Solutions

[fatsy]

.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[1715189743]

1715189743

[1715189743]

1715189743

[1715189743]

1715189743

[PopoJeff]

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.

[fatsy]

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.

[PopoJeff]

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

[Spendulus]

...
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.

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?

ROFLMAO! "smart dust!"Good one! lol

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/

[fatsy]

...
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.

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?

ROFLMAO! "smart dust!"Good one! lol

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.

[fatsy]

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.

[Spendulus]

...
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.

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?

ROFLMAO! "smart dust!"Good one! lol

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.

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

[PopoJeff]

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

[fatsy]

...
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.

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?

ROFLMAO! "smart dust!"Good one! lol

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.

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

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!

[Naida_BR]

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.

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.

[PopoJeff]

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.

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 ?

[GideonGono]

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.

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.

[Spendulus]

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.

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 ?

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

[Viper1]

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.

[Spendulus]

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.

[madnessteat]

~snip~

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".

[lepbagong]

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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

A stunning investigation by Orlando Fox News affiliate Fox 35 finds that the Florida Department of Health is reporting suspiciously high “positive” rates from dozens of COVID-19 testing labs in Florida, often in contradiction to the real numbers that those labs reported to the state. This appears to indicate a massive, coordinated conspiracy by State of Florida workers in the Florida Department of Health who are attempting to sabotage the reopening efforts by wildly exaggerating the number of infections for political purposes.

To understand how this fake science scam works, observe how the State of Florida had released a list of “positivity rates” from various labs across the state, listing hundreds of labs as either 100% positive or near 100%. The corporate media is using these numbers to claim the coronavirus pandemic is spiraling out of control in a “second wave” of infections.

----------

Rebel A. Cole
@RebelACole
This is a scandal begging for press coverage:

333 FL Covid Testing labs reported 100% positive tests today in State Report for 3,528 tests.

That is 34% of today's 10,360 new cases.

Without these, today's "percent positive" would fall from 12.6% to 8.7%.



But the numbers being reported by the Florida Department of Health are not the numbers that were reported by the labs. It appears the Florida Department of Health is taking lab numbers and multiplying them by whatever factor is necessary to achieve a “100% positive rate” across hundreds of labs. In some cases, they are multiplying the actual number of infections by a factor of ten.