Tech suggestion. I know conservatives are pushing for picture IDs to vote. When I take a photo with my cell phone, it is instantly uploaded to Flickr automatically with gps location data included. Could we require the same feature in every gun when it is fired? Require that all guns have tech that takes photo of shooter and aim point along with fingerprints, gps location and time and instantly uploads data to a data base when it is fired. That wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. It would just be a record of events.
- 1,299
I love this idea. I wonder what the 2nd Amendment folks would say? They don't want to be tracked where they fire their weapons?Tech suggestion. I know conservatives are pushing for picture IDs to vote. When I take a photo with my cell phone, it is instantly uploaded to Flickr automatically with gps location data included. Could we require the same feature in every gun when it is fired? Require that all guns have tech that takes photo of shooter and aim point along with fingerprints, gps location and time and instantly uploads data to a data base when it is fired. That wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. It would just be a record of events.
Why not?
Both picture ID's and wifi guns are stupid and yes, both violate rights enumerated in the constitution that you people are debating about. Next question?
- 3,434
Guns are currently required by law to not have silencers so shots can be heard and law enforcement can use triangulation for crude gunfire location. Wouldn't this just be an extension of the rationale behind silencer laws? If locating gunfire source post-firing is the intent of outlawing silencers, then my suggestion is just an extended form of the same thing.
- 1,299
Gun owners really are the problem. They recoil at any suggested regulation. What are they afraid of? Why are they so paranoid? Who wants a gun anyway? Guns are dangerous and expensive. Can't you find something more useful to do with your time and money than spend it on guns and shooting guns? Who needs them?
I don't smoke and I advocate for more regulations against smoking. Why? Because your smoking negatively impacts me. Same goes for the gun business.
NN: Non gun owner and proud of it! Happy supporter of increased gun regulation!
I don't smoke and I advocate for more regulations against smoking. Why? Because your smoking negatively impacts me. Same goes for the gun business.
NN: Non gun owner and proud of it! Happy supporter of increased gun regulation!
- 1,868
Cars, houses and persons are all burglarized/mugged. Where exactly is a legal gun owner supposed to store their gun?Northside Neighbor wrote:And if a legal gun ends up in the hands of a criminal due to negligence on the part of the legal owner (basically any act leaving a gun vulnerable to theft), then I hold the legal owner partially responsible for crimes committed with their gun.
- 8,915
gary kreie wrote:Tech suggestion. I know conservatives are pushing for picture IDs to vote. When I take a photo with my cell phone, it is instantly uploaded to Flickr automatically with gps location data included. Could we require the same feature in every gun when it is fired? Require that all guns have tech that takes photo of shooter and aim point along with fingerprints, gps location and time and instantly uploads data to a data base when it is fired. That wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. It would just be a record of events.
Well this is a little too Orwellian don't you think?
Have you thought this through? Think about the infrastructure needed to implement this, the cost to retrofit, the impossibility to enforce, etc- 3,434
The gun safe in the gun club? Or how about in the armory of the well-regulated militia. If you can't find a safe place to store maybe you shouldn't buy it. Since more gun owners are killed by relatives then by burglars, I'd lock it up some place your relatives can't easily find it.MarkHaversham wrote:Cars, houses and persons are all burglarized/mugged. Where exactly is a legal gun owner supposed to store their gun?Northside Neighbor wrote:And if a legal gun ends up in the hands of a criminal due to negligence on the part of the legal owner (basically any act leaving a gun vulnerable to theft), then I hold the legal owner partially responsible for crimes committed with their gun.
- 1,299
If you can't control what happens to your gun, then maybe you shouldn't have one.Cars, houses and persons are all burglarized/mugged. Where exactly is a legal gun owner supposed to store their gun?
Love the hysteria being peddled. This is why people easily see through this kind of crap and gun rights are increasing at a record pace across the country.
Liberal-land Massachusetts is about to have double the number of constitutional carry (read: totally unrestricted) states surrounding it when Maine ditches their gun laws later this summer. The Texas legislature just passed open carry.
Sooner or later you guys will realize that peddling this crap is only hurting your "side". Till then, push it as hard as you can. I'm loving it.
Liberal-land Massachusetts is about to have double the number of constitutional carry (read: totally unrestricted) states surrounding it when Maine ditches their gun laws later this summer. The Texas legislature just passed open carry.
Sooner or later you guys will realize that peddling this crap is only hurting your "side". Till then, push it as hard as you can. I'm loving it.
- 1,868
Speculating that guns find their way into criminal hands is "hysteria"? Or are you referring to the notion that guns are unsafe, or that they're more dangerous to the owner than not having one?Aesir wrote:Love the hysteria being peddled. This is why people easily see through this kind of crap and gun rights are increasing at a record pace across the country.
Liberal-land Massachusetts is about to have double the number of constitutional carry (read: totally unrestricted) states surrounding it when Maine ditches their gun laws later this summer. The Texas legislature just passed open carry.
Sooner or later you guys will realize that peddling this crap is only hurting your "side". Till then, push it as hard as you can. I'm loving it.
I mean, exactly what point are you attempting to make here aside from "paranoid Americans love guns"? I think we all agree on that one.
Oh thank goodness. For a few pages, I thought you were being serious.Northside Neighbor wrote:Gun owners really are the problem. They recoil at any suggested regulation. What are they afraid of? Why are they so paranoid? Who wants a gun anyway? Guns are dangerous and expensive. Can't you find something more useful to do with your time and money than spend it on guns and shooting guns? Who needs them?
I don't smoke and I advocate for more regulations against smoking. Why? Because your smoking negatively impacts me. Same goes for the gun business.
NN: Non gun owner and proud of it! Happy supporter of increased gun regulation!
- 3,434
Well the infrastructure to upload and save the photos, videos, time, and place automatically from my cell phone when I snap a photo is already in place and called Flickr. So just use it. This should be stored in private databases accessible by authorities with court warrants. It would protect law abiding gun owners. The idea is to deter criminals.moorlander wrote:gary kreie wrote:Tech suggestion. I know conservatives are pushing for picture IDs to vote. When I take a photo with my cell phone, it is instantly uploaded to Flickr automatically with gps location data included. Could we require the same feature in every gun when it is fired? Require that all guns have tech that takes photo of shooter and aim point along with fingerprints, gps location and time and instantly uploads data to a data base when it is fired. That wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. It would just be a record of events.
Well this is a little too Orwellian don't you think?
- 8,915
So in this scenario guns will have cameras, wifi/network connect-ability, and data storage? What happens if this new tech is disabled by a criminal? What if I have connect-ability issues or the camera lens dirty or is obscured? Would it also have night vision? Most crimes happen at night don't they?gary kreie wrote:Well the infrastructure to upload and save the photos, videos, time, and place automatically from my cell phone when I snap a photo is already in place and called Flickr. So just use it. This should be stored in private databases accessible by authorities with court warrants. It would protect law abiding gun owners. The idea is to deter criminals.moorlander wrote:gary kreie wrote:Tech suggestion. I know conservatives are pushing for picture IDs to vote. When I take a photo with my cell phone, it is instantly uploaded to Flickr automatically with gps location data included. Could we require the same feature in every gun when it is fired? Require that all guns have tech that takes photo of shooter and aim point along with fingerprints, gps location and time and instantly uploads data to a data base when it is fired. That wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. It would just be a record of events.
Well this is a little too Orwellian don't you think?
What if I disconnect the hardware or refuse to upgrade my arsenal of weapons. If it's disconnected, or you're out of range does the guns still work? Who pays for all of this software/hardware/installtion? Would I have a monthly bill from my mobile provider for my gun? What if i'm shooting my gun where there is no cell service?
This is so hilariously, completely, wrong that it really shows you have no business participating in this debate until you've done some actual research. Silencers are entirely legal in almost every state (46, 47? something like that) including Missouri. I don't know if you've just been misinformed or if you're just making sh*t up. You seem to have a pretty big vendetta against gun owners.gary kreie wrote:Guns are currently required by law to not have silencers so shots can be heard and law enforcement can use triangulation for crude gunfire location. Wouldn't this just be an extension of the rationale behind silencer laws? If locating gunfire source post-firing is the intent of outlawing silencers, then my suggestion is just an extended form of the same thing.
To own a silencer, you simply need to purchase one, have it sent to your dealer of choice, fill out an ATF Form 4 (https://www.atf.gov/file/61546/download), pay your $200 fee, and wait for your tax stamp to arrive. (Yes, its a literal, physical stamp, like an oversized postage stamp). Enjoy your new silencer!
There are too many wrongheaded posts in this thread to call them out individually, but there is so much anti-gun hysteria here that its almost comical.
No, having a magic wi-fi/wireless tracking system that uploads coordinates and photos from each shot isn't a good idea. Even suggesting such a system shows a lack of rational thought. Will guns require a permanent power source now? What happens when the power runs out? Presumably in this system criminals will be unable to block the signal, modify the gun, break the camera lens, remove the wireless antenna or otherwise defeat the reporting mechanisms? I guess because we ask them nicely not to? Uploading information on every shot? Better prepare a lot of sever capacity, a normal trip to the shooting range will result in 100's of rounds fired.
And then we have the victim blaming, "gun owners should just not get robbed" seems to be what this boils down to. Man guys, great idea! Who knew it was that easy? Just don't get robbed. Simple. We need to take this straight to the top! We should start "don't get murdered" and "don't get raped" initiatives too!
Politics and opinions aside, the fact is that guns are here, and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon and they'll only get easier to acquire as we move forward. A company I love, Defense Distributed (defdist.org), designs and distributes plans for 3D printed guns and their latest project (https://ghostgunner.net/) is a < $1000 open-source CNC mill that machines out the parts for an AR-15 in the comfort of your own garage. Both the software and hardware designs are entirely open-source, which gives them substantial first amendment protection as has been previously established at the federal level (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein ... ted_States and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junger_v._Daley). At some point in the not so distant future, gun control becomes censorship and thought control, because gun control will be information control.
Basically, it doesn't really matter how you feel about gun regulation, they're here to stay. We need to address the systemic problems that are at the root of the violence. Going after guns may help in the short term, but its addressing a symptom, not the underlying problem.
Oh, and since NN had his snarky "Non-gun-owner-and-wants-more-regulation" comment, I'll say that I am a gun owner and I support full deregulation of firearms laws. Get rid of them all.
No, having a magic wi-fi/wireless tracking system that uploads coordinates and photos from each shot isn't a good idea. Even suggesting such a system shows a lack of rational thought. Will guns require a permanent power source now? What happens when the power runs out? Presumably in this system criminals will be unable to block the signal, modify the gun, break the camera lens, remove the wireless antenna or otherwise defeat the reporting mechanisms? I guess because we ask them nicely not to? Uploading information on every shot? Better prepare a lot of sever capacity, a normal trip to the shooting range will result in 100's of rounds fired.
And then we have the victim blaming, "gun owners should just not get robbed" seems to be what this boils down to. Man guys, great idea! Who knew it was that easy? Just don't get robbed. Simple. We need to take this straight to the top! We should start "don't get murdered" and "don't get raped" initiatives too!
Politics and opinions aside, the fact is that guns are here, and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon and they'll only get easier to acquire as we move forward. A company I love, Defense Distributed (defdist.org), designs and distributes plans for 3D printed guns and their latest project (https://ghostgunner.net/) is a < $1000 open-source CNC mill that machines out the parts for an AR-15 in the comfort of your own garage. Both the software and hardware designs are entirely open-source, which gives them substantial first amendment protection as has been previously established at the federal level (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein ... ted_States and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junger_v._Daley). At some point in the not so distant future, gun control becomes censorship and thought control, because gun control will be information control.
Basically, it doesn't really matter how you feel about gun regulation, they're here to stay. We need to address the systemic problems that are at the root of the violence. Going after guns may help in the short term, but its addressing a symptom, not the underlying problem.
Oh, and since NN had his snarky "Non-gun-owner-and-wants-more-regulation" comment, I'll say that I am a gun owner and I support full deregulation of firearms laws. Get rid of them all.
- 1,299
Audacity:
Can you deny the idea that guns in our society represent a serious public health problem?
Serious question for you...Oh, and since NN had his snarky "Non-gun-owner-and-wants-more-regulation" comment, I'll say that I am a gun owner and I support full deregulation of firearms laws. Get rid of them all.
Can you deny the idea that guns in our society represent a serious public health problem?
Honestly? I don't think we see eye to eye because I don't accept that framing of the issue. Clearly we have a gun violence problem to some degree. No one with eyes can deny that (although violent crime in general is at historic lows). I guess where I differ is that in my mind - it doesn't matter. The ability to defend one's person and property is as inherent a natural right as exists. There is no amount of resulting negative side effects that would justify taking that right away.Northside Neighbor wrote:Audacity:
Serious question for you...Oh, and since NN had his snarky "Non-gun-owner-and-wants-more-regulation" comment, I'll say that I am a gun owner and I support full deregulation of firearms laws. Get rid of them all.
Can you deny the idea that guns in our society represent a serious public health problem?
Put more simply, is it a public health crisis? Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. Like all rights this one comes with some very real negative side effects, but its a price worth paying to have that right.
- 1,299
Amazing timing.The ability to defend one's person and property is as inherent a natural right as exists.
Tonight, Dana Loesch, when being interviewed on Fox News about proposed new DOJ restrictions on guns, used this same wording, talking about the idea of "taking away their Second Amendment natural rights". As if denying someone's gun is like denying someone's god.
Scary. You guys are scary. Scarier when cloaked in high-minded, legalese.
Talk away. Defend away. Fire away. After all, it's your god-given, "natural" right.
Have at it. Just don't hit me or mine in your crossfire.
Which brings me to another "legalese" question for you.
Say you're practicing your "natural right" to fire your gun, in self defense or defense of your property. And in so doing, you shoot an innocent bystander, or damage someone's property. Are you immune from civil liability?
I think your preconceived notions about gun owners might be showing. I don't know who Dana Loesch is, I'm not religious, and I'm neither a right winger nor a Fox News viewer. I'm pretty sure my political views would be quite unwelcome in those circles. But sure, we're all scary because we're obviously all the same. Natural rights as a concept aren't legalese at all, they're usually philosophical in nature. When I use "natural rights" I'm using it in more of the context of someone like Proudhon or Bastiat - rights that are inherent. Not endowed by a creator or benevolent state.Northside Neighbor wrote:Amazing timing.The ability to defend one's person and property is as inherent a natural right as exists.
Tonight, Dana Loesch, when being interviewed on Fox News about proposed new DOJ restrictions on guns, used this same wording, talking about the idea of "taking away their Second Amendment natural rights". As if denying someone's gun is like denying someone's god.
Scary. You guys are scary. Scarier when cloaked in high-minded, legalese.
Talk away. Defend away. Fire away. After all, it's your god-given, "natural" right.
Have at it. Just don't hit me or mine in your crossfire.
Which brings me to another "legalese" question for you.
Say you're practicing your "natural right" to fire your gun, in self defense or defense of your property. And in so doing, you shoot an innocent bystander, or damage someone's property. Are you immune from civil liability?
And to answer your question, of course, people should be liable for their actions. I think laws that prevent civil lawsuits against self defense cases that are taken to criminal trial and acquitted are wise (you get shot robbing a store and then sue for damages), but in general, of course I think people should be held liable for collateral damage and accidents.
- 3,762
sadly it's not even speculation:MarkHaversham wrote: Speculating that guns find their way into criminal hands is "hysteria"?
http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases ... rders.html
The increase in murders with firearms in Missouri began in the first full year after the PTP handgun law was repealed when data from crime gun traces revealed simultaneous large increases in the number of guns diverted to criminals and in guns purchased in Missouri that were subsequently recovered by police in border states that retained their PTP laws.
- 3,235
And that's really the only argument that you gun rights people have despite the fact overwhelming evidence states more guns equal more crime, that it's your right.audac1ty wrote:Honestly? I don't think we see eye to eye because I don't accept that framing of the issue. Clearly we have a gun violence problem to some degree. No one with eyes can deny that (although violent crime in general is at historic lows). I guess where I differ is that in my mind - it doesn't matter. The ability to defend one's person and property is as inherent a natural right as exists. There is no amount of resulting negative side effects that would justify taking that right away.Northside Neighbor wrote:Audacity:
Serious question for you...Oh, and since NN had his snarky "Non-gun-owner-and-wants-more-regulation" comment, I'll say that I am a gun owner and I support full deregulation of firearms laws. Get rid of them all.
Can you deny the idea that guns in our society represent a serious public health problem?
Put more simply, is it a public health crisis? Perhaps, but it doesn't matter. Like all rights this one comes with some very real negative side effects, but its a price worth paying to have that right.
Quite frankly it's selfish and greedy. But go ahead and carry on with your life and your second amendment right.
It's all fun and games until your family member or friend is a victim of gun violence. All fun and games.
While its obvious to the point of being almost a tautology that more guns would result more gun crime, I don't think this issue is nearly as cut and dry as you've made it out to be. For instance, I would invite you to compare the number of homicides involving firearms with the number of times that a gun is used in self defense. Even by the most unfavorable estimates, the later vastly outweighs the former. You could of course argue that it would be a moot point if no one had guns, and you'd be correct, but I think the idea of total disarmament in this country is a non-starter, for both political reasons, and the practical reasons I mentioned above.downtown2007 wrote:
And that's really the only argument that you gun rights people have despite the fact overwhelming evidence states more guns equal more crime, that it's your right.
Quite frankly it's selfish and greedy. But go ahead and carry on with your life and your second amendment right.
It's all fun and games until your family member or friend is a victim of gun violence. All fun and games.
In general though, if you want to resort to being condescending towards me that's fine. Quite frankly its sad how willing people are to surrender their rights to the state in return for the promise of increased safety. Fundamentally this is the same argument we're going through right now in relation to NSA spying, the Patriot Act, hell, even the TSA. Would we be "safer" if we let the government strip search every person at will, listen to every phone call and read every piece of correspondence? Sure, we probably would! But that doesn't mean its worth it. I'd much rather live in a more dangerous but free society. Its the same basic argument.
The notion that the wonderful benevolent government could solve all our societal ills if we just were to just cede a little more power to it is a dangerous and cowardly notion and I want no part of it.
Guns do a lot of really bad things and we'd be infinitely better off if we didn't have any.
That's my stance.
I'm not going to generalize and attack all gun owners. Or even a significant number. But the only pure use of a gun is for sport. Self-defense is a justifiable use, but it's rarely reality, and it wouldn't be necessary if nobody had guns anyways.
One of my favorite comedians, Jim Jeffries, has a fantastic bit on gun control. I think it's hard to argue against.
At present, the US entitles you to guns, and you like guns. Fair enough. But I don't think we should entitle people to guns because guns do mostly bad things.
That's my stance.
I'm not going to generalize and attack all gun owners. Or even a significant number. But the only pure use of a gun is for sport. Self-defense is a justifiable use, but it's rarely reality, and it wouldn't be necessary if nobody had guns anyways.
One of my favorite comedians, Jim Jeffries, has a fantastic bit on gun control. I think it's hard to argue against.
At present, the US entitles you to guns, and you like guns. Fair enough. But I don't think we should entitle people to guns because guns do mostly bad things.
- 1,299
I agree with audacity on 1 thing - there will always be guns. That genie left the bottle a long time ago. And the way I look at this, I don't much care.
To be frank, I think a teenage kid living in a scary, high crime area probably has more need for a gun than most NRA members. He has a real fear for his life. These pro-gun enthusiasts, going on and on about their god-given, natural, second amendment rights probably never spend a day in a true life and death situation, will probably never need a gun for self-defense, and will probably never know a victim of gun violence - unless its one of their friends from some Cheney'esque self-inflicted wound.
No, my real question, or observation, whatever you wan to call it, is why? Why care so much about guns? Is your life that dull that you fill it with guns, defending guns, shooting guns, fear of crime, being a "patriot" and on and on? What a sad, empty life.
This life brings to us so many more exciting, beautiful, challenging, and worthwhile things than a gun. A day spent on gun worship is a day lost of beauty and love.
I'm done here. There's no point in trying to change people's minds on this issue. They won't ever change and everyone knows it.
To be frank, I think a teenage kid living in a scary, high crime area probably has more need for a gun than most NRA members. He has a real fear for his life. These pro-gun enthusiasts, going on and on about their god-given, natural, second amendment rights probably never spend a day in a true life and death situation, will probably never need a gun for self-defense, and will probably never know a victim of gun violence - unless its one of their friends from some Cheney'esque self-inflicted wound.
No, my real question, or observation, whatever you wan to call it, is why? Why care so much about guns? Is your life that dull that you fill it with guns, defending guns, shooting guns, fear of crime, being a "patriot" and on and on? What a sad, empty life.
This life brings to us so many more exciting, beautiful, challenging, and worthwhile things than a gun. A day spent on gun worship is a day lost of beauty and love.
I'm done here. There's no point in trying to change people's minds on this issue. They won't ever change and everyone knows it.