|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Gun control in the US
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Hmm, more homicides by things other than guns. And hammers are the larger statistic. Right. Hardly relevant.
Can someone please provide a link to a drive-by hammering?
Or any drive-by killing with any blunt object.
While you're at it, please post links to school massacres where hammers were the main feature weapon. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Hmm, more homicides by things other than guns.
Read it again. More than RIFLES. There are also numbers for handguns and "unspecified" guns.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I suppose the thing about rifles (rather than guns) is that they are not close range weapons. Plus there are many more hand guns than rifles about?
The "exposure to risk" argument still strikes me as the biggest factor at work. The number of homicides by gun in the US per annum is a bit more than three times the numbers killed by malevolent action in 9/11. The second amendment carries a high price tag. It's clear from some of the responses to this long thread and other media reports that a very large number of US citizens believe
either
that this is a price worth paying in principle
or
that the massive numbers of guns already in circulation mean that they have no real option but to obtain guns as "last resort" means of defence.
That strikes me as tragic.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose the thing about rifles (rather than guns) is that they are not close range weapons. Plus there are many more hand guns than rifles about?
The "exposure to risk" argument still strikes me as the biggest factor at work. The number of homicides by gun in the US per annum is a bit more than three times the numbers killed by malevolent action in 9/11. The second amendment carries a high price tag. It's clear from some of the responses to this long thread and other media reports that a very large number of US citizens believe
either
that this is a price worth paying in principle
or
that the massive numbers of guns already in circulation mean that they have no real option but to obtain guns as "last resort" means of defence.
That strikes me as tragic.
While virtually anyone in the world can get a gun right now if they really want one, 3d printing will make it even easier.
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
While virtually anyone in the world can get a gun right now if they really want one, 3d printing will make it even easier.
I admire your faith in the technical sophistication of a typical yahoo. Having just struggled (and mostly failed) to get my WiFi set up in a way that doesn't conflict with everything around me, I can say with confidence that this yahoo has a better chance getting a Kalashnikov from Al Qaida than I do making one in my living room...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Thank you, alienfromzog.
monkeylizard, it looks like we have 496 homicides with blunt objects, and 8130 with guns. So that's 16 or 17 murders with guns for every murder with a blunt object.
You've always struck me as being an honest Shipmate. But saying that more people are killed by hammers than by rifles, even if true (and it doesn't seem to be true), seems more than a little bit disingenuous.
And if he's prepared to share, I'd like to know where Monkeylizard read that now discredited comparison so he and we can treat the source with due caution.
PS I love the idea that you could use a 3d printer to create a firearm.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
While virtually anyone in the world can get a gun right now if they really want one, 3d printing will make it even easier.
I admire your faith in the technical sophistication of a typical yahoo. Having just struggled (and mostly failed) to get my WiFi set up in a way that doesn't conflict with everything around me, I can say with confidence that this yahoo has a better chance getting a Kalashnikov from Al Qaida than I do making one in my living room...
--Tom Clune
You can always ask some little bitty kid. They seem to always know better than anyone else.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So was he?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
Texas College Shooting
Admittedly, not a person just coming in and shooting randomly.
Nope, just two college students who got into an argument, a gun was pulled out, shots were fired, and a lady had a heart attack who was a bystander.
But I'm sure that people will say that the "solution" is more guns on campus. All I can think is that both students having guns would have made things MUCH worse!
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Not enough hot-heads have guns yet.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not enough hot-heads have guns yet.
Precisely.
The access-to-means part of impulsive actions is very well understood in terms of suicide. As Doublethink referred to above, a few years ago, in the UK the law was changed to make it illegal to sell more than 16 paracetamol tablets at once. (Tylenol for our US cousins and Acetaminophen for any pedantic pharmacists out there...). This, according to a BMJ article reduced the death rate by 21%. The reason this works is simple. Most people who try to kill themselves do so impulsively and hence will take whatever's in the cupboard in the middle of the night... in the days when people bought paracetamol by the 100-pack there were a lot more there to take. Similarly it is well established that farmers have a higher suicide rate than the general population, in part because they have guns they can use.
There is no doubt that the huge saturation of guns in the US - and especially the massive derestrictions have similar effects. Essentially having guns lying around means;
- more suicides
- more accidental shootings (The stats on wounding and accidental death of children are truly horrific)
- more arguments escalating to involve a firearm
Most murders with a blunt instrument are not pre-meditated; the murder weapons tend to be whatever is close to hand. If a gun is close to hand it very well may be used and let's be honest, your chance of success is far higher with a gun.
Ultimately the self-defence argument is complete nonsense as having and carrying a gun makes you more likely to be killed not less. See here, several pages back...
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
alienfromzog said: quote:
Ultimately the self-defence argument is complete nonsense as having and carrying a gun makes you more likely to be killed not less.
That was more or less what I was getting at with the 'if you're carrying a gun you have to be prepared to shoot to kill' argument. Now, I'd go through that sequence of thoughts and come to the conclusion that I am safer not carrying a gun, because I do not want to use it to kill. I suppose all the people in the US who've been busy buying guns before President Obama bans them have come to the conclusion that they ARE willing to kill their fellow citizens...
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
[ 23. January 2013, 08:59: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Ultimately the self-defence argument is complete nonsense as having and carrying a gun makes you more likely to be killed not less. See here, several pages back...
AFZ
I agree this is the crux argument and the evidence is impressive that carrying a gun for self-defence reasons is, statistically, much more likely to lead to your death.
And yet ...
The instinctive desire to be able to defend yourself seems clearly enough to be winning the public opinion debate in the US. Obama has dropped 10 points in the opinion polls since adopting a (pretty moderate) gun control stance. And sales of hand guns continue to boom.
The strength of the arguments, the evidence from both within and without the US re the "exposure to risk" realities, seem to run into the sand. And personally I don't see a way of confronting the prevailing opinions which hasn't already been tried.
I think the US is stuck with its huge homicide by gun death rate for the foreseeable future.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
How would "good guys with guns" prevent this
Indeed. The good guy did have guns. A respected pastor and pillar of the communuty. But hte problem was that he stored his guns in an unlocked closet.
How are guns usually stored in America? In all of these cases people seem to be taking them from closets, cupboards, or where they've been left lying around on tables.
From reading this thread and others I believe the US will never get rid of its guns, since it's too ingrained in its culture and sense of identity. But if only a culture and legal backing of public safety could be built up around gun ownership, it would make all the difference. I know in many states gun owners need to take safety classes before being allowed to own a gun, but I think this is the bare minimum.
This article includes a 'humorous' video of clips of 'Gun fails'. While these represent the stupid minority, I think it is emblematic of a nationwide culture of laissez faire gun ownership and gun handling that seems to treat guns as toys.
I think more background checks aren't the answer to the gun problem. Most gun owners are law-abiding. I think the problem occurs when the guns are in the hands of otherwise decent ordinary Americans who don't seem to take enough care how they are stored or handled. The solution to excessive car deaths wasn't to ban all cars, it was to force car owners to be safer by the mandatory fitting and wearing of seatbelts and airbags. Forcing manufacturers to research and build safer vehicles, creating laws to enforce safety, and to register car ownership so if a car is involved in a hit and run the owner can be quickly traced.
I think the ideal in a civilised society is to get rid of all guns, but in such a gun-riddled culture as America, this appears unworkable. The solution I think is to force more safety measures. For instance, to force manufacturers to fit biometric locks into the firing mechanism of the gun so only the owner can fire it. Trustworthy locking systems haven't been designed as part of a gun yet, but that's because safety isn't a market concern of the companies' shareholders. Not yet.
There needs to be public safety campaigns to push the idea of gun safety, and keeping guns locked away. There needs to be laws so as to make gun owners legally responsible for any action taken by their gun. If a gun registered to someone is stolen, not reported, and used in a murder, then the owner should be prosecuted for criminal negligence.
All guns can be fired at manufacture and the bullet tracings logged so any shot bullet at a crime scene can be matched by the police to any gun, and thus to its registered owner.
We cannot leave gun safety up to individuals. It is human nature not to treat dangerous things with the respect they naturally deserve. (If we did we'd be too terrified to do anything!) Given a free choice, almost no one would choose to wear a seatbelt, it's uncomfortable and annoying to remember. Given a free choice no car manufacturer would choose to waste money doing research into safer cars, it doesn't increase their profit margins. Safety laws, strict owner registration, legal and financial pressure on manufacturers to research safety mechanisms - these are the only things that will work.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Hawk: quote:
Given a free choice, almost no one would choose to wear a seatbelt, it's uncomfortable and annoying to remember.
I would. I'm a pessimist and wearing a seatbelt vastly increases your chances of surviving a crash. I even wear my seatbelt all the time in aeroplanes (except when visiting the loo of course).
I don't think it is realistic to expect the Americans to get rid of all their guns, because as Comet and several others have pointed out people in rural areas use them for hunting. Even in the UK (with no dangerous wildlife), some people do use guns for legitimate purposes - farmers shooting vermin, for example.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ISTM, while there are practical reasons for gun ownership in America, those are not the reasons which will keep guns available.
Reason and practicality are not truly part of the discussion. Now before anyone objects, this is not an anti-American comment; it is simply how cultural conditioning works.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
How are guns usually stored in America? In all of these cases people seem to be taking them from closets, cupboards, or where they've been left lying around on tables.
I'm not sure that anyone knows how most people store their guns. Research about gun safety has been subjected to all sorts of rules and prohibitions. But when I was growing up, I had the impression that most people stored their guns in a closet. Some people had fancy gun cabinets, like china cabinets, where they displayed their guns. And many people had a handgun in their nightstand.
Now, the standard recommendation seems to be to store guns in a gun safe, partly for safety, but mostly because of the risk of theft. People who have only one or two guns usually don't have a gun safe, though, and those people probably still store their guns in a closet.
But people who say they have their guns in order to defend their homes from intruders can't store their guns under lock and key, because you can't retrieve them and use them fast enough that way. So their guns are usually stored in an accessible place, and they're usually stored loaded.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But people who say they have their guns in order to defend their homes from intruders can't store their guns under lock and key, because you can't retrieve them and use them fast enough that way. So their guns are usually stored in an accessible place, and they're usually stored loaded.
Absolutely terrifying. So any child old enough to be left home alone for a few minutes would have access to them? Worse, if Mum or Dad pops out into the garden they'd have access to them.
I can not fathom this at all.
[ 23. January 2013, 12:40: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Storage of guns was one of the law reforms that happened in Australia.
But then, I don't think we had large numbers of people who had the guns for the protection-from-intruders reason to begin with.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But people who say they have their guns in order to defend their homes from intruders can't store their guns under lock and key, because you can't retrieve them and use them fast enough that way. So their guns are usually stored in an accessible place, and they're usually stored loaded.
Absolutely terrifying. So any child old enough to be left home alone for a few minutes would have access to them? Worse, if Mum or Dad pops out into the garden they'd have access to them.
It's not just the kids who live there, and who have, presumably, been taught what guns are and how to handle guns safely, that are the concern. It's their friends, some of whom have never seen a real gun before.
I read a story recently, a man reflecting on an incident from his childhood. He was at a friend's house, and picked up a gun there, which he assumed to be a toy, and pointed the gun at his friend. The friend's face went white, and he put the gun down and asked what was wrong. The friend explained that the gun was real, and loaded. He was shocked and horrified then, and remains so as an adult. He said he could easily have pulled the trigger, killing his friend, destroying two families, and destroying his own life.
Most children don't learn anything at all about gun safety, because most children don't live in homes where there are guns, and people who don't have guns don't think to teach their children about guns.
That's why it's so important for everyone, gun owner or not, to teach their children gun safety rules. For very little children, the rules are "Stop. Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult." For older children and adults, the rules are, "Treat every gun as if it is real; treat every gun as if it is loaded; never point a gun at any living thing you don't intend to kill."
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Originally posted by Josephine:
But people who say they have their guns in order to defend their homes from intruders can't store their guns under lock and key, because you can't retrieve them and use them fast enough that way. So their guns are usually stored in an accessible place, and they're usually stored loaded.
Absolutely terrifying. So any child old enough to be left home alone for a few minutes would have access to them? Worse, if Mum or Dad pops out into the garden they'd have access to them.
Regarding the issue of a need for immediate use of weapons (self-defense?} versus safety for small children, would the imposition of trigger locks be a way to meet both of these needs?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
That's why it's so important for everyone, gun owner or not, to teach their children gun safety rules. For very little children, the rules are "Stop. Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult." For older children and adults, the rules are, "Treat every gun as if it is real; treat every gun as if it is loaded; never point a gun at any living thing you don't intend to kill."
THIS.
If nothing else comes of this discussion, this one point is worth the whole 20-odd pages of reading.
If everyone taught their children this, the number of accidental deaths would plummet.
Gun safety rules are designed to "fail-safe"- you can screw up any one of them, even two of them, and still not put yourself or someone else in danger of being shot:
quote:
from writer Jeff Cooper:
- All guns are always loaded.
- Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
- Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
- Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
Only when multiple safety rules are broken simultaneously do we enter the danger zone.
I'd also like to voice my support for safe storage of firearms. Buy a locking gun cabinet- they're not very expensive. And you can get models that can be opened with the right key combination in seconds, if access time is a concern. Any gun that's not on your person/under your direct control should be locked up, away from curious children or thieving adults.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Most children don't learn anything at all about gun safety, because most children don't live in homes where there are guns, and people who don't have guns don't think to teach their children about guns.
I'm not sure the household part is correct. Most estimates I have seen suggest that about 1/2 of U.S. households have a firearm of some kind. It's certainly true that most kids don't live in homes where guns are commonly used for sporting purposes and few are taught gun safety. I'm sure some of those firearms are nothing but grandpa's shotgun with out a bit of ammunition in the house, so I guess those don't really count. I definitely agree that all kids should be taught some basic gun safety. Expecially the rules you listed for very little kids.
Kids are kids, and leaving loaded guns where they can reach them is stupid negligence. There absolutely should be laws against it and in some states there are. There are good and inexpensive ways to keep loaded guns readily accessible for defense while keeping them locked away from kids. The top shelf of the closet isn't one of them. For unloaded guns, a locking cabinet will keep them away from exploring kids, but not thieves. You need a good safe for that and those do get expensive.
I stand corrected on the "hammers" comment. According to The FBI 2011 saw 323 homicides by rifles and 496 by blunt objects (hammers, clubs, etc.). 1,587 were commited by unclassified firearms. Certainly some of those were rifles.
The point I poorly attempted to make was that one of the big topics right now is on magazine capacity, especially 30-round magazines for rifles. I was trying to point out that rifles are not commonly used in homicides and that a mag ban on them would have very limited impact on homicides while having a very high impact on legal shooters. Even during these horrible mass shootings, a mag swap might slow down an active shooter by a couple of seconds.
Iconium Bound, I say no to trigger locks. They're cumbersome and aren't quickly removed. Most require a key. It would be like having a padlock on a door and trying to fumble with a key in the dark to remove the lock when you need to get that door open NOW. A quick-access safe like I linked above is the best choice.
+1 to what jbohn said.
[ 23. January 2013, 15:04: Message edited by: monkeylizard ]
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Iconium Bound, I say no to trigger locks. They're cumbersome and aren't quickly removed. Most require a key. It would be like having a padlock on a door and trying to fumble with a key in the dark to remove the lock when you need to get that door open NOW.
What do you think about Smart Guns. The BIOMAC technology looks very interesting and the New Jersey 'technology-waiting legislation' seems to be a very important step forward. Would you support such technology and legislation?
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
"Everyone should just be more careful."
Problem solved. Everyone go home and cuddle your guns.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
]What do you think about Smart Guns. The BIOMAC technology looks very interesting and the New Jersey 'technology-waiting legislation' seems to be a very important step forward. Would you support such technology and legislation?
I'm not monkeylizard, but-
Being a gun guy and a tech guy, I think the concept is interesting- but I'm not ready to support deployment until there's some evidence that they work, correctly, every time- even when someone is stressed out, sweaty, fumbling, etc. Otherwise, you've created an expensive, high-tech, but not particularly ergonomic, club.
YMMV.
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Most estimates I have seen suggest that about 1/2 of U.S. households have a firearm of some kind.
Not sure where you got your numbers. Most links I saw said around 35%.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
jbohn,
Same would apply to the biometric safe monkeylizard linked to earlier. If you are nervous to the point of sweaty and fumbling, I would begin to doubt the efficacy of your defense effort regardless.
Training, gun safes, etc. are superfluous arguments; cost, ignorance and attitudes will limit usage of safety measures unless they are legislated.
[ 23. January 2013, 17:51: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What do you think about Smart Guns. The BIOMAC technology looks very interesting and the New Jersey 'technology-waiting legislation' seems to be a very important step forward. Would you support such technology and legislation?
I commented on biometrics a little earlier when DT brought it up. I don't think it's quite ready for prime-time yet. Basically what jbohn just said.
BIOMAC appears to be the closest system to being ready for the real world. Regarding legislation on it, I don't know enough about it (I have some concerns*) and it isn't yet a proven system. I'd want to know what real experts have to say about it before saying I could support or oppose it.
In the end, I don't want anything extra that will keep my gun from firing when I need it to. That's why my self-defense firearm of choice is a make/model that has been proven over decades of real-world use, survived excrutiating torture tests that would render many others uselss, and has no extra "features" to get in the way of Draw-Aim-Shoot.
Someone mentioned 3D printing earlier. It's not as crazy as some might think. You can't yet make every part, but some things you can. The part of an AR-15, for example, that has the serial number works just fine when made out of plastic on a 3D printer. It's illegal to do it without proper licensing, but the tech works just fine. Some 3D printers can use metal powders, so it's no longer limited to plastics. Those are still too expensive for the average hobbyist, but that's probably just a matter of time.
*The one thing I really don't like about BIOMAC is that you need a service center to add in approved users. If I can add/remove authorized users myself, then we have something to work with. The point is to prevent unauthorized access, not limit authorized access. I don't need a service call from my alarm company every time I want to setup a temporary code for my neighbor while I'm on vacation. I just do it.
Something else I'd like to know about BIOMAC is what happens when it is removed? Can a thief just remove the BIOMAC parts, or replace them with traditional parts, perhaps parts made on a 3D printer? If so, a major reason for wanting to legislate its use (stop the flow of stolen firearms) is gone.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Most estimates I have seen suggest that about 1/2 of U.S. households have a firearm of some kind.
Not sure where you got your numbers. Most links I saw said around 35%.
Just Facts says 40-45%. I tend to think these are all on the low side. I know quite a few people in the gun world who would tell anyone asking about their guns to go pound sand. So for that reason, I tend to go with the higher part of the ranges proposed by surveys. in this case, 45% or "about" half. That's as of 2010. I expect that number has grown in the past few months. Anecdotal evidence around my local haunts suggest we have had a considerable increase in new gun owners.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Same would apply to the biometric safe monkeylizard linked to earlier.
That's not a biometric safe. You press the buttons on the ends of the "fingertips" in a certain sequence to unlock it.
One of the most common biometric safes looks just like the one I linked, so the confusion is understandable. According to my professional safe guy, the fingerprint sensors are known to fail for a variety of reason, including being dirty/dusty. He sells the kind I linked, but not the biometric ones.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Just Facts says 40-45%.
I see that Just Facts' president and primary researcher "is the author of Rational Conclusions, a highly researched book evidencing factual support for the Bible across a broad array of academic disciplines."
I hate myself for doubting their objectivity.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Even if we agree it's 50% of households which have a gun, which I somewhat doubt, that is probably very regionally-influenced. In other words, in many places, almost no one has a gun, so children have definitely not seen a gun at their house or the kids' house or anywhere else. I remember intense curiosity and amazement after seeing one on a policeman's hip while we were all squished together on a subway ride on a class trip. My classmate tried to touch it. I can't remember what happened besides that he got in trouble, but I can't imagine that went particularly well.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Right at 100% of everyone who really wants one has one, though. Unless you're in maximum security, in boot camp, etc.
[ 23. January 2013, 18:33: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Right at 100% of everyone who really wants one has one, though.
If that were true there would be no theft of guns.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Right at 100% of everyone who really wants one has one, though.
If that were true there would be no theft of guns.
Then why are televisions ever stolen?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Even if we agree it's 50% of households which have a gun, which I somewhat doubt, that is probably very regionally-influenced. In other words, in many places, almost no one has a gun, so children have definitely not seen a gun at their house or the kids' house or anywhere else. I remember intense curiosity and amazement after seeing one on a policeman's hip while we were all squished together on a subway ride on a class trip. My classmate tried to touch it. I can't remember what happened besides that he got in trouble, but I can't imagine that went particularly well.
That's true. I know that I have seen estimates of about %25 for California (no, it's not important enough for me to go looking for that data) so it's certainly location driven.
Your class-trip is a great example of why every kid needs to be taught those basic rules Josephine mentioned earlier. What if that had been at a friend's house and not attached to a police officer?
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Just Facts says 40-45%.
I see that Just Facts' president and primary researcher "is the author of Rational Conclusions, a highly researched book evidencing factual support for the Bible across a broad array of academic disciplines."
I hate myself for doubting their objectivity.
Fine. Just for you, I'll find another Googled source. How about Gallup? They say 47%, and I see that it peaked in 1994 at 54%. So...as I said.. about half.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
jbohn,
Same would apply to the biometric safe monkeylizard linked to earlier. If you are nervous to the point of sweaty and fumbling, I would begin to doubt the efficacy of your defense effort regardless.
As monkeylizard pointed out, his safe isn't biometric. That aside, I think you're over-reading "sweaty and fumbling". If you're ever in a situation where you need a firearm, your hands will be sweating, and the adrenaline will be pumping. That's what I meant, nothing more. My apologies if it wasn't clear.
The sweating hands scenario causes issues with things like fingerprint sensors, which is what I was getting at.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Training, gun safes, etc. are superfluous arguments; cost, ignorance and attitudes will limit usage of safety measures unless they are legislated.
You can legislate until the cows come home- it won't solve the problem. As an analogy, let's take driving while intoxicated. It's illegal in every part of the United States, but plenty of people do it, and the vast majority are never caught. What makes anyone think that legislating storage conditions in the home is any more enforceable? (Unless you're advocating a system of in-home visits to check it. That won't fly in the US.)
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Right at 100% of everyone who really wants one has one, though.
If that were true there would be no theft of guns.
Then why are televisions ever stolen?
Logic slip. Who said anything about televisions, and what do they have to do with this conversation? Please make whatever point you're trying to make here a little more explicit. Call me stupid if it helps you to feel better.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Training, gun safes, etc. are superfluous arguments; cost, ignorance and attitudes will limit usage of safety measures unless they are legislated.
You can legislate until the cows come home- it won't solve the problem. As an analogy, let's take driving while intoxicated. It's illegal in every part of the United States, but plenty of people do it, and the vast majority are never caught. What makes anyone think that legislating storage conditions in the home is any more enforceable? (Unless you're advocating a system of in-home visits to check it. That won't fly in the US.)
So, we stop legislating driving whilst intoxicated? Yes, people will break the law, but fewer of them will. Most people obey the law, funny as that may seem. What legislating drunk driving does, besides jailing people, is raise awareness. Things can change. As prosecution and awareness rise, drunk driving deaths drop. So to can death rates by guns.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What legislating drunk driving does, besides jailing people, is raise awareness.
It does, but you don't have to have legislation to do that. Because of efforts of groups like the ASPCA and Sarah McLachlin singing sad songs over pictures of emaciated puppies, people are more aware of animal abuse.
The NRA does a great job creating training and safety materials, but does a poor job advertising them. I'd like to see a national ad campaign from the NRA and the NSSF (a trade group sponsored by many manufacturers) promoting safety courses, responsible shooting sports, safe storage, and repeating the safety rules.
[ 23. January 2013, 21:14: Message edited by: monkeylizard ]
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The NRA does a fantastic job of taking the teeth out of sensible legislation. Like preventing databases for gun offenses. And sneaking in riders that blunt the teeth of the very agencies they say should handle problems. Like saying local law enforcement should not be the point of enforcement, the ATF should. This after the NRA helped draft laws severely limiting the ATF's power.
The NRA may have kept the programmes they created in their original incarnation, but it does not change the fact that they are more a PAC for Arms manufacturers than disseminators of gun safety.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Darllenwr:
I guess that I am probably being stupid, but can anybody explain to me, without getting intense and emotional, how there can ever be the need (and I stress that word) for an individual, who is not a member of the armed forces on active service, to possess an automatic or semi-automatic weapon? Why would anybody in their right mind (and I do not include the paranoid in that remark, by the way) feel the need to buy such a weapon?
I'll have a go. Anyone who is serious about carrying a weapon for self-defense will, in most cases, choose a semi-automatic pistol. They are lighter and smaller than revolvers, and hold more ammunition.
For rifles and shotguns, semi-automatic designs are preferred for hunting because of their rate of fire, except where extreme accuracy is required.
quote:
[qb]And who, servicemen apart, needs to own an assault rifle? Surely this is indefensible in a civilised society.
From which I conclude that society in the USA is not yet what I would describe as civilised.
Some people use them for hunting. Some use them for target shooting. Some people are best understood as collectors or enthusiasts who don't really "need" them any more than someone "needs" an MG roadster. To truly understand the mindset of gun rights advocates, you have to realize that they see the same intrinsic value in such weapons that some people see in artwork, antique watches, model railroads, etc.
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Makes sense. I was arguing with some folks at one point somewhere and asked someone point blank why, if changing clips was so easy, there was even a market for large clips.
The answer was, more or less, "For the fun of it."
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
... You can legislate until the cows come home- it won't solve the problem. As an analogy, let's take driving while intoxicated. It's illegal in every part of the United States, but plenty of people do it, and the vast majority are never caught. What makes anyone think that legislating storage conditions in the home is any more enforceable? (Unless you're advocating a system of in-home visits to check it. That won't fly in the US.)
(Yet again pointing out that no single initiative can solve every problem, but that's no reason not to adopt an initiative that might solve some problems.)
OK, let's look at drunk driving deaths as an analogy. What has the impact of those pathetic unenforceable laws and pathetic advertising / educational campaigns been?
quote:
Since NHTSA began recording alcohol-related statistics in 1982, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 52% ...
In other words, the measures you are dismissing have saved thousands of lives. Good analogy.
ETA missing link
The Century Council
How about another analogy? Smoke alarms. There's no law requiring anyone to have a smoke alarm in their home (although there are building code requirements for new construction and major renovations.) You might get a small break on your home insurance for having a smoke alarm. Alarms in apartment or commercial buildings get tested, but the Fire Dept. doesn't come to your suburban detached house to see if you have a working smoke alarm. The message has gone out, though, and it appears people have heard it:
quote:
•Fire deaths have been cut in half since smoke alarms were introduced in the late 1970s.
•An estimated 95 percent of U.S. homes have at least one smoke alarm.
Underwriters Laboratory
[ 23. January 2013, 22:16: Message edited by: Soror Magna ]
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What if any regulations exist in the US about how guns and ammunition are stored in the home ?
Most jurisdictions have restrictions of one kind or another focused on child safety. Storing a loaded gun in a location accessible to a child is, in my home state, a felony.
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Besides, I'm intrigued to know your personal take on this. Aside from your arguments about what will or won't work in terms of legislation, would you personally feel disenfranchised if restrictions were placed on you owning a gun?
Many people in the U.S. see the right of self-defense to be a fundamental human right. Gun ownership is one means of exercising that right.
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bartolomeo
Musical Engineer
# 8352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And why were mass killings of strangers rare to unknown up until about the 1980s in the US, where firearms have always been freely available, but also in places such as Australia, where gun availability had been far easier in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, than from the mid-century onward?
It has little to do with semi-automatics, because anyone with a bit of practice could kill a large number of victims - especially children - with bolt or lever action weapons.
I believe it is a combination of:
1) The de-institutionalization of the mentally ill in the late 1960s
2) Increasing use of violence in film, television, and video games, and
3) Changes in reportage. Such incidents received less widespread media coverage prior to 1970 when they did occur, leading both to fewer copycat incidents and a belief that such incidents were not common during that time period.
--------------------
"Individual talent is too sporadic and unpredictable to be allowed any important part in the organization society" --Stuart Chase
Posts: 1291 | From: the American Midwest | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
