Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 436612 times)

Drifterrider

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1114
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2250 on: February 24, 2017, 08:27:36 AM »
I figured gun control was never going to happen once it became apparent that 27 dead kids wasn't enough to move the public needle.  It's a reflection of our societal collective narcissism that we still elevate the rights of the individual to protect oneself with a gun over the collective right to feel safe in a public space, or the collective right of children to be safe while being educated.  That ship has sailed. 

So my new theory is that liberals need to become gun nuts in order for gun control to become a reality.  I would bet cash money that if liberals started hoarding guns en masse, or showing up to these town halls with assault rifles, then attitudes might change.

.

Define "gun control" (your words).  It seems like you are using that phrase in place of "seize all privately owned firearms" (my words)

I am always in control of my firearms when I handle them or transport them or carry them.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2251 on: February 24, 2017, 08:32:30 AM »
Oh, I know it is imperfect as it currently stands, and there might be other, more repeatable ways to skin that cat.  There was a good planet money podcast talking about how poorly the original smart gun technology worked and how it went over like a lead balloon in the market.  Part of why I like the idea of attacking it technologically is that even if there isn't a perfect solution, it gets gun companies and gun control people working together, developing a better understanding of guns in general as tools.  You are just trying to make a better tool.

In theory. In practice, it's a complete non-starter. This is not an issue that will be dealt with rationally with people on both sides of the debate working together. I would literally figuratively bet my entire life savings on it. The NRA will fight tooth and nail against it. Gun owners will be absolutely against it. Even if the technology were "perfected" there is no way this will ever become a thing, probably in any of our lives.

EDITED to change one word because get away from my money, y'all.

If gun owners were convinced smart tech was an improvement, the market would demand it.  If military/police were to adopt such a technology and it was a proven success, people would buy it.
Exactly. I've never understood why people are so afraid of the NRA - get out and vote and override them. Go soend more money than them; they don't have that many members. It's a simple boogie man for gun restriction enthusiasts who don't have enough public support for their unpopular and unworkable proposals.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2252 on: February 24, 2017, 08:33:44 AM »
If gun owners were convinced smart tech was an improvement, the market would demand it.  If military/police were to adopt such a technology and it was a proven success, people would buy it.

Why on earth would the military and police want to adopt this technology? I see no upside, only the possibility of catastrophic consequences in the case of a bad battery, a loose wire, a dirty fingerprint, a poor internet connection, etc.
Every single decision you make with money either shortens or lengthens your working career.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2253 on: February 24, 2017, 08:39:59 AM »
If gun owners were convinced smart tech was an improvement, the market would demand it.  If military/police were to adopt such a technology and it was a proven success, people would buy it.

Why on earth would the military and police want to adopt this technology? I see no upside, only the possibility of catastrophic consequences in the case of a bad battery, a loose wire, a dirty fingerprint, a poor internet connection, etc.

I'm not arguing they should, but if it's not ready for them, why would anybody use it?

Despite the fact that neither the military or police is using this tech, gun control enthusiasts continue to tout it as a solution.  If it's so great, they would have already adopted.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 08:43:08 AM by Midwest »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2254 on: February 24, 2017, 08:44:34 AM »
Oh, I know it is imperfect as it currently stands, and there might be other, more repeatable ways to skin that cat.  There was a good planet money podcast talking about how poorly the original smart gun technology worked and how it went over like a lead balloon in the market.  Part of why I like the idea of attacking it technologically is that even if there isn't a perfect solution, it gets gun companies and gun control people working together, developing a better understanding of guns in general as tools.  You are just trying to make a better tool.
Exactly what Kris was saying; you will never be able to convince enough rational gun owners that this failed technology is usuable. If it ever improves, perhaps.

My biggest concern is that it is not effective in reducing gun deaths- the vast majority of deaths are caused by the rightful owner of the gun. This hypothetical  technology would not stop any of those.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2411
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2255 on: February 24, 2017, 08:46:06 AM »
Oh, I know it is imperfect as it currently stands, and there might be other, more repeatable ways to skin that cat.  There was a good planet money podcast talking about how poorly the original smart gun technology worked and how it went over like a lead balloon in the market.  Part of why I like the idea of attacking it technologically is that even if there isn't a perfect solution, it gets gun companies and gun control people working together, developing a better understanding of guns in general as tools.  You are just trying to make a better tool.

In theory. In practice, it's a complete non-starter. This is not an issue that will be dealt with rationally with people on both sides of the debate working together. I would literally figuratively bet my entire life savings on it. The NRA will fight tooth and nail against it. Gun owners will be absolutely against it. Even if the technology were "perfected" there is no way this will ever become a thing, probably in any of our lives.

EDITED to change one word because get away from my money, y'all.

If gun owners were convinced smart tech was an improvement, the market would demand it.  If military/police were to adopt such a technology and it was a proven success, people would buy it.

Right. But they won't ever think this particular tech is an improvement. So the market will not demand it.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1165
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2256 on: February 24, 2017, 08:56:26 AM »
Oh, I know it is imperfect as it currently stands, and there might be other, more repeatable ways to skin that cat.  There was a good planet money podcast talking about how poorly the original smart gun technology worked and how it went over like a lead balloon in the market.  Part of why I like the idea of attacking it technologically is that even if there isn't a perfect solution, it gets gun companies and gun control people working together, developing a better understanding of guns in general as tools.  You are just trying to make a better tool.

In theory. In practice, it's a complete non-starter. This is not an issue that will be dealt with rationally with people on both sides of the debate working together. I would literally figuratively bet my entire life savings on it. The NRA will fight tooth and nail against it. Gun owners will be absolutely against it. Even if the technology were "perfected" there is no way this will ever become a thing, probably in any of our lives.

EDITED to change one word because get away from my money, y'all.

If gun owners were convinced smart tech was an improvement, the market would demand it.  If military/police were to adopt such a technology and it was a proven success, people would buy it.

Right. But they won't ever think this particular tech is an improvement. So the market will not demand it.

Military/police will ignore a huge improvement in weapons tech?  Cops gun can't be utilized by robbers?  If it's that good, I think police/military would adopt.  The problem, thus far, is that they don't believe it's ready.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 09:25:30 AM by Midwest »

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2411
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2257 on: February 24, 2017, 09:21:26 AM »
Out of curiosity, if a teacher carries in the school, do you think that the school should be required to tell their parents and students of this? (Let's keep the response to "in a public school" just for the sake of simplicity.)
I think the school should. I do not think they should say which teacher has decided to csrry.

Personally (and I always have to say that I'm a gun owner, so I don't get knee-jerk reactions from people who assume I'm a "gun control freak" and dismiss me out of hand), if I had a kid in a school who told me that one or some of their teachers were carrying but wouldn't tell me who it was, or if it was a teacher my child had, I would not want my kid in that school.

Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2258 on: February 24, 2017, 09:31:36 AM »
if I had a kid in a school who told me that one or some of their teachers were carrying but wouldn't tell me who it was, or if it was a teacher my child had, I would not want my kid in that school.

In states that have "shall-issue" concealed carry (about 40 of them now), somewhere between 2-4% of the population chooses to get concealed carry permits. People at movie theaters, grocery stores and shopping malls peacefully going about their business while legally armed. How is a teacher carrying any different, other than the fact that you'd know about it? Would an armed security guard at the school be preferable?
Every single decision you make with money either shortens or lengthens your working career.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2411
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2259 on: February 24, 2017, 09:51:29 AM »
if I had a kid in a school who told me that one or some of their teachers were carrying but wouldn't tell me who it was, or if it was a teacher my child had, I would not want my kid in that school.

In states that have "shall-issue" concealed carry (about 40 of them now), somewhere between 2-4% of the population chooses to get concealed carry permits. People at movie theaters, grocery stores and shopping malls peacefully going about their business while legally armed. How is a teacher carrying any different, other than the fact that you'd know about it? Would an armed security guard at the school be preferable?

I'm just going to repeat what I said. I asked the OP (JamesVT) who was talking about having teachers carry whether he thought the school should notify the parents that a teacher was carrying. Metric Mouse said the school should, but that they shouldn't say who it was. I said that if the school told me someone was carrying but would not tell me who it was, I would not want my child in that school.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2260 on: February 24, 2017, 10:04:45 AM »

I said that if the school told me someone was carrying but would not tell me who it was, I would not want my child in that school.

I read the exchange. I'm just curious how having your child sit in a classroom with a firearm is different than sitting in a movie theater or a restaurant with one.
Every single decision you make with money either shortens or lengthens your working career.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2411
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2261 on: February 24, 2017, 10:12:08 AM »

I said that if the school told me someone was carrying but would not tell me who it was, I would not want my child in that school.

I read the exchange. I'm just curious how having your child sit in a classroom with a firearm is different than sitting in a movie theater or a restaurant with one.

If the school is literally telling me that there's an armed teacher, there's an implication that this teacher and the school see his or her being armed as something that is related to school safety. In other words, it's implicitly saying that the teacher is there, as a teacher, armed with the consent and approval, and even the desire, of the school. At that point, yes, I very much want to know who it is who thinks that they are armed explicitly as part of their job.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2262 on: February 24, 2017, 10:36:58 AM »
Out of curiosity, if a teacher carries in the school, do you think that the school should be required to tell their parents and students of this? (Let's keep the response to "in a public school" just for the sake of simplicity.)
I don't think people should have to tell anyone they are carrying. If they made it mandatory to notify the school/parents that someone is carrying on school grounds only people with no ill-intentions would do so.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2263 on: February 24, 2017, 10:41:28 AM »

I said that if the school told me someone was carrying but would not tell me who it was, I would not want my child in that school.

I read the exchange. I'm just curious how having your child sit in a classroom with a firearm is different than sitting in a movie theater or a restaurant with one.
Reactions like Kris's are common, even though all data on licenced concealed weapon carriers are much less likely to harm someone than the average population. In the USA, one is much more likely to be harmed by a police officer, or by their own weapons than by a ccw permit holder. This is one reason many ccw instructors decry open carry despite its advantages.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 11:07:29 AM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2411
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2264 on: February 24, 2017, 11:06:15 AM »

I said that if the school told me someone was carrying but would not tell me who it was, I would not want my child in that school.

I read the exchange. I'm just curious how having your child sit in a classroom with a firearm is different than sitting in a movie theater or a restaurant with one.
Reactions like Kris's are common, even though all data on licenced concealed weapon carriers are much less likely to harm someone than the average population. In the USA, one is much more likely to be harmed by a police officer, or by their own weapons than by a ccw permit holder. This is kne reason many ccw instructors decry open carry despite its advantages.

Like I said, and will restate: I see a difference between someone licensed to carry who decides to exercise that right, and this happens to be occurring in a school (provided that school hasn't said it bans guns on the premises), and a teacher who is carrying with the knowledge of the school as an armed protector. I do not see your statement above as particularly relevant here.

I have a good friend (actually a friend of my husband's) who has a carry permit and carries all the time. He's a very nice guy, but a tiny bit of a nut. Also, he has a palsy and though he used to be quite a good shot, his aim has deteriorated considerably over the years. If this person was a teacher in my child's school and the administrators of this school had actively agreed with this teacher that he was going to be a conceal carry teacher in the service of protecting the children, I would want to know. Because this guy's aim could actively endanger my kid in the event of an active shooter in the school.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8831
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2265 on: February 24, 2017, 11:09:26 AM »
Out of curiosity, if a teacher carries in the school, do you think that the school should be required to tell their parents and students of this? (Let's keep the response to "in a public school" just for the sake of simplicity.)
I don't think people should have to tell anyone they are carrying. If they made it mandatory to notify the school/parents that someone is carrying on school grounds only people with no ill-intentions would do so.

What if it turns out that the teacher who is armed is a threat?

Really, we need to arm all children from kindergarten up.  Maybe reduce the trigger pull so that their tiny fingers can work the weapons.  It is the only path to safety.  There are many reasons that four year olds should be packing:
- It's their second amendment right.  Are you trying to limit their rights?
- More guns always makes everything safer.  Bullying should disappear after the first few years of culling occur.
- Taking guns away from children/imposing metal detection screening in schools just ensures that the children are defenseless prey for any bad guy.  Guns are the great equalizer.
- Preventing children from packing at school means that only the criminal children who don't follow rules will have guns.
- Sure, some four year olds aren't emotionally ready to be carrying a gun all the time, and they don't have to.  If you don't want your kid carrying, don't buy him a piece.  But I'm going to arm my son.  We can't limit all four year olds just because some are irresponsible.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2266 on: February 24, 2017, 11:11:42 AM »
Out of curiosity, if a teacher carries in the school, do you think that the school should be required to tell their parents and students of this? (Let's keep the response to "in a public school" just for the sake of simplicity.)
I don't think people should have to tell anyone they are carrying. If they made it mandatory to notify the school/parents that someone is carrying on school grounds only people with no ill-intentions would do so.
What if it turns out that the teacher who is armed is a threat?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8831
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2267 on: February 24, 2017, 11:14:58 AM »
Right.  That's why children all need weapons.  Otherwise they can't defend themselves against teachers will ill-intentions.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2268 on: February 24, 2017, 11:21:18 AM »
Right.  That's why children all need weapons.  Otherwise they can't defend themselves against teachers will ill-intentions.
Good points. I think all teachers should be barred from posessing firearms. A teacher with a gun is simply too dangerous; they could walk into class any day and just start shooting. Our kids will be much safer if teachers are stripped of any guns they own, and outlawed from purchasing new ones.
Then four year olds will be safe and not need guns either.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8831
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2269 on: February 24, 2017, 11:24:14 AM »
Right.  That's why children all need weapons.  Otherwise they can't defend themselves against teachers will ill-intentions.
Good points. I think all teachers should be barred from posessing firearms. A teacher with a gun is simply too dangerous; they could walk into class any day and just start shooting. Our kids will be much safer if teachers are stripped of any guns they own, and outlawed from purchasing new ones.
Then four year olds will be safe and not need guns either.

No, that'll never work.  Criminal teachers won't obey your laws.  We need to arm toddlers.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2270 on: February 24, 2017, 11:31:41 AM »
Like I said, and will restate: I see a difference between someone licensed to carry who decides to exercise that right, and this happens to be occurring in a school (provided that school hasn't said it bans guns on the premises), and a teacher who is carrying with the knowledge of the school as an armed protector. I do not see your statement above as particularly relevant here.

I have a good friend (actually a friend of my husband's) who has a carry permit and carries all the time. He's a very nice guy, but a tiny bit of a nut. Also, he has a palsy and though he used to be quite a good shot, his aim has deteriorated considerably over the years. If this person was a teacher in my child's school and the administrators of this school had actively agreed with this teacher that he was going to be a conceal carry teacher in the service of protecting the children, I would want to know. Because this guy's aim could actively endanger my kid in the event of an active shooter in the school.
I guess i fail to see the difference. You seem to be saying that it would be better if schools allowed licenced weapon holders on campus, including teachers, and didn't know or care who they were? I guess I  disagree; I would like armed teachers to be even more trained than the average ccw permit holder.

My thoughts are that if a school decided that it would allow teachers to be armed, that I would want to know the training requirements and qualifications; if these were acceptable, and the carrier passed the requirements, i wouldn't care if it was the palsied old man or the heavyset librarian or the 20 year old 85 pound girl who just got her degree - as long as they can make the shots and handle the stress and complete the combat course, I would have to say that I probably don't know that person's capabilities as well as I might think I do by looking at them.

If the requirements were "buy gun, add bullets" i would not be comfortable with that loose of requirements being the threshold for a school setting. Of course, I think there are much better ways to secure a school, but that is beside the point.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2271 on: February 24, 2017, 11:33:23 AM »
Right.  That's why children all need weapons.  Otherwise they can't defend themselves against teachers will ill-intentions.
Good points. I think all teachers should be barred from posessing firearms. A teacher with a gun is simply too dangerous; they could walk into class any day and just start shooting. Our kids will be much safer if teachers are stripped of any guns they own, and outlawed from purchasing new ones.
Then four year olds will be safe and not need guns either.

No, that'll never work.  Criminal teachers won't obey your laws.  We need to arm toddlers.
Damn criminal teachers. What if we just outlawed all guns? There must be a way to save the children. Maybe some kind of technology to disable teacher's hands so they can't use guns? That would protect other people's rights. Gosh, this is so hard.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8831
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2272 on: February 24, 2017, 11:38:21 AM »
100% of school shootings have occurred in schools where toddlers were not legally allowed to carry.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2273 on: February 24, 2017, 11:38:27 AM »
Smart guns aren't necessarily a "failed" technology.  There is more than one angle of attack.  Fingerprint scanners have come a long way.  What about facial recognition, voice recognition or some other method?  I hope that you wouldn't be opposed to any sort of research that might make your gun safer or harder to steal and abuse.

I agree that cops would be a good place to start with some of these smart weapons.  Many cops are pro-gun control and might be willing to test it out.  If the weapons are proven to be effective and safer, then people might adopt them. 

One thing that maybe was not addressed in earlier threads is 3D gun printing and how to combat that? This is one of the reasons why I think gun control is kind of a lost cause at this point.  Even if we DID confiscate all the guns, one could be made with a pattern, some plastic, and a few small parts. 


Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2411
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2274 on: February 24, 2017, 11:40:32 AM »
Like I said, and will restate: I see a difference between someone licensed to carry who decides to exercise that right, and this happens to be occurring in a school (provided that school hasn't said it bans guns on the premises), and a teacher who is carrying with the knowledge of the school as an armed protector. I do not see your statement above as particularly relevant here.

I have a good friend (actually a friend of my husband's) who has a carry permit and carries all the time. He's a very nice guy, but a tiny bit of a nut. Also, he has a palsy and though he used to be quite a good shot, his aim has deteriorated considerably over the years. If this person was a teacher in my child's school and the administrators of this school had actively agreed with this teacher that he was going to be a conceal carry teacher in the service of protecting the children, I would want to know. Because this guy's aim could actively endanger my kid in the event of an active shooter in the school.
I guess i fail to see the difference. You seem to be saying that it would be better if schools allowed licenced weapon holders on campus, including teachers, and didn't know or care who they were? I guess I  disagree; I would like armed teachers to be even more trained than the average ccw permit holder.

My thoughts are that if a school decided that it would allow teachers to be armed, that I would want to know the training requirements and qualifications; if these were acceptable, and the carrier passed the requirements, i wouldn't care if it was the palsied old man or the heavyset librarian or the 20 year old 85 pound girl who just got her degree - as long as they can make the shots and handle the stress and complete the combat course, I would have to say that I probably don't know that person's capabilities as well as I might think I do by looking at them.

If the requirements were "buy gun, add bullets" i would not be comfortable with that loose of requirements being the threshold for a school setting. Of course, I think there are much better ways to secure a school, but that is beside the point.

There is absolutely nothing that says a school that allows teachers to be armed will do their due diligence as to whether that teacher is better trained than the average CCW holder. And for the record, I agree with you. I don't think the average CCW holder has the training necessary to be truly reliable or effective in a situation where that person is essentially going to be expected to be a first line of defense.

And no, I was not in any way saying that it would be better if schools allowed licensed weapon holders on campus, including teachers, and didn't know or care who they were. I think the school needs to make clear what their policy is. If they ban weapons, then parents know weapons are banned. If they do not ban weapons, then parents need to know that and I guess at that point they make their own decisions. If a school knows a teacher is carrying and is expecting therefore for that teacher to be part of their protection force, I think they need to inform the parents. Because at that point, I as a parent want to know who it is and what their training is. I want to know that that person isn't just being used as a corner-cutting inadequately trained cheap security person.

Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2411
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2275 on: February 24, 2017, 11:52:24 AM »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2276 on: February 24, 2017, 11:58:11 AM »
Smart guns aren't necessarily a "failed" technology.  There is more than one angle of attack.  Fingerprint scanners have come a long way.  What about facial recognition, voice recognition or some other method?  I hope that you wouldn't be opposed to any sort of research that might make your gun safer or harder to steal and abuse.

I agree that cops would be a good place to start with some of these smart weapons.  Many cops are pro-gun control and might be willing to test it out.  If the weapons are proven to be effective and safer, then people might adopt them. 

One thing that maybe was not addressed in earlier threads is 3D gun printing and how to combat that? This is one of the reasons why I think gun control is kind of a lost cause at this point.  Even if we DID confiscate all the guns, one could be made with a pattern, some plastic, and a few small parts.
Fingerprint scanners don't work if you are wearing gloves, if your hands are wet or dirty. Facial recognition doesn't work well or at all in no/low light situations. Voice recognition doesn't work if there are loud noises around. Last but certainly not least all those thing even when working properly don't work instantly. I've stated I'm not opposed to research I just don't think there should be laws requiring guns to have said technology.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2277 on: February 24, 2017, 12:05:47 PM »
Smart guns aren't necessarily a "failed" technology.  There is more than one angle of attack.  Fingerprint scanners have come a long way.  What about facial recognition, voice recognition or some other method?  I hope that you wouldn't be opposed to any sort of research that might make your gun safer or harder to steal and abuse.

I agree that cops would be a good place to start with some of these smart weapons.  Many cops are pro-gun control and might be willing to test it out.  If the weapons are proven to be effective and safer, then people might adopt them. 

One thing that maybe was not addressed in earlier threads is 3D gun printing and how to combat that? This is one of the reasons why I think gun control is kind of a lost cause at this point.  Even if we DID confiscate all the guns, one could be made with a pattern, some plastic, and a few small parts.
Fingerprint scanners don't work if you are wearing gloves, if your hands are wet or dirty. Facial recognition doesn't work well or at all in no/low light situations. Voice recognition doesn't work if there are loud noises around. Last but certainly not least all those thing even when working properly don't work instantly. I've stated I'm not opposed to research I just don't think there should be laws requiring guns to have said technology.
And that is what gun right advocates have been saying (including the NRA) : the law should not require such technology. As some politicians are pushing for these laws, even making them proactive so as to require this technology as soon as it becomes " readily avaliable", some groups find themselves fighting the terrible, completely unready technology to stop it from being readily available even though it is terrible and thus required on weapons. Complex situation.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4345
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2278 on: February 24, 2017, 01:58:05 PM »
It's also a fact that when you remove guns from the equation, there are no mass shootings at all. 

How do we accomplish this, ask the magical gun fairy to make them all go away?
Japan seems to have done so.  It would not work with our Constitution but it is possible.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2158
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2279 on: February 24, 2017, 02:28:09 PM »
My biggest concern is that it is not effective in reducing gun deaths- the vast majority of deaths are caused by the rightful owner of the gun. This hypothetical  technology would not stop any of those.
I'm not sure where you're getting that information.  Roughly speaking, there are 40k gun deaths/year in the US.  75% of those are suicide, and of the remaining 10k, the vast majority (I think 85% is the number I heard) are gang-related.  "Smart gun" technology is designed to address a particular situation--an unauthorized person (say, a kid who found a gun, or someone with a stolen firearm) is trying to pull the trigger--and won't actually have any affect on the vast, vast majority of gun deaths.  Granted, some firearms used by criminals are stolen, but it's still not a huge percentage of cases.

Quote
I have a good friend (actually a friend of my husband's) who has a carry permit and carries all the time. He's a very nice guy, but a tiny bit of a nut. Also, he has a palsy and though he used to be quite a good shot, his aim has deteriorated considerably over the years. If this person was a teacher in my child's school and the administrators of this school had actively agreed with this teacher that he was going to be a conceal carry teacher in the service of protecting the children, I would want to know. Because this guy's aim could actively endanger my kid in the event of an active shooter in the school.
If there's an active shooter in the school, and your friend has to shoot at the bad guy in order to prevent the bad guy from killing a bunch of kids, I'm not quite sure how his aim would actually make the situation worse.  I don't mean to sound callous here, but the worst-case scenario is that he kills or injures someone the bad guy was going to kill anyway.

Quote
Japan seems to have done so.  It would not work with our Constitution but it is possible.
True, but it's an anecdote.  The UK has done the same with gun ownership, and yet they have some major crime issues.  I believe it's important to look beyond "guns are used to do bad things, therefore we need to get rid of guns," and address the root cause of crime and violence.  In the US, a large majority of the gun-related crime (setting aside suicide for the moment) is associated with gang activity.  If we can address the gang problem, much of the crime problem goes away.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2280 on: February 24, 2017, 02:30:31 PM »
If we can address the gang problem, much of the crime problem goes away.

Pretty much my point, except I think this is a loaded way to phrase it. By my estimation, drug legalization would drastically reduce gun violence almost instantly.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4345
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2281 on: February 24, 2017, 02:30:38 PM »
My biggest concern is that it is not effective in reducing gun deaths- the vast majority of deaths are caused by the rightful owner of the gun. This hypothetical  technology would not stop any of those.
I'm not sure where you're getting that information.  Roughly speaking, there are 40k gun deaths/year in the US.  75% of those are suicide, and of the remaining 10k, the vast majority (I think 85% is the number I heard) are gang-related.  "Smart gun" technology is designed to address a particular situation--an unauthorized person (say, a kid who found a gun, or someone with a stolen firearm) is trying to pull the trigger--and won't actually have any affect on the vast, vast majority of gun deaths.  Granted, some firearms used by criminals are stolen, but it's still not a huge percentage of cases.

Quote
I have a good friend (actually a friend of my husband's) who has a carry permit and carries all the time. He's a very nice guy, but a tiny bit of a nut. Also, he has a palsy and though he used to be quite a good shot, his aim has deteriorated considerably over the years. If this person was a teacher in my child's school and the administrators of this school had actively agreed with this teacher that he was going to be a conceal carry teacher in the service of protecting the children, I would want to know. Because this guy's aim could actively endanger my kid in the event of an active shooter in the school.
If there's an active shooter in the school, and your friend has to shoot at the bad guy in order to prevent the bad guy from killing a bunch of kids, I'm not quite sure how his aim would actually make the situation worse.  I don't mean to sound callous here, but the worst-case scenario is that he kills or injures someone the bad guy was going to kill anyway.

Quote
Japan seems to have done so.  It would not work with our Constitution but it is possible.
True, but it's an anecdote.  The UK has done the same with gun ownership, and yet they have some major crime issues.  I believe it's important to look beyond "guns are used to do bad things, therefore we need to get rid of guns," and address the root cause of crime and violence.  In the US, a large majority of the gun-related crime (setting aside suicide for the moment) is associated with gang activity.  If we can address the gang problem, much of the crime problem goes away.
Do you have the statistics on that because I had heard the opposite.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2282 on: February 24, 2017, 02:46:44 PM »
It's also a fact that when you remove guns from the equation, there are no mass shootings at all. 

How do we accomplish this, ask the magical gun fairy to make them all go away?
Japan seems to have done so.  It would not work with our Constitution but it is possible.
Just need a time machine. Japan has had a near prohibition on private firearm ownership since the 1600's. Even in modern times Japan and the US are very different. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans that would rather die then give up their guns.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2158
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2283 on: February 24, 2017, 04:08:47 PM »
My biggest concern is that it is not effective in reducing gun deaths- the vast majority of deaths are caused by the rightful owner of the gun. This hypothetical  technology would not stop any of those.
I'm not sure where you're getting that information.  Roughly speaking, there are 40k gun deaths/year in the US.  75% of those are suicide, and of the remaining 10k, the vast majority (I think 85% is the number I heard) are gang-related.  "Smart gun" technology is designed to address a particular situation--an unauthorized person (say, a kid who found a gun, or someone with a stolen firearm) is trying to pull the trigger--and won't actually have any affect on the vast, vast majority of gun deaths.  Granted, some firearms used by criminals are stolen, but it's still not a huge percentage of cases.
Do you have the statistics on that because I had heard the opposite.
More or less (see the second column on the second page): https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF.  This is based on a survey of prison inmates, who said that somewhere around 10% of the guns inmates had possessed were stolen.  They more often get it from friends/family/others, especially when they are barred from owning a gun due to previous convictions.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2284 on: February 25, 2017, 12:01:52 AM »
Do you have the statistics on that because I had heard the opposite.
More or less (see the second column on the second page): https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF.  This is based on a survey of prison inmates, who said that somewhere around 10% of the guns inmates had possessed were stolen.  They more often get it from friends/family/others, especially when they are barred from owning a gun due to previous convictions.
[/quote]
If only there were laws against giving known felons firearms... or, wait...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8831
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2285 on: February 25, 2017, 03:26:41 PM »
Do you have the statistics on that because I had heard the opposite.
More or less (see the second column on the second page): https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF.  This is based on a survey of prison inmates, who said that somewhere around 10% of the guns inmates had possessed were stolen.  They more often get it from friends/family/others, especially when they are barred from owning a gun due to previous convictions.
If only there were laws against giving known felons firearms... or, wait...
[/quote]

In an awful lot of states ( like Washington ) there is no punishment for selling a gun to someone who is a felon if you don't ask.  There's also no requirement to ask before selling a gun.  That makes laws against selling to felons effectively unenforceable.

This is obviously an area where current laws are deficient.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2286 on: February 25, 2017, 04:23:19 PM »
Quote from: GuitarStv link=topic=51871.msg1447724#msg1447724
In an awful lot of states ( like Washington ) there is no punishment for selling a gun to someone who is a felon if you don't ask.  There's also no requirement to ask before selling a gun.  That makes laws against selling to felons effectively unenforceable.

This is obviously an area where current laws are deficient.
Obviously the current laws are not perfect.  But if any felon got their gun from a relative or friend, I would imagine there is a very strong case for their knowing, thus making them prosecutable. Not only are the laws weak (I'd be all for a law requiring a person to ask before selling a furearm), but the ones on the book are not even enforced. Perhaps if they were there would be a decrease in felons posessing firearms.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2287 on: February 25, 2017, 04:31:16 PM »
NH passes constitutional carry. This makes 12 states, with several others considering it, and a couple very likely to pass this year.

http://gunowners.org/nh-goes-constitutional-carry.htm
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2288 on: February 25, 2017, 05:18:57 PM »
Do you have the statistics on that because I had heard the opposite.
More or less (see the second column on the second page): https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF.  This is based on a survey of prison inmates, who said that somewhere around 10% of the guns inmates had possessed were stolen.  They more often get it from friends/family/others, especially when they are barred from owning a gun due to previous convictions.
In an awful lot of states ( like Washington ) there is no punishment for selling a gun to someone who is a felon if you don't ask.  There's also no requirement to ask before selling a gun.  That makes laws against selling to felons effectively unenforceable.

This is obviously an area where current laws are deficient.
Person: Hey I'm selling this gun would you like to buy it?
Felon: Yes I would
Person: Are you a felon?
Felon: No
The person then unknowingly sells to a felon. 
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 05:20:37 PM by jamesvt »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8831
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2289 on: February 25, 2017, 06:36:37 PM »
Person: Hey I'm selling this gun would you like to buy it?
Felon: Yes I would
Person: Are you a felon?
Felon: No
The person then unknowingly sells to a felon.

No, not unknowingly.  Just with plausible deniability . .  . which is all that's important.

Without a requirement that checks criminal history for all firearms sales, it's impossible to enforce the 'no sales to felons' laws and felons will always have an easy source of guns.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2290 on: February 25, 2017, 06:42:16 PM »
Person: Hey I'm selling this gun would you like to buy it?
Felon: Yes I would
Person: Are you a felon?
Felon: No
The person then unknowingly sells to a felon.

No, not unknowingly.  Just with plausible deniability . .  . which is all that's important.

Without a requirement that checks criminal history for all firearms sales, it's impossible to enforce the 'no sales to felons' laws and felons will always have an easy source of guns.
Which is exactly why I push for the national background check system to be free and open to the public - that way anyone can ensure that the person they are selling a firearm to is not a felon. Easy law to pass that would require no additional funding or restrictions.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2291 on: February 25, 2017, 07:56:37 PM »
Person: Hey I'm selling this gun would you like to buy it?
Felon: Yes I would
Person: Are you a felon?
Felon: No
The person then unknowingly sells to a felon.

No, not unknowingly.  Just with plausible deniability . .  . which is all that's important.

Without a requirement that checks criminal history for all firearms sales, it's impossible to enforce the 'no sales to felons' laws and felons will always have an easy source of guns.
Unknowing-without being aware of something. In that case it would be unknowingly. Plausible deniability would be the person knowingly selling to a felon but there is no way to prove the person actually did know. How do you enforce the requirement for a background check on all firearm purchases? Person A gives person B cash Person B give person A gun. You can't prove Person A hasn't owned the gun the whole time.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8831
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2292 on: February 25, 2017, 08:53:55 PM »
Person: Hey I'm selling this gun would you like to buy it?
Felon: Yes I would
Person: Are you a felon?
Felon: No
The person then unknowingly sells to a felon.

No, not unknowingly.  Just with plausible deniability . .  . which is all that's important.

Without a requirement that checks criminal history for all firearms sales, it's impossible to enforce the 'no sales to felons' laws and felons will always have an easy source of guns.
Unknowing-without being aware of something. In that case it would be unknowingly. Plausible deniability would be the person knowingly selling to a felon but there is no way to prove the person actually did know.

Person: Hey I'm selling this gun would you like to buy it?
Felon: Yes I would
Person: Are you a felon?
Felon: Yep

Two years later when the police are questioning the person about his sale of a gun to the felon
Police: Hey, did you know that guy was a felon?
Person: Nope.
Police: OK then.  Have a nice day.

Plausible deniability is the only thing that's important.



How do you enforce the requirement for a background check on all firearm purchases? Person A gives person B cash Person B give person A gun. You can't prove Person A hasn't owned the gun the whole time.

You keep a record of gun owners and serial numbers so that you can prove who owns what gun.  My understanding is that this should already be done by gun shops, although it's incredibly hard for law enforcement to actually find the information since it is a legal requirement that gun information be non-searchable among other obstacles (as described here: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/the-atfs-nonsensical-non-searchable-gun-databases-explained-392).

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2293 on: February 25, 2017, 09:02:05 PM »
I wouldn't call it hard. If the police have a gun, they call the manufacturer.  Manufacturer tells them where gun was shipped from factory. Police call that place - they say who bought the gun. After that, it's up to the owner of the gun. If the owner is brother to the felon who used it to shoot up a liquor store... I can't see how hard it is to prosecute.

Did you know your brother was a felon when you gave him the gun?
No.
Really? He's your brother.
I swear.
Perjury, and transferring a gun to a known felon. Next case.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2158
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2294 on: February 25, 2017, 09:09:00 PM »
In an awful lot of states ( like Washington ) there is no punishment for selling a gun to someone who is a felon if you don't ask.  There's also no requirement to ask before selling a gun.  That makes laws against selling to felons effectively unenforceable.

This is obviously an area where current laws are deficient.
Even if the state law is more permissive, it's very much against federal law to sell a gun to a felon.

Quote
You keep a record of gun owners and serial numbers so that you can prove who owns what gun.  My understanding is that this should already be done by gun shops, although it's incredibly hard for law enforcement to actually find the information since it is a legal requirement that gun information be non-searchable among other obstacles (as described here: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/the-atfs-nonsensical-non-searchable-gun-databases-explained-392).
I'd like to point out two things:
1) you're correct that gun dealers are required to keep a record of all sales, as well as call in  for a background check on every sale
2) the records are there to establish a chain of custody in the case when a gun is recovered from a crime scene.  Law enforcement can then, in theory, go back to the manufacturer and trace the path of that gun to the point where it got into the hands of a criminal.  It's a pointless exercise, however, because as far as I can tell from the research I've done, this information has never ever actually been used to track down a criminal and prosecute them.
3) That information is searchable by a specific serial number.  There's a good reason (as viewed by the pro-gun side) why the whole database isn't allowed to be trawled.  If it were, it would amount to a registry, and registries lead to confiscation.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8831
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2295 on: February 25, 2017, 09:18:47 PM »
In an awful lot of states ( like Washington ) there is no punishment for selling a gun to someone who is a felon if you don't ask.  There's also no requirement to ask before selling a gun.  That makes laws against selling to felons effectively unenforceable.

This is obviously an area where current laws are deficient.
Even if the state law is more permissive, it's very much against federal law to sell a gun to a felon.

I didn't say that the state law is more permissive.

A law preventing sales to felons is effectively unenforceable without a system set up to allow gun owners to check if the person they're selling to is a felon or not.  You're relying on the felon's word of honor for this law to work.


2) the records are there to establish a chain of custody in the case when a gun is recovered from a crime scene.  Law enforcement can then, in theory, go back to the manufacturer and trace the path of that gun to the point where it got into the hands of a criminal.  It's a pointless exercise, however, because as far as I can tell from the research I've done, this information has never ever actually been used to track down a criminal and prosecute them.

The guy who is being tracked down and prosecuted from these checks should be the person selling weapons to criminals.  As I mentioned though . . . it's extremely difficult to prove that someone knew the person he was selling to is a felon if there's no way to check if a guy is a felon other than ask him.  As it stands now, yeah, it's pointless.  Even the law that says selling a weapon to a felon illegal is pointless at the moment.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2296 on: February 25, 2017, 09:46:27 PM »
Again. The perfect solution to this problem is to require background checks on all transfers, and allow anyone to perform the ncis check. Super simple. Then you either go to jail for transferring a firearm to a fellon or you go for not performing the background check.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8831
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2297 on: February 25, 2017, 09:51:50 PM »
Again. The perfect solution to this problem is to require background checks on all transfers, and allow anyone to perform the ncis check. Super simple. Then you either go to jail for transferring a firearm to a fellon or you go for not performing the background check.

Yes.  I agree with you that the solution to this problem is to introduce more laws that will prevent people from giving felons firearms.  As you originally said:



If only there were laws against giving known felons firearms... or, wait...

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2298 on: February 25, 2017, 09:54:42 PM »
This would not prevent anyone from giving a felon a firearm. It would allow them to enforce existing laws for when they choose to.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8831
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2299 on: February 25, 2017, 10:01:52 PM »
This would not prevent anyone from giving a felon a firearm. It would allow them to enforce existing laws for when they choose to.

You don't believe that there is any chance of a deterrent effect when enforcement of the law starts to actually happen?  I'd be surprised if this deterrent didn't prevent many instances of someone giving a felon a firearm.