[L'enfanTerrible]

I've been iChatting with friends about the gun issue and I've come up with a solution. This must have been presented before, I'm sure, but I thought I'd share the idea with the board.

I think we should develop trigger technologies that would:

a) designate permanently that only the owner of the gun can fire the weapon.

---perhaps a fingerprint trigger or retinal scan device connected to the sight of the weapon.

b) permanently remove the ability for anyone with a criminal record to fire a weapon.

---this wouldn't be so hard, because all the retinal scans or fingerprints to unlock the weapon could be stored in a database that would be accessed by the guns computer before the safety of a weapon would be unlocked. Someone with a criminal record would have his imprints permanently removed from the database.

This would have to be a world wide standard to be completely effective, and I think, while it may not eliminate the presence of gun-crime, it would drastically reduce the occurances, IMHO.

There you have it.

[denim]

One problem: these bio-recognition technologies have all been shown to be spoof-able.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
I've been iChatting with friends about the gun issue and I've come up with a solution. This must have been presented before, I'm sure, but I thought I'd share the idea with the board.

I think we should develop trigger technologies that would:

a) designate permanently that only the owner of the gun can fire the weapon.

---perhaps a fingerprint trigger or retinal scan device connected to the sight of the weapon.

b) permanently remove the ability for anyone with a criminal record to fire a weapon.

---this wouldn't be so hard, because all the retinal scans or fingerprints to unlock the weapon could be stored in a database that would be accessed by the guns computer before the safety of a weapon would be unlocked. Someone with a criminal record would have his imprints permanently removed from the database.

This would have to be a world wide standard to be completely effective, and I think, while it may not eliminate the presence of gun-crime, it would drastically reduce the occurances, IMHO.

There you have it.

this would only affect guns purchased from that point onward. Criminals would simply use the old guns, of which there is plenty in existance already.
The problem with your attempts at solutions is they require a societal tabula rasa. This is why they are unrealistic. society is not in a test tube. You can't cmd-Z and start over from square one.
The other problem is that for your solutions to be implementable, every single person would have to be in complete agreement with you to voluntarily adopt a complete abolition of the status quo, which is not going to happen.

I appreciate that at the base of it, you simply want a more pacifistic world, as do I, and that's an admirable goal. But you have to also factor in that any solution must be attainable.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


this would only affect guns purchased from that point onward. Criminals would simply use the old guns, of which there is plenty in existance already.
The problem with your attempts at solutions is they require a societal tabula rasa. This is why they are unrealistic. society is not in a test tube. You can't cmd-Z and start over from square one.
The other problem is that for your solutions to be implementable, every single person would have to be in complete agreement with you to voluntarily adopt a complete abolition of the status quo, which is not going to happen.

I appreciate that at the base of it, you simply want a more pacifistic world, as do I, and that's an admirable goal. But you have to also factor in that any solution must be attainable.

What does "tabula rasa" mean?

Also, I think you aren't factoring in one thing to your analysis of my ideas Lerk--the possibility of a whole society adopting a certain idea, or thing. Television was unheard of 100 years ago. And now everyone owns at least one. I could go on forever with examples of how society has created an entirely new status quo. In fact, it happens all the time. Take for example Muslim societies that shroud their women. Granted this still happens, but I don't think it will go on forever. Once it is considered abhorrent which it should be, that society will flip the status quo upside down.

200 years ago, white men were not about to give up their slaves.

Things do change Lerk. And I'm really sick of those on the board who are making it a point to call my ideas naive and ridiculous (read: Ca$h)

[Millennium]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
What does "tabula rasa" mean?

It's Latin; it means "blank slate" or "clean slate". Either way, it means that you'd have to be able to affect society completely independently of its past.

Also, I think you aren't factoring in one thing to your analysis of my ideas Lerk--the possibility of a whole society adopting a certain idea, or thing. Television was unheard of 100 years ago. And now everyone owns at least one.

Not everyone. But regardless, that doesn't fit. Television is a thing. It exists independently of any human being, and is the same thing no matter who obeseves it. Ideas are different. Their existence is completely dependent on those who have them, and they're different for everyone.

200 years ago, white men were not about to give up their slaves.

Depends on the white man. And in case you've forgotten, those who "were not about to given them up" were forced to do so. That's an unacceptable tactic except in the most exceedingly extreme, rare circumstances, and even this instance doesn't justify it. It was justified in the case of slavery, because the end result was freedom for a previously-oppressed people. That is the only acceptable reason for coercion, and banning guns does not do this.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by Millennium:


Depends on the white man. And in case you've forgotten, those who "were not about to given them up" were forced to do so. That's an unacceptable tactic except in the most exceedingly extreme, rare circumstances, and even this instance doesn't justify it. It was justified in the case of slavery, because the end result was freedom for a previously-oppressed people. That is the only acceptable reason for coercion, and banning guns does not do this.

I didn't say we should ban guns. After some thought I decided that newer gun technology, that I have stated in my above post, is the proper course of action.

I think it is possible for people, all people, to accept a new era of gun technology to make the world a safer place. Even if this only saves the lives of a few children who somehow found their parents gun, then it is worthwhile.

I think the idea of "safer guns" would be accepted by many many people. The only people who should have a problem with this are people who shouldn't have a gun in the first place.

Regardless of the constitution, gun legislation needs to be reevaluated for our modern times and IMO not everyone should be allowed to own a gun. Especially felons and minors.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Depends on the white man. And in case you've forgotten, those who "were not about to given them up" were forced to do so. That's an unacceptable tactic except in the most exceedingly extreme, rare circumstances, and even this instance doesn't justify it. It was justified in the case of slavery, because the end result was freedom for a previously-oppressed people. That is the only acceptable reason for coercion, and banning guns does not do this.

Precisely. The only way to remove guns from the hands of those who have them is forcefully. The only way to overpower those with guns is to use guns.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

Applies well in this situation, I think. Essentially, the moment you attempt to use guns to obtain your goal, you become a hypocrite. The only way to keep others from acquiring guns again would be to keep your own guns, and thus stay in power. Smells like a new nobility to me. You do realize that it was precisely the ability to afford expensive weapons and armor that made the nobility in feudal Europe possible?

The only way to remove the desire for guns would be to either make it so that guns no longer give a person effective power. That would require either: A, you invent and disburse something more powerful (some sort of dirt cheap shield technology [still more science fantasy than science possibility, and would probably work for a few weeks before someone found a counter measure; guns would be gone, though], or a far more powerful cheap weapon [sounds like it would be a "cure worse than the disease" to you]); B, you change the very nature of reality itself (read: impossible).

BlackGriffen

[L'enfanTerrible]

Okay, I don't understand why people are refuting the idea of banning guns in this thread.

this thread is not about banning guns!

It is about upgrading the technology of guns to make them a LOT safer. This is very possible. The legislation would be passed. The technologies would be implemented. It may not eliminate the existence of guns entirely but it would make them a LOT harder to come by, for the criminal. And the child or youth who wanted to play with the weapon would not be able to.. Those two things alone are big steps to the resolution of the issues of gun-crime and gun-safety.

Why don't you "realists" come up with some solutions and share them with the class, lest you should become a f�cking parrot?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Why don't you "realists" come up with some solutions and share them with the class, lest you should become a f�cking parrot?

why should we? Its essentially insoluable. I don't want it to be, either, but it is.
The best you can hope for is some sort of compromise, your advanced weapons are a fine idea, as far as they go. I"ve suggested something similar, but I didn't believe for a second it would eliminate the problems or create a better society.

Where you seem to get into trouble is assuming they will cure all the ills. The problem does not lie in guns, dear mercurtio, but in ourselves....a solution to guns is problematic because the ones most likely to keep guns until the point of death are those that already possess guns, and unfortunately these are the ones you'll have to convince it makes sense to give them up. And, they won't be convinced (just look at this forum).

[thunderous_funker]

I like Carlin's solution in the true spirit of the Constitution:

Every man, woman and child is issued a gun by the governmnet, but it's a musket.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I like Carlin's solution in the true spirit of the Constitution:

Every man, woman and child is issued a gun by the governmnet, but it's a musket.

I"ve actually fired a musket. I know, I'm anti-gun personally, but I was 12 and my uncle who collected guns and coins and stamps took me out to a shooting range. Quite an involved process to load the wadding, tamp it down, add the ball, etc. Its a wonder anything was ever accomplished with them.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:

this thread is not about banning guns!

It is about upgrading the technology of guns to make them a LOT safer. This is very possible. The legislation would be passed. The technologies would be implemented. It may not eliminate the existence of guns entirely but it would make them a LOT harder to come by, for the criminal. And the child or youth who wanted to play with the weapon would not be able to.. Those two things alone are big steps to the resolution of the issues of gun-crime and gun-safety.[/B]

I think what you are maybe not understanding is that even assuming the technology you are describing could work, you would have to do one of two things:

1. You could just add your technology only to new guns. That doesn't do anything to the old ones. Guns really don't wear out or become obsolete (it's a mature technology) so this plan doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Even if the sale of used guns of the old type were made illegal, criminals would still get them drawing on the pool of millions of preexisting guns. This is, of course, why guns are still available in countries that have attempted a full ban.

2. You could demand that everyone return the old guns for retrofitting (assuming they could be retrofitted). The problem with the second course is that you would have to use coersive power to ensure that people returned their guns. That coersive power would be no less than that needed to ban guns automatically. For example, you might need to conduct warrantless searches door to door. If that makes you squeamish, then perhaps you could simply make the posession of an unmodified gun illegal. But that would simply result in a lot of otherwise law-abiding citizens going to jail. And since those are necessarily armed otherwise law-abiding citizens, you are really decribing a recipe for a significant amount of violence.

There are also Constitutional problems to do with the Takings Clause. The governemnt can't simply demand that private individuals add things to their personal property that was legally purchased at a time when the modification wasn't required. That is why these kinds of modifications are never done retroactively. If it was attempted, at a minimum, the government would have to pay gun owners to do it. That would be costly and since your solution would have only a marginal benefit, I kind of doubt anyone would realistically think it is worth it.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Okay, I don't understand why people are refuting the idea of banning guns in this thread.

this thread is not about banning guns!

It is about upgrading the technology of guns to make them a LOT safer. This is very possible. The legislation would be passed. The technologies would be implemented. It may not eliminate the existence of guns entirely but it would make them a LOT harder to come by, for the criminal. And the child or youth who wanted to play with the weapon would not be able to.. Those two things alone are big steps to the resolution of the issues of gun-crime and gun-safety.

Why don't you "realists" come up with some solutions and share them with the class, lest you should become a f�cking parrot?

In order for your solution to work you would have to remove the guns currently circulating or convince people to adopt them willingly. With me so far? The problem with the solution you propose is that those guns are less effective. How are they less effective? Two ways: first, no resale value. Second, no black-market value. Not to mention the inherent flaws in your system: jerry rigged guns (stone walls do not a prison make, nor locked doors a barrier; as long as I have physical control over the object, I can jerry rig it to work without restraint) either of these are sufficient conditions to make your plan fail. Plus, you need to remember that gun users are not stupid people, there are enough people who demand unrestricted weapons for them to go in to business manufacturing and selling guns on the underground.

As I mentioned in my post, the only ways to get rid of guns as they exist today are: forcefully remove them, or replace them with something more effective (read: more deadly).

BlackGriffen

[El Pre$idente]

I have a better solution!

All guns must, by law, stop going BANG. From now on, by law, when the trigger is pulled all guns must shout the name of the person who pulled the trigger, where they live and where they are shooting from (if it is a hiding place).

I can guarantee the above is possible with the right technology.

[Speckledstone]

Ok, I'll give it a shot
That was bad (sorry)

Seriously, how about this:
-Enforce the gun control laws we already have.
-Make criminal sentencing tougher.
-Restructure the 'rights' prisoners have while they incarcerated. I know a lot of people say prison is not a deterrent, so lets make it one.
-Make some progress at cleaning up lower income neighborhoods (Crack down on gangs) (Improve the schools so kids can see the benefits of an education instead of the perks of being a criminal)

This won�t solve all of our gun related problems, but I think it would be a good start.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:


In order for your solution to work you would have to remove the guns currently circulating or convince people to adopt them willingly. With me so far? The problem with the solution you propose is that those guns are less effective. How are they less effective? Two ways: first, no resale value. Second, no black-market value.

Oh Lord, wouldn't it be terrible if people couldn't buy guns illegally?

I am not presenting my idea as a solution to get rid of all guns as they exist today. i think the technology to make guns safer would reduce the possibilities of gun accidents and crime.

I am sick of stating this over and over.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


Oh Lord, wouldn't it be terrible if people couldn't buy guns illegally?

I am not presenting my idea as a solution to get rid of all guns as they exist today. i think the technology to make guns safer would reduce the possibilities of gun accidents and crime.

I am sick of stating this over and over.

But the question is, what do you think that would happen to the old ones? Guns are pretty durable.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by El Pre$idente:
I have a better solution!

All guns must, by law, stop going BANG. From now on, by law, when the trigger is pulled all guns must shout the name of the person who pulled the trigger, where they live and where they are shooting from (if it is a hiding place).

I can guarantee the above is possible with the right technology.

If the sniper should fire in a forest, would anyone hear his talking gun?

[driven]

I wouldn't mind safer guns at all.

I wouldn't mind trigger locks or biometrics activation routines. (So long as you can designate a gun to more than one shooter, such as myself, my son, my wife, etc.)

The only issue I see is this. (And I'll phrase it as a question.)

Would this "fingerprint" database store only criminals? If so, then I don't have a problem with it. (Convicted felons give up many of their rights ... including the right to vote in many states.)

BUT: If you intend it to hold every fingerprint of every potential or actual gun owner in the USA then it may be a problem. Why? Because it would in essence be a gun registration system which is opposed for many reasons, some valid, some not valid (IMHO). Additionally, any gun registration system would also be in violation of several state constitutions which outright ban any form of gun/owner registration by a government body.

(Just a thought.)

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But the question is, what do you think that would happen to the old ones? Guns are pretty durable.

True that. I don't know. My idea is not about getting rid of guns, but rather changing the future of guns in our society. I'm sure the person who buys a gun to hunt would like this idea, or the person who buys a gun to keep in their purse for safety. At least they wouldn't have to fear someone turning their own gun on them.

[El Pre$idente]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


If the sniper should fire in a forest, would anyone hear his talking gun?

Other animals of course.

If he had a machine gun it would sound like this: GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE! GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE!GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE!GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE!GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE!GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE!GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE!GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE!GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE!GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE!GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE!GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE!GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE!GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE!GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE!GEORGE BUSH, WHITE HOUSE, BEHIND THE TREE!

[El Pre$idente]

They should make guns with AI that decide whether or not they want to shoot or if they agree or disagree whether the target is worth shooting. You could have guns that say 'Well, I'm afraid I don't agree with shooting an obvious innocent old lady, Mr. Sniper.'

[driven]

Originally posted by El Pre$idente:
They should make guns with AI that decide whether or not they want to shoot or if they agree or disagree whether the target is worth shooting. You could have guns that say 'Well, I'm afraid I don't agree with shooting an obvious innocent old lady, Mr. Sniper.'

heh heh ...

Ca$h sees the Washington DC sniper ... he pulls out his gun to take the guy out and the gun says "I'm not shooting him for YOU Mr. Ca$h ..." (And the sniper gets midevil on ca$h)

[Millennium]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
Why don't you "realists" come up with some solutions and share them with the class, lest you should become a f�cking parrot?

You still don't get it. Some problems cannot be solved. It's a little thing called putting the genie back into the bottle.

The problem with a legislative solution is this. Any law you create will only be followed by those who choose to obey it, for whatever reason. I choose to obey the law prohibiting bank robbery, for example, because I believe bank robbery to be immoral. But if I didn't believe that, there would be very little stopping me from going out and robbing a bank. Sure, the police could try and nail me after the fact, but I'd have already done it; they cannot undo what has been done.

Because of this, a law must be designed so that those who choose to obey the law are not harmed by or put at a disadvantage compared to those who choose not to obey it. In the case of a bank robbery, while it's possible that those who choose to obey the law could be harmed if they were in the bank while it was being robbed, that's not a change from the situation where there is no law preventing it. In the case of gun control, however, you not only fail to protect someone who obeys the law from someone who doesn't, you also severely reduce their own ability to protect themselves from that same person. That's why it just doesn't work. All you do is give the strong yet another chance to dominate the weak, and that's not what freedom is about.

Getting rid of all guns is the only way to totally solve the problem. But that's not possible, ergo the problem cannot be totally solved. The best we can hope for, then, is to minimize the problem, and taking guns away or making them less effective will not do that.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:


True that. I don't know. My idea is not about getting rid of guns, but rather changing the future of guns in our society. I'm sure the person who buys a gun to hunt would like this idea, or the person who buys a gun to keep in their purse for safety. At least they wouldn't have to fear someone turning their own gun on them.

Ah! OK, so you just want to nibble at the edges of gun violence. OK, that makes some sense. Certainly, gun owners with kids and so forth would be interested in a gun that couldn't be turned on them or be (mis)used by their children. Ditto police officers. But that technology already exists. The systems I have seen use a ring that the authorized user wears. Nobody without the ring can fire the gun so that (say) if a cop gets into a struggle, his or her gun can't be taken and turned on him or her.

That's quite sensible. But it wouldn't stop most gun violence because most gun violence simply doesn't arise in the scenarios you are protecting against. People who deliberately want to use a gun on innocent people will just use an ordinary gun.

BTW, I'm surprised that you endorse the idea of ordinary citizens carrying concealed weapons ("the person who keeps a gun in her purse for safety"). Odd.

[Jutaro]

Modern guns are already very safe. I could literally take my handgun chambered, cocked and locked, and throw it around a room and it would never go off. The problem is people. You can implement all of the "safety" technology you want, but people will ignore it or disable it to make it more convenient for them. Do you REALLY think that a device to I.D. the user as the proper user would ever be un-bypassable (new word! Yay for me!)? You're kidding yourselves.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

BTW, I'm surprised that you endorse the idea of ordinary citizens carrying concealed weapons ("the person who keeps a gun in her purse for safety"). Odd.

Why is that odd? Although I believe that our society is kind of whack, I don't think the answer is to restrict civil liberties. The problem of crime goes a lot deeper than weaponry. I hope I haven't stuck my foot too far into my mouth with two threads

[Ca$h68]

1. Guns would cost WAY more.... nobody would buy these 'safe' guns, just like nobody wants to shell out a ton of cash for an eco car.
2. Build a better lock, someone will build a better key. There are ways around EVERYTHING. Think of DVD burning for example.
3. They tried this with seatbelts in cars. People would disable the system.

- Ca$h

PS: I find it EXTREMELY ironic that someone who believes ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE is suggesting we make a foolproof way to prevent violence.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:
1. Guns would cost WAY more.... nobody would buy these 'safe' guns, just like nobody wants to shell out a ton of cash for an eco car.
2. Build a better lock, someone will build a better key. There are ways around EVERYTHING. Think of DVD burning for example.
3. They tried this with seatbelts in cars. People would disable the system.

- Ca$h

PS: I find it EXTREMELY ironic that someone who believes ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE is suggesting we make a foolproof way to prevent violence.

1. I never said this would be fool proof.

2. I tend to think on a more positive, progressive level than you do. You are very negative and annoying.

3. When you type in boldface it makes your posts very tiresome and objectionable.

[Ca$h68]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
3. When you type in boldface it makes your posts very tiresome and objectionable.

When you ignore a posts validity of pointing out your hypocrisy based purely because of the font or style of the message, it makes you very annoying.

- Ca$h

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by Ca$h68:


When you ignore a posts validity of pointing out your hypocrisy based purely because of the font or style of the message, it makes you very annoying.

- Ca$h

You must have skipped over points 1 and 2.

[finboy]

Your solution (and the topic of this thread) presupposes a gun problem. I disagree.

Sounds to me like there's a sniper problem. Look at all the folks who DON'T use their target rifles on random innocents.

The technology solutions are not developed well enough yet, but one day YOU can buy a gun and put a bio-lock on it and I'm sure it will meet your needs. Mine work just fine as they are, thank you very much.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
I've been iChatting with friends about the gun issue and I've come up with a solution. This must have been presented before, I'm sure, but I thought I'd share the idea with the board.

I think we should develop trigger technologies that would:

a) designate permanently that only the owner of the gun can fire the weapon.

---perhaps a fingerprint trigger or retinal scan device connected to the sight of the weapon.

b) permanently remove the ability for anyone with a criminal record to fire a weapon.

---this wouldn't be so hard, because all the retinal scans or fingerprints to unlock the weapon could be stored in a database that would be accessed by the guns computer before the safety of a weapon would be unlocked. Someone with a criminal record would have his imprints permanently removed from the database.

This would have to be a world wide standard to be completely effective, and I think, while it may not eliminate the presence of gun-crime, it would drastically reduce the occurances, IMHO.

There you have it.

That would only effect "normal" civillians... criminals would simply get their weapons illegally, without these safety measures...

[Spliffdaddy]

Why does everyone assume an average person can't make their own gun?
Why would I buy one of those "bio-locked" weapons when I can simply CNC mill my own weapon in about 30 minutes?

[typoon]

Supposedly some of the Manufacturers are working on smart technologies for guns. I know I've read/heard somewhere that they are. One way to control guns is to liscense it like you liscense a car. Another way would be to ENFORCE existing Gun laws and not create new ones that will not be enforced. That would be one way to control guns. Also what some cities do pay for gun turn ins no questions asked.