Logically 'civilian'* uses it the least. Civilian uses should be first.
FYI, the military is looking at this, but with a broader application. Like everyone in a team can use each others firearms. Anyways the purpose of this is to prevent accidental deaths, and of course they will work, or they won't sell anything.
So? you are introducing a new point of failure. everyone know this, so what?
This tech is cheap and simple. So proper maintenance would reduce it. Guns can fail now. So, what is the failure rate? that's the question. If there are 1% more failures then their are now? yeah, totally worth it.
People dying from suicides is not an inflated number it s people dying due to easy access of guns.
"Another interesting fact, suicides in the US, per capita, is very similar (statistical blip) to countries with strict gun controls, which only prove that suicidal people will kill themselves, regardless of method.
that's not a fact, its what people call a lie.
I am so sick and tired of you idiot fucktwads who no nothing about suicide say stupid shit like that.
You should be shunned from society for a month for every time you post that stupid lie.
The fatality rate among suicide with a firearm is around 80%. Hanging its around 70% Falls 30% poisoning/OD/Cutting under 2%
So, without firearms, even if the same people attempted*, more would be alive.
*The higher the bar to entry, the fewer suicide, and that bar to entry doesn't have to be very high to cut suicide rates in half.
"Considering that the main reason for the existence of most speed limits is to allow the police to make extra money via the traffic tickets, I don't see a real problem with this idea." false. Even a cursor glance at the history of speed limits shows that statement to be false. Are there some areas the manipulate speed limits to that ends? yes, but they are few and far between.
A) Not nearly as much as they used to. It's gone from being their primary purpose to being used to support there fear mongers PR bullshit. B) I don't know of any anti gun person who doesn't want gun safety. I can even find any article that support that premise. C) The person who wrote the article needs to learn statistics. D) I wouldn't want the NRA coming into my school becasue of A.
Yes, the NRA did shift theior purpose , wildly. TYhanks to Orrin Hatch.
He had a,ot of 'studies' and 'reports' done in the 70s about firearms,. He had every data point and fact that was against his point of view removed from the reports and the presented them as facts. The the NRA hire a PR firm to have keep in house PR team at the NRA. After which the FUD, fear mongering, and lies really began.
Prior to Orrin Hatch guns where NOT considered a right for all people to have unregulated, and many states had for stricter regulation then they do right now.
Here a head scratcher: right now there are few firearm regulation then throughout all of US history. Until 1970 States and cities could dictate firearm policy.
in the 'old west' many towns outlawed guns becasue in realty, civilized people do'n't like shooting other people. So having everyone armed didn't help much. However not allowing any firearms helped a great deal. But the NRA doesn't actually talk about fact.
FYI: I am a mormer member of the NRA. I have taught my kids gun safety. Based on actual historical data, I would rather all firearms where banned. But, the NRA doesn't talk a bout the Well Regulated part of the same sentence the NRA use as some sort of excuse to not allow actual regulation from being put in place.
The fact that they opposed a check to ensure the purchaser is legally allowed to purchase a firearm should tell you they don't give a shit about anything rational. It doesn't help the the PR firm now dictates what the NRA does, and it's in the PR firms best interest to create fear.
No, it must work well enough for the intended conditions. Using it once to commit a single robbery requires much less quality then I want to own it for years and fire it 1000's of times.
"Who are we to say whether someone should kill themselves?" society, that's who. AS for me, I've actually studied suicide. The vast majority of them can be stopped simply by making it slightly more difficult. and alarming number of them are spur of the moment situations. So based on the data, I feel that yes we should stop suicides, or at least make them more difficult then point a gun and pulling a trigger.
Yes, there are people who have thought about it, there are people in chronic pain. But that is a tiny minority. Yes, for those people who have seen actual medically training Dr.s and Psychiatrists, suicide should be an option. But that needs to be treaded carefully.
They don't murder, but that doesn't mean they don't kill.
did you even read it? as all? can you read? are you just blindly linking cause some else who didn't read it told you it was bad?
Are you stupid?
His fine has to do with the 3 unregistered weapons he had. Normally he would go to jail, but since he saved the child he is just getting the fine. This is reasonable. From the article you didn't bother to read: " As part of the agreement, Benjamin Srigley, 39, was required to pay a $1,000 fine but will not have criminal charges filed against him for the three unregistered firearms and the ammunition that investigators found in his possession, said Ted Gest, a spokesman for the office of the attorney general.
“We took it into account that he saved this boy’s life,” Mr. Gest said. Possession of an unregistered firearm or ammunition in the District is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine, and prosecutors said Mr. Srigley could have faced up to seven criminal charges in the case.
You do realize you are spouting off the slippery slope FALLACY, correct? You have become the gun lobby's bitch. well done. Oh no! something scary might happen even though we have no proof! whelp, that's enough for me herp derp.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats actually backwards.
Logically 'civilian'* uses it the least. Civilian uses should be first.
FYI, the military is looking at this, but with a broader application. Like everyone in a team can use each others firearms.
Anyways the purpose of this is to prevent accidental deaths, and of course they will work, or they won't sell anything.
*the police are also civilians.
So? you are introducing a new point of failure. everyone know this, so what?
This tech is cheap and simple. So proper maintenance would reduce it.
Guns can fail now.
So, what is the failure rate? that's the question.
If there are 1% more failures then their are now? yeah, totally worth it.
People dying from suicides is not an inflated number it s people dying due to easy access of guns.
"Another interesting fact, suicides in the US, per capita, is very similar (statistical blip) to countries with strict gun controls, which only prove that suicidal people will kill themselves, regardless of method.
that's not a fact, its what people call a lie.
I am so sick and tired of you idiot fucktwads who no nothing about suicide say stupid shit like that.
You should be shunned from society for a month for every time you post that stupid lie.
The fatality rate among suicide with a firearm is around 80%.
Hanging its around 70%
Falls 30%
poisoning/OD/Cutting under 2%
So, without firearms, even if the same people attempted*, more would be alive.
*The higher the bar to entry, the fewer suicide, and that bar to entry doesn't have to be very high to cut suicide rates in half.
I know more about firearms then most people on slashdot.
I also know great deal about biometric technology.
Yes, this is possible.
You are being an idiot.
Yes, you post is flamebait.
Yes, the tech is possible, I'm not sure why you think it isn't. have you lived under a rock fro the last 25 years?
" I'm no gun expert,"
then shut up.
Are you a material scientist? no? then shut up.
Yeah, to bad history shows you to be wrong.
"Considering that the main reason for the existence of most speed limits is to allow the police to make extra money via the traffic tickets, I don't see a real problem with this idea."
false. Even a cursor glance at the history of speed limits shows that statement to be false.
Are there some areas the manipulate speed limits to that ends? yes, but they are few and far between.
A) Not nearly as much as they used to. It's gone from being their primary purpose to being used to support there fear mongers PR bullshit.
B) I don't know of any anti gun person who doesn't want gun safety. I can even find any article that support that premise.
C) The person who wrote the article needs to learn statistics.
D) I wouldn't want the NRA coming into my school becasue of A.
Yes, the NRA did shift theior purpose , wildly. TYhanks to Orrin Hatch.
He had a ,ot of 'studies' and 'reports' done in the 70s about firearms,. He had every data point and fact that was against his point of view removed from the reports and the presented them as facts.
The the NRA hire a PR firm to have keep in house PR team at the NRA.
After which the FUD, fear mongering, and lies really began.
Prior to Orrin Hatch guns where NOT considered a right for all people to have unregulated, and many states had for stricter regulation then they do right now.
Here a head scratcher: right now there are few firearm regulation then throughout all of US history.
Until 1970 States and cities could dictate firearm policy.
in the 'old west' many towns outlawed guns becasue in realty, civilized people do'n't like shooting other people. So having everyone armed didn't help much.
However not allowing any firearms helped a great deal.
But the NRA doesn't actually talk about fact.
FYI:
I am a mormer member of the NRA.
I have taught my kids gun safety.
Based on actual historical data, I would rather all firearms where banned.
But, the NRA doesn't talk a bout the Well Regulated part of the same sentence the NRA use as some sort of excuse to not allow actual regulation from being put in place.
The fact that they opposed a check to ensure the purchaser is legally allowed to purchase a firearm should tell you they don't give a shit about anything rational. It doesn't help the the PR firm now dictates what the NRA does, and it's in the PR firms best interest to create fear.
Which is crap.
Who is he to think the scientists didn't think about that? It wasn't the science that was wrong, it was the corrupt software engineer.
Oh no, really smart and trained people did something I know nothing about and I disagree with. Clearly they didn't think about it..
Becasue people routinely search my hut and I don't want them finding molds.
You just need a chemical that greats a gas the expands fast enough to shoot some fragment of something.
You don't need gun powder.
Yes, but you can not have a gun to be found until the day you intend to use it.
So you can plan to do an attack,, and then the day of make and distribute guns.
Injection molds are need for injection molding. They can be found and destroyed.
armed populace only disposed of despots when the despot isn't also armed.
No, it must work well enough for the intended conditions. Using it once to commit a single robbery requires much less quality then I want to own it for years and fire it 1000's of times.
Yes it's paranoia if its true, if no one is out to get you, it's delusional paranoia.
IF you are paranoid, then yes someone is out to get you.
If you suffer from delusional paranoia, then no, no one is out to get you, you just think 'they' are.
Clearly you have never lived under a tyrant.
Have you even read about living under a tyrant?
Alarmist idiot.
But if you have a 3d printer, then you always have access to a gun.
A gun that isn't registers and can easily be melted after use.
"Who are we to say whether someone should kill themselves?"
society, that's who. AS for me, I've actually studied suicide.
The vast majority of them can be stopped simply by making it slightly more difficult.
and alarming number of them are spur of the moment situations.
So based on the data, I feel that yes we should stop suicides, or at least make them more difficult then point a gun and pulling a trigger.
Yes, there are people who have thought about it, there are people in chronic pain. But that is a tiny minority. Yes, for those people who have seen actual medically training Dr.s and Psychiatrists, suicide should be an option. But that needs to be treaded carefully.
They don't murder, but that doesn't mean they don't kill.
did you even read it? as all? can you read? are you just blindly linking cause some else who didn't read it told you it was bad?
Are you stupid?
His fine has to do with the 3 unregistered weapons he had. Normally he would go to jail, but since he saved the child he is just getting the fine.
This is reasonable.
From the article you didn't bother to read:
"
As part of the agreement, Benjamin Srigley, 39, was required to pay a $1,000 fine but will not have criminal charges filed against him for the three unregistered firearms and the ammunition that investigators found in his possession, said Ted Gest, a spokesman for the office of the attorney general.
“We took it into account that he saved this boy’s life,” Mr. Gest said.
Possession of an unregistered firearm or ammunition in the District is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine, and prosecutors said Mr. Srigley could have faced up to seven criminal charges in the case.
"
You do realize you are spouting off the slippery slope FALLACY, correct?
You have become the gun lobby's bitch. well done.
Oh no! something scary might happen even though we have no proof! whelp, that's enough for me herp derp.
Yes, continue to repeat the right wings/.Fox News factually incorrect mantra.
No matter how often people say it, it's still not true.
Wow, you are a horrible misogynistic human being.
You should be shunned from society.
Caseless rounds with poly-carbon heads.