Yep, that's right—another shooting in the United States. 4 killed in Minneapolis shooting

43 posts

Flag Post

Before I begin my post let me clarify something: I know the title and some of the content of this post may seem cold and stoic, but that is not my intention. To the four victims (five if you want to include the perpetrator who ended up killing himself) who died and their families: may they rest in peace and I am sorry for such a tragedy occurring to your familiar. I simply find it appalling how America goes through this every second month nowadays.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/7743873/Gunman-opens-fire-in-Minneapolis
http://wap.myfoxtwincities.com/w/news/story/74233055/

Why has America had so many shootings this year? How can this be fixed or solutioned? How many more do both major parties want dead before they start actually regulating guns?

 
Flag Post

To be fair, even countries who ban guns have the same problem. In the UK, there was a shooting of two police officers week before last. It fast became a national tragedy with the prime minister (local version of a president) personally paying his respects. The man who did the shooting has been convicted, and will have to live out his sentence in isolation to protect him from the general prison population.

So even with regulation, there are still incidents. Yes, only one or two a year in a country of 70,000,000 rather than 80-90 per 100,000 as in the US, but these tragedies do still occur.

 
Flag Post
Yes, only one or two a year in a country of 70,000,000 rather than 80-90 per 100,000 as in the US, but these tragedies do still occur.

well, that stat isn’t entirely fair. but yes, it happens far, far less in the UK, so something must be working, at least compared to the USA. i mean, imagine the shooting of two police officers being a natoinal tragedy in the USA?

anyway, as i keep saying to these things, the problem is America is a country of black and white. they think compromise is a bad word. they’re simple-minded folk, and they can’t conceptualise anything between guns for everyone, and death penalty for even considering buying a gun.

the Netherlands has really low homicide rates, and we don’t have any extreme. almost anyone can get a gun if they want, we just dont allow you to do so anonymously, or to sell it to someone else.

of course, Americans would claim that in the USA, that would also not be allowed, but in practice that’s what happens all the time. just saying that it isn’t allowed is not the same as not allowing it.

 
Flag Post

Wow look at all these shootings that are suddenly happening everywhere.

Its not like shootings have always been happening and news outlets are reporting on them now because its “trending”

nope, there obviously is a sudden, and random, increase in shootings.

 
Flag Post

Guns don’t kill, but people do, even if guns were banned from the states the killing wouldn’t stop, or more specifically the killing by using guns wouldn’t stop, it’d make law obeying citizens defenceless.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BronzeWolf:

Guns don’t kill, but people do, even if guns were banned from the states the killing wouldn’t stop, or more specifically the killing by using guns wouldn’t stop, it’d make law obeying citizens defenceless.

Hmmmmm….he must be a lifetime member of the NRA.
 
Flag Post

Actually I don’t have in any way shape or form a gun.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BronzeWolf:

Actually I don’t have in any way shape or form a gun.

THAT would SEEM to be SOMEWHAT “hypocritical”….even though it can be reasonable that one would//could support a particular position.

BUT, the point I’m making is that such positoins definitely ARE those of the NRA.

 
Flag Post

If I was in your position I’d think the same thing.

 
Flag Post

This is part of the “hate America first” platform. America is portrayed is this violent awful place to live filled with guns and shootings everywhere. I’d encourage those who don’t know better to go for a vacation in Lybia, or Pakistan, or Iran, or China, or India, or Russia, or Mexico, or Columbia, etc etc etc. Make sure to go to one of those countries that has low numbers of gun violence, but their stats are gathered by corrupt governments. Or, better yet, go to where they don’t even gather data.

I’m sure there are countries that are “safer” overall than the US. There are places in the US that are more dangerous that many many other countries. I get that. I’m not trying to cover that up. I think it needs to be identified, and addressed, not hidden. HOWEVER, I have a measure of common sense. The portrayal of the US as this place of gun terror is propaganda, and pretty poor propaganda.

 
Flag Post

The problem is most ofthe countries you quote are not first world states. India and China are trying to be, but aren’t there yet – they’re still in transition towards that goal.

We’re a first world nation (alegedly), so trying to compare us directly to third world and transitioning nations is not really putting the country in a positive light. A comparison to other first world nations is a lot more illuminating, and none of them have the same trouble with violence that we have.

 
Flag Post

Don’t foget to consider the size difference between the afore mentioned countries and the U.S. when comparing homocide rates.

 
Flag Post

True, but if you compare the homicides per 100,000 head, you should eliminate that problem.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BronzeWolf:

Guns don’t kill, but people do, even if guns were banned from the states the killing wouldn’t stop, or more specifically the killing by using guns wouldn’t stop, it’d make law obeying citizens defenceless.

ugh. that old argument again. that is barely a better argument than Pascal’s Wager.

it’s true that guns don’t kill people. it’s people with easy access to guns that kill people.

again, all you need to do is much more strictly enforce the ban against owning, carrying or using guns that aren’t properly licensed or aren’t registered to your name. and you can finger-print the gun coils, you can even chip guns with homing signals (as much as i hate those things, for guns i guess it’d be alright), that can be activated once the gun is no longer in the hands of the proper owner (although, i don’t even see why that would be necessary, just force people to not lose their guns and hold them accountable for it. make them prove they still have their gun every 6 months or so).

this wouldn’t have any immediate effect, because you can’t change anything about the illegal guns already in circulation, but in time it will.

if you do that, people can still perfectly defend themselves, but it would also prevent more guns from being in illegal circulation. if this was done a few decades ago, rather than stupid gun lobbyists blocking it for the profits they can make from selling their guns illegally through black markets, there’d be far less homicide now.

 
Flag Post

More gun threads, please.

 
Flag Post

RE: OmegaDoom – “all you need to do is much more strictly enforce the ban against owning, carrying or using guns that aren’t properly licensed or aren’t registered to your name.”

I think this is going under the assumption that someone is going to be blatantly obvious about owning, carrying, or using a gun that doesn’t belong to them. If a police officer walks up to a person holding a gun, do you really think someone who knowingly knows it’s not their gun would just say, “Why yes, officer, I am holding this for someone else.” We see so many people trying to evade the law that it wouldn’t be surprising that people even lie for it.

“Finger printing and homing chips”

Even in time, I don’t see this as being an effective method of verification. Just as people can forge documents, someone can also can manipulate fingerprint records and hack, disable or destroy electronic ones that are not properly secured.

“…it would prevent more guns from being in illegal circulation.”

Illegal circulation is not the problem when it comes to human behavior. Like BronzeWolf said, people make the choice whether or not they want to use the gun for proper or improper purposes, and that has more to do with how they’re aligned morally compared to what someone not relevant to their life is allowing or disallowing them to do.

 
Flag Post

If you hack an RFID, what are you going to change the code with? If you just enter in random numbers and letters, it won’t match the code stored in the police database – immediately identifying it as an unknown, illegal firearm, from about 12 feet away.

The RFID would be embedded inside the metal of the gun itself. The only way to physically destroy it would be to render the weapon permanently non-functional. You can do that if you really wish to, but it does kinda defeat the objective.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BronzeWolf:

Guns don’t kill, but people do, even if guns were banned from the states the killing wouldn’t stop, or more specifically the killing by using guns wouldn’t stop, it’d make law obeying citizens defenceless.

Herp derp. Tanks don’t kill people. People do. By your logic set, we should legalize tanks. Not like doing so would result in a bunch more people dying or anything like that. :D
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

If you hack an RFID, what are you going to change the code with? If you just enter in random numbers and letters, it won’t match the code stored in the police database – immediately identifying it as an unknown, illegal firearm, from about 12 feet away.

The RFID would be embedded inside the metal of the gun itself. The only way to physically destroy it would be to render the weapon permanently non-functional. You can do that if you really wish to, but it does kinda defeat the objective.

RFIDs or trackers of some sort seem like they could be a pretty good idea for guns. Presumably in the situation above though, you’d change the RFID to the code for another legal gun.

 
Flag Post
I think this is going under the assumption that someone is going to be blatantly obvious about owning, carrying, or using a gun that doesn’t belong to them. If a police officer walks up to a person holding a gun, do you really think someone who knowingly knows it’s not their gun would just say, “Why yes, officer, I am holding this for someone else.” We see so many people trying to evade the law that it wouldn’t be surprising that people even lie for it.

hash darnit, i thought this would be obvious. you make a person obliged to be able to show the gun is his, and that it is properly licensed, and make it illegal to carry, own or use it without being able to do such. just like you are not allowed to drive a motorised vehicle without being able to show legitimate identification and a drivers license.

Even in time, I don’t see this as being an effective method of verification. Just as people can forge documents, someone can also can manipulate fingerprint records and hack, disable or destroy electronic ones that are not properly secured.

this should also be completely obvious. you just make it illegal to do any of these things! duh! they can simply check if the fingerprint still matches, if the coils have been tempered with, and if the chip has been disabled, and if it has, you confiscate the weapon at least, and you have a lead for suspicion.

Illegal circulation is not the problem when it comes to human behavior. Like BronzeWolf said, people make the choice whether or not they want to use the gun for proper or improper purposes, and that has more to do with how they’re aligned morally compared to what someone not relevant to their life is allowing or disallowing them to do.

that’s first degree murder. most homicide is manslaughter, a spur of the moment. but aar, someone using a knife or something is far less dangerous than someone using a gun. it is far harder to kill someone by stabbing them than by shooting them.

i’ve never heard of anyone going on a knifing-spree, for instance.

furthermore the US has so many guns, and so many gun-related homicide. other Western countries have roughly the same degree of homicide that is not commited by fire-arms, but far fewer homicide by fire-arm. so really it is the fire-arm.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkscanner:
Originally posted by BronzeWolf:

Guns don’t kill, but people do, even if guns were banned from the states the killing wouldn’t stop, or more specifically the killing by using guns wouldn’t stop, it’d make law obeying citizens defenceless.

Herp derp. Tanks don’t kill people. People do. By your logic set, we should legalize tanks. Not like doing so would result in a bunch more people dying or anything like that. :D
On a serious note, most gun deaths are accidental, which de-validates your statement. You’re a lot less likely to die when you accidentally pull the trigger, if it’s just a bee-bee in your mouth.
 
Flag Post

furthermore the US has so many guns, and so many gun-related homicide. other Western countries have roughly the same degree of homicide that is not commited by fire-arms, but far fewer homicide by fire-arm. so really it is the fire-arm.

While you may or may not be correct, I don’t believe that’s really a valid argument. For example, if the US only had crossbows, we could still have the exact same number of murders. However, none of them would be with a gun.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:

RFIDs or trackers of some sort seem like they could be a pretty good idea for guns. Presumably in the situation above though, you’d change the RFID to the code for another legal gun.

Which would raise alarm bells when two such codes were detected. Both would have to be investigated. One would presumably be genuine, and those in possession of the other would already have evidence of illegal arms trafficing to be held against them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by BobTheCoolGuy:

RFIDs or trackers of some sort seem like they could be a pretty good idea for guns. Presumably in the situation above though, you’d change the RFID to the code for another legal gun.

Which would raise alarm bells when two such codes were detected. Both would have to be investigated. One would presumably be genuine, and those in possession of the other would already have evidence of illegal arms trafficing to be held against them.

You’re right, depending on the technology we’re talking about. RFIDs are rather limited in range typically (I thought anyway), but perhaps unique IDs pared with some sort of longer range communication technology would be effective. However, I’m guessing these things could be a large power draw, which means equipping decent long-term batteries, etc. Basically, it seems like it could be done, but it might be quite a challenge technologically. Correct me if I’m wrong on any of these points.

 
Flag Post

No power draw at all. passive RFID draws its power from the radiowaves put out by the reader, and is only active when a reader is nearby (12ft max). We put a reader on every streetlamp, billboard, signpost, we can cover an entire city. There are already sensor systems on every lamp, for lighting levels and power conservation, so its perfectly doable. Network them via the municipal wi-fi, and we can track every firearm registration in the city in real-time.

Of course, as a side-effect, if there is a homocide one evening, you can go back, look at the records and see which firearms were in the area that night and backtrack to the owners.

With such a network, if one person changed their RFID to match another gun’s RFID, there would now be two on the system, and the expert system would pick up not only that the change had occured, but be able to look back and determine which registration number the gun used to be.

As a nice aside, because it would be tracking guns, and not citizens, it would completely avoid infringing on any constitutional rights. Doesn’t affect their choice on how to use the guns either, but it does deal with any nasty consequences of thoughtless use.

All we really need are the type of RFID that can be embedded within the gun during manufacturing. We’re not all that far from reaching that point.