Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Copernicus]

The issue is using people killed by "assault rifles" as evidence for banning them despite the fact that most gun kills are handguns. It's exposing a problem with the argument.

Since the argument is that banning assault weapons should reduce the killings due to assault weapons, the only problem exposed by your response is your knee jerk regurgitation of NRA bullsit.

And it isn't just about banning the type of weapons favored by mass shooters. The gun lobby opposes any modifications to guns or restrictions that would make them less convenient to commit mass murder--for example, a ban on large capacity magazines, limitations on ammunition sales, raising the age of legal purchase, waiting periods, mandatory training, registration and licensing, etc. The idea is to keep the market for purchase of these weapons as large as possible, because it is the gun manufacturers who benefit from lack of regulation. It isn't just about an individual's right to own a gun, although the manufacturers want it framed that way in public debates.

 

[Elixir]

The entire fucking supply chain is exempt from liability, from the manufacturers to the murderers, from the laundered Russian influence-buying "donor" cash to the teen who just wants to go out with a bang... it all works together.
Such a thing of beauty.

And how about liability for car makers for all the auto accidents?

Seriously, Loren?
Accidents now? Try again.

The point is we don't sue manufacturers for the misuse of their products.

Misuse?
Killing people with a product designed and built to kill people is not an off-label use.

 

[Elixir]

Irregardless

Seriously?

 

[Rhea]

We also need to push for making guns safer.

Making Guns Safer

The technology now exists to make guns that only authorized users can operate. These safer guns could cut gun-related deaths and injuries.

issues.org

500,000 guns stolen every year. Wow. Who lets this happen?

Stolen guns contribute to the number of gun-related deaths. Experts estimate that about 500,000 guns are stolen each year. Surveys of adult and juvenile criminals indicate that thefts are a significant source of guns used in crime. Roughly one-third of the guns used by armed felons are obtained directly through theft. Many guns illegally sold to criminals on the street have been stolen from homes. Research on the guns used in crime demonstrates that many are no more than a few years old. Requiring all guns to be personalized could, therefore, limit the availability of usable guns to adult and juvenile criminals in the illegal gun market.

Aside from the technology that would make a stolen gun useless, why are we not prosecuting people whose guns are so easy to steal? 500,000 !?

But back to design changes:

Another intervention is now being developed: the personalized gun, a weapon that will operate only for the authorized user. Personalized guns could reduce the likelihood of many gun-related injuries to children as well as adults. They could be especially effective in preventing youth suicides and unintentional shootings by young children. Personalized guns could also reduce gun violence by making the many firearms that are stolen and later used in crime useless to criminals. Law enforcement officers, who are at risk of having their handgun taken from them and being shot by it, would be safer with a personalized gun.

I know those who reflexively shout “no changes” think that biometrics will keep them from being the hero in their own story, but imagine if the accidental shooting were able to stop. And those stolen guns - that article says most are 2 years old or less (500,000 stolen weapons every year!!!). Imagine if they were just hunks of metal instead.

And imagine if no cop ever again had to worry about being shot with their own gun.


There are disturbing papers written about how people who worked to design safer guns were targeted by fun fetishists and manfucaturers for their inventions.


This is what public research could accomplish.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We also need to push for making guns safer.

Making Guns Safer

The technology now exists to make guns that only authorized users can operate. These safer guns could cut gun-related deaths and injuries.

issues.org

The technology does not exist.

You could perfectly well make a range gun that would only fire if it was in the hands of it's proper owner. You can't make a gun that will only fire in the hands of the proper own but will reliably fire in the hands of the proper owner.

There are two basic approaches:

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?

2) Broadcast token of some kind. The bad guys will bring a jammer. You also have the issue of dead batteries.

Such systems will stop kids from firing a gun, but do basically nothing about criminal use. You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up. The bad guys will defeat the system--a speed bump for them, not a roadblock.

 

[Jarhyn]

We also need to push for making guns safer.

Making Guns Safer

The technology now exists to make guns that only authorized users can operate. These safer guns could cut gun-related deaths and injuries.

issues.org

The technology does not exist.

You could perfectly well make a range gun that would only fire if it was in the hands of it's proper owner. You can't make a gun that will only fire in the hands of the proper own but will reliably fire in the hands of the proper owner.

There are two basic approaches:

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?

2) Broadcast token of some kind. The bad guys will bring a jammer. You also have the issue of dead batteries.

Such systems will stop kids from firing a gun, but do basically nothing about criminal use. You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up. The bad guys will defeat the system--a speed bump for them, not a roadblock.

Heh, a "jammer". You realize the technology required to do that ya? To get in the way of an immediate signal, something as close as a wristband or ring?

Do you understand how much energy it takes to jam a signal (especially a NFC device, like a ring)? "The bad guys" who bring a jammer with them are soldiers or mercenaries. And the jammer usually lives in a fucking truck because it's that much hardware.

And even then it might not do shit for a NFC.

Who is pissing off government entities badly enough that they bring a CREW device? Or maybe you watch too many movies.

 

[Swammerdami]

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?
. . .
You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up.

The only time my phone failed to respond to my fingerprint was when I forgot to take a glove off!

And the fingerprint is MUCH MUCH faster than unlocking a cabinet.

No, I do not particularly support fingerprint locks on guns. I just get tired of all the "Nope. Cain't do it. God-given freeedumb. Best solution is giving every white American a Glock 19 on his twelfth birthday."

 

[Jarhyn]

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?
. . .
You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up.

The only time my phone failed to respond to my fingerprint was when I forgot to take a glove off!

And the fingerprint is MUCH MUCH faster than unlocking a cabinet.

No, I do not particularly support fingerprint locks on guns. I just get tired of all the "Nope. Cain't do it. God-given freeedumb. Best solution is giving every white American a Glock 19 on his twelfth birthday."

A better model is an NFC ring with a trap switch.

Essentially, you put on the ring and that pushes down a leaf switch (think, the switch in your fridge that turns the lights on/off), and then you use your phone to activate it.

The switch flips out if you take it off, and it stops working until you pair it with your phone again.

It would be something like school ring sized, and quite frankly, I would honestly prefer that insofar as then it would be clear who was so psychotic as to own and potentially carry a gun, and unlike every other open carry, this one would not call out for theft.

It would rightly terrify people, but the fact is people have a right to be terrified that you would bring a gun around!

Then, instead of a fingerprint you just have to have the ring near the handle, maybe within 3 inches?

If someone takes the ring, they still can't use it, because they can't reset the mechanism once it's been triggered.

The problem here is that then, someone in a household could be a gun owner, and leave the gun about as an abusive threat that produces no challenge to their power because only they can use the weapon.

Honestly, I would rather that instead of personalized weapons, we just have no such awful weapons about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We also need to push for making guns safer.

Making Guns Safer

The technology now exists to make guns that only authorized users can operate. These safer guns could cut gun-related deaths and injuries.

issues.org

The technology does not exist.

You could perfectly well make a range gun that would only fire if it was in the hands of it's proper owner. You can't make a gun that will only fire in the hands of the proper own but will reliably fire in the hands of the proper owner.

There are two basic approaches:

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?

2) Broadcast token of some kind. The bad guys will bring a jammer. You also have the issue of dead batteries.

Such systems will stop kids from firing a gun, but do basically nothing about criminal use. You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up. The bad guys will defeat the system--a speed bump for them, not a roadblock.

Heh, a "jammer". You realize the technology required to do that ya? To get in the way of an immediate signal, something as close as a wristband or ring?

Do you understand how much energy it takes to jam a signal (especially a NFC device, like a ring)? "The bad guys" who bring a jammer with them are soldiers or mercenaries. And the jammer usually lives in a fucking truck because it's that much hardware.

And even then it might not do shit for a NFC.

Who is pissing off government entities badly enough that they bring a CREW device? Or maybe you watch too many movies.

You realize how little energy a NFC device puts out? You don't need a big jammer to saturate the receiver.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?
. . .
You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up.

The only time my phone failed to respond to my fingerprint was when I forgot to take a glove off!

And the fingerprint is MUCH MUCH faster than unlocking a cabinet.

No, I do not particularly support fingerprint locks on guns. I just get tired of all the "Nope. Cain't do it. God-given freeedumb. Best solution is giving every white American a Glock 19 on his twelfth birthday."

You've never had your finger a bit off center? Never not left it on long enough? (More of an issue now that I have a scanner in the screen rather than on the back.)

As for unlocking a cabinet--I was picturing someone drawing a gun. That gives less than 1 second for a radio approach and even less than that for a fingerprint scanner.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?
. . .
You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up.

The only time my phone failed to respond to my fingerprint was when I forgot to take a glove off!

And the fingerprint is MUCH MUCH faster than unlocking a cabinet.

No, I do not particularly support fingerprint locks on guns. I just get tired of all the "Nope. Cain't do it. God-given freeedumb. Best solution is giving every white American a Glock 19 on his twelfth birthday."

A better model is an NFC ring with a trap switch.

Essentially, you put on the ring and that pushes down a leaf switch (think, the switch in your fridge that turns the lights on/off), and then you use your phone to activate it.

The switch flips out if you take it off, and it stops working until you pair it with your phone again.

It would be something like school ring sized, and quite frankly, I would honestly prefer that insofar as then it would be clear who was so psychotic as to own and potentially carry a gun, and unlike every other open carry, this one would not call out for theft.

It would rightly terrify people, but the fact is people have a right to be terrified that you would bring a gun around!

Then, instead of a fingerprint you just have to have the ring near the handle, maybe within 3 inches?

If someone takes the ring, they still can't use it, because they can't reset the mechanism once it's been triggered.

The problem here is that then, someone in a household could be a gun owner, and leave the gun about as an abusive threat that produces no challenge to their power because only they can use the weapon.

Honestly, I would rather that instead of personalized weapons, we just have no such awful weapons about.

That's not the part of the system I have a problem with--what I'm questioning is the communication between ring and gun when the gun is drawn.

 

[bigfield]

If you can't get people to voluntarily secure their guns in a locked cabinet or safe, and you can't make laws to prosecute gun owners who fail to secure their weapons, then you aren't ever going to get people to accept access controls built into the guns themselves.

 

[laughing dog]

We also need to push for making guns safer.

Making Guns Safer

The technology now exists to make guns that only authorized users can operate. These safer guns could cut gun-related deaths and injuries.

issues.org

The technology does not exist.

You could perfectly well make a range gun that would only fire if it was in the hands of it's proper owner. You can't make a gun that will only fire in the hands of the proper own but will reliably fire in the hands of the proper owner.

There are two basic approaches:

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?

2) Broadcast token of some kind. The bad guys will bring a jammer. You also have the issue of dead batteries.

Such systems will stop kids from firing a gun, but do basically nothing about criminal use. You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up. The bad guys will defeat the system--a speed bump for them, not a roadblock.

There is no perfect solution for any social issue. All policies have costs. Rational adults who are serious about policy issues understand there are always tradeoffs. Your responses neglect any possible tradeoff when it comes to the issue of gun violence and what to do about it. Your responses focus solely on your perceived costs without any recognition of the benefits.

Look at your responses above. Bringing up the issue of dead batteries as a serious problem is ludicrous. And the jammer issue - are you seriously claiming that every "bad guy" would have a jammer? And if jammers were a real issue, then people would come up with jammers for jammers.

Really, your responses seem to come right out of some NRA handbook.

 

[Jarhyn]

We also need to push for making guns safer.

Making Guns Safer

The technology now exists to make guns that only authorized users can operate. These safer guns could cut gun-related deaths and injuries.

issues.org

The technology does not exist.

You could perfectly well make a range gun that would only fire if it was in the hands of it's proper owner. You can't make a gun that will only fire in the hands of the proper own but will reliably fire in the hands of the proper owner.

There are two basic approaches:

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?

2) Broadcast token of some kind. The bad guys will bring a jammer. You also have the issue of dead batteries.

Such systems will stop kids from firing a gun, but do basically nothing about criminal use. You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up. The bad guys will defeat the system--a speed bump for them, not a roadblock.

Heh, a "jammer". You realize the technology required to do that ya? To get in the way of an immediate signal, something as close as a wristband or ring?

Do you understand how much energy it takes to jam a signal (especially a NFC device, like a ring)? "The bad guys" who bring a jammer with them are soldiers or mercenaries. And the jammer usually lives in a fucking truck because it's that much hardware.

And even then it might not do shit for a NFC.

Who is pissing off government entities badly enough that they bring a CREW device? Or maybe you watch too many movies.

You realize how little energy a NFC device puts out? You don't need a big jammer to saturate the receiver.

Yes you do, because the jammer has to put out exponentially more energy due to falloff and band saturation.

To jam a signal, you have to make broad spectrum noise (the device you are trying to jam is usually on a set of frequencies, and while it only needs power for one of them the jammer needs power and transmission width to transmit on all of them simultaneously.

Secondly, the reason NFC are so low power is because they have very low range because they communicate via an induction field.

So, to jam a NFC chip, you need to put out enough power to generate an induction field across the entire gap to power the NFC on ALL of those frequencies.

You would essentially need to be setting off an EMP, as I understand it.

The technology to jam a low power key fob from being able to talk to an IED weighs more than I do and sucks down enough power to cook anyone dumb enough to touch that antenna.

 

[Rhea]

Loren you are far too ready to give up trying. Remember when everyone was terrified of drive-by-wire because “what would happen if the electronics failed!? This is life or death!!” And how many cars now have mechanical linkages to brakes and accelerator?

It is far less “cant do it” than you think and if there are any gaps then the legislation should be to fund public research into closing the gaps so that the gun cabal can’t interfere. Not to throw your hands on the air and say we’re not capable of addressing this carnage.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What if we ban guns and let people purchase NFTs of guns?

 

[Jarhyn]

What if we ban guns and let people purchase NFTs of guns?

Or, use the NFT ownership as a registration for the gun, and require a verification on the block chain to confirm initial activation of the physical credential.

Pinned/activated 2FA is way more reliable, fool proof, and ready than biometrics anyway.

An additional requirement to regularly present the weapon to the application directly to keep it functional would allow insurance to track, and present rates accordingly on responsibility of the owner. If the system detects non-functioning of the mechanism, it can alert, or the owner can face rate hikes for loss or theft.

 

[Copernicus]

We also need to push for making guns safer.

Making Guns Safer

The technology now exists to make guns that only authorized users can operate. These safer guns could cut gun-related deaths and injuries.

issues.org

The technology does not exist.

You could perfectly well make a range gun that would only fire if it was in the hands of it's proper owner. You can't make a gun that will only fire in the hands of the proper own but will reliably fire in the hands of the proper owner.

There are two basic approaches:

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?

Privately owned guns are seldom used in emergencies. You are letting your fears feed a fantasy of being defenseless while under attack and having to use the gun to save your life. Very few people carry guns around for that purpose, and violent attackers tend to be good at surprising their victims before they can use their quick draw skills. Your injured finger scenario would not apply unless it were injured in such a way to screw up the use of a fingerprint reader but not guns without fingerprint readers. Dead batteries can be a problem for military equipment, too, but responsible gun owners would surely be diligent enough to replace batteries as needed, especially if they are as paranoid and fearful as many seem to be.

2) Broadcast token of some kind. The bad guys will bring a jammer. You also have the issue of dead batteries.

Such systems will stop kids from firing a gun, but do basically nothing about criminal use. You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up. The bad guys will defeat the system--a speed bump for them, not a roadblock.

Yes, secure storage of privately-owned weapons should be a federal law. It only makes sense. I would agree that dead batteries could be an unexpected disappointment to the less responsible gun owners, especially the ones who are careless about securely storing weapons, cleaning them, and knowing where they are at all times. Gun ownership should be like owning a pet. The owner has responsibilities. Some bad guys can be truly resourceful in overcoming problems, but the goal here is to cut down on the number of deaths from gun-related injuries, even if they can't all be stopped.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you can't get people to voluntarily secure their guns in a locked cabinet or safe, and you can't make laws to prosecute gun owners who fail to secure their weapons, then you aren't ever going to get people to accept access controls built into the guns themselves.

A big problem with the secure-your-guns measures is that the left always tries to go too far--mandating storage requirements that are simply impossible for many people. Only mandate simple locks--not big gun safes that need to be on solid ground and bolted down. (Something unavailable to anyone not living on the lowest level of their building, or with a crawl space under their floor.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look at your responses above. Bringing up the issue of dead batteries as a serious problem is ludicrous. And the jammer issue - are you seriously claiming that every "bad guy" would have a jammer? And if jammers were a real issue, then people would come up with jammers for jammers.

Really, your responses seem to come right out of some NRA handbook.

Jam a jammer?? That doesn't pass the laugh test.