Gun Issues page 2

2293 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Wraymond:

Vik that’s actually a pretty good idea that I’ve never thought about. I just don’t see it happening though and you are forgetting that. Their are guns that don’t come from licensed manufactures. And people could figure out how to remove these and sell them or keep them. Sorry I’m not trying to ruin your idea but it just probly would never work and be a waste of time and money.

obviously it would be illegal to have a gun where the tracker isn’t working. it wouldn’t be too hard to check for that with a little gadget. in England gangs almost never use guns because they’re afraid of being arrested for gun-ownership, which is highly criminal there. it’d be slightly more difficult to know if a gun is legal or not if it requires a functional tracker, but nevertheless.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by HappyAlCROWholic:

I think we should ban knives.

Here are some facts about how deadly knives are:
1. every year, millions of people get hurt by knives.
2. sometimes people go on stabbing sprees.
3. There is NO reason to own a knife other than to HARM OTHER PEOPLE!!!

Discuss these flawless reasons of why guns should be banned. Oops, I meant “knives”, not “guns” :>

in the Netherlands, all knives are now illegal. that’s taking it too far. but nevertheless, i’ve never heard of no stabbing sprees. it’s not too hard to fight off a guy with a knife using a chair or barstool or whatever.

 
Flag Post

The only way you could realistically do a stabbing spree, is with a self-harm session. Stabbing yourself quite often. If you try to do it to another you’re going to meet resistance. As Omega says, its quite effective to fight a knife-wielding maniac off with a chair, or any weapon with a long reach.

However, with a gun, they are not likely to be within range of you when they are firing. All you can try to do is defend yourself against the bullet, without inflicting harm back on the shooter – and even that that is very unlikely to happen due to the speed and penetrating power of a bullet. Even if you succeed once, all the gunner has to do is fire again.

At least with the knife idiot, they come away injured themselves at the very least.

it’d be slightly more difficult to know if a gun is legal or not if it requires a functional tracker, but nevertheless.

Well, part of my initial suggestion was to install passive trackers on streetlights. Streetlights are already home to light level sensors, solar panels, Wi-fi units, cameras, speed sensors, sensor webs of various types. Its not going to take much to add another sensor system to the menagerie already up there.

If you see someone wielding a gun, even if they’re not pointing it at anyone, check the tracking mirror world setup online. (Google maps or similar sort of service with an overlay). If the system picks up a gun in your immediate area, then its legal. If there isn’t, report it. You’re witnessing a crime in progress regardless of if they’re doing anything else with the weapon.

Cameraphones have rarely been more handy in such instances.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Wraymond:

Vik that’s actually a pretty good idea that I’ve never thought about. I just don’t see it happening though and you are forgetting that. Their are guns that don’t come from licensed manufactures. And people could figure out how to remove these and sell them or keep them. Sorry I’m not trying to ruin your idea but it just probly would never work and be a waste of time and money.

Wray, ya’ve missed the part where she says these “identifying chips” would be embedded into,,,and integral part of,,,unable to remove w/o destroying the gun itself.

Think of it like a lot of those security tags put on expensive clothing in a store to keep them from “walking out the door”. If one wants to steal that % $500 leather jacket,,,they will have to cut it up to remove all of those security devices (only they would also have serial nos.

 
Flag Post

Sorry I missed that part of Wraymond’s statement. You could indeed remove them. You’d need a diamond bit saw, and carefully cut the barrel, the handle, and the hammer into tiny pieces. A bit like diced onion really. Each piece small enough to be certain there isn’t any surviving circuitry inside of it.

However, I’m not certain how much use you’ll get out of the gun after that, short of using it for food poisoning.

 
Flag Post

My best guess of how many shoot outs is it gonna take to restrict guns will be……………………….. Until we don’t have a democratic government anymore.

 
Flag Post

Trough there is the interesting point of applying very powerful magnetic fields to the gun which might damage such systems. Unless an electronic component is made vital in the gun as well.

 
Flag Post

Shouldn’t do. We’re not talking anything as large as microchips here. Just a passive unpowered tranceiver the same as you find in a contactless card or a prosthetic. Dropped into the metal whilst its still liquid, and ending up wherever, completely surrounded by the metal it is embedded inside. Made out of something with a higher melting point than iron. Titanium seems a good choice, and has all the properties we would require.

All a powerful enough magnetic field would do is supply power by induction – have it turn on and start transmitting. You could destroy it by melting the gun down, and sieving the liquid iron, but I’m not sure what use the gun would be after that point.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by HappyAlCROWholic:

I think we should ban knives.

Here are some facts about how deadly knives are:
1. every year, millions of people get hurt by knives.
2. sometimes people go on stabbing sprees.
3. There is NO reason to own a knife other than to HARM OTHER PEOPLE!!!

Discuss these flawless reasons of why guns should be banned. Oops, I meant “knives”, not “guns” :>

did you really just say that :/ Have fun trying to eat a steak with a fork and spoon in public without looking bad

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Sorry I missed that part of Wraymond’s statement. You could indeed remove them. You’d need a diamond bit saw, and carefully cut the barrel, the handle, and the hammer into tiny pieces. A bit like diced onion really. Each piece small enough to be certain there isn’t any surviving circuitry inside of it.

However, I’m not certain how much use you’ll get out of the gun after that, short of using it for food poisoning.

Please explain why a diamond bit saw would be needed? Guns are just steel or in modern times plastic. And please explain how this supposed circuitry is covering the whole firearm?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Sorry I missed that part of Wraymond’s statement. You could indeed remove them. You’d need a diamond bit saw, and carefully cut the barrel, the handle, and the hammer into tiny pieces. A bit like diced onion really. Each piece small enough to be certain there isn’t any surviving circuitry inside of it.

However, I’m not certain how much use you’ll get out of the gun after that, short of using it for food poisoning.

Please explain why a diamond bit saw would be needed? Guns are just steel or in modern times plastic. And please explain how this supposed circuitry is covering the whole firearm?

Key componets like the barrel are metal, but yeah, your right. And circuitry? (what kind of gun is this!?) Guns are powered by a few small springs and gas from the fired round.

 
Flag Post

I have discussed this subject with her before and she really knows absolutely nothing about firearms, there use, or the laws involved. I just ask her questions and laugh at her posts. I must admit, she does make me laugh.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

 
Flag Post

You keep making this same claim, Jhco. And I keep responding. This is a lie, gun crime did not “soar” in England after the 1997 change in the gun laws. There is no blanket gun ban, either. The Daily Mail is not a valid source for anything at all.

 
Flag Post

Just so you know, that was a anti-gun zone from what I understand.
That means no public member could go inside with a gun, legally.

In other words if this is in fact true, this being a anti-gun zone harmed the public.
Why?
Someone would of had a gun, and could of at least taken a few shots at him in a desperate hope of hitting him and stopping it all.


Aside from that, I still don’t get ant-gun people.
I just see no argument whatsoever.

“Lets ban all guns for the public, it will prevent shootings!”, they say.
But why?
Why would it prevent shootings?

Can convicted criminals that are out on murder, attempted murder or gang-related offenses, or illegal weapon charges or just anyone that would be on probation not get a gun if they want?
No.
They get a gun, not legally, but that’s it.

So how would no-gun laws prevent these shootings?
If people that are on probation can get a gun and not get found out, then what’s the issue with one of these nice fellows?

On top of that, most of these shootings involve Assault rifles, often times modified ones.

What would of happened if there was more people with guns, and it was promoted?
These shooters wouldn’t be as successful.

If I wanted to get a gun and go and start shooting up a school, I could do it with just a few hundred dollars for a small handgun.
There wouldn’t be anything stopping me from getting the gun if I wasn’t stupid about it, then it was in the clear.
There’s no one who could stop me, the gun would be concealed till I was inside, then there would be defenseless people everywhere.
And I’m just a teenager.
What if someone had more money and actually wanted to do it?
They could get a Assault rifle and a bulletproof vest and go in and kill a good 20people in a school-shooting if they wanted to.

So what I’m trying to say is HOW are you going to prevent the illegal weapon purchases?
You can’t.
So what do you do?

You arm nice, stable friendly civilians with a small hand-gun or arm businesses with some kind of weapon.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Please explain why a diamond bit saw would be needed? Guns are just steel or in modern times plastic. And please explain how this supposed circuitry is covering the whole firearm?

You forgot to read it the first time through. Allow me to paste in the post from the same page, above, so you can read it this time.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Shouldn’t do. We’re not talking anything as large as microchips here. Just a passive unpowered tranceiver the same as you find in a contactless card or a prosthetic. Dropped into the metal whilst its still liquid, and ending up wherever, completely surrounded by the metal it is embedded inside. Made out of something with a higher melting point than iron. Titanium seems a good choice, and has all the properties we would require.

All a powerful enough magnetic field would do is supply power by induction – have it turn on and start transmitting. You could destroy it by melting the gun down, and sieving the liquid iron, but I’m not sure what use the gun would be after that point.

Does that help you understand? It’s inside all the metal parts at point of casting. Do you understand how something inside all metal parts, will therefore be inside all metal parts? Do you understand that metal parts will be found all over the gun?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I have discussed this subject with her before and she really knows absolutely nothing about firearms, there use, or the laws involved. I just ask her questions and laugh at her posts. I must admit, she does make me laugh.

N O !

YOU rarely “DISCUSS” most of the topics on this forum.

Typically, ya proffer some position,,,usually one that is based upon casual personally limited, one that is anecdotal (often highly suspect), one that is poorly link-supported, one that is ludicrously hyperbolic,,,and then continue to present it over&over&over regardless of how many holes it has in it that have been shot in it by those disagreeing//questioning it.

Most of your defenses of your position is merely to ATTEMPT TO ridicule the person rather than their rebuttal (calling them rants w/o much of a response otherwise), demeaning their cognitive capacity to it or to ignore them completely or simply restate your initial position in another forms. These “fails” of YOURS have been addressed often…yet, not only do they not cease, they is no defense for them offered by you.

I do not call that doing something that could be called much of a “discussion”.

Originally posted by jhco50:

I have discussed this subject with her before

“Discussed”?
See above.

and she really knows absolutely nothing about firearms, there use, or the laws involved.

NO! ! !
Continuously “knee-jerking-off” about the 2nd Amendment and how NO ONE BUT YOU knows much about it AND the entire Constitution and how any other nation’s actions on the issue are ridiculous and these posters have no “right” to even question America’s policies, actions, failures, etc. ARE NOT ways to show that she “really knows absolutely nothing about….”.

The hyperbole aside, the obvious right to have an opinion aside, the typical forum responses to YOUR opinions aside….THAT is just ridiculous in both its rebuttal to her points and its utter failure to rationally demonstrate cogent support therein.

I just ask her questions and laugh at her posts.

Yes, ya do.
And, little of it makes any sense,,,,
and does little to defend YOUR posts.

I must admit, she does make me laugh.

And rant, rave, and insult.
Have ya not noticed that many of us do the same for YOUR posts?

Why don’t ya make a rational contribution to the points of gun “CONTROL” efforts she’s offering? That might be a good start for ya to show ya actually have some sensible objections to something involving guns which if obviously an issue that is prominently “on the table” as being a real problem in the U.S.

 
Flag Post

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/14/15907407-alleged-shooter-at-connecticut-school-is-dead-official-tells-nbc?lite


Now this is just crazy, I’m starting to get convinced this is just propaganda now.


16minute EDIT: Oh, and another link in case you don’t trust just one.
New York times has reported on it as well as a few CNN I believe.

http://rt.com/usa/news/shooting-reported-connecticut-school-085/


1-2hour EDIT: Well, turns out tons of people died.
18children as well as 9 adults I believe.

They only had to listen.

 
Flag Post

Live post-event coverage and analysis

Can’t wait to hear the pro-gun justification. Probably be along the lines of “we should arm kids so they can defend themselves”

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:

Can’t wait to hear the pro-gun justification. Probably be along the lines of “we should arm kids so they can defend themselves”

Stop being retarded.
The school was a anti-gun zone. Hint hint, the gun man didn’t care.
Therefore, no parents teachers or anyone could have a gun there.

If there was a gun in the building, such as in the main office locked up, something could of been done minutes before the police arrived.

Taking away guns wouldn’t help this. If it would, show me how.
You can’t, can you?

 
Flag Post

Thanks Zach for bringing this up earlier.
LiveStream from Chopper/Reporters by ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/live

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Zachary_Greene:
Originally posted by dd790:

Can’t wait to hear the pro-gun justification. Probably be along the lines of “we should arm kids so they can defend themselves”

Stop being retarded.
The school was a anti-gun zone. Hint hint, the gun man didn’t care.
Therefore, no parents teachers or anyone could have a gun there.

If there was a gun in the building, such as in the main office locked up, something could of been done minutes before the police arrived.

Taking away guns wouldn’t help this. If it would, show me how.
You can’t, can you?

How about if the gunman couldn’t so easily get a gun? Doubt one man could of done so much damage without a gun. Yes there is all the he could of got one illegally etc excuses, but the easier it is to get a gun and the more guns in circulation, the more of these event will happen

 
Flag Post
How about if the gunman couldn’t so easily get a gun? Doubt one man could of done so much damage without a gun. Yes there is all the he could of got one illegally etc excuses, but the easier it is to get a gun and the more guns in circulation, the more of these event will happen

All this does is limit law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves. Nuts like this will kill if they want to – regardless if they have to procure a gun illegally or if a place is a “gun free zone.”

It’s a terribly tragedy. But the focus should be on helping the kids coping with this tragedy. Not capitalizing on said tragedy for political gains.

 
Flag Post

if it’s not a gun it’s a bomb, or a chemical agent, or some other means of killing a person. We could all just be drugged and put in a room with rubber walls, maybe that would stop all the killing in the world.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:
How about if the gunman couldn’t so easily get a gun? Doubt one man could of done so much damage without a gun. Yes there is all the he could of got one illegally etc excuses, but the easier it is to get a gun and the more guns in circulation, the more of these event will happen

This is the same logic people use for drugs.
Hey, if we push it underground it’ll be hard to get.

Most of these guns aren’t legal, and even if they are they would of easily got one on the black market.
Taking away guns just reduces the chance of someone having a gun to end it.

Do you have any idea how long it takes for law enforcement, even a normal officer to get to a place?
Usually 3-5minutes at the very least.
That’s a officer that can’t go in, but just gets there and can just stand and watch till more come.

By the time they can do something, all they can do is mop of the blood.
Now if someone had a gun such as a teacher or someone in the main office they could shrink the reaction time down to 1minute or so.

In other words, this gigantic 30 or so body count would of been much much smaller.

And no, if guns were made illegal, like drugs, it would be taken underground and it would explode.
How is that a good idea?
More money for gangs, cheaper illegal guns, and then on top of it when there IS a shooting in a non-antigun zone instead of acting without fear of being prosecuted, they wouldn’t.
You couldn’t, I mean you’d be arrested for years for having a illegal weapon and killing someone.

Sure, you’d be a hero, but you did something “naughty” even though you just saved multiple peoples lives, maybe more.

At the very least you could be reasonable enough to support a armed guard with a rifle in every school.
It’s just one job.
One small job that wouldn’t even pay $20 an hour.

Or you could you know, ban guns and make anti-gun zones so no one can help these poor poor kids.


Aside from all the guns, as you said you doubt one man could do much without a gun.

http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story
There’s multiple reports of this on many sites. Arabic ones, this one, Chinese ones, tons of ones so I doubt it’s fake.
A knife, and he did this.
22children injured.

Oh, and just wait till you see the chemical bombs or explosives that people can use!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Zachary_Greene:

Meanwhile on the side of common sense we have the fact that elementary schools are already lockdown zones. Nobody gets in or out once school starts, without being known by and trusted by the staff. They have to be a parent, a school official or a law enforcement officer with identification.

What happened was horrendous, but there was very little that could reasonably have been done to prevent it as things stand. One option that is coming forward now is to insist on metal detectors and mandatory security searches for all individuals entering the building, parents and staff alike. That would have rooted out the problem.