Slashdot Mirror
Blocking Gun Laws With Patents
New submitter robkeeney writes "Legislators in several states are working on laws that would require certain gun manufacturers to implement 'microstamping' to help law enforcement solve gun crimes. 'Lasers engrave a unique microscopic numeric code on the tip of a gun’s firing pin and breech face. When the gun is fired, the pressure transfers markings to the shell casing and the primer. By reading the code imprinted on casings found at a crime scene, police officers can identify the gun and track it to the purchaser, even when the weapon is not recovered.' As with any gun-related legislation, many people oppose these new laws. In California, a law passed in 2007 requires that when microstamping (which is easily defeat-able) is no longer patent encumbered, all new guns in CA must use it. To fight it, an organization called the Calguns Foundation paid a fee to extend the patent in order to prevent the law from going into effect."
So... file the firing pin?
Buy a gun from outside CA and bring it in?
Laser engrave some other sod's ID?
Hold a firing pin party?
It sounds like a horrendous waste of time and money, whether you want gun control or not. Ineffective legislation is the worse of all outcomes.
So, a well-planned criminal just needs to hang out at the local shooting range and collect someone else's brass casings before they commit a crime. After they commit their crime, they collect their own shells, and toss out the other person's shells. When police show up, there is a positive ID on the discarded casings, because of the #. This was a good idea, but it is so very easily spoofed because it's non-deterministic and can put innocent people at risk. I'd pass...
Apparently the people making laws are about as proficient with firearms as they are with technology.
So dear murderers, get replacement firing pins now, before you have to order them in Canada.
I just pick up brass at the police range and reload it when I murder people.
No need for extra firing pins, though; a bit of sandpaper is all that is needed to remove the microstamping. But that would be illegal, and we all know criminals wouldn't dare break the law before they go out to murder someone.
I don't believe the lawmakers could really be this retarded; there has to be some other reason they're pushing for this law (perhaps just general harassment of gun owners?).
The problem with guns is the technology to kill people is very primitive and simple. We've been killing each other since before we could read and write. Guns are nothing more than a device for initiating a controlled rapid exothermic reaction resulting in a propulsive force to a projectile.
Most people have the necessary tools and items required to manufacture a simple gun in their garages, propellant included. So even in the ideal case where criminals don't just file off the microprinting in a few well-placed strokes, and in this magical world every bullet fired has a 1:1 parity with a registered gun owner, the problem isn't any closer to being solved... there's still hundreds of other ways to murder people, either with guns, or gun-like devices, or even without guns. Hell, the government routinely says tazers, water cannons, and microwaving protesters is "safe", yet people still somehow wind up just as dead.
Expecting violent criminals to care about legislation like this is like expecting a terrorist to care his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Well hell, can't use that then. We all know that criminals are all well planned geniuses that think of every contingency and will counter every forensic method used to find them. I mean, seriously, what are they thinking.
In terms most /. readers can understand, Gun control has very similar problems to DRM. It solves a minute percentage of the problem, affects almost none of the people it was intended to (criminals/pirates) and serves only to inconvenience the law abiding citizen. Passing gun control legislation has a nice "feel good" factor, ie "Do it for the children!", but in fact does squat to actually diminish any gun related crime at all. I give you the infamous "Crime Bill" passed in the 90's as exhibit A.
(perhaps just general harassment of gun owners?)
That's my vote. Make it annoying to carry (it already pretty much is) and law abiding citizens will just not do it.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Criminals aren't going to stand around the crime scene, collect the casings, sandpaper them off, and put them back on the ground, before running off.
Why would anyone sandpaper the casings? They'd just sandpaper the firing pin and the breech face - before heading off to kill someone.
The 2nd Amendment wasn't for your personal liberty.
If you don't like the 2nd, just say so openly, and campaign for its abolition. Why do you feel the urge to engage in sophistry to argue that it doesn't say something that it obviously does?
The best thing, of course, is to just ban guns from the country.
Do you have a magical box or something? How do you keep guns out of the hands of criminals? There would be a black market. The criminals are the ones you need to worry about having guns not law-abiding citizens. Also, why is banning guns from the country "the best thing"?
Harassment is probably part of it -- of not only gun owners, but gun manufacturers. The cost of microstamping guns is expected to be small, but it's not 0, and anything above 0 will probably lead to an incremental reduction in the number of guns sold. Another reason is that it's a standard tactic of moral crusaders of all kinds to chip away at rights that they don't have the support to do away with all at once. It's progress, and you know what they say about boiling frogs. Also, never far from the thoughts of any politician is the question: "How can I get elected again?" Whether this legislation would actually do any real good (by reducing gun crime, for example), it will strike a lot of people as "reasonable", so that the next time an election rolls around, its supporters can paint their opponents as radicals who were unwilling to support "reasonable" gun control measures. Also, it could earn a nice campaign contribution from the Brady campaign or whoever for being a good gun grabber. One final benefit I can imagine is that it's a way of using state money to waste the resources of anti-gun control groups who have undoubtedly tried to sue this law out of existence.
If guns are illegal, then anyone who has a gun is a criminal, and you can prevent crime by just arresting everyone who has guns.
You can also prevent rape by cutting off the penis of every male and sewing up the vagina of every female. Just because something can be used for a crime it doesn't mean we should make it a criminal offense to own one. Guns are a tools. How you use a tool makes all the difference. Law-abiding citizens use guns for fun, hunting, and most importantly defense. Criminals use guns to murder, rape, steal, and destroy.
Actually, they are trying to catch stupid criminals, not ALL criminals.
Its odd, how in your gun toting utopia, the USA, which has regular gun massacres, I'm aware of very few - if *any* instances of one of the concealed carry heroes actually stopping a massacres by shooting the nutter.
The term you're looking for is observation bias. You don't read about the massacres that didn't happen because the bad guy got shot at.
Funny because its true. I am very happy to live in a country where guns are rarely seen or used. The american love and fascination with guns and violence seems to be simple overcompensation. I cannot think of any time in my life when I would have needed a gun. We call it being civilised. Gun nuts of course just cant understand.
Please state the primary intended use for a gun.
That specific question dpends on who has the gun and what they want to do with it.
However, the primary *benefit* of guns has been to equalize right and might. As the saying goes, God may have created man, but Sam Colt made them equal.
Look up the Deacons for Defense, where black WW II and Korean War vets in Louisiana in the 1960s used their guns to hold the KKK-infested local and state governments accountable. Look up the battle of Athens in 1946, where WW II vets used their guns to outs a corrupt government and overturn a fraudulent election.
It takes a lot of practice to be good with bows and arrows, or swords, and both take a lot of strength. It takes very little skill, only strength, to kill someone with your fists. Defending yourself from any of these requires faster feet or more skill and strength. It takes only a little skill, and no unusual strength, to defend yourself with a gun. I would rather justice depended on both sides having guns than bad guys having fists.
If your fairy godmother could wave her wand and eliminate all guns, the world would not be better off. There would of course be fewer gun deaths, but there would be more "might makes right" criminals and governments, and suicides would not drop.
If you think a law against guns and the police sweeps necessary to enforce it would eliminate guns, you are deluded and naive. When anything is outlawed, only the outlaws have it.
Infuriate left and right
If guns are illegal, then anyone who has a gun is a criminal, and you can prevent crime by just arresting everyone who has guns.
You can sure try to arrest us... Best wear your vest and bring bigger guns....
A) *woosh!*
B) Would you honestly die to retain posession of your firearms? Or are you just trying to impress all these internet strangers with how much of a man you are for being willing to stand up to a bunch of guys with assault rifles?
As a non American, I can totally vouch for that.
I have never ever needed a gun in my life, and I dont relish the thought of having a gun battle with somebody because an argument got out of hand.
The American fascination with shooting people to death is disturbing and sad.
Defensive gun use != a life saved.
Just because you brandish a gun to "defend" yourself, does not mean that you would have died otherwise.
One need only look at statistics in other countries with lesser rates of gun ownership to see this.
Now, you can make the argument that the U.S. is tainted by the flood of guns and that since it is tainted, gun ownership is sensible (similar concept to MAD), but by and large, in the civilized world, you don't need a gun to be safe.
In fact, even in the U.S, if you've got the cash to spare on a gun, you're statistically better off spending the money on an automatic defibrillator.
This isn't to take away for other gun uses. I've fired M-16s at the range and enjoyed myself quite a bit. You like to hunt? Not my thing, but good for you. I just don't buy the defense claim. I've looked into it extensively and I think while possible, you can find a few incidents here and there where a gun clearly saved a life, I think it's wildly overblown.
Touch everywhere, even when inappropriate.
Aside from military experience, I've never needed to use my firearms in a defense capacity. I genuinely hope that I never have to use a firearm against another human, but I prepare for the day which I may. It is the absolute last resort, when there is no way out of the situation but deadly force...and once you reach that point you either kill or get killed.
There's a quote we have which puts it into perspective, perhaps: It is better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Which would you prefer?
Apparently shooting people is merely an American hobby now? That's a silly notion. There are riots, civil wars, and other violent movements using all kinds of small arms on every inhabited continent on the planet; quite often (if not always) simultaneously.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
Exactly. A hammer is a building tool, a knife is a cooking tool. But you can murder someone just fine with either. Don't see anyone (anyone rational that is) calling for the ban of hammers and knives. A gun for most people is a 'Punch holes in paper at a distance' tool. or maybe a 'hunt for food tool' The military uses them as a 'defend the lives of people with force when needed' tool (mostly, yes, there are a few murdering whackos out to kill 'ragheads' but for the most part, that is not the case). Tools can be misused, but don't blame the tool, blame the damn fool holding it.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
I've long been fully in favor of the right to bear arms. Last month, I spent a few days in Paris, where I was targeted by pick-pockets three times. One of the little fuckers I caught by the neck and had to restrain myself from killing him. I think that if these guys had hand guns, I'd be in a whole different place right now.
So, I've changed my opinion on hand guns, even though I love using them for target practice. The rifles used for hunting are an important part of our American heritage, but handguns are simply for killing people. If you own a hunting rifle, there's a good chance you used it for it's intended purpose. Using a handgun for it's intended purpose is only legal in self defense, and they suck at self defense compared to shotguns. So, as much as I loved firing a Colt 45 at the dirt in my friends back yard, I think I'd prefer that future low-lifes trying to take my wallet be like the pick-pockets in Paris. They could have pulled a knife, but in reality, that's just a bit too dangerous for most criminals. They might get their ass kicked. Hand guns make killing easy, and criminals are all about what's easy.
Now, that said, it's intensely scary having the government require us to register guns. I think the two groups of people I fear most are criminals with guns, and a government trying to take mine away. Is there some middle ground were we can agree to keep hand-guns out of circulation while allowing the rest to be used without Big Brother's oversight?
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
I got my first gun back when most Americans, and most conservative Americans, rightly believed that the Second Amendment was not about personal gun-toting at all
Actually, if you were at all familiar with contents of The Federalist Papers and the debates around the penning of the Bill of Rights, you'd know that the 2nd Amendment is about personal, individual keeping and bearing of arms. You are correct that for a number of years in the late 20th century it was popular to pretend otherwise, but that belief was not then, nor was it ever, true.
All the smart criminals work in places like Congress, law offices, and financial institutions, so of course they're not interested in catching those people; they'd rather give them big bailouts.
Harassment is the whole point. Gun owners especially in California are dealing with the death of a thousand cuts. The anti gun groups couldn't win on Constitutional grounds so they are trying to regulate guns to death. When anti gun people talk about "reasonable gun laws" they are talking about laws that make it nearly impossible to own guns. California has had unreasonable gun laws for 20 years or more and it has had no affect on crime. States and cities with the most radical gun laws tend to have the most gun violence so simply trying to legislate them away isn't working. I'm always angered by the fact they don't consult people that know guns to come up with effective safe guards. They don't want effective laws allowing gun ownership because the end game is to get rid of guns and effective laws take away their argument for an outright ban. My favorite silly ban was the ban in California on 50 calibre rifles. It was hailed as a major success. No one bothered to point out that no crime had even been committed by one in the state and the only ones that were affected were a tiny number of long range shooters. No one is going to rob a bank with a 30lb+ rifle with enough recoil to dislocate your shoulder. Not to mention being heard from several miles away when you discharge it bringing every cop in the city. They use pocket 9mm pistols or at the most shotguns. Notice no laws target shotguns? Rich people bird hunt and shoot skeet so they don't go near shotguns. They just want to take them away from regular people.
As another outsider looking in on America's gun-law debates, I have come to an entirely different set of conclusions about the two evident groups. 1) A large group of people who are deathly afraid of their fellow-citizens and suspect that guns are a magical fetish that turns people into murderers. Their solution is to make it illegal for potential murderers (read: everyone) to have access to guns. 2) Another large group of people who have figured out that criminals and governments don't obey laws and that their fellow-citizens can generally be trusted to not fly into a killing rage because they have access to firearms. Their solution is to prevent laws that disarm the law-abiding citizens. Both groups are trying to protect themselves and their families. But only one seems to have managed an accurate risk-assessment, worked out who is most likely to harm them, and tried to make an effort to reduce that risk. In case you're wondering: it's the gun-nuts who did the maths.
No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256