today you should also learn a little bit more about the fact that guns needlessly kill more people than anything else

1/7/2016 2:45:12 PM

Believe me, I'm very well aware of the damage that guns cause. And there isn't a whole lot I like about guns in general.


But I am a fan of logic and reason, both of which you seem to be abandoning in your ridiculous argument. You just seem to be dealing in absolutes with no basis in reality.
Stop it.

[Edited on January 7, 2016 at 2:51 PM. Reason : bubblebobble's genitals have the stench of a stitched together butthole quilt]

1/7/2016 2:49:05 PM

Quote :

"CAN OF LOGIC"

1/7/2016 2:50:50 PM

I'll stop whenever you stop fucking defending needless violence

1/7/2016 2:51:14 PM

Whatever, guy.

Everyone can see, in plain text, exactly what I typed.
And everyone can see your wacky ass interpretation of what i typed.



But hey, what else can we really expect from The Goiter of TWW

1/7/2016 3:06:50 PM

oh cool, some needless attacks

just like those that happen with guns "accidentally"

fuck you

act like a moderator if you're going to pretend to be a real one

1/7/2016 3:10:16 PM

yada yada yada, more mindless banter from BubbleBobble

I guess I'll take a hint from the others and just ignore your silly, non-logical, temper-tantrum throwing ass if you can't even form a coherent argument.

1/7/2016 6:19:32 PM

what is there to argue?

1/7/2016 8:17:57 PM

It's arguments like BB's that actually put more guns in more hands.

1/7/2016 8:19:42 PM

Jebus chill the fuck out BB.

wdprice3 is pretty level-headed on this issue, and would actually be labeled a progressive by most on the right due to his support of common sense gun control measures.

You, on the other hand, are not being level-headed. Puff and chill mane.

[Edited on January 7, 2016 at 8:21 PM. Reason : ^ also it's not a legitimate argument...kinda dishonest to call it that. more like rabid frothing]

1/7/2016 8:20:14 PM

I'm not saying they're not responsible gun-owners

I'm just saying nobody anywhere needs a gun

ain't nobody got time

1/7/2016 8:25:07 PM

Nobody anywhere needs a pit bull either. But I hear every other week of some kid getting mauled by one (or several at a time). You could pick apart the whole needs vs wants argument all day long but you aren't going to get anywhere because it isn't realistic, just like my example. Some people like pits, and responsible pit owners don't have four legged kid killers. Some people like guns, and responsible gun owners don't have chambered desert eagles taped under the counter of their toddler's toy kitchen bar.

We need common sense [gun control]. Not what you're talking about. Expanded background checks? Definitely.

You know what I would really like to see is the kind of technology from Skyfall built into pistols that understands fingerprints. That right there would eliminate accidental shootings by children finding their parents' guns. And I don't really see any counterargument to that.

We'll never see compulsory confiscation, and I'm tired of people on the right using that as their initial salvo when they hear [gun control].

1/7/2016 9:04:46 PM

I think we just need to hack the mainframe

then we could get rid of all guns, AND all dogs

1/7/2016 9:34:39 PM

^^ a couple of years ago, a gun store near me announced that they were going to start carrying a smartgun for purchase. I think it was the type that required a bracelet worn by the operator. Anyway, they received so many death threats by gun nuts that they cancelled the plans to carry the weapon.

I only bring that up to illustrate the lengths a few gun nuts will go to fight any type of regulation.

1/7/2016 9:44:13 PM

^ I just googled that to get more details

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maryland-dealer-will-defy-gun-rights-advocates-by-selling-nations-first-smart-gun/2014/05/01/564efa48-d14d-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html

People are idiots.

1/7/2016 9:50:42 PM

Quote :

"RECEIVE DEATH THREATS"

!!!

1/7/2016 9:52:29 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/threats-against-maryland-gun-dealer-raise-doubts-about-future-of-smart-guns/2014/05/02/8a4f7482-d227-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html

[Edited on January 7, 2016 at 9:53 PM. Reason : Thx bbehe]

1/7/2016 9:53:01 PM

Personally, I think I would prefer a smart handgun. That way, if I were somehow incapacitated by an intruder, that said intruder couldn't use my own gun against me.

Just think about the implications. No more stolen pistols being used in crimes, no more accidental kid deaths. When a crime is committed with a smart handgun, there would be no question as to who pulled the trigger.

Sure, you're still going to have the random nutjob who legally owns a smart pistol and uses it against somebody, but still, the benefits would be tremendous.

1/7/2016 10:41:21 PM

until you get your smart gun jailbreaked and upload whatever ringtone you want on it

1/7/2016 11:01:06 PM

^^ why you trying to take people's guns?

1/7/2016 11:33:23 PM

60 Minutes ran a piece on smart guns and the death threats that one dealer got for selling them a few months ago

1/8/2016 12:15:35 AM

yeh, the far right is pretty fucking stupid and hypocritical, especially during that whole smart gun deal.

I don't have a problem with smart guns in principle; my issue is in the implementation. As with any connected technology these days, how secure is the tech from unauthorized access? As one user already mentioned, how easy will rooting/jailbreaking be? For fingerprint scanners, will these be accurate and quick? Lord knows a lot of current fingerprint scanning technology is pure shit. Overall, my concerns are that either 1) it's a feel good measure that has no real impact except to increase firearm costs because it's easily defeatable or 2) the technology is so lacking or poorly implemented that it turns firearms into a useless hunk of metal for authorized users. So I'm not against this technology, I just question if we are there yet. Some extensive R&D is needed, I think.



Haha, and needs. You need food, water, shelter. Don't come at me with needs.

[Edited on January 8, 2016 at 9:20 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2016 9:18:27 AM

I'm not saying the tech is here yet, but it is a direction in which we should be going. Guns should not be connected - that's stupid. But fingerprint scanners, once accurate enough, should be the norm on pistols.

1/8/2016 9:31:14 AM

I agree, it's certainly a good move forward with such developments. And when I say connected, I mean any type of typical wireless connection, eg for bracelets, fobs, or other external devices used to identify an authorized user. Those wireless connections would be vulnerable for at least nearby hackers./

[Edited on January 8, 2016 at 9:35 AM. Reason : warfgarbl]

I mean, shit, one day bullets will be obsolete. smart firearm technology and electronic based firearm advancements are coming.

[Edited on January 8, 2016 at 9:38 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2016 9:34:35 AM

Yes, and really, the tech they would use would probably be bluetooth. I'm not a fan of bluetooth.

And this needs to be military grade - I could see lawsuits coming to manufacturers if someone goes to use their weapon and can't because the scanner won't work, then gets shot or something.

And what are the arguments against such tech? Why would the extreme right be worried? I mean sure, if they try to put something in place to prevent your fingerprint from ever being used, I can see that...and, I can even see a plus for that too. Say you're a convicted felon, your fingerprints are on file. You can't upload your fingerprint to a gun. But then you have to be connected, which is bad, so I don't know.

1/8/2016 9:40:40 AM

No clue on the far right. But death threats to a gun store selling smart tech is pretty extreme.

1/8/2016 9:48:21 AM

The only reason I'd prefer a ring or bracelet, over a palm or fingerprint scanner is that scanners are very susceptible to malfunction if there is moisture / debris. either on your hand or the gun will render it useless. Shit, I can't unlock my phone with a fingerprint when my hand is sweaty.



Anyway, the arguments I've heard against smartguns range from increased cost to manufture, to fears that electronic equipment could fail, to one more obstacle before shooting.
Truth is, even if smartguns are widespread, the old fashioned guns will still exist.

1/8/2016 9:49:01 AM

yeh, old style guns would be around for a while, though I could foresee a forced phasing out eventually (eg, no repair/replacement parts, no owning a traditional firearm made after xxxx year (like full autos and 1986)).

I agree that any type of scanner is probably the least reliable. Software/hardware failures will be a huge component of this tech being accepted. It will have to be as reliable, if not more so, than the mechanics of the firearm. Which isn't a slamdunk, if you've ever used BT or scanner (as ^ said, moisture is a killer), etc.

I think the ring/bracelet is probably a good idea, but again, I would question the reliability and security of however that connection is made. Then again, we'd have to figure out if the security would be a real issue. I mean, people have hacked washing machines (ok, bad example since it's internet), but even pacemakers. Granted, hacking of pacemakers isn't a problem with consequences that we know of (yet.. hahaha)

[Edited on January 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM. Reason : /]

1/8/2016 9:54:12 AM

Well, my Jeep has a key fob that is electronic. No in the sense that it sends a wireless signal to unlock the car (it does that too) but there's no metal key. You just stick the nub into the dash and turn, and it starts. It works without a battery. That could be a start for the ring/bracelet.

1/8/2016 10:02:42 AM

The technology in your (and my) car...badge for your office...golfballs at Top Golf...is RFID embedded in your key/badge/ball. Either active or passive, it generates an encrypted signal which starts your ignition and/or fuel pump. While more secure than a manual key, RFID is indeed crackable. It would just take someone with a laptop equipped with an RFID reader standing relatively close to you.

1/8/2016 10:11:29 AM

All locks can be picked, this is not a reason to not use locks.

Well connected/motivated terrorists/criminals will always be able to buy/manufacture guns, but smart guns could undercut a lot of routine gun crime I suspect (once they filter into the system). This won't do anything for suicides, which obama noted was 2/3rds of gun deaths.

1/8/2016 10:32:32 AM

Suicides should be excluded from gun stats, imho. Obviously, I'm not opposed to reform, but if someone wants to end their life, there are many other ways to do so. Keeping a gun out of their hands won't change that.

But yes, I agree, a toddler playing with a pistol isn't going to open up their laptop and try to replicate an RFID signal.

This is all hypothetical right now though, as we've stated, the tech isn't there yet. I'd love to buy an electric car, but until Tesla can reduce their prices by about 30-40k, I won't be able to afford one. And I think most people wouldn't be opposed to buying such tech if it were affordable and reliable. There are always going to be your outliers that threaten a store or company for being innovative.

One thing Obama could do is to ask Congress to fund a bill to help with researching such tech.

1/8/2016 10:44:38 AM

what's not clear to me is how the government encouraging smart gun technology is supposed to do anything to accelerate smart gun technology. the reason that i keep reading is that the government is the largest purchaser or firearms, but they aren't going to be buying smart guns.

1/8/2016 11:20:53 AM

I guess the same way the government encouraging green technology is supposed to get us there quicker.

1/8/2016 11:24:01 AM

Right, it would seem as if the market would dictate the smartgun market (assuming you don't have yahoos stiffling sales with death threats). I guess I could see the government having a role in bring this technology forward if they promise R&D dollars to private companies to go out and bring these items to market.

I don't see the government doing that though, as it seems so far out of scope from the usual acquisition and deployment process. The government, to my knowledge, doesn't have any part in bringing weapons systems to the general public.... Nor should they.

1/8/2016 11:29:25 AM

Quote :

"I guess the same way the government encouraging green technology is supposed to get us there quicker."

the government offered incentives for that and they did effect the market

[Edited on January 8, 2016 at 12:32 PM. Reason : were they offering tax incentives for smart guns?]

1/8/2016 12:31:48 PM

I wouldn't buy a smartgun, it would be way more expensive than the guns I already bought

1/8/2016 2:05:13 PM

Quote :

"Obviously, I'm not opposed to reform, but if someone wants to end their life, there are many other ways to do so. Keeping a gun out of their hands won't change that."

This isn't necessarily the case, there are studies that show that if someone doesn't have an easy way to off themselves, like a gun, they won't do it.

1/8/2016 2:11:57 PM

^ plus the success rate with a gun is much higher than with most of the other commonly used options.

Quote :

"I'd love to buy an electric car, but until Tesla can reduce their prices by about 30-40k, I won't be able to afford one"

Tesla isn't the only electric car manufacturer...and other options are much more affordable.


V I don't know if you're responding to me, but my statement wasn't concerning tech, but the relationship of guns and suicide. Now that you bring up tech though, that would help if someone tried to kill themselves with somebody else's tech-enabled gun.

[Edited on January 8, 2016 at 2:31 PM. Reason : But honestly I haven't read much about the tech stuff]

1/8/2016 2:14:14 PM

Ok, so tech won't prevent suicides. But we're talking incremental steps here. Not panaceas.

1/8/2016 2:21:41 PM

On the surface, I'm not a big fan of the idea of smart guns. It's no big deal if you go to send someone a text and your phone automatically reboots and you have to wait, or if you're in the middle of sending an email and your computer locks up. But if you're potentially in a life or death situation and your bracelet gets a Blue Screen of Death...no thanks.

1/8/2016 3:27:44 PM

^i see why you would feel that way, but you drive in a car every day run by a computer, you've flown in airplanes run by computers, almost every life-or-death situation you encounter on a daily basis requires a computer to function correctly.

It's very possible to make a smart gun that won't have this type of failure.

1/8/2016 3:45:03 PM

fuck a gun

1/8/2016 5:01:43 PM

^^haha I figured you'd come with some "in 20 years all the wars will be fight by automated machines anyway. Automation is the future of guns"

1/8/2016 6:08:39 PM

I'm cool with smart guns being offered, but not mandated.

Maybe I'll get one when the secret service starts toting them.

[Edited on January 8, 2016 at 6:42 PM. Reason : And human beings have a right to suicide]

1/8/2016 6:37:40 PM

what's the deal with equating yourself with someone who gets his life threatened on a daily basis/is a head of state?

1/8/2016 6:39:09 PM

One of the issues is that states like NJ have mandated that all guns sold must utilize smart technology within one year of any smart gun being sold in the US.
This then almost immediately limits what millions of people are able to buy.

Also, all electronics fail. That is why there are double and triple redundancy in car and airplane circuitry.

Lastly for the foil hatters, an emp could effectively stop all weapons operation if they are controlled or unlocked electronically.

1/8/2016 7:02:38 PM

the state senator who submitted that bill (Weinburg) has already introduced a replacement that just requires dealers to carry at least 1 smart gun 3 years after they are on the market. advocates for common sense gun control and many members of the left already pointed out the consequence of the original bill so this is being fixed, so your first point is a non-issue

electronics fail, but since these aren't being mandated the market will work those out. it's not crazy to think that at some point in the future they could meet or beat the failure rate of firearms in general (i mean, no one is saying that kel-tecs should be banned and its silly to trust those), so your second point is not really relevant

that's not how emp's work, and also jesus christ dude put down the crack pipe. so your third point is dumb



[Edited on January 8, 2016 at 7:28 PM. Reason : emp's? really dude? go watch some more VHS porn]

1/8/2016 7:27:00 PM

You really are challenged aren't you.
The things you write off are legitimate concerns for some people.
I don't believe the last one, but some people do.

1/8/2016 7:46:28 PM

Quote :

"Also, all electronics fail. That is why there are double and triple redundancy in car and airplane circuitry. "

good things mechanical parts and gunpowder have 100% success rate

1/8/2016 7:49:03 PM