won't help the troll, but there is a (small) amount of merit to his claim... especially with AR-16/M16 type rifles that fire from the closed-bolt position.
The problem is with slam-fire, and the fact that the firing pin in these rifles and similar models is "loose." The sudden stop of the bolt moving forward can cause firing pin to strike the primer with enough force that it can fire the round, a condition called "slam fire." This is why Colt switched the firing pin from steel to titanium early on with the AR-15.
Note that this is an extremely rare event, and not something one needs to worry about!
If there is a defect that prevents complete chambering, and a "slam fire" occurs, the nasty explosion thing can happen, though it won't usually send shrapnel in your direction, just in the direction away from the ejection port.
Now, I can tell you about catastrophic weapon failures... at Fort Drum we had a guy with some sand in the barrel of his M16. He squeezes the trigger for the first round when zeroing... KABOOOM! The rifle cracks all over the place, and this guy got one hell of a jolt. (but no injury.)
What happened was, the bullet pushed the sand in front of it, then ground to a halt about halfway down the barrel. The gas had nowhere to expand, and nowhere to vent... the weak point was at the meshed lock at the back of the barrel... the teeth of the barrel blew off, the bolt slammed back, and the gas pressure escaped into the receiver... and cracked the hell out of it.
Our machine shop on post was kind enough to cut the barrel in half so that it was cross-sectioned, you could see the fused sand, the bullet stuck behind it, and the cracks all through the rest of the weapon.
The soldier got an article 15 for failing to maintain his equipment.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Mod me down, mod the parent up. I've got karma to burn, and the AC made some great points.
You have it backwards. A "silencer" (supressor is the correct term) is really just a muffler similar to the one on your car. It does NOT slow the bullet down and a super sonic bullet will still be heard. Even so, the crack of a supersonic bullet is not nearly as loud or damaging to the hearing as muzzel blast. Normally when you use a supressor you load subsonic rounds too.
They work by slowing down the rapidly expanding gasses from the barrel and reducing the noise from the muzzle blast. They degrade over time because the rubber pieces inside (wipes) get worn out.
Supressors were invented to save the hearing of frequent shooters, and even before the NFA criminal misuse was rare (if ever).
I see lots of lawsuits coming on. Now, gun manufacturers will be sued when the thing doesn't fire when the legitimate owner tries to defend himself, and when the thing does fire when some child points it the wrong way.
I think "the point" of this law is not so criminals can't get their hands on guns...because I'm sure it would be trivial to take your gun to a shop (or someone's basement) and have it "re-fitted" to you. I believe that "the point" here is to prevent children from getting their hands on guns, which I would consider a noble cause.
"If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards."
Alcohol manufacturers will be required to use nano technology in their beverages so that the alcohol molecules will only affect those who are 21 years or older. No more under age drunkenness, but plenty of under age drinking.
The nano-bots will determine the drinker's age through samling the protien compisition of stomac cells. If the drinker is determined to be of legal drinking age, the nano-bots will release their enclosed aclohol molecule to allow intoxication; otherwise the alcocol will remain enclosed in a bucky ball type structure and pass unprocessed through the digestive tract.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
There are medium range (10-15 foot) taser guns now that can KO an intruder. No trajectory/windspeed issues, and if some kid shoots his brother with it, you don't have any chance in heck of a dead child - give or take maybe .001%, say if you shot someone who has a pacemaker (but I'm sure a bullet is just as harmful to them).
So why aren't we looking more into these technologies?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
They don't like the idea at all.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
This type of gun requires that the gun be trained to recognize the owner's grip, much like James Bond's gun in License to Kill.
My immediate thought upon reading the "crashing computers" comment was, naturally enough ...
These guns are unlikely to be controlled by a full-blown operating system. Embedded systems anyone? The test cycle for such systems tend to be much more stringent.
Of course, whilst I applaud this move (it's something I've talked about to friends many times, esp. concerning cases of kids "somehow" getting hold of Daddy's "unloaded" gun), it still doesn't deal with the root problem of too many people both owning and using guns. Reduce the number of gun owners, reduce the potential for accidental gun deaths and the *ease* of killing in "crimes of passion" and suchlike. Deaths will still occur, but it's a lot harder to kill or seriously maim someone with a knife than a gun.
Guns are "life or death" devices, literally.
I don't have a gun myself, but I do know my fair about them. There is no way in hell I would trust one of these guns. Yeah I'm about to defend my life and my property and then "Oh shit! The battery's dead!"
And that's only the tip of the iceberg. What about the sensor they're going to use? Is it one of the cheapass fingerprint readers? Do they have any idea what the false positive and false negative rates on those? Totally unacceptable for a life or death device.
What they really should be doing is throwing people who leave their guns within reach of little kids in jail. It's criminally negligent behavior and should be treated as such.
Oh, and don't forget that guns are fairly simple devices. It's probably going to be trivial to remove this thing, but I'm sure they're going to make it a felony to do so. This way the criminal, who is already committing other felonies won't give a shit and can just remove it, but me, Joe public, can't. That way he can shoot me while my gun is still scanning my hand.
Life is too short to proofread.
Let me see if I understand the majority here.
/. crowd seems to believe that data and source code should be free. Microprocessors should not attach serial numbers to files. Office software such as word processors and spreadsheets should not attach serial numbers to files. Everyone should have open and easy access to software.
/. crowd believes that guns should be heavily controlled.....if they are allowed to exist at all.
/. crowd and the State Of New Jersey are both going to have a very hard time facing reality. Life just doesn't work like that.
The
And yet the
I think the
Most crime involving weapons does not involve weapons purchased legally by the offender. Often times the weapons have been modified and no longer meet legal specifications (barrel length, full auto, serial number removed, etc.)
You know how easy it is to build your own gun in this day and age?
Harrassing people who want to own legal weapons for legal purposes is NOT the answer here.
It's so hard to believe that someone who can see how wrong the DMCA is can't see the obvious about gun/people control.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
We just call them 'misfires'. Been happening since the flintlock.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
And coming in 2005, New Jersey will enact something even better; nerve stapling! yay! Then comes pre-crime so if you even think about committing a crime you will be instantly paralyzed with pain.
If this is such a great idea, then why was it never implemented on Star Trek? How many times have you seen someome steal a crewmembers phaser and point it back at em? :-)
You're dead. The tool that you had available to protect yourself was just rendered worthless, not by a violent criminal but by a dipshit politician. I'm sure the criminal will capitalize on the situation though.
And before you say the tech is better than that, they are allowing exemptions for police officer weaponry. If the crap works correctly, _why_do_they_need_this_exception_? After all, police officers are fairly likely to get shot by their own weapon also, IIRC. And what about the cop's kids? Do they know not to play with guns?
In summary, this is one ill-conceived piece of shite legislation: and they KNOW it.
Murphy was an optimist.
I'm sorry that you and your church ever had to experience that. Your story is a really sad statement on the ignorance of society.
It is even more frightening when you consider the additional power & responsibility that we are putting on the shoulders of government and the police.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
But you do have some gawdawful high taxes. Now you know why we have guns.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
My next innovative product will be a device that emits a high energy electromagnetic impulse to disable all computerized guns in the area. I'm sure the sales of this device to criminals will be very high. Hell, even the police might buy one or two.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Except for the idiots who passed this law.
Murphy was an optimist.
Why would you say that? I think of myself as being firmly in the anti-gun control camp.
Gun control laws are both obnoxious and ineffective. The fact that the bulk of gun-related crimes are committed with stolen or black-market weapons in areas with strict anti-gun laws speaks for itself.
Gun control advocates are a shrill bunch of people with an agenda. The only reason any of these laws pass is that urban citizens demonize guns, as they think that only policemen and criminals posses arms. Opportunistic policitians take advantage of this to look like they are "doing something".
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
I can see the slashdot article once this takes hold: "Smart Gun modded. Now boots linux. Can change channels on HDTV."
Seriously. I don't like this idea. Why? Because, if I am attacked in my house, and my girlfriend or SO gets the gun to defend herself, the gun will not work because it isn't me. Well, that just defeated the both of us from defending ourselves (or at least one of us). This doesn't help us in any way. Tracking numbers are one thing, guns that don't fire because the owner isn't holding it isn't. The 'baddies' are still going to find ways around this technology, and they will find a way to fire the gun. This only inhibits the law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves properly.
The state should not be responsible for everything out there. It is like we don't want to take care of ourselves. We'd rather enact a law to make it illegal to not put a seatbelt on, than use common sense to think 'if I don't, and I get plowed, I might die'. People are people. No matter how much we 'make illegal', people will find new ways of getting hurt, killed, maimed, etc. Why do we need all this 'protection' from ourselves? Just like this 'Homeland Security Dept'. I don't want to give up my rights for potential security. It is just not worth it.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
When to REALLY worry about your gun? When you notice what's stamped on the inside of the grip is an IPv6 address.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
After all, police officers are fairly likely to get shot by their own weapon also,
I'd almost be willing to say that police officers would be more likely to get shot with their own weapon...simply based on the likliness of the circumstances they could find themselves in.
Joe Civilian generally doesn't wear his gun everywhere he goes. If he owns a gun, it's most likely in a gun cabinet, or a closet in his home. Obstensively, it's there "for protection" in the event his home is broken into. While lots of homes are broken into every day, I'd say it's a fairly low percentage chance that any given home will be broken into. Joe's exposure to a situation he'd be shot by that gun are fairly slim (discounting other possibilities, like suicidal tendencies, or somesuch)
Police officers do have their guns on their person most of the time. They also have a much higher exposure to criminal elements (as is their job) who could, conceivably, take the gun away and fire it at said officer. Simply by their exposure to the situation, it seems more likely for the cop's gun to "need" this sort of protection than for Joe's.
And I agree that this legislation makes very little sense, and is most likely politically motivated rather than truly in the best interests of NJ citizens.
Due to overwealming popularity of sunny days, New Jersey outlaws rain.
How ya like dat?
This reminds me of Dark Star with its 'Smart Bomb'. Actually an AI that if not treated just right will go off into some philisophical reveire.
I can see it now:
User: Fire!
Gun: Are you sure?
User: Yes!
Gun: Hmmm... You know if I fire according to your command I will fail my own internal test of existence. Perhaps not.
Owner: Dammit I thought I specified a Cartesian gun, NOT an existential gun!
Gun: Well, yoo see I downloaded a WinGUN SP4 last night and it has a new existentian module in it that is more interesting than the Cartesian module I was shipped with.
Owner: We, are you going to fire or not? Please not that if you don't fire I will be forced to install RedHat GUN 8.0!!
Gun: Jeez, not THAT.
Gun: While owner is looking into barrel; BLAMMMM.
and a new meaning of fatal system error is established.
Little Known Facts About the Bill of Rights
Does that last bit sound familiar? Compare with Amendment VIII of the US Constitution:And apart from the Protestant-only bit, the US 2nd and 7th Amendments also sounds as if they've been inspired by the English original, of about a century earlier.Have a look here. It's the English Bill of Rights, dated 1698. Some quotes:
As regards Smart Guns and how they work, have a look here for an Australian one. There's a page with a 4.5 Mb streaming video and a 45 Mb hi-res zipped version.
Zoe Brain - Rocket Scientist
Guns dont kill people, bullets do.
Actually it's kinetic energy apply to a small area by a bullet that induces trauma leading to cerebral anoxia that kills people.
A bullet, per se, isn't very likely to kill anyone. You need a gun to get the kinetic energy.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I as always taught that mechanical safeties of any sort are never to be trusted. To that end, I learned the same rules of safe use that all responsible gun owners follow:
It doesn't matter what kind of safety gizmo you put on it. You'll only have two outcomes:
Bear in mind that gun laws don't stop criminals from owning or using guns capricously. Only stiffer penalties and better enforcement of existing laws can do that.
THE GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F18
discounting other possibilities, like suicidal tendencies, or somesuch
Next thing they'll legislate is a gun that gives you a brief interview of 5 minutes or so to analyze your mental state before it will let you fire it! You read it here first, folks!
Murphy was an optimist.
...The FBI today announced that before raiding any houses they will use a new anti-gun device called an EMP pulse that will effectively disable all electronics including the chips that allow so called "Smart Guns" to fire only in the presence of their owner.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
"You'll get my crossbow when you pull it from my cold, dead fingers."
-OR-
"If nail guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have nail guns."
I've often wondered if there's a section called "How to Torture Unsuspecting Privates" in Drill Sergeant School.
Sorry, I just had to chuckle on that one.
It would be such a perfect gay porn title.
"Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
What would Jesus shoot?
... and if he has no sword, let him sell his cloak to buy one.
Lu. 22:37.
the sword was the assault weapon of Jesus day, just as the musket was the assault weapon in the days of the Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment applys to citizens that they can have weapons that the standard soldier may have to defend themselves.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Obviously you haven't hopped a chain link fence with a 3 foot rope attached to your hip and sidearm. That is the last thing you want sticking... on a fence top... with a gun most likely with no safety.
If an officer is disarmed, he probably getting disarmed closer than the rope.
Also, many police forces now have lock holsters... that are exceedingly difficult to disarm a man unless you know how to pull it.
So that idea is marginal at best.
All sorts of fun with things like:
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
An intruder need not be shot for the gun to have served its purpose. I'm sure most home intrusions that are thwarted by a firearm are simply a matter of brandishing the weapon, and the intruder flees. No shots fired, so no dead bad guys.
Also, it stands to reason that the more time you spend around something that can kill you, the more likely you are to be killed by it. If I only drive a car for 1 minute in my entire life, I'm less likely to get into a fatal car accident than someone who drives a car for 8 hours a day, every day of their life. Family members naturally spend more time in the home than intruders do, thus they are more likely to be killed by a firearm kept in that home. Does that mean that if you have a firearm in your home, one of your family members will die? Of course not, but don't expect an anti-gunner to own up to that fact.
This little "statistic" is nothing more than something the anti-gunners like to throw out there. Why they do it, I have no idea...nothing hurts your cause more than throwing out arguments that are easily defeated with simple logic.
The people who say the second ammendment does not authorize private ownership of fireamrs usually base their argument on case law, instead of the precise text in the Bill of Rights.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Aside from the catch-all nature of the 10th ammendment, the entire Bill of Rights concerns the rights of the people. Not states, not the Federal government, the people. Courts may have attempted to substitute various government entities as surrogates for the people, but that's really just wishful thinking that the ammendment isn't really written as we all know it is.
Why would the government need to grant itself the right to bear arms? Why would the states need such authorization? The word "militia" is what it is, not a "state militia" or "municipal militia", just "militia" as in the original revolutionary "bring your own weapon" variety. If the intended benficiary of the 2nd ammendment was the Federal Government or the states, why aren't they mentioned? If the 2nd ammendment grants "the right to keep and bear arms" to someone other than the people, why doesn't it specify who that might be? How is it that ammedments 1 and 3-10 deal with rights of the people, except for ammendment 2, which somehow applies to an unnamed government entity, even though it specifically says the people?
The people who wrote the Constitution had a great deal of experience with an out-of-touch, nonresponsive, non-represtentative government (England). The militia was the organization that would form out of necessity in order to remain as a "free state". The concept was left vague, so that the militia could form and deal with whatever threat might be at hand. Today's Federal Government is too proud to admit that it may someday become the problem that a militia was intended to solve.
Reasonable people might argue that an armed population causes a bigger problem than it solves. Those who say we don't need a militia or privately owned weapons are free to make that argument and they can attempt to carry that argument to its logical conclusion: repeal of the 2nd ammendment. Twisting its interpretation into obscurity merely invites other special interests to use similar techniques on the parts of the Bill of Rights that we still care about.
Democracy does not insure freedom. There is no form of government that insures freedom. People like to point to "the great democracies" of the world as a good thing.
But when it comes down to it, if the Majority decides that the minorities are evil and should be put too death, that's still a functioning democracy.
For true freedom, as an American, it is more important to uphold the Constitution. All of it. Even the parts you don't like, and even if the second ammendment is out of fashion or isn't "popular" this year.
An orginized mob is still a mob. And a majority vote does not make something right or wrong.
Thank you Judge Wopner. All these crazy citizens now know the true error of their ways. Those stupid fools, why can't they understand that the bill of rights applies to individuals except for the second amendment? No matter, the argument is over. Now we have three sentences extracted from three different cases over a span of 80 years. Nevermind the dissenting opinions from those cases.
Know two things there bubba:
1) One thing you will learn in law school is no single issue is ever clear cut, especially with something as controversial as gun control. There is always a way to argue the issue. You should actually practice a little jurisprudence by attempting to craft an argument for the right to bear arms. Personally, the long history of gun ownership in this nation is reason enough. Look up the meaning of Stare decesis et non quieta movere. Gun ownership is and always has been a right since the Republic was founded. Semantics may be used to craft a new argument, but history cannot be changed despite what you may think.
2) It doesn't matter what you believe the law is. The reality is there are 200 million guns in this country, and tens of millions of well armed citizens, not to mention humanity's most power army ever which happens to vote entirely Republican, which disagrees with you. When the revolution comes, you will be among the first to die.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Interesting comment. I'm replying so others might take the time to look at the parent.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Funny :) I said that 'cos quite a few of your comments can be used by both pro and anti gun control people :)
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
Your comment is probably a troll because of your last statement when suddenly makes "Southern Baptist Soccor Moms" the bad people that want gun control and you all but state that their opinion does not matter because "they are in the minority". That attitude is offensive to me, not because I just happen to be Southern Baptist but because its so misinformed even if you are generalizing.
Fact is that most Southern Baptists live in the south and in Texas. The majority of people here are bitterly opposed to gun control. Trust me, I live in Texas, whole campaigns in this area (from either major party) are based on "The other guy is going to take your gun away".
The other problem I have is that your last paragraph makes it a pointless religious argument. You justify your obvious distaste for Christianity by labeling all Christians (Southern Baptists in particular) as gun control freaks.
Religion has nothing to do with this argument. It frustrates me to no end as a religious person how often religion is pointlessly dragged into an argument and set up as a very weak strawman simply to voice one's dislike for religion (particularly Christianity)! "The Christians all support Bush", "The Christians all like Microsoft", "The Christians all support gun control." I've heard all these statements in this forum.
Well I don't use Microsoft, I don't particular care to much for Bush and I'm certainly not a gun control advocate. I am however someone who thinks that everyone's opinion matters. "The soccor mom's" opinion obviously doesn't mean much to you, even though her idea of of freedom is not having to fear being attacked in parking lots by hoodlums with guns. She feels the best way to prevent that is with gun control. I'm not debating wheither or not she's right, but if you feel that her opinion is wrong then its your job to change her mind not say that she's against freedom like she's some kind of nazi faciest!
Most of the people in this country (other than politicians) don't have an agenda, they vote for the people that they feel will make the most difference, and preserve their freedom. They may be misinformed. God-forbid they may disagree with what you believe! But that is what a democracy is all about.
Your post is a troll because your idea of "freedom" is a group of people that agree specifically with you. I don't call that freedom, I call freedom everyone expressing their ideas freely. Obviously the majority of people in New Jersey voted for people that are for gun control, if they don't like it then they will vote for someone else next time and this particular piece of legislation will get overturned. If this law is unconstitutional that someone will take it to court and a judge will decide.
If you want to only be surrounded by people who buy into your idea of freedom then I suggest you buy an island somewhere and start your own country.
The Anti-Blog
Why on earth do you Americans want your guns so badly? Don't very many people get killed each year in gun accidents? I find some of the arguments here very strange, such as the ones equating guns with a kettle of all things? Guns are designed to KILL, not to boil water. I don't understand it at all. 99,9% of gun owners will never have the chance to defend anything with their home arsenals, but a much higher percentage of them will kill or seriously wound their spouses/neighbours/children/friends in gun accidents.
I don't follow American gun laws closely, but the things I do see are usually very strange arguments on both sides of the fence. Arguments such as "people kill people, not guns" or "gun ownership makes one more likely to run off and kill your school class" are both ludicrous IMO. Killing someone without a gun is a lot harder than it is with one, and there is really no statistical proof that gun ownership makes one more prone to violence.
Obviously, though, I would think that the pure numbers of people who are killed with a gun by a family member or aquaintance are much higher than the numbers of people whose lives are saved by being able to defend themselves with a gun.
I think this issue will only ever get resolved by the ability to take a decision on what is the lesser of two evils, not by feelings of security and strength given by a gun or by feelings of fear by not owning one. The only way one would be really able to defend oneself efficiently with a gun is if one practically lived with it, because unless you carry a gun all the time, how will you be able to defend yourself when you're coming out of a bar or a restaurant?
1) Guns need to be reliable. Semi-Automatic weapons already have a problem jamming without the use of crappy biometrics. Not only could this gun be hacked on the black market and resold on the street but the original owner might not be able to shoot it because he screwed up his biometric print somehow.
2) This won't stop children from dying. Children fall down stairs, drink draino and get run over by cars in their own driveway. The best measure you can take to protect your child is to watch them. Not put a lock on everything that is lethal.
I'm sure every one of you has something lethal in your home easily obtained by a child. Why arn't they dead? Probably because you are either watching them, they arn't interested in it or you told them not to touch it in such a manner that they beleive it will truely harm them to do so.
3) Will this prevent from someone using your gun against you? Yes. But if someone has come in range to steal your gun they can just as easily stab you to death.
It's not suprising to see such stupidity coming from the state where pumping your own gas is illegal.
While we are at it Jersey, Let's start banning stairs and replacing them with "safer" elevators. How bout Foam padding on the corner of every building? Better yet - An embargo on all forms of boned meat.
Microsoft GE (Gun Edition)
"Who do you want to shoot today?"
"It wasn't me officer, it was a Code Red virus my gun got from Outlook!"
"Blue screen of DEATH!"
According to the CDC, "Thirty-six children drown in five gallon buckets every year." In 1998, according to the CDC, which you suggested it would be easy to look up (and thanks, I was actually believing your tripe!) "529 children 5 to 14 years old were killed with guns" And that's just 5-14 year-olds. Which is less than 59% of the child ages in question. Do the math, and I'd say about 20 times as many children are killed with guns (either suicide, murder or accident) as are with 5-gallon-buckets.
Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
If guns were outlawed, wouldn't your society be less violent?
:)
Not likely. Just look at Britain for example. They outlaw guns and crime goes up. In the US, you can see the reverse happen. When a city or state allows concealed carry, crime goes down. Seems easy enough. But those are just the surface and there are so many other factors to consider when you compare one country to another that the violence numbers are meaningless on their own. If you can come up with a good way to compare one country to another while managing to take into consideration and properly weigh all the contributing factors, then I'm sure a LOT of organizations would like to hire you
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This only will cause them to be un-reliable and not be assured they will be useable in the time of need.
" please don't beat my head in Mr. criminal, let me find my magic decoder ring "
Or is this the plan? Make people so concerned that they aren't effective that they will stop buying.
There are plenty of time proven mechanical means to do this. We don't have to add electronics to 'identify the user' to muck up this.
Besides, do you think a criminal will really care? They will get around it, and leave the law abiding citizens paying the price, AGAIN.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Accidental gun deaths in US per year: 1000
As percentage of all accidental deaths 1%
Accidental gun deaths have been falling in the US over time. Many accidental deaths are due to hunting, and I also suspect that many "accidental" gun deaths of adults are really hushed-up suicides for insurance reasons.
Gun suicides per year: ~15,000
Gun homicides per year: ~15,000
Guns owned by Americans: 200 million
Gun owners in US: 65 million
Gun hunters in US: 14 million
Most gun deaths are due to people using their own weapons with the clear intent to kill.
Of course, New Jersey won't even let you pump your own gas, so I suppose a "safe gun" law is unsuprising.
Besides, "safe gun" laws work hand-in-hand with "Saturday Night Special" laws to raise gun prices to keep cheap guns out of the hands of poor people (read: racial code word), which the voters fear.
The moment these new gun hit the market, there will be people who "chip" them.
They will use arguement like "I paid for it, so it's mine" - "Information wants to be free" - "There's nothing in the EULA preventing me from doing this" - "Fair use, baby!"
When chips that by-pass the security of a gun become common, we may finally get a real test for the DMCA. And if it plays out like this, be prepaired to be disappointed.
How many people will you be sentencing to death because they can no longer defend themselves? Do you have any idea how many lives guns save every year? Even the most conservative numbers I've seen place it at around 100,000. The largest estimates are over 2 million. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. In the vast majority of cases the gun isn't even fired. Granted, not every situation will result in death. Some may only result in injury, rape, or property loss, but there's no way to tell what the outcome will be until it happens. Better that people have the mean to prevent it from happening. That means both having common sense and having the means to defend yourself.
There are over 40 million guns in the US. Only a very tiny fraction are misused. That tells me something about the responsibility of most "gun nuts". Criminals can arm themselves regardless of what the law says. Parents have been teaching gun safety to their kids for a couple centuries. The problem is not the guns. They are a necessary evil in a world where some people wish to deprive others of life and/or liberty.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
A valiant member of the state police died today when his smart gun failed to discharge in a gun battle with a local street gang. Witnesses stated the officer had the jump on the villains but when his firearm failed to operate, the Evil Doers, using illegally modified firearms, opened fire and killed the officer.
---
No officer worth his weight will be caught "dead" using one of these things.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
Of course, my point still stands. =)
sensors on the pistol grip to identify a user
Sounds like fingerprinting to me. Maybe measuring capacitance? I'm not sure, but I'm hard pressed to think of a sensor in the grip that would not be thrown off by any of the conditions I mentioned. But what the hell do I know, I'm just an engineer. :-)
Your reasoning for the exception makes no sense whatsoever. What does the safety on an officers weapon have to do with them prosecuting anyone else?
Murphy was an optimist.
It seems that England has been the source of a large percentage of the big brother news in the past couple years. Whether it be closed caption monitoring of its citizens or removing their means of self-protection. Granted, the England of today is not the England of King George and yet people continue to hold up some of their crazier notions and say, "well now, isn't this an enlightened society!"
Here's to you summing up how I feel about this whole "But England has gun control, blah blah blah" issue in 10 words.
Thanks!
- RLJ
There is an active movement to have gun manufacturers held responsible for crimes committed using their product. The pockets of the gun manufacturers are not as deep as the tobacco industry, This is why anti-gun organizations are looking to go after these companies in civil court. This is going to hurt the manufacturers far more then the price raises in the guns.
This just in: New Jersey requires all gun owners to be fingerprinted.
Thanks for making me realize this. I don't believe anyone was required to be fingerprinted before if they didn't have a criminal record. Now you will have to be fingerprinted, as well as go to an authorized encoding center, to ensure that your gun is your gun. This is just unbelievable. Can I get a chip planted in my skull next?
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
Let's be honest here it's only a matter of time before these laws become go from state to federal.
Sadly, police will likely be the first victims of this law. The state has much control over them and since it is their law, they will require their subordinates to lead by example. I really do fear the headlines to come...
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
Supporters say the law will help prevent accidental gun deaths and suicides.
Um, and a gun tuned to my handprint, will stop me from shooting myself..how?
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
I think that's what I was saying. There are many factors, and simply banning or allowing guns is not the be-all-end-all solution that either side makes it out to be. Comparisons between different countries and cultures are very difficult to make. I prefer to deal only with the US since that is where I live. Studies done here, along with simple common sense lead me to believe that banning guns is a bad idea for this country. I can't say that applies to every country though.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
On what legitimate basis can you argue that the reverse would be true then? Like when President Clinton claimed the Crime Bill of 1994 banning Assult Weapons was a success by stating crime rates were down (even though the downturn started BEFORE the law was inacted, and LONG before the law had any effect on actual gun sales, that is IF you even believe it had an effect).
I think if you look closely at the statistics of violent crime as it relates to cities and states that inacted conceled carry laws, you WILL find significant downturns in crime. Try to form your own opinion, based on the numbers, or any other actual facts you can find.
Can you say that accidental deaths by handguns is up because we haven't passed enough handgun control laws? Or could it be that the NRA and ROTC classes from the 1950's and earlier have been removed from most high-schools, and a much smaller percentage of people actually know how to deal with guns when the find them?
If your looking into cause and effect relationships when it comes to gun control, I think you will have a lot of information to go over.
But, if you don't want to actually look at the facts and numbers, you can just look at the logic. If people acknoledge the fact that guns do exist in society in the USA, and have for a long long time, you will see removing them from society will be difficult. More difficult than most things, because it was written into the Constitution.
However, also logically, if you educate people on gun safety, you stand a REAL chance at saving lifes. A much better chance than trying to save lifes by passing yet another law, a law that attempts to side-step the Second Ammendment of the Constitution, and goes against the political beliefs of countless people. A law that will be broken, ignored, and hated by otherwise law abiding people.
Circumvention devices will undoubtably be strictly banned but available to organized crime, so for legitimate purposes the whole design is just a weaker alternative to a gun safe.
With this proposed design, private citizens won't be able to buy, sell, or lend guns to each other except with the state's approval, and the state's confiscation list will always be up to date. If safety were the issue, programming the grip would be under the control of the owner.
We need smart judges sitting on the benches, smart kids (read: better public education), smart laws to discourage crime, smart citizens active in community involvement, smart juries, smart police forces on the street, smart investigators (most are all thumbs at new technology), smart journalists who don't sensationalize the stories, and a short leash on overzealous manipulating lawyers bent on going to long stretches of reasoning *cough* chewbacca defense *cough* to get their scum client off the hook.
A smart gun won't even help the sympton, let alone cure the disease.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
No worries, I do the same thing pretty regularly too. I've posted about a dozen times in this thread today. :-) Besides, it's only Slashdot.
I can't imagine they would release a product that was messed up by sweating hands, but there's been dumber things out there.
I'm remembering the whole airbag fiasco, where the government pushed mandatory airbags through before they were ready. What a mess that turned out to be. People would have happily bought the technology when it was ready, look at all the unrequired airbags on the market now. Some cars have 6 or more airbags. (Volvo?)
I'm just showing my enthusiasm for the idea (when the tech is reliable).
When the tech is reliable, I think a lot of gun owners will be interested in it. If it was 100%, I'd pay extra for it on my next weapon. But if it's not, I don't want it. The government should have let market forces dictate the uptake of this new technology instead of legislating it.
Murphy was an optimist.
If folks would just get the facts first, properly researched and with attributes, there might be a lot less time wasted on all this discussion. And there would certainly be no dumb laws passed.
Alas, they don't. But find it here: Gunfacts 3.2
Because 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Of course, this was written in the belief that a strong federal government was unnecessary, and Minutemen were expected to jump from their beds to defend the nation from invasion. Now we only keep it in the Constitution so after a nukular holocaust if the radioactive mutants start meandering across our texas ranch looking for food, we can pick them off from a couple of hundred yards away.
Occurs to me that maybe you've hit on something more fundamental: perhaps once all the really *necessary* behaviour-control laws are passed, most subsequent behaviour-control laws are essentially feel-good bandaids to placate whiners.
By "behaviour-control" I mean basic laws like "don't kill your neighbour". The feel-good rider would be "don't kill your neighbour because he's a [blank]".
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Even ignoring enviromental conditions that would throw it off, how possible would it be for someone to interfere with it? If I were a criminal, I would certainly consider jury-rigging a device that jams the wedding ring RF transmitter, and turns off my victims gun. Hell, the cops would just think he/she didn't act quickly enough...
If all you're after is deterrence, just get a knife. A great, big, "That's not a knife. This is a knife." kind of knife.
No, the ideal weapon for home deterence is a pump action shotgun. Thanks to the media, just about everyone knows the distictive sound of a round being chambered, they also have a good idea of what 00 buck will do to someone at 5 feet. Its a great weapon for home defence. First and foremost, you chamber a round, at this point most of your criminals are going to shit a brick and run. Those dumb enough to stay are going to be in for a rough time of it. With a good shotgun at 10 to 20 feet, you're gonna get around a 1 foot spread pattern, so 'close' is good enough. Also, you're not likely to have any blow through. The pellets will stop in whatever they hit first, unless it is really flimsy, or close enough that the pellets are still all together.
Really there are two problems with firearms and home defence.
1. Properly identifying a target. If you're not sure don't shoot. This is why the police use a flashlight in conjunction with a firearm, it lets you see a target, before you shoot. I would recommend to anyone using a gun, have a flashlight as well. If you are using a hand gun, put the light in your off-hand. If its a rifle, attach the flashlight to the rifle, that way you light something up, and then can make a proper decsion on whether to shoot or not.
2. Not firing when you should. This would probably help out with those people that get shot by their own guns. If you find a criminal in your house, shoot. Don't think about it, once you identify them as not being a friendly, shoot, shoot again, put a third bullet in them, and then ask them who they are. And if they make any sort of movements put a few more rounds in them, they are in your house trying to rob or kill you, or worse. There is nothing wrong morally, or legally in defending your home and family.
While I agree that a knife can be a good weapon, and it does have that whole large phalic intimidation factor, a gun gives you a range advantage. This is pretty much the whole advantage to having a gun, a good handgun will give you up to 50 meters of effective range, plenty in a house. Up close, it only has a slight speed advantage, and even then, its so directional that it can be a problem. A slashing knife, in comparison, covers a good arc, higer probability of a hit. And unless you are good with one you shouldn't be stabbing, if you're not trained with a knife, stabbing amounts to asking the person to take the knife away from you.
Lastly, if you are going to have a gun, you should at least be responsible about it. Take the time to learn to use the weapon, go out shooting with it, its fun and a good way to learn to use and respect it. On the whole, I do belive in gun ownership, but I also belive that there should be some sort of licensing process for the gun owners. Make it so that any person, who has not been convicted of a felony, can carry a loaded and conceled weapon, provided that they have been though a gun training class, and passed a written and practical test (kinda like a drivers license.)
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Actually, I was waiting for someone to say that. Yes, motive should be somewhat of a factor. But, how much? Has it not gone too far already?
I'll give you the "accidental" as a lighter crime than "intentional." But I think that's where I would have to part ways with you. If you intentionally kill someone, I don't think it should matter if it was racially motivated, in the act of a robbery, if it was done with a baseball bat, a knife or a gun.
I see very little gray area here. Say, the most arguable case would be self defense. Then, it would be intentional, yet I'm not even willing to stretch this very far. If someone is shooting at you, or has a knife to your throat, that's self defense. If you have been abused for years, and one day you suddenly decide to come home and shoot your husband, that's total bullshit, because you were NOT required to defend yourself, you should have just LEFT. (Now, if you leave, and he hunts you down, and THEN has a knife to your throat, we would be back to self defense).
The sentence should fit the severity of the crime and not all murders are an identical event.
I think the real danger is the opposite. Not every crime should get a completely different punishment, because we WANT to see them as different. Why should the punishment be different in a case where a guy shoots a store clerk to death in a robbery compared to some redneck hanging a someone he disagrees with in the woods? Totally different motivations, yet, they are both intentional murders. They both should get life in prison (or death).
The death penalty is never acceptable
I'm not even going to go there... You've made up your mind already, and aren't willing to accept a different point of view on this issue, no matter HOW wrong you are.
I've seen, as well owned myself, VCRs that crashed...typically, a VCR, and many other consumer electronics for that matter, will cycle off and then restart in most "crash" situations...but some malfunctions/glitches will actually lock-up the unit - often unplugging it for 15 seconds or so will clear things up, but not always...anyways, yes such devices can and do malfunction...another reason not to trust "smart gun" technology.
Then why bother with the legislation in the first place?
Murphy was an optimist.
If you want to get around this law, move out of New Jersey.
In most cases, we in the state of Pennsylvania will welcome you with open arms. If you really want to _use_ your handgun, I personally suggest you move into war-torn Philadelphia.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
So you are advocating giving up yet ANOTHER right for a flase sense of security?
No, thanks. I'll keep my rights. ALL of them.
Murphy was an optimist.
"Anyone have to reboot their car lately? Didn't think so."
No, because often when a computer device malfunctions, the car simply won't start...or if running "die", requiring the person to stop for service - doesn't happen often, but happens.
More often, if an on-board computer malfunctions, the emissions and fuel efficiently will substantially degrade, but the car will continue to operate.
Computer crash could soon really earn its name, if drive-by-wire ever gains wide acceptance...people often put more trust in computers than they should...they're only as good as the engineers, programmers, etc who make and program them.
Have you guys watched Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine movie? (the movie is not so much about guns as about fear IMO, but it's still an interesting watch)
The US is the country with the most death by firearms and the most firearms per inhabitant.
Doesn't seem like firearms make for a safer country.
As for protecting your freedom, how does it protect you against DMCA and all the freedom restrictions of the homeland security laws/bills/acts?
Doesn't seem like firearms make for a country with more freedom either.
I feel safer when travelling/living in Canada or in Europe than when travelling/living in the US.
I believe that "the point" here is to prevent children from getting their hands on guns, which I would consider a noble cause.
All those prohibitions justified as being "for the good of the children" are pretty damn annoying to the millions that don't have children by choice and yet find their freedoms as adults restricted by inappropriately broad legislation.
If you have children, you have entered into a position where additional responsibilities apply to you. One of those might well be additional constraints on firearms, at least in terms of their accessibility. But please don't try to transfer your responsibilities onto others and thereby limit their freedoms as well.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Don't Kill, it's a crime.
Don't Steal, it's a crime.
But, without expanding those into 800 volumes of text, lawyers and politicians wouldn't have much else to do.
I have to call bullshit on this, because you're wrong.
According to the CDC, "Thirty-six children drown in five gallon buckets every year." In 1998, according to the CDC, (and thanks, I was actually believing your tripe!) "529 children 5 to 14 years old were killed with guns" And that's just 5-14 year-olds. Which is less than 59% of the child ages in question. Do the math, and I'd say about 20 times as many children are killed with guns (either suicide, murder or accident) as are with 5-gallon-buckets.
Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
The US Dept. of Justice ... ruled that the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right.
The Justice Department does not rule in legal cases. Ashcroft, probably the most right-wing extremist ever to hold the position of Attorney General (the same guy who paid $8,000 of your tax dollars to buy a dress to cover the breasts of a statue) made that claim, reversing the position held by the Justice Department for the last 40 years. Keep in mind that he is the same one that thought he could lock people away without access to attorneys and without charging them with crimes. The courts straightened him out on that one and I expect that they will correct him about this, too.
I'd like to see it hit the shelves too, but I'd prefer the choice to buy it or not stayed in my hands, not the governments claws.
Murphy was an optimist.
Do you really like pumping your own gas? Go to another state and be my guest. Didn't you notice that in the surrounding states (DE, PA, NY), all of which have self-serve, gas prices are higher, many times MUCH higher???
Besides, it keeps unemployment down. You can't find a job? You can always pump gas.
The unsig!
Only the prosecution was there. That's why they say "not within judicial notice" in the decision:
LOL! That's not what "judicial notice" means. If something is given "judicial notice", it means that the courts accept it as factual. For instance, radar speed measuring guns have received "judicial notice" in most states. This means that the courts simply accept as fact the speed shown -- unless the defendant can show that the gun was not calibrated, that it was improperly used, etc. The prosecution does not have to explain radar theory to the judge every time a speeding trial is held.
It's NOT a "settled issue," like the anti-rights people like to claim.
Let's cut the name calling ("anti-rights"). I own a rifle, shotgun, and two handguns, so don't try to paint me as some kind of anti-gun nut. That I disagree with your preferred interpretation of the Second Amendment does not mean that I am "anti-rights." In fact, I am horrified at the curtailment of rights since 9/11 and the way that Bush and the Justice Department are using 9/11 as a way to take away our rights against unreasonable search and siezure. I am appalled at the way that they are incarcerating people without charging them with crimes and without giving them access to legal counsel. So please don't tell me that I am "anti-rights."
If the issue is not settled, why do these laws get passed and the NRA just whines? You would think that they would fight these laws in the Supreme Court if the laws were unconstitutional, yet they typically do not.
Hmmm... maybe all that's needed is a third law:
;)
Don't lie, it's a crime.
That should get rid of all the lawyers and politicians
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Also, of course, the law won't eliminate New Jersey's share of the ~100 million guns in the US - it will just make it a bit harder for people to legally get new ones, mainly because it will make things much more difficult for gun stores to operate profitably selling the one or two brands of state-approved guns, but that will just push more business to the black market. If the law does try to address ownership of existing guns, it's also a "taking" under the Seventh Amendment, which therefore requires compensation.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
How long after all guns have chips in them will it be that the chips have receivers in them, and the police have transmitters to deactivate them, or make them start beeping so they can be found?
I'm making no speculation as to why the police might want to do such things...
This is not my sandwich.
When you are not home, your dog is the most valuable thing still in the house. What is it protecting? I don't give a shit about my stereo, that's what I buy insurance for. Home defense is all about protecting yourself and your family.
Criminal can't steal dog from you and use it against you, as they can with a gun
Ever since Bogart's "everybody keeps handing me guns" scene, Hollywood has made it seem like the easiest thing in the world to disarm a gun owner and point the gun back at them. However, this doesn't happen often in real life. Most criminals are not brave and talented enough to grab your gun from you, and wouldn't be confronting you anyway unless they were already armed themselves.
Dogs cannot be used to commit suicide
Sure they can. Take Robert Falcon Scott, for example. Okay, it takes a little more effort, but it's do-able.
A dog cannot be (easily) used to attack a loved one in a fit of irrational rage
What about attacking "loved one" in a fit of perfectly rational rage? Many of the "gun deaths in the home" that anti-gun folk like to cite are really just abused wives who finally shoot the bastard that they should have killed years earlier. If somebody really is "in a fit of irrational rage", then a desk lamp or a kitchen tool becomes a very effective murder weapon. Getting rid of guns will not stop somebody who is enraged enough to kill from killing.
In the dark, a dog can tell an intruder from a member of the household more easily than you can - hence fewer accidental shootings
Fido probably can not tell an intruder from a distant relative who is visiting, though, so you better be home when they arrive.
In the act of defending against an intruder, you don't have to reload a dog
You don't have to reload your gun either. Let's say you have a six-shooter, and seven criminals break into your home (very unlikely). You brandish your gun, and they do not run away (also very unlikely). You shoot one of them, center mass, and the rest of them still don't run away... okay, we've now strayed beyond the reamls of even bad action movies into pure speculation. The chance of you ever needing to reload in a home defense situation is zero, unless you are part of a small religious-nut cult, defending against an overzealous Attorney General's BATF troopers, in which case your german shepard would be of little help.
Dogs can be fun to have around even if you don't need protection - no gun ever will greet you when you come home and lick your face
No argument there.
On the other side of the ledger...
A gun will not piss on your carpet.
A gun will not run out into traffic if you leave the gate open.
A gun will not unexpectedly attack neighborhood children, resulting in lawsuits against you.
A gun will not terrorize your cat.
A gun will not need $3000 sugery for hip displacia, nor will it need herion rubbed into its eyes by a vet after swallowing the chicken bones that were in your trash.
A gun will not break your heart when it dies after 10-15 years of being your most loyal friend.
To summraize, all of the arguments against getting a gun can apply equally to the arguments against getting a big, territorial dog. A "guard dog" is far more likely to hurt or kill a loved one or an innocent child than it is a burglar. Likewise, dogs, like guns, are very effective deterrents to crime even when not used to attack, becuase the sight of either a big doberman or a remmington shotgun are equally likely to make an intruder crap themselves and run.
I say get both. In fact, get a black labrador and a shotgun. Then not only are you doubly protected at home, but you can take your dog bird hunting.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Aren't you the guy whose Mac laptop was stolen via Ebay? Something to do with a forged certified check, if I recall correctly...
I'm curious... What's the latest update on that?
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
No sir. The point of this law is simply to give the weapon manufacturers another lease on their commercial lives creating yet another 200 million devices with which the US citizenry can kill each other. Just pure madness!
The Communist scare was very real. There were communists in the US in the 1950's who were planning a revolution, and they had some of the supplies they needed to pull it off. I've met some of the former participants.
I don't know anyone planning such a revolution today, but considering the population of the country I belive there are several groups planning a revolution. They are all crack pots, and will not gather enough support to pull it off, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist. While the National Gaurd will stop them quickly once we realise what is going on if/when they attack, if you are (by accident or design) one of the first targets that doesn't change a thing for you.
Since this topic was about handguns, I was thinking of a handgun slam-fire scenario. I honestly can't think of one right off hand. You? You seem more knowledgeable about these things than I. However, I did read about a Glock slam-firing once, but I chalked that up to "one of those things you read on the Internet." Given the design, I really cannot see how that could happen.
You're right, it was about handguns... and I can't think of any situation where a handgun has slam-fired, given the usual design of a handgun, it seems unlikely.
10th Mountain Div., huh?
Indeed! I was assigned to 10th Target Acquisition Detachment for three years. Fscking cold up there!
It was fun, though. Every now and then I even miss it.
If not a field grade Article 15, he got off light.
I'm positive it was field grade.
Among other training incidents... I saw someone fire a tracer into the ground about 10 feet in front of them... the bullet ricochets, and spins up, tracer still lit, and the bottom-spin motion carries it back to the firing line, where it drops down about 10 feet from me.
I started calling a cease fire, and one of the sergeants yanks this guy out of the foxhole.
At least it didn't hit anyone... would have caused a nasty flesh wound.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
In 1996, there were only 21 accidental firearm deaths for children under age 15. Contrast this with 40 kids under age five that drowned in buckets and 80 that drowned in tubs (i.e. parents could have prevented six (6) times as many drowning deaths as they could firearm deaths).
Centers for Disease Control, 1999
The key work here may be "accidental". Kids who drown are generally 'accidental'. And only 'accidental' gun deaths should be compared to that. If on the other hand, the killing is on purpose, then it hardly matters what was used. It was murder, and a small child such as that has hardly the strenght to resist any mortal method, be it drowning, knives, guns, or whatever.
Please compare apples to apples.
Lucky bastard! Even more so if it was full auto. If so, hope your friend has Class III paperwork on it. How many rounds in that drum mag?
:) I've often wondered if there's a section called "How to Torture Unsuspecting Privates" in Drill Sergeant School. I swear, one of my drill sergeants could say it in one word - DROPSONBEATCHAFACE!
Yeah, it was full auto, and he's got all his Class III paperwork on it. The drum mag holds 50 rounds, and it takes about 10 seconds to empty it.
Drill sergeants don't like to make many distinctions, now do they?
Did you do the drill first day of BT where you had to line up all of your bags? They make you line 'em up, march away from them, and then do an about face... if it looks bad, you do pushups.
Well, about 6 weeks into basic, we see a new battery come in, and watch them line up the bags... turns out, as they were marching away, the drill sergeants were kicking their gear around making it look bad... did that to them a couple of times.
So, at the end of basic we asked our drill sergeant about it... well, it turns out that they always make the new guys do it three times, and that sometimes on the third try, they have to go and line up their gear for them!
Amazing what they do.
I'm not on active duty. [sigh] I was but a Weekend Warrior, a No-Go, one of the Nasty Guard.
Nothing wrong with the guard.
My MOS was 95B (Of the Troops, and For the Troops . . . riiiight! Truth is, MPs now are basically One-One Boogaloo, what with the government giving so many former military jobs to civilians. Don't get me started.)
I won't... I understand completely. We had some MPs and some Federal Police at Ft. Drum.
You seem to have gotten out after eight years, how come?
It's a long story that I've been itching to tell to someone who knows how the system works...
Well, I spent 4 years on active duty... got out and went to IRR. Meanwhile, the VA approved 20% service-connected disability. So I stayed on IRR instead of choosing a reserve unit. September 11th happens, and I get a letter telling me to report to MEPS a couple days after the president says he's going to activate 35,000 IRR soldiers.
I go to MEPS and they can't process me due to some paperwork problems. Meanwhile, it's getting on a year to my reserve ETS, and my physical exam is out of date. So they schedule me for a physical, and my career manager is getting on me to reenlist, and also tells me that I can go to PLDC whenever I choose, and am guaranteed promotion to E-5.
So I say, fine... they schedule my physical, and my paperwork gets sent in... well, since I have a VA disability rating, my paperwork goes to the friggin' U.S. Surgeon General's office for his staff (or himself) to look at. Meanwhile, my ETS date comes up.
My career manager asks if I intend to reenlist. I say "yes." He says he'll need me to extend so that my papers can be processed. I get my extension paperwork ON my ETS date, then I have to locate an officer to administer the oath.
It takes about a week to do that, and on the same day I get the papers signed, I get in the mail my certificate of honorable discharge and discharge orders. I call up my career manager, and he's out sick. Left voice mail and haven't heard back.
So, I think the Army made up their mind on what to do with me.
And refresh my memory as to what 13F is - Bradley crewman? TOW gunner?
Field Artillery Fire Support Specialist... also known as a Forward Observer.
The eyes of the artillery, though mostly I did target processing for FA radar.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Slipgun: Since the UK 'got rid of' handguns in 1996/7, violent crime rate has gone up by about 40%, and handgun crime has doubled.
UK handgun legislation was designed to tackle ad-hoc killing sprees.
Total number of killing sprees involving guns in the UK since handgun law passed: ZERO
The legislation you're talking about was NEVER designed to, nor did it claim to, deal with day-to-day gun usage such as organised crime (drugs gangs, bank robberies etc). It was designed to counteract the problem of mentally unstable people suddenly getting hold of guns and going on a killing spree. This used to be a problem in schools and shopping centres.
Since the handgun legislation, there have been several attempted killing sprees using machettes and swords. In each case the perp did not manage to kill more than one person and in each case the perp was quickly and easily brought down by the UK's existing heavily armed response units. UK police don't carry handguns; when armed, they usually carry assault rifles and SMGs. The UK police's weapon of choice is traditionally the P90 and the MP5. No point in pissing about with toy .45s like their US amateur counterparts. Few parts of UK are more than a few minutes from an armed response unit and in high crime areas and ports, firearms are routinely secured in police cars. In sensitive areas such as airports you will see British police walking around with P90 submachine guns strapped to their waists.
I speak as a fan of target pistol shooting, I've owned and used air pistols all my life, I have a perfectly legal high velocity air pistol in my house and a target range in my back garden. I support the anti-spree handgun legislation.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
Mr. Anonymous Coward has 'NRA memeber' in his profile. That's how the other NRA members know to contact him.
Your whole supposition is nothing more than that, and based on no fact at all. Much more likely is that I and many others are concerned about our *personal* safety and that of our loved ones. *That* will always garner more attention than the latest Linux kernal or MS EULA.
"One critic says 'No technology is foolproof--anyone who has a computer knows how many times it crashes.'"
Encryption is not fool proof. Username/Password concepts are not fool proof. We should just have no passwords and no security implemented at all, because any security expert here worth a grain of salt will tell you that if someone wants it bad enough, they're going to get it.
Security is only there to dissuade them from going after it.
Security through Obscurity is great, WHEN COMBINED WITH EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE SECURITY TECHNOLOGY ALSO.
Sorry, rant mode on, damn holidays. =)
This idea is no different from palladium or DRM. Both have the potential to negatively affect your ability to exercise a right. In the case of palladium/DRM, the right is the first amendment, and smart guns infringe upon the second.
The only way this parallel fails is that no state legislature is considering forcing you to use palladium.
Laptop stolen via eBay -- nope, did buy this one there, though.
... Vice Lords and (Black) Gangster Disciples are biggies ... the crack cases the feds decided to sweep up. The drugs are just a business, the violence pretty routinely stupid. In fact half the point seemed to be drug distribution, esp. crack of course. As you would know, a lot of the violence has to do with people trying to rob or edge out each other.
:)
Stupid cop -- no, I wouldn't call the cop stupid even if he or she did blow it -- they're a victim of murder.
Yeah, I agree re gangs. I got tired of white middle-class types attributing all of the world's ills to gangs and, ahem, thought maybe you were one of those. Amusing is the number of these people who drive downtown to score their coke there. Also, for many of these critics a gang is three black kids standing together on the sidewalk; "gang" is both a probleam and a proxy for racism. So sorry if I reacted too strong.
I worked in Chicago for a couple of years, where some suburban parents wouldn't let their kids go on field trips to the downtown Shedd Aquarium a few blocks from my office because they might get shot in a drive-by (true story!). For an appeals court, I reviewed drug cases ad nauseum
One upbeat thing is that it appears easier to break up gangs than the Mafia.
In Boston, by contrast, the gang threat was more imagined, the affiliations are much looser. The word "gangs" totally inflames some people, though, out of proportion to what's going on. And of course god forbid we talk about what causes crime, just lock them all up. It gets depressing, the federal penalties are pretty intense and, if it hasn't changed, are 100x severe for crack v. equivalent weight of cocaine. A paperclip's weight of crack, with intent to distribute (a "dealer"), could draw 5 years.
Fortunately everyone will come out of prison good citizens. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)
If we are relying on "Guns" to be smart, how well does that speak about people?
First you make the gun fire only in the hands of those it trusts.
Then you control who the guns trust.
Then you control the people.
When they make my gun only fire if I'm allow to fire my gun, I will not be able to fire a gun.
End of story.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Wow, buddy. Care to cite *YOUR* source?
You certainly seem a little worked up considering all I was doing was answering a reference question. Got some kind of itch up your ass, or what?
You've got nothing to back up your thoughts, and you know it. You call my reference asinine, almost as if I'm the American Bar Association, and the Journal all rolled into one. I've got actual facts behind me, and you've got drool streaming down your chin as you pound away at the keyboard. Guess how much that means your thoughts affect me?
Seriously, you're a maladjusted zealot. Not to mention you see the world as black and white. It's shades of grey, friend. Please seek help as soon as possible.
I don't agree. When it can be shown that one even did not effect the outcome of the other it does not prove that all events do not effect the outcome of others. (That blue car was fast, blue cars must be fast!)
In some cases, it is pretty clear that crime rates take a significant dip, and stay down, in relation to some legislation.
Specifically, in this case I'd say that while the Crime Bill of 1994 can't be conclusively shown to have any impact (crime was turning down before it went into effect, and the bans were not clear). However, there are cases where "concealed carry" laws passed in cities and states, and crime has taken a significant downturn, and stayed down. (this makes sense, the bad guys don't know which of the good guys have guns, so the bad guys have less control and less power).
So I don't agree with your fundamental conclusion to rule out legislations impact on crime rates. I remember once seeing a 100 year "per capita" graph of violent gun crimes, and there did appear to be a correlation between the dates that significant legislation passed and crime rates (I really wish I knew where it was now!). But, I would only consider "per capita" when comparing historic data because of the population growth factors, and this specific graph showed a sharp UPTURN in violent gun related crimes when the US Government attempted to limit legal access to guns in some way. Given the number of points this occurred, it would have been statistically extremely unlikely that there was not a correlation. (this makes sense, the good guys turn in their guns, the bad guys keep theirs, the bad guys now have more power).
Anyone have some unbiased statistics on on shooting deaths from various countries?
False, they are not nearly as effective as you might hope, or all law enforcement officers would trade in their sidearms for "Less than lethal" tasers.
All of the concealed carry permit holders I know also carry a pocketknife, MACE (pepper spray), and a cell phone.
The taser fires a barbed projectile with wires attached. All of the same trajectory/windspeed issues, plus worries about a dead battery. The only issue avoided is the problem of "overpenetration" and innocent bystanders. The problem is, they are called "less than lethal" devices for a reason.Any chemical/electrical/restraint/incapacitation device that will work reliably against an enraged knife-wielding 240-lb weightlifiting meth-head is going to have a high probality of killing a child or the elderly. Any device that "doesn't have a chance in heck" of killing a child, is going to be less than fully effective against the aformentioned enraged meth addict who is singlemindly trying his best to gut you while you attempt to subdue him with your little toy taser.
Who says we are not? However, firearms are simple mechanical devices based on centuries old technology. That level of reliability and effectiveness is difficult to beat when you are being charged by a big heavy adult male criminal wielding a big sharp knife (even older technology).I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Thank you for correcting me. You learn something better each day.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
If you seek to deny me what I cleary see as my right, I feel no pain at calling you "anti-rights."
Just because you believe something to be your "right" does not make it so. Consider the possiblity that you might simply be wrong.
Image a dozen "Beltway Snipers," all across the country, each going after those they perceive as too liberal. NOT a pretty picture.
But it would really illustrate the need for gun control legislation.
Frankly, I'd *like* to agree with you. I really would. My stuff isn't worth a life. Even the life of someone who breaks into my home to steal it while I sleep.
But I live in Florida. Florida has this nifty law they call 10-20-Life. Commit a crime with a gun, you get a mandatory sentence of 10 years. Doesn't matter what the crime is. Draw that weapon for any reason during the commission of a crime, and you get a mandatory sentence of 20 years. Fire that weapon (doesn't matter if you hit anything or hurt anyone with it or not) and you get a mandatory life sentence.
Someone that breaks into my house with a gun... I'm not willing to take the chance that they will say "okay, 10 years I can handle, but not 20, and not a life sentence" when they realize they're going to leave the crime scene with a witness there.
Quite frankly, people that break into an occupied dwelling are not nice people. And they don't think like nice people think.
If I discover someone in my living room stealing my dvd player, if they simply run for the door with it, they'll get away clean. I'll reach for a phone to call the police when I see them running, not for a weapon. But if they drop the dvd player and reach for their pants, I'm going to assume they are going for a weapon. And there's only one sane response there.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
I'm sorry if I came across as being judgmental. I don't understand the hype of both sides in this issue. I come from a country originally- South Africa- that had gun laws similar to those in the states and for most of my life there I can remember perhaps one incident of someone saving life and property with a gun, but I do remember at least two incidents of family members killing one another with guns, numerous gun related accidents and few burglaries where a gun was ever used. It just seemed that guns were more of a pain that anything else. YMMV.
The Swiss are fairly liberal about their gun laws. Indeed IIRC everone is REQUIRED to have a gun in the house. Gun deaths there are comparable to those in the rest of Europe.
Yes, but they are given military weapons with sealed tins of ammunition - NOT something which you can take out and show off/play with, not something children can open easily, not some to use for sport or hunting.
It's hard to draw a valid comparison to the US for gun deaths because of that.
-- Jim
LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
"Only a very tiny fraction of them are misused."
:-)
If so, why do you need so many?
"And in the vast majority of those cases, the gun isn't even fired."
So what you are saying is that a real gun isn't a requirement, and a realistic looking metal water pistol would have been as effective. Or use a knife or club. Buy some throwing knives and have fun
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Cowards? Being afraid does not make you a coward. If you are not afraid in a gunfight, then you are dumber than I thought. Courage is not the absence of fear... it's doing your duty DESPITE that fear.
In the heat of battle, things happen in split seconds. You clearly have never been there, and probably never will be, so I will repeat my sincere advice to STFU. 49 rounds seems excessive; but recall that there were 4 officers. Most officer-involved shooting incidents result in multiple rounds fired. The vast majority of officers interviewed after an incident CANNOT accurately tell you how many rounds they fired... they are often way off. Some reload and never remember doing so... many don't remember hearing the shots. Do some reading before you shoot your mouth off; I would recommend something in the field of Post-Critical Incident Stress Debriefing.
"The cops shot an unarmed man."
Yes... they did, and it was a terrible tragedy. However, they did NOT KNOW he was unarmed. What about a person with a toy gun? He's also "unarmed." You don't have to actually be armed, you just have to give a REASONABLE person the impression that you might be. Reference the supreme court case Terry Vs Ohio, reasonable suspicion is all you need to stop and frisk. There may have been a language barrier (not the police officers' fault), but he ran from them when challenged, ignored orders to stop, and finally holed up in a doorway, going for an object in his pocket.
What would you have done? Your adrenaline is pumping from a foot chase, the person you suspect may be armed suddenely turns on you, going for his pocket... Would you stop, fumble for a flashlight in your pocket, trying to find the switch, while faced with a person you think is going for a gun?
You are clearly uneducated, and inclined to believe that four officers got together to murder an innnocent, unarmed man. Fine... believe what you will. You, however, are an armchair QB, talking completely out of your ass. Go pick up a weapon and defend other people, get yourself into a shooting situation, and then get second-guessed by a bunch of ignorant loudmouths like yourself. Somehow, I doubt you would have empathy even then...
You speak with the moral condemnation and certainty that only total ignorance can provide; must be bliss...
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
If so, why do you need so many?
:-)
Simple. Because you never know who the victim of the misuse will be, and there's a whole lot of Americans.
So what you are saying is that a real gun isn't a requirement, and a realistic looking metal water pistol would have been as effective. Or use a knife or club. Buy some throwing knives and have fun
Not at all. The gun isn't there for threat alone. That is usually enough, but sometimes a warning shot is necessary, and if even that isn't enough of a deterrant, then you may have to shoot your attacker. Knives and clubs are nearly as effective as a gun. They aren't a consideration.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Ok, sure. You get a knife and I'll get a gun. Then we can see which is more effective :) I think your attempt at wit explains your intellectual level quite well.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Vague claim with no attribution.
and only recently supressed under mis-application of a what was a bad ruling to begin with
In what legal sense was it a "bad ruling"? Perhaps you just meant it was a ruling with which you disagreed.
the Fifth Circuit Court, under which I fall, has ruled it a right
I'll play your game: That was a "bad ruling."
but certainly DID note it as a right in Dred Scott.
Let's alert the readers to this decision, which you hold in such reverence. The Dred Scott case was one in which the court decided, much to the relief of slaveowners everywhere, that "negroes" were not U.S. citizens. In the decision, Chief Justice Taney wrote:
What Chief Justice Taney was attempting to visit upon the reader was the horrors of granting blacks citizenship. But note that he said "persons of the negro race", not "all persons of the negro race." So even if one were to consider this reference to be a valid one, it still does not show that the Supreme Court felt that each and every individual citizen had a right to keep and bear arms.
Fortunately, Dred Scott was overruled by constitutional amendment after the war. Yet even if it were still good law, it was not a Second Amendment case; moreover, the reference was obiter dictum (an opinion voiced by a judge that has only incidental bearing on the case in question and is therefore not binding), not law. It is an irrelevancy.
Why do you feel that this decision denying "negroes" U.S. citizenship is not an example of a "bad ruling"?
Aside: Why do your postings, giving few specific quotes & citations, get modded up as "informative?"
Sounds like a problem with your reading comprehension, not my postings.
And then I get more steamed when someone throws out wild-assed statements like yours that have no value at all, because the numbers mean only what some group wants them to mean.
Let's try to get this through your head. Sit down, and read this slowly. Ready?
These are not my numbers.
I'm not sure how to make this any more clear for you. I'm citing a reference. Not my statement, doesn't reflect my beliefs. You really *can't* seem to get your head around this. I'm not sure why, I think it's a fairly simple concept.
You apparently would rather offer your wife up for rape instead of having a strong defense against it. Do you believe that makes you a bad person?
Seriously, what are you talking about? Do you have any idea? If you do, please, share it with the rest of the group... so, guns kill more people you know than strange intruders. What does this have to do with my wife? Or me?
Here's a hint: NOTHING
Try to get the hint. TRY to absorb what I'm saying before you come back and make an ass of yourself. I'm begging you.
Arguements like the ones you make are *worthless*. They hurt your cause. You illustrate yourself to be a nut. Why in the world do you want to hurt your own cause?
I never made a claim about anything.
Sure you did. You made a claim that the statistics put forth by the groups that I liked to are untrue. If you don't think that's making a claim, I just can't help you. You 'defended' your 'claim' with a list of eight 'reasons' (yes, I really need to put all those words in quotes) of why they might not be true.
This is a simple area. It's not confusing. Guns, kept in the home, kill more people you *know* than those you *don't*. It's simple statistics. That's what happened in the past. How you interpret these numbers are up to you. The only reasonable arguements I've heard about these statistics are about the ratio. Maybe it's 48:1. Maybe 23:1. Maybe 30:1. I've heard 'em all.
NOBODY that I can find seriously claims it to be less than that. There are *no* serious sources that claim this statement is untrue. Who gives a rats ass if it's 30:1, 50:1, 2:1 or any other ratio of X:1 where X>1? It's still a true statement!
So what the hell? Seriously, I'll state it again in the hopes that you get it. Here's how it went:
1) Someone said: Guns kept in the home are more likely to kill someone you know than a random, armed intruder.
2) Someone else said: Care to cite a source?
3) I cited a source.
4) You did some weird shit. Came up with a list of reasons why I was wrong, even though I wasn't actually saying anything. Backed it up with nothing, and then tell me I want my wife to be raped, because I did a google search.
Christ! GET YOURSELF LOOKED AT!
*sigh*
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Again, this does not state that the right to bear arms is an individual right. It simply puts forth the argument that the Second Amendment has no bearing on the Miller case because there is no purpose for such a weapon as part of a well-regulated militia.
Back to Dred Scott. I use it because I am *not* advocating the anti-black position; far from that, it shows the horrors of what blacks went through!
But the reference to the "right to bear arms" was an obiter dictum one which, be definition, has no bearing on the law. It was probably not as carefully thought out and debated among the Justices because it was simply a passing remark in the decision, not one deciding the scope of the Second Amendment. And, as I pointed out, even were one to disect the ruling, they court said "persons of the negro race", not "all persons of the negro race." This still does not show that the Supreme Court felt that each and every individual citizen had a right to keep and bear arms. Regardless, this obiter dictum is irrelevent and does not have the force of law.
You seem to insinuate that I am one of those BASTARDS who want to keep blacks down by asking Why do you feel that this decision denying "negroes" U.S. citizenship is not an example of a "bad ruling"? Now, at that I take some insult.
Sorry that you take insult, but many consider the Dred Scott ruling to be a low point in the history of our Supreme Court. It was one in which the Justices attempted to support their ruling by scaring white people about the threat that free blacks would pose to them. Dredging up dicta from that passage to support any position is in questionable taste at the very least.
Got free speech at an airport? Where next will you lose it?
That's a subject that I am very concerned about. And look at the unwarranted searches that one goes through now in modern life. Bags are searched at airports, students pass through metal detectors and their backpacks are searched, police randomly stop people with no probable cause just to see if they are drunk. It's frankly terrifying.
You cite UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) in which the Court wrote:
You will note that the highlighted section refers to "a class of persons", rather than "all persons." I think that is an important distinction. Additional words were used to express the thought more precisely.
And if one were to interpret the Second Amendment as an individual right, then laws which deny guns to convicted felons would be unconstitutional. There are many able-bodied men with felony records that are perfectly capable of serving in a militia. But we have decided, as a society, that such persons pose an undue risk to society.
All in all, the subject can consume a great deal of time and generate a great deal of passion, no?
Yes it can and I hope that you can forgive me for not answering each of your points in depth.
As an aside, although I strongly disagree with you, I have not marked you as a "foe". That's something I reserve for those who are abusive, stupid, and illogical.
Why thank you.
Freud was quite intellectual wasn't he? He had insight into the human condition that revolutionized modern psychology.
However, I don't think he ever determined what makes someone think that a gun kills someone deader than a cut throat or bashed temple does.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Freud did a good deal for psychology, but he was wrong on a lot of things too. That's beside the point. Bullets move a lot faster than you do. They don't kill you any deader than a knife would, and often they do less damage than a knife would. The issue is ease of use and effectiveness in a real situation. A knife requires that you close with the attacker. You have to get into grappling range with him. That's a bad idea to begin with. A Knife also requires more physical prowess and skill than a gun does. That puts many people at a distinct disadvantage. If I'm attacked, I really don't care if the guy weighs twice as much as me and can benchpress a Buick. If I have a gun, things odds are a hell of a lot better for me than if I don't have one.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I'll try to keep your limitations in mind in my next post to slashdot. After all, when posting in a free form, free thought, rapid pace, open forum, we should always consider grammar, formatting, and a long drawn out editing structure first... NOT.
Please. I think striving to communicate clearly is a realistic goal.