Quote: DaButt @ 26th October 2015, 11:41 AM GMTI ain't skeered.
Chappers has got a big chopper. 
Status report Page 5,864
I also have one of these shirts:
It's a bit like telling certain believers there isn't a god....It's indoctrinated.
Not just indoctrinated. It would be a logistical nightmare to try to ban or reduce having guns in the USA.
In the case of most countries there were not that many guns around, so banning and collecting by an amnesty was possible, so not many were left around for criminals to obtain.
But there are so many guns in the USA that vast numbers would be mislaid or deliberately hidden not surrendered, so it would indeed end up (as many law-abiding USA citizens believe) with far too many guns in the hand of criminals and insufficient lawful guns (police) to counteract them.
The original "right to bear arms" was, I understand, so that the citizens could form a militia to overturn the Government if the Goverment turned bad, but the way it has evolved is now like "holding a tiger by its tail." There is no easy solution.
One possible solution advocated was that all new guns should be keyed such that they recognise the owner by palm-print or by a wireless dongle worn as a wristwatch or badge so that the gun would not fire if stolen or wrested from the owner. Gradually the old guns would get replaced by the 'safer' ones. Little kids would not be able to accidentally shoot friends or family.
Unfortunately the NRA oppose these new guns as the NRA still has the fear of a bad government and want to continue to have the capability of revolt, without fearing that the goverment forces (police) might have the power to disable all the citizens guns by a jamming device or hidden back-door coding in the new guns.
I think you mean the NRA, Bill. 
Quote: DaButt @ 26th October 2015, 1:57 PM GMTI think you mean the NRA, Bill.
Oops yes, I have edited it.
Billwill's post was spot on. Removing guns from American citizens would be so difficult as to be effectively impossible -- not to mention the fact that the citizenry wouldn't stand for it in the first place.
In addition to the potential fears of the government being able to disable "smart" guns, there's an even more important point: reliability. People's lives depend on a gun to go bang when the trigger is pulled. Firearms are relatively simple devices with few moving parts and it's all because of reliability issues. Sometimes it takes my iPhone 3 or 4 attempts before it reads my thumbprint correctly and that's not something I'd want to worry about when faced with a self-defence issue. And the notion that "smart" gun would eventually replace "dumb" guns is rather shaky, as firearms are very durable and continue to function for centuries.
The only incidents that "smart" guns would solve are accidental killings (most of which don't involve kids) but the numbers are rather small: about 500 per year. In comparison, there are 30,000 accidental poisoning deaths per year in this country.
And let's not forget that gun crimes and gun deaths have dropped significantly over the last 25 years.
Quote: billwill @ 26th October 2015, 1:51 PM GMTThe original "right to bear arms" was, I understand, so that the citizens could form a militia to overturn the Government if the Goverment turned bad.
Hmmmm. Now there's a thought.
Have just discovered the woman known as the Tooth Fairy is still alive and aged 99. She's never owned a gun and didn't even do cage fighting in her youth. The key to her success is in the fact that she is permanently frosty. ie when asked about the other woman.........she is not my sister or my lover - she is my house maid."
I like her! 
Quote: DaButt @ 26th October 2015, 2:23 PM GMTRemoving guns from American citizens would be so difficult as to be effectively impossible.
Not if I put a loaded gun to their head. Or just tell them the Gun Fairy took it. They probably put it under their pillow at night, ask any 99 year old. Status = Sorted, next problem.
Quote: Nick Nockerty @ 26th October 2015, 4:38 PM GMTNot if I put a loaded gun to their head.
Think how well that would play on television: armed government troops kicking down doors and forcibly confiscating firearms that citizens are constitutionally guaranteed the right to possess. It would kick off massive bloodshed and a likely civil war. Most American soldiers and cops would likely refuse to take part.
But you can't have confiscation without having a master list of who owns guns ... hence Americans' resistance to the institution of gun registries.
Quote: DaButt @ 26th October 2015, 2:23 PM GMTBillwill's post was spot on. Removing guns from American citizens would be so difficult as to be effectively impossible -- not to mention the fact that the citizenry wouldn't stand for it in the first place.
In addition to the potential fears of the government being able to disable "smart" guns, there's an even more important point: reliability. People's lives depend on a gun to go bang when the trigger is pulled. Firearms are relatively simple devices with few moving parts and it's all because of reliability issues. Sometimes it takes my iPhone 3 or 4 attempts before it reads my thumbprint correctly and that's not something I'd want to worry about when faced with a self-defence issue. And the notion that "smart" gun would eventually replace "dumb" guns is rather shaky, as firearms are very durable and continue to function for centuries.
The only incidents that "smart" guns would solve are accidental killings (most of which don't involve kids) but the numbers are rather small: about 500 per year. In comparison, there are 30,000 accidental poisoning deaths per year in this country.
And let's not forget that gun crimes and gun deaths have dropped significantly over the last 25 years.
That relibility issure is a complete red herring. When a function is simple, rliability is not a problem; computers & smartphones are unreliable because they are so versatile and there is no rigid control over what Apps are loaded.
I bet you drive a car with computer control (engine management, ABS braking etc) and don't give a thought about its reliability. It just works! I suspect that mechanical firearms are less reliable than computer controlled cars.
>The only incidents that "smart" guns would solve are accidental killings
Nope! they also make stolen guns useless until they have been to an illicit gun fixer who would remove the restriction. So you are unlikely to get shot by a burglar who is stronger/faster than you.
Just picked up the keys to my new rented flat. At 59 it's the first time I'll be living totally alone.
Quote: billwill @ 26th October 2015, 9:20 PM GMTThat relibility issure is a complete red herring. When a function is simple, rliability is not a problem
Sorry, but you're wrong about the reliability issue, mainly because the function would be far from simple. First 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.
It 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.
How about an electromagnetic pulse that would render electronics inoperable? (Big bang and then) No bang and you're dead.
What 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 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.
Quote: billwill @ 26th October 2015, 9:20 PM GMTNope! they also make stolen guns useless until they have been to an illicit gun fixer who would remove the restriction. So you are unlikely to get shot by a burglar who is stronger/faster than you.
Stolen 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, but 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.
Quote: Chappers @ 26th October 2015, 9:45 PM GMTJust picked up the keys to my new rented flat. At 59 it's the first time I'll be living totally alone.
I've done 22 years although for 10 I've had my parents living next door to me. You will probably find that you go out a lot for the first dozen and more. I did. Then computers arrived. The biggest problem is talking in a fixed position silently with arms and shoulders. It gets to the neck. What we need is a BCF on the phone so that we have actual sound or BCF Skype. When you think about it, the only way of actually talking to people you've never met is via sex lines. I want comedy, gardening, music and football ones but they don't exist.
What I've also thought is that I get on with loads of people in the neighbourhood. If I have to have one-way incoming stuff I would actually prefer it to be them on the TV screen and in the radio speaker rather than media people. That media world is now all weird and survival of the fittest whereas local people talk humbly about trivia without any imagination and I find them a lot more reassuring. I suppose most live with someone or more than one person but many don't and you don't see them after 6pm. They just shut themselves away.
I have had brief relationships during the period but it was separate homes and they were several miles away. The last one only came here because she couldn't get to her cooker or the central heating because of all the woks she had bought. The boxes were piled everywhere and I wasn't permitted to visit in case it put me off. It ended sadly when she kept saying she would be here at 5pm and kept turning up at 11pm and then insisted on spending three and a half hours cooking curry. It was nice of her but it was mayhem and it did my head in.