Personal ownership of a gun is irrelevant. You can require that handguns only be shot at ranges without requiring the gun to belong to the range. People like to own stuff.
You can't require a gun to only be shot at ranges effectively without storage at the range.
Sure you can. Just means you can't use them legally anywhere else. You can store them or transport them. That's basically how Canada works with handguns, I think, unless you are one of a limited number of people allowed to carry them for self-defense.
Personal ownership of a gun is irrelevant. You can require that handguns only be shot at ranges without requiring the gun to belong to the range. People like to own stuff.
You can't require a gun to only be shot at ranges effectively without storage at the range.
Sure you can. Just means you can't use them legally anywhere else. You can store them or transport them. That's basically how Canada works with handguns, I think, unless you are one of a limited number of people allowed to carry them for self-defense.
I think is is effectively the law in most US cities, as well
just that everyone is allowed to carry a gun for self defense
shooting a gun willy-nilly is generally illegal, even if no one is hurt and nothing is damaged
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
You aren't going to make any progress with any gun owner by telling them you want to seize their guns.
Telling them that their guns will not be seized but are only going to be stored somewhere they have no control over, and will be granted extremely limited access to, have no recourse if a government agency decides to remove thise guns from said location, and have no way of opting out of is going to come across as remarkably similar to seizing their guns.
Involuntary "storage at the range" is not a realistic idea.
You aren't going to make any progress with any gun owner by telling them you want to seize their guns.
Telling them that their guns will not be seized but are only going to be stored somewhere they have no control over, and will be granted extremely limited access to, have no recourse if a government agency decides to remove thise guns from said location, and have no way of opting out of is going to come across as remarkably similar to seizing their guns.
You aren't going to make progress with gun owners. Period. Regardless of what you suggest. History, right up until the present, has made that abundantly clear, over and over again. So why go for half measures that only nibble at the margins?
It's like the healthcare debate. If the opponents of healthcare reform are gonna try and destroy the system you propose and build, regardless of what it is, why take a compromise position? Just go for the brass ring.
The idea that if gun control advocates just proposed more "sensible" reform ideas, gun rights people wouldn't have to oppose them is a farce and a lie.
You aren't going to make any progress with any gun owner by telling them you want to seize their guns.
Telling them that their guns will not be seized but are only going to be stored somewhere they have no control over, and will be granted extremely limited access to, have no recourse if a government agency decides to remove thise guns from said location, and have no way of opting out of is going to come across as remarkably similar to seizing their guns.
You aren't going to make progress with gun owners. Period. Regardless of what you suggest. History, right up until the present, has made that abundantly clear, over and over again. So why go for half measures that only nibble at the margins?
It's like the healthcare debate. If the opponents of healthcare reform are gonna try and destroy the system you propose and build, regardless of what it is, why take a compromise position? Just go for the brass ring.
The idea that if gun control advocates just proposed more "sensible" reform ideas, gun rights people wouldn't have to oppose them is a farce and a lie.
I have also come to this conclusion, with the end result is nothing happens "EVER". There couldn't be more proof that guns are problem and yet "cars" kill people so why don't we ban them too. When mass shootings occur, people buy MORE guns and ammo, out of FEAR that the libtards are coming for their weapons. Stocks go up for gun/ammo suppliers and the cycle continues. It is impossible to have a real talk with anyone who loves their freedom more than you do that the possibility exists that guns were created for one purpose only and that is to kill things, so maybe we should have really strict rules around them. I honestly question the point of even debating it anymore as we aren't getting anywhere.
+3
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
You aren't going to make any progress with any gun owner by telling them you want to seize their guns.
Telling them that their guns will not be seized but are only going to be stored somewhere they have no control over, and will be granted extremely limited access to, have no recourse if a government agency decides to remove thise guns from said location, and have no way of opting out of is going to come across as remarkably similar to seizing their guns.
You aren't going to make progress with gun owners. Period. Regardless of what you suggest. History, right up until the present, has made that abundantly clear, over and over again. So why go for half measures that only nibble at the margins?
It's like the healthcare debate. If the opponents of healthcare reform are gonna try and destroy the system you propose and build, regardless of what it is, why take a compromise position? Just go for the brass ring.
The idea that if gun control advocates just proposed more "sensible" reform ideas, gun rights people wouldn't have to oppose them is a farce and a lie.
I have also come to this conclusion, with the end result is nothing happens "EVER". There couldn't be more proof that guns are problem and yet "cars" kill people so why don't we ban them too. When mass shootings occur, people buy MORE guns and ammo, out of FEAR that the libtards are coming for their weapons. Stocks go up for gun/ammo suppliers and the cycle continues. It is impossible to have a real talk with anyone who loves their freedom more than you do that the possibility exists that guns were created for one purpose only and that is to kill things, so maybe we should have really strict rules around them. I honestly question the point of even debating it anymore as we aren't getting anywhere.
This is true, but one of the reason for trying to "nibble at the margins" is the second amendment. That thing is going to be hard to fight against. But they have upheld fees, registration and restrictions on conceal carry. So these are the margins we can fight with and hope to get in some reform.
So they need to make better smart gun.
One that does not rely on a metal bar sliding one way or the other.
The article actually mentions some ways to do this.
In addition, building magnetic trigger unlockers and radio jamming fields are beyond the capacities of most criminals! If there is an additional charge of $20 of batteries and shipping, 2 hours of research time, and your gun ends up looking really stupid then less criminals will use the stolen gun or steal guns. also, children will not accidentally build radio rebroadcasters and install them on your key fobs.
It's also not expected that smart gun technology would be the only safety mechanism going forward. You can have a smart gun that you also secure by other means. It feels like the argument being made is that if it fails to magically stop every concerted attempt to defeat it, or doesn't allow us to just leave guns laying around haphazardly in daycare centers, it's useless. Gun safes and trigger locks are defeatable, probably easier than this is, but we use them anyway.
simple quick fix for the "pull bar with magnets" security flaw would be to:
A: make it from non ferrous material
B: not make it a simple metal bar that can be pulled out.
Instead, make it 2+ interlocking rotating bars, disks, whatevers, that need to rotate in exactly right way, to allow trigger to be pulled and the hammer or whatever it was to hit the bullet casing.
Any smart gun should have minimal amount of moving parts, especially ones that anyone can access without literally taking apart the actual parts of the gun.
Ideally, forcibly unlocking a smart gun should be harder than building your own gun, and require better tools.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Everything is dancing around that the use of guns is the problem. If someone uses a gun, they have either killed someone, tried to kill someone and/or potentially killed someone.
Nope.
By volume, most bullets fired end up in a paper target causing no harm to anyone.
simple quick fix for the "pull bar with magnets" security flaw would be to:
A: make it from non ferrous material
I mean, problem solved right there, no need for any subsequent solutions.
ehh, it probably needs to be ferrous so the electomagment that pulls the bar out of the way when the bracelet is nearby can exert force on it.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
I sold my revolver today, which I know doesn't help the problem with "guns in America" but it's no longer in my house which makes my wife happy. So I guess I'm happy.
I'm also selling my bolt action rifle. The only guns I will own going forward are a couple of muzzleloaders, my blunderbuss, because fuck you pry that from my cold dead hands, and a single shot 12 gauge. Everything I need for hunting, and a blunderbuss.
That's where I'm at on gun control. I'll keep those, keep them unloaded, and use them for their intended purpose, which is hunting (and fending off stagecoach robbers or boarding a pirate ship)
are YOU on the beer list?
+21
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
I re-read my post and I realized I didn't get to the point. I'm a gun owner, after some realization, I came to the conclusion I have a lot of dangerous things "just to have them" instead of for their intended purpose, so I changed that.
I get I'm the unicorn here, but I mean it's possible without getting to "take them all away" That was my point.
simple quick fix for the "pull bar with magnets" security flaw would be to:
A: make it from non ferrous material
B: not make it a simple metal bar that can be pulled out.
Instead, make it 2+ interlocking rotating bars, disks, whatevers, that need to rotate in exactly right way, to allow trigger to be pulled and the hammer or whatever it was to hit the bullet casing.
Any smart gun should have minimal amount of moving parts, especially ones that anyone can access without literally taking apart the actual parts of the gun.
Ideally, forcibly unlocking a smart gun should be harder than building your own gun, and require better tools.
The reason that I suggested magnets as a hack was because small high quality gadgets use magnets instead of actuators
The safety mechanism is actually a magnet. It would be hard not to make it magnet hackable unless the entire mechanism was changed
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I re-read my post and I realized I didn't get to the point. I'm a gun owner, after some realization, I came to the conclusion I have a lot of dangerous things "just to have them" instead of for their intended purpose, so I changed that.
I get I'm the unicorn here, but I mean it's possible without getting to "take them all away" That was my point.
On the individual scale you’re right, the sad part is it’s going to be difficult to tell how wide spread this is among gun owners since any info about this getting out to the public will mean you will get death threats. Thanks, NRA.
It’s quite another thing on the state or national scale given how anything pro-regulation on the books is made out to be the apocalypse among paranoid gun owners, in large part from the NRA and gun manufacturers intent.
simple quick fix for the "pull bar with magnets" security flaw would be to:
A: make it from non ferrous material
B: not make it a simple metal bar that can be pulled out.
Instead, make it 2+ interlocking rotating bars, disks, whatevers, that need to rotate in exactly right way, to allow trigger to be pulled and the hammer or whatever it was to hit the bullet casing.
Any smart gun should have minimal amount of moving parts, especially ones that anyone can access without literally taking apart the actual parts of the gun.
Ideally, forcibly unlocking a smart gun should be harder than building your own gun, and require better tools.
The reason that I suggested magnets as a hack was because small high quality gadgets use magnets instead of actuators
The safety mechanism is actually a magnet. It would be hard not to make it magnet hackable unless the entire mechanism was changed
Then you need to make them in such a way that strong magnet will lock the mechanism instead of unlocking it.
Possibly through opposing magnet/slider/thingy that, if a strong magnet is used on one side, will move to lock the mechanism as the other slider unlocks it.
That said, how many would be muggers carry around strong magnets just incase they might steal a gun?
simple quick fix for the "pull bar with magnets" security flaw would be to:
A: make it from non ferrous material
B: not make it a simple metal bar that can be pulled out.
Instead, make it 2+ interlocking rotating bars, disks, whatevers, that need to rotate in exactly right way, to allow trigger to be pulled and the hammer or whatever it was to hit the bullet casing.
Any smart gun should have minimal amount of moving parts, especially ones that anyone can access without literally taking apart the actual parts of the gun.
Ideally, forcibly unlocking a smart gun should be harder than building your own gun, and require better tools.
The reason that I suggested magnets as a hack was because small high quality gadgets use magnets instead of actuators
The safety mechanism is actually a magnet. It would be hard not to make it magnet hackable unless the entire mechanism was changed
Then you need to make them in such a way that strong magnet will lock the mechanism instead of unlocking it.
Possibly through opposing magnet/slider/thingy that, if a strong magnet is used on one side, will move to lock the mechanism as the other slider unlocks it.
That said, how many would be muggers carry around strong magnets just incase they might steal a gun?
What they came up with was basically an electronically de-activated pin-block safety, and I think is probably about as good a mechanism you can design for the purpose.
The history of guns is littered with designs for actions like swiss watches, and they were pretty much all terrible because you don't hit your Rolex with a hammer and spray it with sticky corrosive dust every time you glance at your wrist.
Mechanical parts put onto guns need to be fairly simple and robust, because firing a gun puts huge amount of shock forces through it and the gun needs to be strip-able so it can be cleaned.
You also have a very small amount of space to build this mechanism into, because the vast majority of any gun's action has to be solid metal so that it can withstand the instantaneous jump from 0 to 50,000 PSI.
Smart guns only really solve a very niche problem - people losing a gun in a struggle and then getting shot with it.
To prevent accidental shooting by kids a trigger lock is going to be just as effective, for <$10. Rather than the $1000+ in additional costs this system adds. And once the gun is stolen, it'll probably take all of 30 minutes with a file to nullify either solution.
Are guns more likely to result in a "successful" suicide?
Or said another way, if access to guns "in the moment" is hard, are people more likely to survive or not attempt suicide?
Intuitively it seems to me that rigging up a rope or chugging some pills gives you more time to think and requires more effort than reaching for the gun and squeezing.
60% is insane.
Yes. They've shown this with several studies. The most often cited one was that removing the gas ovens that allowed people to kill themselves not only reduced death by that particular method, but drastically dropped suicide overall. Suicide is usually not a long term planned activity, it is a short term bad decision. Removing easily accessible methods of suicide has been documented several times to lower suicide rates.
Another factor that plays into this to some extent is that some suicides are more cry-for-help-like than others. If you're not really sold on the whole suicide thing, you're more likely to do something like take a bunch of sleeping pills in a place where there's a good chance someone might find you before you die. You're sort of rolling the dice on the actual dying bit.
If you're going with a firearm, you're pretty damned sold on wanting to end it all.
There's also a gender effect - males (or at least male youths, but I believe this holds for adults, too) are more likely to use firearms, while females are more likely to go with a "gentler" method. Hanging, pills, etc.
But yeah, a lot of it is just that it's harder to fail at suicide when guns are involved. It takes no thought, no planning, and no skill. There are frighteningly few steps between "I want to die" and actually shooting yourself.
Well... not really. Guns are more effective because they're easier but very few people think a lot about ensuring they're going to die. It's not hard to ensure you will die by taking pills... but it may require going to the store and buying
more.
They use what is on hand. Which is to say that guns are more effective because they're on hand and complete, not necessarily because they're particularly effective.
As an example: jumping off a high place is probably the most guaranteed method of killing yourself. But people who are dissuaded from jumping off bridges by railings don't substitute for other methods. And people largely are dissuaded by railings. Jumping suicides are rare in general simply because few people live close enough to a high structure and the act of traveling there will dissuade people.
Aside: I am not actually sure there even is a gender effect except insomuch as males are more likely to have access to firearms. Males kill themselves with firearms around 60% of suicides. Females around 30%. Men own roughly 3 times the weapons that women do (75% of ownership is male)
I am also willing to bet that General rope/mechanical competency* explains a lot of the hanging deaths as well. Though actually getting enough quality data to test this is never going to happen.
*this is not to say women are less capable but rather fewer have training
This gist of this is a quote from a John Hopkins professor and the first part is something to ignore but the second is not. Men and women attempt in roughly equal numbers from jumping off high objects.
Jumping is a good thing to look at in terms of testing a lethality or messinecss bias because there is no access bias between men and women. If there were either a lethality or mesinessnbias then you would expect men to jump more often than women. But you don't.
I would be willing to bet that there is zero lethality or messiness bias at all. Women are less suicidal because they tend to have access to fewer lethal methods. This reduces the potential instances where a spontaneous suicidal action could occur which reduces the total number of suicides.
This is an interesting statistic, but, USA has more guns than people, but most people don't own guns.
How much of the gun ownership is men owning multiple guns v women owning multiple guns?
There is also likely multiple access in many households. But I would be surprised if women had similar "access" to firearms as men.
But this presumes that those people can be identified, that they are able to appropriately deny access to their firearms from people who wouldn't qualify through the theoretical screening process. And no such process really exists. People become depressed after not being depressed. People develop addictions or mental illness in general after being mentally healthy. People get into bad relationships or fall on hard times. People get old.
I don't know how to screen people for those things. No one does. If we did, there'd be so many other societal ills we could prevent. We're effectively left with the choice between being fine with a 9/11 worth of deaths from firearms every month, and trying to stop it.
Hell, hobbies pale in comparison but if we really wanted to, if that was the sticking point its solvable. If people just want to perform target practice they could do so without personal ownership of a gun. Target ranges exist and could be much more readily and effectively regulated. Hell hunting centers could be established for people who want to use guns to hunt, with appointments to take out your gun for a limited time acting as de facto waiting lists to reduce the threat of suicides.
That is a complicated scenario. 1) There's plenty to weed out the criminals, and those who have proven themselves too unstable to have a gun license - with various forms of counter measures and checks, and once with actual teeth in them rather than the borderline useless stuff we have now. 2) It's impossible to solve because the government don't have a Pre-Crime unit. No laws are capable of taking into account a future disaster or error, that isn't to say many people can't be saved or protected with regulations. Unfortunately the US has never been political viable to put the on place because they've been obstructed and sabotaged by organizations like the NRA and the gun lobbyists. In 2017 we don't know how far we can go with proper enforcement, but we should try when we're able to.
No one seriously is proposing those types of solutions because enough people value their guns over their fellow man. That's whats being danced around, with anecdote and special pleading vs hard empirical fact. We can be nice about it to try to sway people, but since there's been no sign of any compromise for decades its hard for me to think obfuscating that central point is worth it.
Right now there is no environment for a compromise, the moderate side don't have power in the pro-gun side, the extremists do. Once the extremist side is neutralized then we can finally get movement on this issue. This must be a big priority for both sides who want to make this issue solvable, otherwise all we're doing is treading water.
simple quick fix for the "pull bar with magnets" security flaw would be to:
A: make it from non ferrous material
B: not make it a simple metal bar that can be pulled out.
Instead, make it 2+ interlocking rotating bars, disks, whatevers, that need to rotate in exactly right way, to allow trigger to be pulled and the hammer or whatever it was to hit the bullet casing.
Any smart gun should have minimal amount of moving parts, especially ones that anyone can access without literally taking apart the actual parts of the gun.
Ideally, forcibly unlocking a smart gun should be harder than building your own gun, and require better tools.
The reason that I suggested magnets as a hack was because small high quality gadgets use magnets instead of actuators
The safety mechanism is actually a magnet. It would be hard not to make it magnet hackable unless the entire mechanism was changed
Then you need to make them in such a way that strong magnet will lock the mechanism instead of unlocking it.
Possibly through opposing magnet/slider/thingy that, if a strong magnet is used on one side, will move to lock the mechanism as the other slider unlocks it.
That said, how many would be muggers carry around strong magnets just incase they might steal a gun?
What they came up with was basically an electronically de-activated pin-block safety, and I think is probably about as good a mechanism you can design for the purpose.
The history of guns is littered with designs for actions like swiss watches, and they were pretty much all terrible because you don't hit your Rolex with a hammer and spray it with sticky corrosive dust every time you glance at your wrist.
Mechanical parts put onto guns need to be fairly simple and robust, because firing a gun puts huge amount of shock forces through it and the gun needs to be strip-able so it can be cleaned.
You also have a very small amount of space to build this mechanism into, because the vast majority of any gun's action has to be solid metal so that it can withstand the instantaneous jump from 0 to 50,000 PSI.
Smart guns only really solve a very niche problem - people losing a gun in a struggle and then getting shot with it.
To prevent accidental shooting by kids a trigger lock is going to be just as effective, for <$10. Rather than the $1000+ in additional costs this system adds. And once the gun is stolen, it'll probably take all of 30 minutes with a file to nullify either solution.
Smart guns aren't meant to save every gun problem, just some of them. It's impossible for every angle to covered 100%. But this will save lots of lives, there's no down side with having smart guns on the market. The technology will improve over time, but first they have to sell the bloody things.
simple quick fix for the "pull bar with magnets" security flaw would be to:
A: make it from non ferrous material
B: not make it a simple metal bar that can be pulled out.
Instead, make it 2+ interlocking rotating bars, disks, whatevers, that need to rotate in exactly right way, to allow trigger to be pulled and the hammer or whatever it was to hit the bullet casing.
Any smart gun should have minimal amount of moving parts, especially ones that anyone can access without literally taking apart the actual parts of the gun.
Ideally, forcibly unlocking a smart gun should be harder than building your own gun, and require better tools.
The reason that I suggested magnets as a hack was because small high quality gadgets use magnets instead of actuators
The safety mechanism is actually a magnet. It would be hard not to make it magnet hackable unless the entire mechanism was changed
Then you need to make them in such a way that strong magnet will lock the mechanism instead of unlocking it.
Possibly through opposing magnet/slider/thingy that, if a strong magnet is used on one side, will move to lock the mechanism as the other slider unlocks it.
That said, how many would be muggers carry around strong magnets just incase they might steal a gun?
What they came up with was basically an electronically de-activated pin-block safety, and I think is probably about as good a mechanism you can design for the purpose.
The history of guns is littered with designs for actions like swiss watches, and they were pretty much all terrible because you don't hit your Rolex with a hammer and spray it with sticky corrosive dust every time you glance at your wrist.
Mechanical parts put onto guns need to be fairly simple and robust, because firing a gun puts huge amount of shock forces through it and the gun needs to be strip-able so it can be cleaned.
You also have a very small amount of space to build this mechanism into, because the vast majority of any gun's action has to be solid metal so that it can withstand the instantaneous jump from 0 to 50,000 PSI.
Smart guns only really solve a very niche problem - people losing a gun in a struggle and then getting shot with it.
To prevent accidental shooting by kids a trigger lock is going to be just as effective, for <$10. Rather than the $1000+ in additional costs this system adds. And once the gun is stolen, it'll probably take all of 30 minutes with a file to nullify either solution.
None of this is a reason to either not bother with smart gun technology or for the NRA to turn any potential dealers of smart guns into pariahs.
Smart guns may not be a foolproof and perfect "solution" to every single problem with guns, but it's a hell of an improvement to nearly all of them.
A trigger lock is not "just as effective" because you can forget to put it on. A smart gun is always a smart gun without any intervention on your part.
Michael Williams knows that some people might feel he’s being insensitive by giving away one of the devices less than a month after 59 people were killed and hundreds more injured when Paddock opened fire on a country music concert from his hotel room.
However, Williams said that he believes that bump stocks are being unfairly vilified and that attempts to regulate them would be an infringement on the rights of gun owners.
This is why this issue is intractable at the moment.
simple quick fix for the "pull bar with magnets" security flaw would be to:
A: make it from non ferrous material
B: not make it a simple metal bar that can be pulled out.
Instead, make it 2+ interlocking rotating bars, disks, whatevers, that need to rotate in exactly right way, to allow trigger to be pulled and the hammer or whatever it was to hit the bullet casing.
Any smart gun should have minimal amount of moving parts, especially ones that anyone can access without literally taking apart the actual parts of the gun.
Ideally, forcibly unlocking a smart gun should be harder than building your own gun, and require better tools.
The reason that I suggested magnets as a hack was because small high quality gadgets use magnets instead of actuators
The safety mechanism is actually a magnet. It would be hard not to make it magnet hackable unless the entire mechanism was changed
Then you need to make them in such a way that strong magnet will lock the mechanism instead of unlocking it.
Possibly through opposing magnet/slider/thingy that, if a strong magnet is used on one side, will move to lock the mechanism as the other slider unlocks it.
That said, how many would be muggers carry around strong magnets just incase they might steal a gun?
What they came up with was basically an electronically de-activated pin-block safety, and I think is probably about as good a mechanism you can design for the purpose.
The history of guns is littered with designs for actions like swiss watches, and they were pretty much all terrible because you don't hit your Rolex with a hammer and spray it with sticky corrosive dust every time you glance at your wrist.
Mechanical parts put onto guns need to be fairly simple and robust, because firing a gun puts huge amount of shock forces through it and the gun needs to be strip-able so it can be cleaned.
You also have a very small amount of space to build this mechanism into, because the vast majority of any gun's action has to be solid metal so that it can withstand the instantaneous jump from 0 to 50,000 PSI.
Smart guns only really solve a very niche problem - people losing a gun in a struggle and then getting shot with it.
To prevent accidental shooting by kids a trigger lock is going to be just as effective, for <$10. Rather than the $1000+ in additional costs this system adds. And once the gun is stolen, it'll probably take all of 30 minutes with a file to nullify either solution.
None of this is a reason to either not bother with smart gun technology or for the NRA to turn any potential dealers of smart guns into pariahs.
Smart guns may not be a foolproof and perfect "solution" to every single problem with guns, but it's a hell of an improvement to nearly all of them.
A trigger lock is not "just as effective" because you can forget to put it on. A smart gun is always a smart gun without any intervention on your part.
You're 100% right: absolutely none of that is reason for the NRA to make pariahs of the potential dealers of smart guns. One of the reasons why they do, however, was covered by Samantha Bee a few months back (more specifically, in April).
The short version: there's a New Jersey law that says that if a smart gun is sold anywhere in the US, then the only gun that can be sold in the state of New Jersey can be smart guns (in other words: banning the sales of non-smart guns). And the NRA has gotten it into enough people's heads that this is a big step in a widespread effort to ban all guns.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
simple quick fix for the "pull bar with magnets" security flaw would be to:
A: make it from non ferrous material
B: not make it a simple metal bar that can be pulled out.
Instead, make it 2+ interlocking rotating bars, disks, whatevers, that need to rotate in exactly right way, to allow trigger to be pulled and the hammer or whatever it was to hit the bullet casing.
Any smart gun should have minimal amount of moving parts, especially ones that anyone can access without literally taking apart the actual parts of the gun.
Ideally, forcibly unlocking a smart gun should be harder than building your own gun, and require better tools.
The reason that I suggested magnets as a hack was because small high quality gadgets use magnets instead of actuators
The safety mechanism is actually a magnet. It would be hard not to make it magnet hackable unless the entire mechanism was changed
Then you need to make them in such a way that strong magnet will lock the mechanism instead of unlocking it.
Possibly through opposing magnet/slider/thingy that, if a strong magnet is used on one side, will move to lock the mechanism as the other slider unlocks it.
That said, how many would be muggers carry around strong magnets just incase they might steal a gun?
What they came up with was basically an electronically de-activated pin-block safety, and I think is probably about as good a mechanism you can design for the purpose.
The history of guns is littered with designs for actions like swiss watches, and they were pretty much all terrible because you don't hit your Rolex with a hammer and spray it with sticky corrosive dust every time you glance at your wrist.
Mechanical parts put onto guns need to be fairly simple and robust, because firing a gun puts huge amount of shock forces through it and the gun needs to be strip-able so it can be cleaned.
You also have a very small amount of space to build this mechanism into, because the vast majority of any gun's action has to be solid metal so that it can withstand the instantaneous jump from 0 to 50,000 PSI.
Smart guns only really solve a very niche problem - people losing a gun in a struggle and then getting shot with it.
To prevent accidental shooting by kids a trigger lock is going to be just as effective, for <$10. Rather than the $1000+ in additional costs this system adds. And once the gun is stolen, it'll probably take all of 30 minutes with a file to nullify either solution.
None of this is a reason to either not bother with smart gun technology or for the NRA to turn any potential dealers of smart guns into pariahs.
Smart guns may not be a foolproof and perfect "solution" to every single problem with guns, but it's a hell of an improvement to nearly all of them.
A trigger lock is not "just as effective" because you can forget to put it on. A smart gun is always a smart gun without any intervention on your part.
You're 100% right: absolutely none of that is reason for the NRA to make pariahs of the potential dealers of smart guns. One of the reasons why they do, however, was covered by Samantha Bee a few months back (more specifically, in April).
The short version: there's a New Jersey law that says that if a smart gun is sold anywhere in the US, then the only gun that can be sold in the state of New Jersey can be smart guns (in other words: banning the sales of non-smart guns). And the NRA has gotten it into enough people's heads that this is a big step in a widespread effort to ban all guns.
The NRA's logic in this situation really blurred the line between "reason" and "excuse".
Michael Williams knows that some people might feel he’s being insensitive by giving away one of the devices less than a month after 59 people were killed and hundreds more injured when Paddock opened fire on a country music concert from his hotel room.
However, Williams said that he believes that bump stocks are being unfairly vilified and that attempts to regulate them would be an infringement on the rights of gun owners.
This is why this issue is intractable at the moment.
“It’s just a tool to increase the rate of fire. You can use a bungee cord and are we going to push to ban bungee cords? Again, if somebody wants to carry out this horrific act, they’re going to find a way to do it,” he insisted.
So because maybe a few people will take the steps find a way to jury rig fully automatic firearms, there's no use regulating a device designed for that specific and sole purpose. Fucking super cool.
According to WDSU, Williams claims there is “zero evidence” that banning bump stocks would make Americans safer
If you take this guy's arguments to their logical conclusion, there's no point in banning actual automatic weapons because someone's going to use bump stocks, and banning fully automatic weapons doesn't make Americas safer anyway.
Hey, a lathing hobbyist can build a gun in their home workshop from some cheap pieces of metal. Obviously, gun control can never work - people will just build their own. As happens in the UK and Japan all the time, obviously.
I re-read my post and I realized I didn't get to the point. I'm a gun owner, after some realization, I came to the conclusion I have a lot of dangerous things "just to have them" instead of for their intended purpose, so I changed that.
I get I'm the unicorn here, but I mean it's possible without getting to "take them all away" That was my point.
So, this is late but a couple of things -
Firstly, awesome that you decided to think things through. I am sorry that it resulted in a sacrifice of your hobby to some extent. You've been really reasonable in every thread where discussion turns to hunting, firearms and primitive backpacking. If more gun owners were like you, I don't think this conversation would even need to happen.
Secondly, the same qualities that make you reasoned enough to consider selling/reducing your collection of firearms are the same qualities that at least from my perspective made you someone I would be perfectly fine with owning guns. It will ultimately be detrimental to reasonable gun legislation and gun owners to not have people like you in the ranks pushing for sincere and logical changes to the way people in this country view firearms.
How would you say that people could most effectively talk to others who may be in a similar position without them becoming defensive? What was the internal dialogue for you?
Hey, a lathing hobbyist can build a gun in their home workshop from some cheap pieces of metal. Obviously, gun control can never work - people will just build their own. As happens in the UK and Japan all the time, obviously.
Exactly. Knives are expensive too, so I just operate a home forge and build my own, after gaining years of expertise as a blacksmith and purchasing thousands of dollars of equipment. EASY.
I re-read my post and I realized I didn't get to the point. I'm a gun owner, after some realization, I came to the conclusion I have a lot of dangerous things "just to have them" instead of for their intended purpose, so I changed that.
I get I'm the unicorn here, but I mean it's possible without getting to "take them all away" That was my point.
I'd love it if all gun owners were like you.
Then we would not even need to talk, even in jest or out of frustration, about "taking them all away" (which almost nobody is seriously trying).
But unfortunately, the people least likely to disarm themselves, are often the people least suitable for being armed.
Also, funnily, your gun collection is pretty much what i am 100% OK with people having (though i would want a registry and mandatory safety training), and for a purpose i agree with.
+4
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
The thing with responsible gun owners and gun regulation, is that they'd have no issues getting firearms in that situation (expcet for some minor increased cost and waiting times)
The thing with responsible gun owners and gun regulation, is that they'd have no issues getting firearms in that situation (expcet for some minor increased cost and waiting times)
Well they also might not get all the guns they want (i'd want some serious restrictions on semi automatics).
But, still, more responsible a gun owner, less likely they would even notice regulations.
Trigger locks? Got them already.
Gun safes? Have one bolted to the floor in the cellar.
Store them unloaded? Already do.
Gun control is a dead issue in most of the first world, because guns are pretty much as controlled as the public wants them, so gun enthusiasts get to enjoy their hobby without having to constantly argue about them. Massacres are few and far between, and generally committed with bombs/trucks, so they don't need to defend their hobby every 6 months after the latest massacre.
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
I re-read my post and I realized I didn't get to the point. I'm a gun owner, after some realization, I came to the conclusion I have a lot of dangerous things "just to have them" instead of for their intended purpose, so I changed that.
I get I'm the unicorn here, but I mean it's possible without getting to "take them all away" That was my point.
I'd love it if all gun owners were like you.
Then we would not even need to talk, even in jest or out of frustration, about "taking them all away" (which almost nobody is seriously trying).
But unfortunately, the people least likely to disarm themselves, are often the people least suitable for being armed.
Also, funnily, your gun collection is pretty much what i am 100% OK with people having (though i would want a registry and mandatory safety training), and for a purpose i agree with.
Yeah it weirds me out a little that blackpowder guns have no registry. Like I can drop $150 and have a muzzleloader and a pound of high explosive shipped to my door with no checks or balances.
are YOU on the beer list?
0
Options
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
How would you say that people could most effectively talk to others who may be in a similar position without them becoming defensive? What was the internal dialogue for you?
Honestly I have no idea. Everyone else I know that owns guns is a "liberals can die trying to take them from me" nutjobs which is why I do most of my shooting alone in the woods.
I re-read my post and I realized I didn't get to the point. I'm a gun owner, after some realization, I came to the conclusion I have a lot of dangerous things "just to have them" instead of for their intended purpose, so I changed that.
I get I'm the unicorn here, but I mean it's possible without getting to "take them all away" That was my point.
I'd love it if all gun owners were like you.
Then we would not even need to talk, even in jest or out of frustration, about "taking them all away" (which almost nobody is seriously trying).
But unfortunately, the people least likely to disarm themselves, are often the people least suitable for being armed.
Also, funnily, your gun collection is pretty much what i am 100% OK with people having (though i would want a registry and mandatory safety training), and for a purpose i agree with.
Yeah it weirds me out a little that blackpowder guns have no registry. Like I can drop $150 and have a muzzleloader and a pound of high explosive shipped to my door with no checks or balances.
You can own antique guns in the UK, too, but there are very few criminals robbing banks with blunderbusses. Some... which is amusing... but not many.
I re-read my post and I realized I didn't get to the point. I'm a gun owner, after some realization, I came to the conclusion I have a lot of dangerous things "just to have them" instead of for their intended purpose, so I changed that.
I get I'm the unicorn here, but I mean it's possible without getting to "take them all away" That was my point.
I'd love it if all gun owners were like you.
Then we would not even need to talk, even in jest or out of frustration, about "taking them all away" (which almost nobody is seriously trying).
But unfortunately, the people least likely to disarm themselves, are often the people least suitable for being armed.
Also, funnily, your gun collection is pretty much what i am 100% OK with people having (though i would want a registry and mandatory safety training), and for a purpose i agree with.
Yeah it weirds me out a little that blackpowder guns have no registry. Like I can drop $150 and have a muzzleloader and a pound of high explosive shipped to my door with no checks or balances.
Black powder is not a high explosive (it burns at subsonic speeds) and if you want to have antique guns like that I'm cool with it - and I'm firmly in the ban 'em all camp
Posts
Sure you can. Just means you can't use them legally anywhere else. You can store them or transport them. That's basically how Canada works with handguns, I think, unless you are one of a limited number of people allowed to carry them for self-defense.
Gun control...is good!
I think is is effectively the law in most US cities, as well
just that everyone is allowed to carry a gun for self defense
shooting a gun willy-nilly is generally illegal, even if no one is hurt and nothing is damaged
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Telling them that their guns will not be seized but are only going to be stored somewhere they have no control over, and will be granted extremely limited access to, have no recourse if a government agency decides to remove thise guns from said location, and have no way of opting out of is going to come across as remarkably similar to seizing their guns.
Involuntary "storage at the range" is not a realistic idea.
You aren't going to make progress with gun owners. Period. Regardless of what you suggest. History, right up until the present, has made that abundantly clear, over and over again. So why go for half measures that only nibble at the margins?
It's like the healthcare debate. If the opponents of healthcare reform are gonna try and destroy the system you propose and build, regardless of what it is, why take a compromise position? Just go for the brass ring.
The idea that if gun control advocates just proposed more "sensible" reform ideas, gun rights people wouldn't have to oppose them is a farce and a lie.
I have also come to this conclusion, with the end result is nothing happens "EVER". There couldn't be more proof that guns are problem and yet "cars" kill people so why don't we ban them too. When mass shootings occur, people buy MORE guns and ammo, out of FEAR that the libtards are coming for their weapons. Stocks go up for gun/ammo suppliers and the cycle continues. It is impossible to have a real talk with anyone who loves their freedom more than you do that the possibility exists that guns were created for one purpose only and that is to kill things, so maybe we should have really strict rules around them. I honestly question the point of even debating it anymore as we aren't getting anywhere.
It's also not expected that smart gun technology would be the only safety mechanism going forward. You can have a smart gun that you also secure by other means. It feels like the argument being made is that if it fails to magically stop every concerted attempt to defeat it, or doesn't allow us to just leave guns laying around haphazardly in daycare centers, it's useless. Gun safes and trigger locks are defeatable, probably easier than this is, but we use them anyway.
Perfect, enemy of good, etc.
A: make it from non ferrous material
B: not make it a simple metal bar that can be pulled out.
Instead, make it 2+ interlocking rotating bars, disks, whatevers, that need to rotate in exactly right way, to allow trigger to be pulled and the hammer or whatever it was to hit the bullet casing.
Any smart gun should have minimal amount of moving parts, especially ones that anyone can access without literally taking apart the actual parts of the gun.
Ideally, forcibly unlocking a smart gun should be harder than building your own gun, and require better tools.
Except for the people at the firing ranges.
Breathe in those lead vapors.
Also, make sure you get that lead good and deep in the ground so it'll eventually leech into the water tables.
I mean, problem solved right there, no need for any subsequent solutions.
ehh, it probably needs to be ferrous so the electomagment that pulls the bar out of the way when the bracelet is nearby can exert force on it.
I'm also selling my bolt action rifle. The only guns I will own going forward are a couple of muzzleloaders, my blunderbuss, because fuck you pry that from my cold dead hands, and a single shot 12 gauge. Everything I need for hunting, and a blunderbuss.
That's where I'm at on gun control. I'll keep those, keep them unloaded, and use them for their intended purpose, which is hunting (and fending off stagecoach robbers or boarding a pirate ship)
I get I'm the unicorn here, but I mean it's possible without getting to "take them all away" That was my point.
The reason that I suggested magnets as a hack was because small high quality gadgets use magnets instead of actuators
The safety mechanism is actually a magnet. It would be hard not to make it magnet hackable unless the entire mechanism was changed
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
On the individual scale you’re right, the sad part is it’s going to be difficult to tell how wide spread this is among gun owners since any info about this getting out to the public will mean you will get death threats. Thanks, NRA.
It’s quite another thing on the state or national scale given how anything pro-regulation on the books is made out to be the apocalypse among paranoid gun owners, in large part from the NRA and gun manufacturers intent.
Then you need to make them in such a way that strong magnet will lock the mechanism instead of unlocking it.
Possibly through opposing magnet/slider/thingy that, if a strong magnet is used on one side, will move to lock the mechanism as the other slider unlocks it.
That said, how many would be muggers carry around strong magnets just incase they might steal a gun?
run by juggalos
What they came up with was basically an electronically de-activated pin-block safety, and I think is probably about as good a mechanism you can design for the purpose.
The history of guns is littered with designs for actions like swiss watches, and they were pretty much all terrible because you don't hit your Rolex with a hammer and spray it with sticky corrosive dust every time you glance at your wrist.
Mechanical parts put onto guns need to be fairly simple and robust, because firing a gun puts huge amount of shock forces through it and the gun needs to be strip-able so it can be cleaned.
You also have a very small amount of space to build this mechanism into, because the vast majority of any gun's action has to be solid metal so that it can withstand the instantaneous jump from 0 to 50,000 PSI.
Smart guns only really solve a very niche problem - people losing a gun in a struggle and then getting shot with it.
To prevent accidental shooting by kids a trigger lock is going to be just as effective, for <$10. Rather than the $1000+ in additional costs this system adds. And once the gun is stolen, it'll probably take all of 30 minutes with a file to nullify either solution.
There is also likely multiple access in many households. But I would be surprised if women had similar "access" to firearms as men.
That is a complicated scenario. 1) There's plenty to weed out the criminals, and those who have proven themselves too unstable to have a gun license - with various forms of counter measures and checks, and once with actual teeth in them rather than the borderline useless stuff we have now. 2) It's impossible to solve because the government don't have a Pre-Crime unit. No laws are capable of taking into account a future disaster or error, that isn't to say many people can't be saved or protected with regulations. Unfortunately the US has never been political viable to put the on place because they've been obstructed and sabotaged by organizations like the NRA and the gun lobbyists. In 2017 we don't know how far we can go with proper enforcement, but we should try when we're able to.
Right now there is no environment for a compromise, the moderate side don't have power in the pro-gun side, the extremists do. Once the extremist side is neutralized then we can finally get movement on this issue. This must be a big priority for both sides who want to make this issue solvable, otherwise all we're doing is treading water.
Smart guns aren't meant to save every gun problem, just some of them. It's impossible for every angle to covered 100%. But this will save lots of lives, there's no down side with having smart guns on the market. The technology will improve over time, but first they have to sell the bloody things.
None of this is a reason to either not bother with smart gun technology or for the NRA to turn any potential dealers of smart guns into pariahs.
Smart guns may not be a foolproof and perfect "solution" to every single problem with guns, but it's a hell of an improvement to nearly all of them.
A trigger lock is not "just as effective" because you can forget to put it on. A smart gun is always a smart gun without any intervention on your part.
This is why this issue is intractable at the moment.
You're 100% right: absolutely none of that is reason for the NRA to make pariahs of the potential dealers of smart guns. One of the reasons why they do, however, was covered by Samantha Bee a few months back (more specifically, in April).
Video behind spoiler
The short version: there's a New Jersey law that says that if a smart gun is sold anywhere in the US, then the only gun that can be sold in the state of New Jersey can be smart guns (in other words: banning the sales of non-smart guns). And the NRA has gotten it into enough people's heads that this is a big step in a widespread effort to ban all guns.
The NRA's logic in this situation really blurred the line between "reason" and "excuse".
So because maybe a few people will take the steps find a way to jury rig fully automatic firearms, there's no use regulating a device designed for that specific and sole purpose. Fucking super cool.
If you take this guy's arguments to their logical conclusion, there's no point in banning actual automatic weapons because someone's going to use bump stocks, and banning fully automatic weapons doesn't make Americas safer anyway.
Fuck this guy in his stupid ass.
So, this is late but a couple of things -
Firstly, awesome that you decided to think things through. I am sorry that it resulted in a sacrifice of your hobby to some extent. You've been really reasonable in every thread where discussion turns to hunting, firearms and primitive backpacking. If more gun owners were like you, I don't think this conversation would even need to happen.
Secondly, the same qualities that make you reasoned enough to consider selling/reducing your collection of firearms are the same qualities that at least from my perspective made you someone I would be perfectly fine with owning guns. It will ultimately be detrimental to reasonable gun legislation and gun owners to not have people like you in the ranks pushing for sincere and logical changes to the way people in this country view firearms.
How would you say that people could most effectively talk to others who may be in a similar position without them becoming defensive? What was the internal dialogue for you?
Exactly. Knives are expensive too, so I just operate a home forge and build my own, after gaining years of expertise as a blacksmith and purchasing thousands of dollars of equipment. EASY.
Then we would not even need to talk, even in jest or out of frustration, about "taking them all away" (which almost nobody is seriously trying).
But unfortunately, the people least likely to disarm themselves, are often the people least suitable for being armed.
Also, funnily, your gun collection is pretty much what i am 100% OK with people having (though i would want a registry and mandatory safety training), and for a purpose i agree with.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
But, still, more responsible a gun owner, less likely they would even notice regulations.
Trigger locks? Got them already.
Gun safes? Have one bolted to the floor in the cellar.
Store them unloaded? Already do.
Yeah it weirds me out a little that blackpowder guns have no registry. Like I can drop $150 and have a muzzleloader and a pound of high explosive shipped to my door with no checks or balances.
Honestly I have no idea. Everyone else I know that owns guns is a "liberals can die trying to take them from me" nutjobs which is why I do most of my shooting alone in the woods.
You can own antique guns in the UK, too, but there are very few criminals robbing banks with blunderbusses. Some... which is amusing... but not many.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/still-lethal-aged-100-uk-gangs-load-up-on-antique-guns-with-no-registration-required-9054533.html
Black powder is not a high explosive (it burns at subsonic speeds) and if you want to have antique guns like that I'm cool with it - and I'm firmly in the ban 'em all camp