Smart Guns?

[SansVarnic]

But how is that information relevant to the discussion of gun control? How bad American healthcare is, poor driver education or epidemiology are totally different topics than gun violence.

 

If guns didn't make society any dangerous if they weren't around, then how come America has so much gun violence? A lot of places with restricted access to firearms also have far less gun violence than America. Is that a coincidence? Well, you kind of need a firearm to perform gun violence...

 

The method of how people kill others is pretty important. America doesn't have a monopoly on mentally ill people, but mentally ill people in other nations don't manage to shoot up schools.

 

It is very relevant. Death whether it is by gun, car, medical malpractice, baseball bat etc. is a figure in statistics. How do you define that gun violence is worse than something else unless you compare it to something else.

Guns do not make a society any more or less dangerous, the mentality and culture of a people make it more or less dangerous. The fact that guns exist is irrelevant to what create the crime or what pushes someone to commit a crime. Until the gun was widely adopted people killed people with swords, before that, knives, before that rocks. before that. OHHH wait we still use knives and other thing to kill as well even cars, our bare hands, ect..... (excuse the unintentional sarcasm).

 

Unfortunately you are tackling this issue from the wrong perspective and so are those that are anti-gun. You take away guns and yes guns crime will decrease, but then you will have a rise in crime using other methods instead, it is human nature to find a way to do that which was decide to be done, happen. Whether the deed is done with a gun or another way.

Don't attack the method, attack the state of mind the individual is in when the deed was decided. 

[cpyarger]

If you actually compare the US to other developed countries, you'll see that they are all pretty well below where the US is. The US only gets beaten by less developed nations with far more severe poverty. The US is still much higher than it should be.

Compare it to Canada or the UK or Germany or Poland or Sweden, etc.

I believe in gun ownership, but I don't feel that it's some fundamental right. There is a necessary balance between gun freedom and gun regulation. It's not black and white like many on both sides of the argument try to make it.

 

 

It may not be a fundamental right, but it is a constitutional one, and a moral one. 

 

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html 

 

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

 

 

Full Definition of militia

 

1. 1a :  a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergencyb :  a body of citizens organized for military service

2. 2:  the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

 

 

 

 

If a point in time comes where the people of the US decide to abolish the current government, good luck doing so without firearms. 

 

[Deli]

It is very relevant. Death whether it is by gun, car, medical malpractice, baseball bat etc. is a figure in statistics. How do you define that gun violence is worse than something else unless you compare it to something else.

Guns do not make a society any more or less dangerous, the mentality and culture of a people make it more or less dangerous. The fact that guns exist is irrelevant to what create the crime or what pushes someone to commit a crime. Until the gun was widely adopted people killed people with swords, before that, knives, before that rocks. before that. OHHH wait we still use knives and other thing to kill as well even cars, our bare hands, ect..... (excuse the unintentional sarcasm).

 

Unfortunately you are tackling this issue from the wrong perspective and so are those that are anti-gun. You take away guns and yes guns crime will decrease, but then you will have a rise in crime using other methods instead, it is human nature to find a way to do that which was decide to be done, happen. Whether the deed is done with a gun or another way.

Don't attack the method, attack the state of mind the individual is in when the deed was decided. 

Based on your logic, maybe we should legalise the use of explosive, rocket launcher, e.g. It is the mentality and the culture of the people which make it more or less dangerous. The fact that explosive and anti-tank weapons exist in civilian's hands is irrelevant to what creates crime or what pushes someone to commit a crime.

 

Good logic.

[Trik'Stari]

Unreliable, unsafe, and impossible to enforce.

[cpyarger]

Based on your logic, maybe we should legalise the use of explosive, rocket launcher, e.g. It is the mentality and the culture of the people which make it more or less dangerous. The fact that explosive and anti-tank weapons exist in civilian's hands is irrelevant to what creates crime or what pushes someone to commit a crime.

 

Good logic.

Speaking of logic

 

 

slippery slope You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

 

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

[dalekphalm]

It may not be a fundamental right, but it is a constitutional one, and a moral one.

If a point in time comes where the people of the US decide to abolish the current government, good luck doing so without firearms.

Constitutional right for the US. I'm not American so that does not apply to me. I also don't see it as a moral right either.

One could also argue that by that definition of militia, a woman does not have a right to own a firearm, since it specifically refers to a male of able body and military age.

Over could also interpret the constitution to say that ONLY members of an organized militia have the right to own a firearm.

But I digress, I'm not an academic expert on the US constitution.

[cpyarger]

One could also argue that by that definition of militia, a woman does not have a right to own a firearm, since it specifically refers to a male of able body and military age.

 

 

That is one of two definitions of militia that was provided

Also, what led to the magna carta, The precursor to both the us constitution and your constitutional monarchy? 

[dalekphalm]

That is one of two definitions of militia that was provided

The other being an organized force. In either definition, a female US citizen who isn't part of an organized militia would therefore not be applicable to those rights.

My point being that this is the fundamental flaw in the US constitution: They did not lay out a specific definition of "militia".

[SansVarnic]

 

Based on your logic, maybe we should legalise the use of explosive, rocket launcher, e.g. It is the mentality and the culture of the people which make it more or less dangerous. The fact that explosive and anti-tank weapons exist in civilian's hands is irrelevant to what creates crime or what pushes someone to commit a crime.

 

Good logic.

 

Based on what logic? I have no idea what you read but my explanation had nothing to do with you just posted. Maybe you need to re-read it, think about for a while and then reply with with a better, more thoughtful answer.

 

(Just to help you understand) I used the argument posted to show the poster how his point of view was wrong and how they should be addressing the issue. Apparently you need to widen your concept of this issue pay attention to the fact that what I explained has nothing to do with increasing, expanding or otherwise making it possible to use more deadly weapons for personal use. The scope of violence has nothing to do with the weapon used but with mentality of the of the person willing to commit the crime. Stop being ignorant and admit to yourself that there is a bigger issue than what weapon is used to commit a crime whether or not death/murder is involved.

 

 

Speaking of logic

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

 

I concur. Good point overall.

But unfortunately this will not directly help him understand the point I made.

 

 

 

*edit

I changed some wording (was harsh)

Edited January 20, 2016 by SansVarnic

[SansVarnic]

The other being an organized force. In either definition, a female US citizen who isn't part of an organized militia would therefore not be applicable to those rights.

My point being that this is the fundamental flaw in the US constitution: They did not lay out a specific definition of "militia".

 

They did not need to, you are arguing an invalid point of contention.

A militia is any able bodied male - for the times it was not considered or could be conceived (and in someplace is still stands) that women would be involved in war or military action otherwise.

Also at the times women were not considered citizens as they could not hold land either. Again your point is invalid as with US Law allows the maturation of laws over time, for example: the right to vote, the right to own land, the right to serve in the military has been changed and so the constitution now allows for women to be addressed as such as a militia able body.

[ivan134]

Take a look at the Intentional homicides per 100,000  data. 

 

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5

 

The US is no where near the top.

"Hey gaise. Look at this list I found. It shows the US is better than 3rd world countries that have a high poverty rate and it's not like poverty leads to high crime rates so we definitely don't have a gun problem."

 

Look at that list again and compare to Japan, Italy, France, Germany, Canada, Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, etc. We are the highest in the developed world. Japan has fucking zero.

[ivan134]

Our nation still has a homeless and hunger problem.

Just because we're developed, doesn't mean we don't suffer from 3rd world problems (sadly enough)

You're right. We do have our priorities backwards.

Instead of demolishing the short-term solution with more useless gun control, we should prioritize actually dealing with homelessness, underfunded rehabilitation centers, archaic education system, poor infrastructure, and poverty. The real root of the problem.

You're absolutely right. The real root of the problem is that party who wants every Tom, Dick and Harry to own a gun (in Iowa, people who are legally blind are allowed to carry a gun in public) is the same party whose fiscal policies increase our poverty rates.

[cpyarger]

And sadly the other party does no better,  No one seems to be working towards fixing the problem, on one hand we have a group of people saying basically fuck off if i can do something on my own so can everyone else, god help anyone who tries taking it. and on the other hand we have a group saying basically everyone is entitled to do nothing all day but stare at facebook. get free food, and be a vegetable.  vegetables cant own guns otherwise they Might hurt other vegetables. 


Either way, cut off all social reform, or bread and circus' all over again seems to be the route everyone is pointing to. 

[GodSpoon]

Ahh, such a beautiful gif :3

___

I understand better gun control but that shit is stupid. So many possible flaws and issues with that design. I think it would result in more failed self defense attempts than actually preventing misuse. 

 

Mugger: "I'm a mugger! I'm going to mug you punk bitch"

Me (with my 'smart' gun): "Not today SUCKA!"

*whips out gun but it can't pair with watch*

Mugger: "Ahh shooting blanks? Who a sucka now foo"

*stabs me 23 times in the chest*

*As I bleed out, watch and gun finally sync up*

 

Its quite satisfying 

 

And exactly man, I feel like so many flaws are introduced the more gun control evolves anyways 

[ivan134]

And sadly the other party does no better, No one seems to be working towards fixing the problem, on one hand we have a group of people saying basically fuck off if i can do something on my own so can everyone else, god help anyone who tries taking it. and on the other hand we have a group saying basically everyone is entitled to do nothing all day but stare at facebook. get free food, and be a vegetable. vegetables cant own guns otherwise they Might hurt other vegetables.

Either way, cut off all social reform, or bread and circus' all over again seems to be the route everyone is pointing to.

Does no better? Compare the state of the economy whenever a Republican president leaves office vs when a Democratic one does. Compare the the economic situation of red states and blue states. Funny thing is US liberal policies are considered right wing compared to the countries I listed earlier and all seem to not only do fine, but better than us in a lot of criteria.

I'll give you credit though. You're a lot better than some people who masturbate to the fantasy of a government collapse so they can justify why they have an armory in their homes and just pray for the day it happens so they can go "Ha, I told you so."

[SansVarnic]

I would still not be comfortable with civilian passengers carrying firearms. The TSA and other similar bodies have started to integrate trained agents on board flights for anti-terrorist and anti-hijacking measures, and in some cases, talk of equipping and training the flightstaff with firearms - that should be enough. I don't want a yahoo with an itchy trigger finger thinking he can take on a hijacker (Or worse, what he thinks is a hijacker, yet is something innocent), when there is a person trained for this situation already on board.

Sorry but I laughed when you mentioned the TSA. They are about as competent as group of house cats attempting to take down an angry bull elephant.

TSA has nothing to do with planes once in flight, that is what Air Marshals are for.

I have the up most respect for you Dalekphalm but you lost me on this one.

[GodSpoon]

A person murders someone with a knife no bats an eye.

 

A person murders someone with a bat no one bats an eye.

 

A person murders someone with a gun everyone freaks out.

BUT GUNS ARE THE KILLERS OF SOCIETY 1/3 OF ALL MURDERS ARE GUNS AND IF THERE WERE NO GUNS THERE WOULD BE LESS MURDERS BECAUSE 1/3 MURDERS ARE GUNS/s

 

Man that gif never gets old haha

 

Its one of the most satisfying gifs on the planet 

[cpyarger]

Does no better? Compare the state of the economy whenever a Republican president leaves office vs when a Democratic one does. Compare the the economic situation of red states and blue states. Funny thing is US liberal policies are considered right wing compared to the countries I listed earlier and all seem to not only do fine, but better than us in a lot of criteria.

I'll give you credit though. You're a lot better than some people who masturbate to the fantasy of a government collapse so they can justify why they have an armory in their homes and just pray for the day it happens so they can go "Ha, I told you so."

The recession started right before the republican president did..... Funny how a lot of people seem to forget that bit......  Honestly though, By law what power does the president have INSIDE the US? What does he control within the country? 

[HalGameGuru]

But how is that information relevant to the discussion of gun control? How bad American healthcare is, poor driver education or epidemiology are totally different topics than gun violence.

 

If guns didn't make society any dangerous if they weren't around, then how come America has so much gun violence? A lot of places with restricted access to firearms also have far less gun violence than America. Is that a coincidence? Well, you kind of need a firearm to perform gun violence...

 

The method of how people kill others is pretty important. America doesn't have a monopoly on mentally ill people, but mentally ill people in other nations don't manage to shoot up schools.

His argument was deaths in general, not victimization. Under deaths in general guns are a low priority. Under the auspices of victimization America's numbers get even BETTER. THe majority of gun victimization is gang related, which is war on drugs related. The chances of an average law abiding citizen being harmed by gun violence is astronomical.

 

Mentally ill people in other nations DO shoot up large groups of people (Norway had a single instance that put them over pretty much everyone in the stats), or use explosives, knives(China especially), or chemicals. Heck you could do far more damage with 20 dollars from your local automotive store than a gun.

 

Per capita america's gun violence is negligible, and most of it is, like I said, gang related. You have an issue with it, end the war on drugs.

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

Overcomplicates weapon = unreliable. Increases points of failure from action-only to electronics + action.

 

It will cause problems like other companion devices. Batteries, sync operations and area-effect puts unique disadvantages for operator in certain scenarios, like dalekphalm mentioned.

 

Electronics themselves will fail due to low tolerances to shock and fatigue (stresses on the parts due to the firing mechanics involved). Seriously, the more powerful loads you shoot, the more intense shock and vibrations the electronic parts will feel (I mean dropping an SSD is one thing, what about recoil impulse? It's a different beast for electronics). I guess dampening could work but it's a downward slope for ergonomics and weight should calibers and loads rise. The mechanical parts are obviously built for such extremes, however.

 

Politically, it's a nice safety (mostly marketing IMO) feature for mostly anti-tampering for toddlers but won't really impact the current debate of gun control. That comes with self-discipline and how society deals with its problems, not technology.

 

Lastly, it seems like the tension in America is what fuels gun sales. Find a way to cool that down and get people to do other things (like SpaceX is doing, or combat actual govt. problems like poverty, education, banks and Hollywood) and they should be just fine. 

 

 

Ideally speaking of course. There's no way it is that simple.

[SansVarnic]

The recession started right before the republican president did..... Funny how a lot of people seem to forget that bit......  Honestly though, By law what power does the president have INSIDE the US? What does he control within the country? 

Article 2 of the US Constitution outlines the powers of the POTUS. 

Mostly its influence over actual power politically unless its a time of war or he is essentially signing a bill into law. But today most people see it the other way around.

Executive orders are misconstrued to the point that people think these are laws as well but this is about as true ice not melting in a desert.

 

Article II

Section 1.

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section 2.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Edited January 20, 2016 by SansVarnic

[HalGameGuru]

"Hey gaise. Look at this list I found. It shows the US is better than 3rd world countries that have a high poverty rate and it's not like poverty leads to high crime rates so we definitely don't have a gun problem."

 

Look at that list again and compare to Japan, Italy, France, Germany, Canada, Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, etc. We are the highest in the developed world. Japan has fucking zero.

Japan has zero because they have zero guns. And it took them centuries of oppression and class conflict to "achieve" that. Are you suggesting nations spur global wars and commit war crimes to help push along complete disarmament? You are looking at a nation whose current status has roots going back almost 500 years.

 

Switzerland is also a "Third World" country. Don't just look at guns, look at victimization. THAT's the problem. Guns don't matter a whit if people aren't being victimized. America having gun stats versus nations that have severely curtailed their citizens' rights doesn't mean much if the people in those other nations are being victimized at a higher rate than those in America. Assaults, rapes, robberies, murders, B&E, DAYTIME B&E, etc. And don't overlook DEFENSIVE firearm use. Depending on whose stats  you go by Americans are credited with 800k to 2.4 million defensive firearm uses a year. 

[SansVarnic]

Japan has zero because they have zero guns. And it took them centuries of oppression and class conflict to "achieve" that. Are you suggesting nations spur global wars and commit war crimes to help push along complete disarmament? You are looking at a nation whose current status has roots going back almost 500 years.

 

Switzerland is also a "Third World" country. Don't just look at guns, look at victimization. THAT's the problem. Guns don't matter a whit if people aren't being victimized. America having gun stats versus nations that have severely curtailed their citizens' rights doesn't mean much if the people in those other nations are being victimized at a higher rate than those in America. Assaults, rapes, robberies, murders, B&E, DAYTIME B&E, etc. And don't overlook DEFENSIVE firearm use. Depending on whose stats  you go by Americans are credited with 800k to 2.4 million defensive firearm uses a year. 

Also Japan was wholly disarmed after defeat in WWII. They were not allow to produce weapons of any kind for a long period of time.

[HalGameGuru]

Also Japan was wholly disarmed after defeat in WWII. They were not allow to produce weapons of any kind for a long period of time.

Even before WWII private ownership of weapons was neither protected nor "allowed," they are also a homogeneous society, massively repressed, and a lot of their presumptive utopian calling cards are like Britain, smokescreens and creative accounting. 

[SansVarnic]

Even before WWII private ownership of weapons was neither protected nor "allowed," they are also a homogeneous society, massively repressed, and a lot of their presumptive utopian calling cards are like Britain, smokescreens and creative accounting. 

Yup, but I was just adding for those that would ask or inquire about Japan having guns for WWII and where those may be.