Bitcoin Forum

Hi, I came up with a solution for Gun Control: https://defendingthetruth.com/threads/common-people.113527/ Will you stand up to the NRA with my idea?
Also, a solution for basic income outside of government and wall street: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KGQtmbhF8AOjWFlEO0Tr6K-PpkGTNBhYsufL1ZNx95E/edit
If have the guts to present these to the public, you'll have my vote.

So 3 gangsters break into your home at 3am wielding swords, bats and hammers. They start attacking your family, your children.  You get your firearm to defend your family....... and, nothing...

You have to call the government for authorization to kill the people attacking your kids. You make a call to some call center, which is answered by some lady who reads thru a question and answer checklist. 4-5 minutes later, you authorization to unlock the gun is approved.

Now, you exit your hiding spot with a working firearms, to find your family dead and the intruders are gone.



Yeah, great idea



Next topic:  a basic income (ie: free money for all) will do nothing for society. If you raise a bar from 0 to 20 for everyone, every scale for everything else will now start at 20 instead of 0. The costs of everything, will increase in proportion to the new lowest bar setting.

Your home is not a public place so this wouldn't apply. Your gun would operate without needing authorization to fire.

Ok, change the location.  I'm in the grocery store, 3 armed bandits come in to rob the place and the customers. You just forced me to concede to being another victim as my only choice.

Part two of impossible:   Let's say this gun plan had a snow balls chance.  How do you implement it?  How do you get the 393 million current guns out of the public's hands?  Many of these current guns are not on any 'registry' or ownership list. Some states do not require any FFL involvement in transferring of long guns. Some guns have been passed down from family, which also requires no FFL. Some guns have been possessed since prior to any transfer laws. Some guns are manufactured without a serial number (still perfectly legal today), or have been in existence since prior to serial number requirements.

If three armed bandits came to rob a public place, they wouldn't be able to fire their guns.

I never said they had guns. Armed includes any weapon capable of serious bodily injury or death.  Knives, bricks, hammers, rocks.

Now let's say they do have guns. Are they your new guns? Or are they old guns, homemade guns, guns that were were not turned in?

The law could require the gun manufacturers to make replicas of all their models with the Smart Gun Technology. And owners of the guns could simply exchange their guns at no cost. The manufacturers already made their profit when they sold the original. All guns without the Smart Gun Technology, could be made illegal.

So, you'll enact a law, requiring gun manufacturers to take huge financial loss?  Making more guns costs money/labor/overhead.
And then you expect a criminal (who doesn't follow the law by definition) to exchange their gun for a new one they don't control.?
And then the guns w/o new tech being illegal, will never be found unless they are caught with the gun in their possession.
And all the current law abiding gun owners will become criminals if they don't hand in their property?

(Not being disrespectful here.... just walking you thru real life)

Since criminals follow the law and don't do things that are illegal, that sounds great!

Wait...

The owner of the store could get permission to fire his gun and protect his business and customers beforehand . As far as protection from printed guns and bullets, I guess that's where we're fucked. But, how many gun crimes are done with printed guns? I'm guessing not that many.

If a criminal wants to commit a crime, their isn't much that can be about that. Smart Gun Technology could make it harder to commit the crime or at the very lest prevent the accidental firing of the gun.

I think the biggest thing you're overlooking is mindset.  

The criminals don't care what they laws are, so you'll never get their guns.  And if by some chance you do, they just find another weapon they can control. Homemade guns or knives.

Now the mindset of the lawful gun owner.  We believe we have a right to defend ourselves.  What I own to do that is none of the government's business. I'm not going to give up control of my life, and life-saving decision making, to the government.

 Then you have enforcement issues. Guns tend to be a problem more so where there's a concentration of criminals. Ie: big cities.  Out in the suburbs, we have no issues with guns.  Likewise, law enforcement follows the same concept.  City cops think no one should have a gun but them. Suburban cops can often depend on legal gun owners for assistance.

   I'm a suburban cop. I have sworn to uphold the Constitution.  I will not take guns away from my citizens. And I will not surrender my personal collection of guns.

  Your process will turn 100million lawful citizens into "criminals."

When does the store owner get permission?   Beforehand, like weeks or months ahead?   If so, then a smart gun isn't so smart. A regular gun gives him the same decision making process. If not beforehand, then when?   During the robbery?  "Please excuse me from this robbery for a moment mr bad guy, I have to call the govt for permission to use my gun, I'll be back in 5min."
I'm not talking about printed guns. Plenty of us know how to make a real gun.  It really is a simple machine. Look up 80% lowers.  

Smart gun Tech will only help stupid people who don't know how to handle a gun.

Here's another thought: make it really expensive to fire gun. Add a $1000 tax per bullet. The money raised could go towards the victims of gun violence. Hunters could learn to use a crossbow or a bow and arrow.

So recreational shooters are now punished for the actions of criminals?  No thanks.

Everyone will then just make their own rounds.  We do it now.  It's called reloading.

And still will not stop criminals.  Why buy $1000 billets when they can just steal them.


I think the real flaw in your thought process is believing guns are the problem.   It's the criminal who uses it unlawfully.  
What if we just make homicide illegal, wouldn't that stop the criminals?

"Gun violence" is just violence, regardless of the weapon used.

Run some numbers.... 383,000,000 guns are owned in the US.  How many of them are used criminally each year.

That's the problem: the mindset of the gun owner. You don't want to give up the power to kill anyone anytime you like.

You're a cop, how about the accidental firing of guns by their children? How many of those have you seen? The technology could prevent that.

The gun's design hasn't changed since it was invented. Don't you think its time for a little modernization?

We have smart homes, phones, and cars. We even have smart toilets. Why can't we have smart guns?

Get a new hobby.

The chances of a bullet misfiring or jamming are higher if its a reloaded bullet So, just steal them and commit another crime? How about making the manufactured bullets hard to steal? Like Fort Knoks hard?

Legal guns not firing in public just means criminals using illegal guns don't have to worry about a gun-wielding public. I believe there were already several incidents in the US where people shot down mass shooters. Imagine if you actually have to wait for the police to come.

Sure you can make it so that in the event that a mass shooting happens all the other guns unlock but there will be a delay between the center receiving information that one is indeed happening and them being able to deactivate the block.

Not to mention they'd probably spend even more time "confirming" the incident before being forced to unlock guns coz "Guns Bad!".


Wait they don't follow the law? I'm shookt!

Nah, you're a little off base there. You think the gun owner wants "the power to kill anyone anytime"... that's where you are out of touch.  We want the ability to defend ourselves and our loved ones FROM people who think they can kill anyone anytime.

I have no problem with a smart gun of sorts... like fingerprint unlocked guns.. to prevent careless gun owners children from using them. But that needs to be voluntary, not mandated. As far as how many accidental shootings I've seen.... over 18 years, I've seen 4 total.  Two were nobody getting hit, just a hole in the floor, because they followed at least one of the gun safety rules.  The other two were gang banger criminals accidentally shooting themselves. One in arm. One in leg.  Both were legally prohibited from possessing firearms.
 It's not the mindset of the gun owner you need to worry about, it's the mindset of the criminal.

More people are killed by drunk drivers and car accidents than gun fire.  Should we all give up driving or alcohol to appease the masses in the name of safety?  Even though you never hurt anyone, how would you feel about your rights being taken away because of the criminal  acts of others?

You get a new hobby. It's my property, for my safety, that's never harmed anyone.


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

The gun related murder rate has steadily declined since 1968.  Without any changes to the gun

Taking down a shooter in public is the job of cops; not fellow bystanders. Law enforcement don't need preauthorization to fire their guns. Unless, we change the law so that cops can't just shoot anyone when they feel like it. Maybe they should get an "ok" from a superior before they can shoot.

Look, this is far from being a reality because of too much red tape and organizations like the NRA. No one has the balls to initiate change. We will continue to have mass shootings and accidental gun deaths. This is the world we live in unless we truly want change.

The best practice is for schools/government/parent and even television companies to properly educate the children mostly those people who loves violence is the people who are less educated and we all know, schools in the united states are so bad they even let the children bully other children and the school does nothing about it even shows in television promotes violence, sex and murder. Why not, teach them science and reason. The problem really is the environment they live to, once the US government successful implements this, then there's no need for a gun.

This is not just about "mass shootings" or "taking down shooters".  A very large percentage of violence includes weapons and situations other than guns.  This is about ones ability to defend themselves.

You want to wait for the cops to handle everything?   Good job, you just increased the death rate in the US. You just killed that old man biking on the trail when he got jumped by 3 thugs and almost beaten to death ( true story)(he pulled a gun after being knocked off his bike).  

When seconds matter, the cops are minutes away.

The NRA isn't your issue, they're not the demon here.  They are the the only ones that have enough money (donations) to be able to present an argument to the political crooks who need to be "lobbied."

We will continue to have mass shootings, as long as the majority of the populace are sheep who are naive enough to think the govt can protect them from everything. We will continue to have mass shootings for as long as they're glorified in the media. We will continue to have gun violence as long as the criminal/thug lifestyle is glorified in the entertainment industry. Society is the issue here, not the existence of fast moving metal.

Enact more gun laws. Have the strictest gun laws in the nation. See how that worked out for NJ, CA, Chicago.

What about my solution for Universal Basic Income for all? Maybe if people made more money, there would be less crime.

I believe I expressed my opinion on that in my first post. 

Maybe if more people worked for their money, there'd be less dependency on the government running everyone's lives and using my taxes to fund it.

YTD deductions out of my paycheck are over $35,000. And I haven't even looked at my capital  gains taxes yet.  We've thrown tea in a harbor and started a war for less than this

There are plenty of topics on UBI (and how much of an utter failure it is) in this section. Maybe pick a topic and stick to it. Your "solutions" are hair brained half baked marketing schemes to enact what is in effect a gun ban while pretending not to. No one is buying it, even people who want more gun restrictions. Your plan as described has so many problems I could go on for hours about them. It is not going to happen.

Adding any sort of unnecessary mechanism that may impede a gun from firing can only reduce its reliability and therefore is stupid..

Not to mention added weight and bulk..
Glue a cell phone to some gun with some respectable recoil and see how many rounds it survives just from recoil.. 

And you want the "authorities" to just be able to turn everyone guns off? Hell no..  


I would also contend that all of the gun deaths that occur are worth the right to bear arms, and I would be on the side of committing many many many more lives than that if it was what's needed to ensure it's continuation..

War for oil? Neh...
War for freedom? Absolutely..

Again, gun owners do not want to give up the power to kill anyone whenever they feel like it. That's the bottom line. Unless the firing of guns continues to go unchecked, this will never change.

Here's another benefit from the the technology: How about putting biometric technology on the grips of handguns so that only the owner or a trusted family member can fire the gun? As a gun owner, I would want that especially if I had small children.

Don't you think with today's technology this can be accomplished without hindering the performance of the gun?

The technology could also record the last time the gun was fired , how many rounds were shot, etc. This could help convict or exonerate someone standing trial for a crime they may or may have not committed.

My solution for UBI doesn't involve government, banks, or Wall Street. Its pure crypto:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KGQtmbhF8AOjWFlEO0Tr6K-PpkGTNBhYsufL1ZNx95E/edit

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5199651.0

https://medium.com/@fatsyabad/why-do-we-steal-fe060422bde8

I don't want to ban guns. I think they are necessary.

I believe in a modified and modernized 2nd amendment.

Not for a single second.. No..

Another thing, even if you did make these guns with these electronic disablers, how do you figure you are going to keep even your average hobbyist gunsmith from removing these features?
You have a design idea drawn up? Lets see it..
Do you even know how firearms work?

Of course he doesn't. Gun control freaks are totally ignorant about firearms and are motivated by emotions and fear, not logic. They are afraid and they seek to feel in control by controlling others, and of course they know best and can make life or death decisions for you. Unfortunately no matter how much they control the lives of others they will still be fearful little pathetic creatures, it will never be enough.

So do I..
Their needs to be more protection for the "shall not be infringed" part because all of the short barreled, fully automatic, armor piercing, silencers, etc. stuff that is illegal now without a NFA tax stamp is bullshit..
Basically all of the NFA act is bullshit..

Everyone should be able to have full autos with silencers without question IMO..

Nope. Just ideas swimming around in my head.

This is the second time you've used this statement,   You are wrong, just flat out wrong. 

You're thinking you can interchange the words 'gun owner' and 'criminal' anytime you want. Thats literally what your statement does.

At this point, its obvious you know very little about guns, gun safety, common sense and society as a whole.  You have an amazing naivety to the situation you want to correct.

I agree. You should be able to have any modification under the sun on YOUR gun.

It's the firing of guns that needs to be checked; as to not harm the innocent.

You are delusional and your ideas are neither new nor fully formed. Your plan is garbage no matter how much you want it to be effective.

And who is going to decide who that innocent person is? You block guns from being able to fire without a green light from the authorities and you're giving your life in their hands.
Really, who is going to be innocent? A child? What about a child trained to kill by ISIS, holding a grenade? There's no way for your idea to work.
As for your universal basic income proposal it begins with someone buying shares, so that someone has to invest first. Poor people who can't afford it will be excluded. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of UBI?

I was talking about when the owner uses his gun to commit murder. Don't you think that's wrong? Btw, in my book self defense is NOT murder.

I know that there are responsible gun owners. That's not the problem. The problem comes from when the gun ends up in the wrong hands.

What's your plan then? Let's hear it.

And what if he uses a pencil? Are you going to ban pencils?
Murder is wrong of course, but a gun is only one of many deadly weapons you can buy or make at home. Why focus on firearms? Ban people from owning knives, molotov cocktails, powerful fireworks, bows and crossbows...

It's impossible to have a foolproof weapon that will know when you're using it for self defense.

I was talking about someone being struck be a stray bullet. Not a child from ISIS holding a hard grenade like you described.

If if someone, like me, were to give away the shares to poor people why wouldn't they be able to benefit? They could stake the tokens (the ones that were given to them) and then sell the dividends. I've already given away tokens to some people.

Do you think you could stick to the topic? Sorry but you know about as much about economics as you do about firearms, that is to say absolutely nothing. Your ideas are not new or revolutionary, they are half backed horse shit that would be an absolute disaster if it were ever attempted.

Do you how ridiculous you sound?

I know its impossible to have a foolproof weapon. The reason I bring up the gun is because that's the first thing people think of when it comes to this issue. Not knife, molotov cocktails, powerful fireworks, bows and crossbow control.

I am sticking to the topic. Gun Control AND UBI.

I don't claim to be an expert on guns or the economy. I just know there are problems with both and I seem to be the only one that's come with solutions.

What are your solutions? I'm sure everyone would want to know.

So you're one of those people who read in the news that a pitbull attacked a child and thinks "ban all pitbulls". What if we put a smart chip in a pitbull's head that would make it unable to attack in a public place and unable to bite children? Sounds great in theory, if you're unable to see the big picture, which is a spoilt brat kicking the dog every day, until it finally bites. Now all the spoilt brats can unload their frustration at home by beating up pitbulls, and it doesn't change anything for all those other children bitten by rottweilers, german shepherds, and all the other dogs around the world, every single day.
Your idea will never work and you were told earlier in the thread why that is, but your understanding of the society is extremely naive. Like that part when you said that people will get an offer to exchange their old guns for smart guns for free and they'll all do it.

How do know that my ideas won't work if it's never been tried? Are you an expert?

Gun control is not the same as controlling your dog's bite. Btw, I have pitbulls. If they bite, it's for a reason. But the media never reports that reason. They just want to demonize the breed.

Alright, lets try a different train of thought. Several people explained very common sense reasons why this will not work. So let's move on to a different angle.

Lets say it does work. You find someway to convince people to turn in 380million guns in the US, gun manufacturers to make 380million guns for free, and implement some Federal agency to oversee the program and authorize gun unlocks.
And we'll just forget about the thousands of people that die waiting for govt approval to defend themselves.
We just ignore all the impossibilities that have been logically laid out.

Congrats, you did it. Every gun in the US is rigged with your cell phone tech and is under govt control for use.

What happens when cell signals are blocked? Inside a tunnel. Inside a hospital. The toy section at walmart. In the state forest too far from a cell tower. During a natural disaster when all line are overwhelmed.

I live about an hour outside Philadelphia, and we still have huge dead zones out here.

What if the sky falls?

What part of firing your gun in a public place don't you understand? Why would anyone other than law enforcement need to fire their gun in public?

To shoot a deer?
To stop a criminal of many kinds?
To resist a Russian invasion?
To stop an attacking dog?
Zombies?
To resist tyrannical zombies?

Do you live in NYC where their is a cop on every corner or something? Because in the real world police aren't really there to save you..

Ok. I was trying to be fair and logical with you.  Obviously that isnt working.
You really think law enforcement is going to be everywhere all the time?   Where the heck do you live that you think theres always a cop around to protect you?   I cover an area of 24sqmi with a population of 16,000. And on night shift, theres normally two cops, sometimes one.
Legal gun owners are the first line of defense. We usually get there 7 minutes later to take the report and photograph the body.

I have to ask some demographic questions to see where you are coming from.  What is your age bracket? 20-25?  Region of residence? Large city?

And btw, many civilian gun owners shoot much better than cops. Ive seen it first hand..... often

Here's a local story I'm familiar with of EXACTLY why your idea will not work, and would've killed an innocent man. This trail he was riding on is remote and not easily accessible for cops, and never patrolled.

http://www2.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=361731

A 65-year-old Reading man who was riding his bicycle was justified in shooting two teens - one fatally - who tried to rob him on a Schuylkill River trail as part of a crime spree, the Berks County district attorney said Thursday.

The teens, age 16 and 15, and another 15-year-old boy skipped school Wednesday and robbed two pedestrians in West Reading before they attacked the man as he rode on the Thun Trail in Cumru Township at 11 a.m., police said.

The man, whose name authorities withheld, will not be charged for shooting the teens because he acted in self-defense, which is legal under Pennsylvania's Castle Doctrine, District Attorney John T. Adams said.

"While I don't condone violence, the bike rider had no choice," Adams said. "It was justifiable homicide."

Julius Johnson, 16, of Reading was pronounced dead at the scene Wednesday morning after he was shot in his chest with a handgun, officials said.

An autopsy Thursday by Dr. Supriya Kuruvila, a forensic pathologist at Reading Hospital, determined Johnson died of a gunshot wound to the chest, according to the county coroner's office. The death was ruled a homicide, officials said.

The 15-year-old shot in the neck remained in Reading Hospital on Thursday, officials said. Information about his medical condition could not be obtained. Police did not release his name because he has not been charged.

The third teen, Michael Gonzalez, 15, address unavailable, was charged with robbery, aggravated assault and related offenses and committed to the county youth center in Bern Township.

Officials said an investigation continues.

Johnson was a Reading High School student, and the 15-year-olds are Gov. Mifflin High School students, Adams said.

Adams gave this account:

Johnson was on probation for previous offenses. Juvenile probation officers had gone to his Oakbrook residence earlier Wednesday and found the three teens playing video games.

They told the two 15-year-olds to leave. The officers put an electronic monitoring device on Johnson's ankle, ordered him to stay home and report to their office with his parents at 4 p.m.

Instead, the three met up and decided to jump and rob random victims.

They first robbed an elderly man in West Reading shortly after 10 a.m., taking money from his pockets, then tried to rob another man in West Reading, kneeing him in the stomach and pushing him to the ground. Neither man was hurt.

The bike rider was on the trail between Reading and West Reading.

As he rode past the teens, the 15-year-old whose name was not released punched the man in the face, knocking him from his bike. Johnson ran and kicked the man, who was sitting against a chain-link fence along the trail.

As one of the teens ran toward the man, he shot Johnson and the 15-year-old.

People who found the man called 9-1-1 and waited for police to arrive. It was unclear if the people heard the shots or were on the trail.

The teens weren't armed, but the shootings were legal because the man was unable to escape, thought his life was in danger and had a permit to carry his gun, Adams said.

The man told investigators: "I was scared for my life. I was in big trouble. If I could have kept my bike on the trail, I would have gotten out of there."

The man was unhurt but shaken by the shootings, Adams said.

Adams did not know if Johnson's monitoring device had GPS tracking capabilities or if it simply triggered an alarm when he left his home. Adams said juvenile probation officers acted appropriately.

Cumru Police Chief Jed Habecker credited his department for its quick investigation.

He said the crime was only the second robbery to occur along the Cumru section of the Thun Trail in about a decade.

Adams said he has heard from many people in the community that the bicyclist was a hero for successfully defending himself.

"When your life is in danger, you have no choice but to use deadly force," he said.

Contact Mike Urban: 610-371-5023 or murban@readingeagle.com.

Nope. I don't live in NYC where there's a cop on corner.

I do, however, live in the real world where I don't have to worry about attacks from deer, Russians, or zombies. I think that you need to stop watching too much tv lol

Guess your "real world" doesnt have violent criminals who prey on the perceived weak.   Sounds like a fantasy world

How about you do what you want, and I'll do what I want?

Or what I think is best for my protection and that of my family?

Obviously, you've never encountered a hostile wild pig, a rabid dog, been involved in a carjacking, or many other real world things.

If you insist on trying to devise a scheme for others, who have other realities that yours, you will look foolish.

Wow, that's one hell of a long ass story!

What if the guy who was attacked used a little common sense and didn't ride his bike in an area that wasn't patrolled by cops?

I know that some attacks can't be avoided no matter what you do. But the chances of being attacked can be reduced by using a little common sense and avoid those areas or riding with a friend.

Read the story again.  Only the second issue on that trail in a decade.  Not really a dangerous place with those statistics.  Two robberies in 10 years, along a scenic river jogging/biking trail used by hundreds daily.

Random bad stuff happens.

But either way, Your idea kills the man.

No, I haven't been involved in any of those things.

I just thought of solutions to some problems. I know that these solutions won't work for everyone but at least it's a start. I don't see any other solutions. Do you?

Who? The attacker? I say good riddance then. One less asshole to worry about.

But, its not a solution.  It's an idea.  I applaud people coming up with ideas to solve a problem. But its not a solution until it's deemed to actually be able to solve the problem.  It's an idea, that will not work.  Scratch that plan, come up with a new idea

No, the old man that had to defend himself. With your idea, he would been even more severely injured or even killed,

Right..

So, I would like to come from a standpoint assuming that you have good intentions, so I'm not going to get angry with you, but the path to hell is paved with... ...

Let me ask you one question..

How can you honestly be so steadfast in your opinion on something you admittedly know so very little about?
How can you be so sure of your position while knowing that you don't really know what you are even talking about? So sure of your argument you seem..
How?

How will my ideas become solutions if no one wants to even try out my ideas?

What are your ideas for Gun Control and UBI?

Maybe if he was riding with a friend, he wouldn't have been attacked at all.

Maybe, if she wasn't dressed like a slut and got blackout drunk, she wouldn't have been raped?

Does it work that way too?


+1 merit so you don't have posting limitations and can more efficiently entertain me..

So what now? Mandate no one can leave their house unless with a friend?

We're are talking about your cell phone gun IDEA.  Not societal rules/customs.  What does your gun do in this situation?  Or every other failure we've shown you

I don't know for sure if my ideas will work. I'm just speculating. But, I know that everyone has not not heard of my ideas. But then again, I could be wrong.

They wont.  Because you still think the gun is the problem.
The problem is the person, the gun is an object or tool. Outlaw guns altogether and they'll kill each other with knifes. Before guns existed, lets say the 1400-1500's for example.... was there a lack of violence?  No, people killed each other with swords and rocks and spears.
The inherent problem is people and the raising of their children. Do you blame the dresser that falls over and kills the 2 year old kid, or the parent for not watching their kid when their climbing on the dresser ?

No matter how many ideas you come up with to alter/ban/abolish an inanimate object, human depravity will simply find a new object to use

But for now, a good dampening measure would be to just simply enforce the gun laws we currently have.  Judges are far too lenient. (See the felon who killed the cop in TX got 150k bail?)

No, just more vigilant and use some common sense. Be street smart. Unfortunately that can't be taught in school.

I never said that the gun is the problem and we need to ban guns. It's the firing of guns by anyone holding the gun is the problem.

And the knife is not the problem, its the thrusting of the knife?

Come on.  If you are now saying the gun is not the problem, but the pulling of the trigger is.....  (pulling the trigger requires human input)... then why are you trying to fix the gun, and not the reason behind the trigger pull?

The gun will not fire without human intervention. You need to fix the human.

Right, the gun can't be fired without human interaction. Again, the problem comes from the gun ending up in the wrong hands. We, as humans, can't always control that.

Ok.  You're arguing in a circle and missing your exit.  But that's ok.  We agree that the human factor is the issue. You're looking to "baby-proof" the gun to restrict access. But wouldn't it be more effective to fix the human?   Instead of a "crap, can't use that gun, where's the knife?" result.....   what if we fix the root cause so their thought process is now "geez, I can't do that, imagine the death destruction and misery I'd cause". Or "can't do that, it's illegal".     Your idea is putting a bandaid on an arterial bleed.

I certainly don't have the answer to fixing the gang mentality, criminal appeal, lack of respect and mental health issues that cause 99% of shootings. But I do know we proved your idea will not work, based simply on cell coverage gaps.

You can't be there all the time to make sure your gun or any gun doesn't end up in the wrong hands. A five year old who got a hold of his daddy's gun for example. How do you stop the kid from firing the gun?

Same way I stopped my 3 kids from getting anything I didn't want them to have.  The gun, locked up. My money, phone, beer, cigarettes... told them no and enforced consequences.

I've got about 30 different firearms right now. And have had guns since about 1988. Guess how many of my kids were harmed. Zero.  Guess how many were stolen. Zero.  

Which is another point I mentioned a few pages ago.  When you enact new laws/restrictions on guns, the only people it affects are the legal gun owners. The criminals don't care what your law says.
We already have laws to punish a parent if the kid kid gets hold of a gun.

Too bad you are neither street smart not book smart. What is stopping people form just making their own guns? Importing unlocked guns? Using explosives, fire, vehicles, knives, airguns, to kill people? Are you not getting any kind of clue why "your ideas" are half baked failures? The world is not your science experiment. You have to prove ideas before they are implemented, especially when the safety of hundreds of millions is at risk.

Awww, that's cute. Yeah, I'm so totally just gonna sit there and wait for the cops while someone have a gun pointed at me. Those gun-owning bystanders can go pound sand, I don't need their help!   ::)

For a taste of what a disarmed police force is go look at the all those cops knifed down in the UK. Now before you point out that UPS hostage incident, it were the cops that were stupid, not the guns.

PopoJeff, you're a cop. You agree with that? That the cops were stupid?

Uh, I don't know. Because it's easier to buy (off the street) or steal a gun than to make one?

So, how do I go about to try to prove my ideas? Where do I start?

Congratulations. You are one of the smart and responsible gun owners.

Tell that to a family that wasn't so lucky and lost someone because someone wasn't as careful as you.

Or, the victims of mass shootings like Sandy Hook.

You can't even form a coherent reply to my question, but you claim to have the solution to all the worlds problems. They are "your ideas" jackhole, you tell me.

I'd say they were put in a no win situation. Do you see where that truck stopped?  Don't take out the shooters, and you or others are dead at the hands of the shooters.  Take them out, and possibly hit nearby innocents.

And about 99% of gun owners are like me.  Why do you keep trying to punish us for the actions of the other 1%.  
Actually less. Just checked some stats.
 383,000,000 guns in the US.  
14,500 homicides (2017)

What is that? About .0038 %

Compare to 1,250,000 car crash deaths per year avg

Which machine is really more dangerous to the populace?

Lets be honest here, they were absolutely put in a bad position, but they most certainly did fuck up. If they wanted cover they should have used their cruisers, not the random occupied vehicles of bystanders. They didn't even bother telling the bystanders to exit the vehicles. Also as you know as a trained police officer, one of the primary things they drill into your head in training is to be aware of what is down range and behind your target. This was an utter failure of basic police procedure and tactics. If this was a civilian who acted this way with these results in self defense, he would absolutely be going to prison.

You're correct there.  And I can actually show you one of our SOP's on the use of deadly force that says we cannot take a shot in that situation.

You seem to know everything like an expert, that's why I asked you.

So, you think those statistics matter to the less than 1%?

I'm not trying to punish anyone. Just sharing and defending my ideas.

Probably to many of them still..
I highly doubt a freak accident would change my views enough to reject freedom and liberty..

What freedom and liberty? The freedom to shoot and kill anybody at will?

Ok, you are just a troll..
By

Why are you calling me a troll? What am I doing that's troll-ish?

Ive been nothing but honest, respectful and logical with responses to your ideas and theories.  The reason this fellow is calling you a troll is your dismissive attitude towards any contrary logic or facts.  You've done absolutely nothing to show how this will actually work/succeed, and offer defensive retorts to opposing thoughts. There have been zero replies supporting your ideas working, and a plethora indicating otherwise.

Like the statistics I posted above. Your response is "think it doesn't matter to that .0038% ?".  Thats simply an assanine response.  You are being shown facts that clearly indicate your perceived solutions for a problem dont work, will not work, and really isnt a statistical issue in the grand scheme of things.

You want to save a few kids from irresponsible parents, fine. I'm cool with that.  Maybe this will help in that department. But we've already shown you it has major flaws, even for that application.

That's your opinion.

I've asked others to share their ideas, including you, and have gotten no replies.

Perhaps others are afraid to voice their ideas in fear of getting flamed.

Me, I don't give a shit what other people think of me. So I'll just keep posting until I don't feel like it or I get banned (It wouldn't be the first time.)

^^^^^ exactly what I'm talking about.  You shared an idea. It wont work. You've been shown it wont work. Yet you still defend it.  And you never requested ideas from others.  This is your thread, about your ideas.this is why liberals are laughed at. Your liberal ideas seem wonderful in theory to yourselves. But when you take the first step of implementation, the implosion occurs.

If my opinion, and the opinion of literally everyone else who responded, are wrong..... then go ahead and implement your grand solution and prove us wrong.

My solution for gun control is a combination of several lubricants to make the gun fire easier, thereby reducing drag on the trigger, and giving the shooter better controle that way.

I have many solutions in the medical research arena... depending on the kind of research we are doing. A simple glucose solution will do for calibrating (zeroing out) a standard gas chromatograph. See Medicine man (1992), with Sean Connery and Lorraine Bracco.

 :D

How do know for sure that my ideas won't work if they'd never been tried?

Again, WHAT ARE YOUR IDEAS? LET'S HEAR THEM. Please.

Cool. Thanks for sharing.

Devil's advocate question: How will your idea save lives?

And then only criminals would own these "dumb" guns that work perfectly fine without authentication. You might as well forbid weapons and end with the same result.

Only criminals would also import them, or manufacture them, which gives them the instant advantage. Your "solution" is only making it harder for the honest folk. It reminds me of copy protection, and their authenticated garbage. Enjoy your "Genuine Advantage".

There is no middle ground, either you ban it or not. And banning them won't end it, same as amendment 18...

Well, there are two ideas... the gun idea, and the research idea.

Common people with the gun solution will have a better chance of hitting the terrorist before he can kill more people.

The glucose solution will make it so that the gas chromatograph readings are more accurate, thereby making more accurate medicine the research outcome... saving more lives medically.

8)

Really? No middle ground? Isn't that what everyone wants?

So, several lubricants on guns will save lives? Cause that's what I was referring to. Not the glucose thing.

I take it that you are not a gun person?     8)

I love guns. I have a 9mm Glock, a S& W .45 revolver, and a Cobray M11.

Unfortunately, I came down with ALS 12 years ago so I can no longer enjoy them.

Have you read none of the 5 previous pages?   You were offered several reasons why this will not work. The easiest to comprehend are the lack of reliable cell phone coverage in the US, and the fact you expect gun manufacturers to create 383,000,000 guns for free. You skirted right over those, and never explained how you would surmount those hurdles.
I never offered any ideas to solve your perceived problem. One theory I'd support is somehow creating less pansy-ass millennials who think the government can save them.

Sure. First you have to accurately define the domain in which a proposed "solution" applies. You forgot to do that. So please let us know if we are looking for a solution for "gun control" a long term underwater nuclear submarine, or a island with fourteen people, or perhaps a unwed mother's home. Or some other group/sub-society of your choosing.

Let's start with this...

Targeted Domain: All hand guns and rifles

Purpose: To make the guns safer by equipping them with Smart Gun Technology (SGT.) This technology will make the guns safer by preventing the accidental firing of the gun. A biometric feature built in the handgrip, for example, will allow the gun to fire only by the owner or a designated person(s) The technology would also record the last time the gun was fired, by whom, and how many rounds were fired.

Cots: No cost to the owner but subsidized by the the federal government to help the manufacturers with the costs.

Why is that not so smart?

Oh, I remember...

https://thehackernews.com/2017/07/smart-gun-hacking.html

Actually, I meant "domain" in the sense of "geographical domain."

Right there is my big NO vote.

Subsidized by the Federal Govt means taxes.  This "problem" affects 0.0044342507645259936% of the population   (327,000,000 population / 14500 homicides by gun)

We already tax the ever living crap out of the working folks. Quit taking my money.... remember a few pages back where i said my YTD deduction are already over $35k?


Guess we could tweak that number a bit if we're just looking at accidental deaths by firearms.  Since we know this wont stop the criminal.
Accidental firearms deaths per year  = 495.   https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics/

Now we take that 495 accidental firearms deaths per year against the 327,000,000 population.... and here's the percent of US citizens it affects   0.00015137614678899082%

Tell that to the victims of Sandy Hook, Pulse Night Club, Las Vegas, and the countless others that it don't mean nothing.

I'm glad you brought the article. It just means the technology can be improved.

Look at the locking feature on iphone and how far that technology has come. Why can't we have that feature (the thumb lock) on guns?

There you go thinking with feeling rather than fact.

The facts show this "problem" is statistically insignificant.

Of course it's significant to the people that are affected.
 But now, all of the locations you mentioned were the result of acts committed by a criminal.  You have still failed to show how this will prevent a criminal from committing a criminal act

That may be so, but how about the crimes or accidents that are committed by stolen guns? Or how about the case where the criminal overpowered the owner and used his gun against him?

Oh right, it don't matter because statistically speaking the numbers are too low to count.

All the numbers are above.  495 accidental, 14500 homicide.... what you describe now is somewhere in between.  Still statistically not a big issue.

And STILL waiting for you to explain how you will prevent the criminal from being a criminal.

Tell you what. What if there was everywhere, some "smart dust" that would instantly clog the mechanism of a firearm if the dust was ordered to do so.

Who would be in control of it? What should they  tell it?

Those stats don't include cop homicides that are not adjudicated to be so... but really are.

8)

I never said the technology will prevent the criminal from being a criminal. A criminal don't care about that.

The technology will prevent the gun from firing when the gun ends up in the wrong hands; besides the owner. i.e. A five year old who got a hold of his daddy's gun. Is the five year old a criminal?

Of course, the criminal will make his guns out of pipes, if necessary.

8)

ROFLMAO! "smart dust!"Good one! lol

Why do you act like such a tool?
Did I ever call a 5 year old a criminal?

Let me spell this out for you, since you are missing the most basic of facts laid out in front of you.
I've told you already, if you want to do this for the sake of the 5 year old who gets daddy's gun...cool... go for it. Make the gun, sell it, and let those who think they're not smart enough to own a real gun buy it for the added protection.
But to force it upon the entire country, at the cost of of about 100 billion dollars (approx 300mil guns, avg low price $350ea)... AND expect the government (tax payers) to fund it. For something that affects .00015% of the population..... is absolutely ludicrous.
   (A $30 gun safe/ gun vault offers the child protection your looking for)

   And thats just the cost of the guns, not even factoring in your cell phone tech with the call centers and employees, and god know what else.

I'll stop here, as more than one topic point seems to screw up your OODA loop.

Maybe he was Macgyver lol

You don't have to worry PopoJeff. Ain't a damm thing gonna change. Nobody's got the balls in congress to make these changes.

Correct. No one's got the balls to spend 100billion of taxpayer money on such a failure of an idea, and enact legislation that will start a civil war.

Yup, that's why we will continue to have mass shootings and accidentally gun deaths.

Come up with an idea that will work. Your idea is not feasible, and will not work. Go back to the drawing board.

Abolish "Gun Free Zones"
Assign armed guards (unemployed Veterans) to school districts.
Metal detectors at school entrances.
Quit glorifying mass shootings with endless media coverage.
Let some conservative ideals run the tv networks (they wont broadcast the gangbanger videos)
Prosecute parents who let their toddlers get their guns (already being done)

All of the above ideas have a better chance at working and actually showing some results, than your $100+ billion  Nazi confiscation scheme

Don't duck and dodge your own subject.

Here are some facts for you, regarding cops and guns. I'm thinking we may need to control their guns and their bullets...

In California, officers involved in the search for Christopher Dorner mistakenly fired at least 100 rounds at a truck occupied by three people, none of whom had any connection to the suspect.

A man threatening officers with a rifle was shot 59 times in what was ruled a "suicide-by-cop."

Five officers fired 50 shots at Sean Bell in Queens, New York, including 31 by one detective who reloaded his weapon during the incident.

Police in Lakeland, Florida fired 110 rounds at a suspect, Angilo Freeland, who had killed an officer earlier, hitting him 68 times. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel, "That's all the bullets we had."

When 44-year-old drug suspect Winston Hayes' SUV lurched forward he hit a police car, deputies
unloaded their weapons, firing 120 shots. Four bullets ended up hitting Hayes who survived, one hit a deputy sheriff, 11 hit patrol cars and 11 hit five homes in the neighborhood (one of them ended up tearing a hole in a homeowner's hat).

As you can see, cops need a lot of ammo (especially since they only hit their target, on average, 20% of the time) and that means lots of double-stack mags on their belts. How about civilians? They calmly go about their day until they might pause in the parking lot and fire off one or two rounds at a mugger standing an arm’s length away.

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2019/3/25/2019-the-year-of-the-single-stack-pistol/

Ask PopoJeff for his thoughts on this. He's a cop.

From the gun control forum that I follow (I didn't write this):

goober - Here's how you reduce gun violence, you make the gun owner responsible for the damage done by the gun.
That means the last registered owner of a firearm is responsible for the damage caused by that gun.
Not criminally liable, but financially responsible.
The manufacturer sells it's product to gun dealers, who must provide proof of insurance to relieve the manufacturer of liability, the purchaser from the dealer must produce proof of insurance to relieve the dealer of liability, if the purchaser sells the gun, they will need proof of insurance from the person they sell it to, to relieve themselves of liability.
This covers the externalities in the cost of a firearm, which just means that we aren't subsidizing gun violence, that gun owners are covering the true cost of gun ownership. It's a market based solution.

No need to. Looks more and more like your thread is just trolling.

When deadly force is called for, I dont care how many rounds are used. All but one of the cases noted above were justified. The Dorner incident was wrong. I dont want innocents getting hurt.

Ive stated before, a few pages back, most civilians shoot better than cops.
Cops get the the range once, maybe twice per year. Our pen is used more often than our guns. Most cops will never fire a single shot in their career.
Most civilians shoot at static targets while they are in a relaxed and focused state, with no one shooting back at you. Most cop shootings occur at an extremely high adrenaline/physical activity/excited level, while trying to avoid incoming fire.
   What are the accuracy statistics for rounds on target in military skirmishes? Probably not much better.
Try driving 100mph thru traffic, sliding to a stop, running 100yds, and then taking that shot. You'll miss too.
Contagious shooting is a real term we study. You're staring at at armed guy who you think will start shooting at you. There's 4 or 5 of your friends around thinking the same thing. You're waiting for the moment you'll be forced to pull the trigger, some sound, sight, movement. You hear gunshots and you react, thinking its the bad guy shooting. You didnt see a muzzle flash, but senses are dulled due to the adrenaline. You fire, and you are trained to fire until the threat stops, whether it be 2 or 15 rounds. The bad guy drops to the ground. You later find out 4 cops fired at the same time, until they saw the threat drop.  It happens, and wont change.
Civilian shooting usually involve one or two shots and everyone running away in fear. Cops shootings usually involve a standoff, with the shooter standing his ground.
It's apples and oranges in the end.

While I don't disagree with your assessment, at the end of the day police shouldn't have any more or less rights than anyone else in regards to use of lethal force in self defense, but we both know in reality that is not the case. Just imagine any of these scenarios taking place without a badge and you are talking life in prison. The lack of accountability in these circumstances not only removes incentives for moderated response by law enforcement, but erodes the trust and respect for law enforcement from the community in general. I know police are dealing with life or death situations all the time, but that is also kind of the point. They also put way too many people at the end of the barrel of a gun, regularly in situations where that escalation of force wasn't necessary. It being a stressful and dangerous job isn't going to change because of lowered levels of accountability. All this will do is result in more incidents, and more hostility from the civilian population, and long term pricey lawsuits which then have to be footed by the tax payer.

I've got bigger fish to fry...


Message to my Twitter followers -

Hi, Thank you for following me. If you want to learn how to make money without gambling, trading, or a job please go to ucif.io, scroll down and click and read the White Paper. Thanks!

The fact is not having a gun to protect yourself but the authorities should be able to protect you from gangsters.
If gangsters do not exist from the first place then you don't have the need to own a gun.

So.... you've got the solution to all crime ?

Of course there are no solution for crime. It was depend on the environment you lived and be humble for your protection. If you are worried from your home then do as soon as possible to find good location but you can't control a person's will.

Yes. Big guns with a loud bang which propel supersonic globs  of hot lead.

This is an awesome thread started by someone who doesn't have a clue how the real world works. Never mind the fact that guns without the tech would just get imported from other countries, or a whole new industry started to disable any sort of tech added to the guns, but there's also the fact that you can already 3D print guns. All laws etc do is make it harder etc for honest people to own/use guns.

You know how you stop the majority of crime? Get everyone working and making a good living so they don't feel the need to go out and commit crimes.

It's also possible to modify some laws so that a fair percentage of crime ceases to exist. Laws against lightweight drugs and prostitution are examples. Then you need police and enforcement agencies that work with proven, established techniques, no pie in the sky utopian or progressive ideas.

I guess that means you don't defund the police.

And I think no matter what we do with the laws, there will always be people who go against the system. Such people find it unacceptable to work for the state, and in principle they completely deny statehood. For them, the main principle is "Anarchy is the mother of order".

a solution that needs to be applied but may be difficult and not easy to implement, I agree with your opinion "Get everyone working and making a good living" then by itself with the needs that have been met then it will not commit any crime and will stay quietly at home because of the needs of all can be prepared.

but the main problem is that this policy might not all be fulfilled by the state, not to mention of course the human character is very much different. there are those who indeed with the right mind will find a job to meet their needs, but the lazy ones of course also many who want to work without needs can be met and clearly the way to be done to meet the needs is criminalism.

so finally it takes care of the government in applying everything in the rules so that it can be controlled. the role of the apparatus is very important in this application and hopefully it does not become the source of the problem that actually occurs.

Florida seems to think that it has found its own solution.


Florida Department of Health saboteurs are RIGGING coronavirus test results, wildly inflating infection numbers to hobble reopening efforts (https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-07-14-florida-department-of-health-rigging-coronavirus-test-results-sabotage.html#)




8)

^^^ If it's around that long.     8)