I wonder if the families of the 600 people a week that are killed by guns still believe in the constitution. That's 600 every week.
Status report Page 5,865
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 26th October 2015, 10:47 PM GMTI wonder if the families of the 600 people a week that are killed by guns still believe in the constitution. That's 600 every week.
Two-thirds of those are suicides and they shouldn't appear in any discussion of gun control. The choice of existing or not existing is a basic human right. The majority of the other third were likely involved in gang activity, the drug trade or other street crimes and it's also very likely that the majority of the killers had no legal right to be carrying the weapon that they used.
And, yes, Americans as a whole believe very strongly in the Constitution.
Why do you need a gun then...if the remaining third are drug and gang related you've got no worries.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 26th October 2015, 10:59 PM GMTWhy do you need a gun then...if the remaining third are drug and gang related you've got no worries.
It's phallic.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 26th October 2015, 10:59 PM GMTWhy do you need a gun then...if the remaining third are drug and gang related you've got no worries.
Because I like to hunt, I like to shoot at targets and it gives me piece of mind if Druggy McGangbanger decides to break into my house in the middle of the night.
It's just a hunk of metal and plastic and I don't want a bunch of politicians who are protected 24/7 by armed guards for life to take away my right to self-protection.
Plus zombie apocalypse.
Even I want a gun for that.
Quote: zooo @ 26th October 2015, 11:23 PM GMTPlus zombie apocalypse.
Even I want a gun for that.
Quote: zooo @ 26th October 2015, 11:23 PM GMTPlus zombie apocalypse.
Even I want a gun for that.
But of course!
Be sure to load it with this (real) ammo:
http://www.hornady.com/ammunition/zombiemax
I usually choose the zombie paper targets when I'm shooting at the range. I throw in the occasional Osama bin Laden to keep things interesting.
Want.
Quote: DaButt @ 26th October 2015, 10:24 PM GMTSorry, but you're wrong about the reliability issue, mainly because the function would be far from simple.
Simple, like I said; the same sort of function as your car key, which opens the door and then forbids starting the car unless the RFID key is within range of the wireless sensor (in my Renault this means actually within an inch or so of the keyhole).
Smart guns could also include an independent circuit to provide a red-spot laser sight, which (I suspect) would improve the accuracy of the average victim performing a defensive shot.
Quote: DaButt @ 26th October 2015, 10:24 PM GMTFirst of all, a power source would be required to operate the fingerprint reader or read the signal from from the wrist fob. Forgot to charge your battery? No bang and you're dead.
Exactly the same requirements as the cleaning and servicing of a manual gun; fail to clean & oil it and it might not work. During servicing, press a button, if the light comes on the battery is good, if not put a new battery in.
Quote: DaButt @ 26th October 2015, 10:24 PM GMTIt would likely be trivial for bad guys (or an evil government) to jam the signal from a wearable fob. No bang and you're dead.
Yup that's the NRA arguement. In practice not trivial at all, extremely difficult to do at the outer range that a bullet could fire.
Quote: DaButt @ 26th October 2015, 10:24 PM GMTHow about an electromagnetic pulse that would render electronics inoperable? (Big bang and then) No bang and you're dead.
An EMP pulse of that size would probably require a nuclear explosion; in which case the guns would be irrelevant.
Quote: DaButt @ 26th October 2015, 10:24 PM GMTWhat if your hand is covered by dirt, blood, water or bandage and the fingerprint sensor can't read your print? No bang and you're dead.
There's some merit in that arguement; which goes to show that fingerprints/palmprints might not be a very suitable identification method.
Perhaps a better one would be an RFID tag inserted under the skin of the back your hand or arm when you buy a gun? "the right to bear arms" requiring the "need to bare arms at the gun shop".
Quote: DaButt @ 26th October 2015, 10:24 PM GMTThere would need to be a physical mechanism to prevent the gun from firing when required and that would complicate, not simplify, the design of a firearm.
Not necesarily, there is already a physical mechanism tp prevent a gun firing. It's called the Safety Catch. If the inhibit action worked by suitably operating the safety catch, the gun could be armed as soon as it is in the owners hand and the operation of the trigger & firing would be exactly as per a 'dumb' gun.
Alternatively it depends on the design. For instance the ammunition could be redesigned to be electrically fired instead of impact fired.
Quote: DaButt @ 26th October 2015, 10:24 PM GMTStolen guns are used in something like 1% of gun crimes and it's very rare that someone is disarmed and shot by their own weapon. Hollywood isn't real life,
Mayhap, but does that stolen gun count include those 'borrowed' by younger members of the family and used in crimes. Child accidental shhotings seem to be about 101 fatal incidences per year (Wikipedia, not the best kind of reference).
Quote: DaButt @ 26th October 2015, 10:24 PM GMTbut you bring up a good point about creating a booming illicit business hacking "smart" firearms. A switch to "smart" guns would also cause the value of the 310 million existing firearms to rise substantially and would certainly result in a massive increase in the theft of "dumb" guns.
Not disputed. Part of the "holding a tiger by the tail" problem
Quote: billwill @ 27th October 2015, 1:46 PM GMTSimple, like I said; the same sort of function as your car key, which opens the door and then forbids starting the car unless the RFID key is within range of the wireless sensor (in my Renault this means actually within an inch or so of the keyhole).
But it's not actually simple, is it? It requires a radio transmitter, a radio receiver, a proximity check for a specific piece of hardware, a power source and probably hundreds or thousands of lines of code. Each one of those is a potential point of failure and slightly decreases the reliability of the device.
Quote: billwill @ 27th October 2015, 1:46 PM GMTSmart guns could also include an independent circuit to provide a red-spot laser sight, which (I suspect) would improve the accuracy of the average victim performing a defensive shot.
Laser sights are of limited use, as most defensive handgun confrontations take place at a distance of about 10 feet. At that range it's essentially just pointing and shooting. Most pistols either come with an integrated laser or they are available as aftermarket purchases. (They also add $100-200 to the price of the firearm.)
Quote: billwill @ 27th October 2015, 1:46 PM GMTExactly the same requirements as the cleaning and servicing of a manual gun; fail to clean & oil it and it might not work. During servicing, press a button, if the light comes on the battery is good, if not put a new battery in.
Not necessarily, as revolvers typically require almost zero maintenance. Their simplicity makes them far more reliable than other handguns that require careful cleaning and maintenance of magazines, springs, extractors, gas tubes and the like. Add in a bunch of electronics and that revolver becomes less reliable.
Quote: billwill @ 27th October 2015, 1:46 PM GMTYup that's the NRA arguement. In practice not trivial at all, extremely difficult to do at the outer range that a bullet could fire.
We're talking about a distance of a few feet in most cases and it's not that difficult to transmit a strong RF signal at that range. But any sort of government-mandated electronic smart gun initiative would almost certainly require some sort of back door to allow authorities to disable guns remotely -- ostensibly for safety. And then that "safeguard" would be quickly exploited by hackers and bad guys.
Quote: billwill @ 27th October 2015, 1:46 PM GMTAn EMP pulse of that size would probably require a nuclear explosion; in which case the guns would be irrelevant.
Hence my mention of a "big bang." Although portable EMP devices are already being developed and fielded by the military, police organizations and tinkerers. But I wouldn't say that guns would be irrelevant after an EMP attack caused by a nuclear blast, since they typically happen high in the atmosphere over the middle of the country. How convenient would it be for America's adversaries to take out our infrastructure with an EMP attack that also disabled all of our firearms?
Quote: billwill @ 27th October 2015, 1:46 PM GMTNot necesarily, there is already a physical mechanism tp prevent a gun firing. It's called the Safety Catch. If the inhibit action worked by suitably operating the safety catch, the gun could be armed as soon as it is in the owners hand and the operation of the trigger & firing would be exactly as per a 'dumb' gun.
Revolvers don't have safeties.
Quote: billwill @ 27th October 2015, 1:46 PM GMTChild accidental shhotings seem to be about 101 fatal incidences per year (Wikipedia, not the best kind of reference).
We have 30,000 accidental poisoning deaths per year in this country, but why no uproar about it?
You might not regard it as simple, but the point is that it will be a well defined function similar to the car key situation and that HAS BEEN SOLVED and is reliable.
Quote: billwill @ 27th October 2015, 3:31 PM GMTYou might not regard it as simple, but the point is that it will be a well defined function similar to the car key situation and that HAS BEEN SOLVED and is reliable.
It is reliable-ish. http://www.computerworld.com/article/2971826/cybercrime-hacking/hack-to-steal-cars-with-keyless-ignition-volkswagen-spent-2-years-hiding-flaw.html
Here's an article about "smart" guns written by a cybersecurity expert: http://www.forbes.com/sites/josephsteinberg/2014/05/04/smartguns/
The aforementioned article mentions New Jersey's Childproof Handgun Bill which will make it illegal to sell non-smart handguns in the state 3 years after such guns become commercially available and are approved by the state. Gee, police are exempt from the law. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why: cops don't trust the technology. They want their weapons to be as simple and reliable as possible.
Quote: zooo @ 27th October 2015, 11:47 AM GMThttp://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/26/dog-trigger-shoots-owner-hunt-indiana
Lol. Silly bitch...
I put this in the News Today thread before I saw you'd put it here.