How? The Supreme Court has already established that regulation of firearms is not unconstitutional. If implementing a requirement to register firearms (in addition to requiring a background check) is not viewed as an invasion of privacy, it could be argued that a requirement to consent to a monthly/yearly/random search regarding registered firearms only is not a violation as well. I'm not arguing that it is or isn't (unconstitutional), but it could be open to interpretation, much like existing gun laws are. It would be interesting to see a law like that (what I mentioned) passed and then argued in the Supreme Court.FEOS wrote:
But the issue is that law would be unconstitutional.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Whether or not the gun is the only thing stolen is really of no relevance - the idea is that if you leave your home, lock up your weapon so it cannot be stolen and used in a crime.
The idea regarding a law allowing random checks on the security of your guns isn't that it is a law decided on by the police, it is enforced by the police. Just like any other law, the police wouldn't be able to decide anything other than what the law stipulates. If the law is written in a way that allows minimal judgement calls by the police there will be little to worry about in that regard.
WRONG. SCOTUS ruled that SOME regulation is presumptively constitutional.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
How? The Supreme Court has already established that regulation of firearms is not unconstitutional. If implementing a requirement to register firearms (in addition to requiring a background check) is not viewed as an invasion of privacy, it could be argued that a requirement to consent to a monthly/yearly/random search regarding registered firearms only is not a violation as well. I'm not arguing that it is or isn't (unconstitutional), but it could be open to interpretation, much like existing gun laws are. It would be interesting to see a law like that (what I mentioned) passed and then argued in the Supreme Court.FEOS wrote:
But the issue is that law would be unconstitutional.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Whether or not the gun is the only thing stolen is really of no relevance - the idea is that if you leave your home, lock up your weapon so it cannot be stolen and used in a crime.
The idea regarding a law allowing random checks on the security of your guns isn't that it is a law decided on by the police, it is enforced by the police. Just like any other law, the police wouldn't be able to decide anything other than what the law stipulates. If the law is written in a way that allows minimal judgement calls by the police there will be little to worry about in that regard.
"Random security checks" probably violates the 2nd Amendment, and MOST DEFINITELY violates the 4th.
Also realize, the NRA does support some regulations (NFA and NICS for example).
As far as the biometric fingerprint reader on a gun, there are many problems. One is that it isn't reliable enough when it comes to self defense. That was one of the problems with the ring thing. The police said they wouldn't use it because of reliability. The fingerprint reader on my laptop doesn't work about 10 to 20 percent of the time. The ones in a gun would probably be alot better and more expensive. Another problem is many people grip the gun slightly different. The reader would have to be in the trigger and not everybody puts their finger in the same spot on the trigger.
As far as background checks go at gunshows. Most sales at gunshows are done by licensed dealers and they still have to do background checks reguardless of where they are doing business.
As far as background checks go at gunshows. Most sales at gunshows are done by licensed dealers and they still have to do background checks reguardless of where they are doing business.
That just sounds like Metal Gear Solid.Braddock wrote:
Suggestion: given that fingerprinting technology is quite advanced and becoming increasingly robust nowadays, the possibility of user-specific firearms using fingerprint ID should be a very real one in the near future. Each firearm would require the unique fingerprint of the owner in order for it to become enabled for use. To prevent convicted felons from purchasing firearms a prospective buyer would have to have their prints checked with the police database prior to purchase. Obviously hacking would be an issue but there is no reason why it should not be possible to design immobilisation fail-safes in the event of people trying to tamper with, or unlock the firearm (they have immobilisers in cars, why not weapons?).
People have problems with their names exisiting in a database. It would be very hard to convince so many people to register with their firearm. Also, you kind of missed the whole "illegal trading of firearms". Why would they want to have the fingerprint system on it? It would just make the black market boom in sales of firearms. Nothing more. People want to keep their anonymity at all costs.
Huh? Currently here in Texas, any sale at a gun show also requires a background check. DPS has a hotline set up just for that reason, and the dealer calls you in. It is an 'instant' background check, no waiting involved. I have no issue with that.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
You want gun legislation that will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, start by making background checks required at gun shows, and an easy method of checks for owner to owner transfer/sale of weapons. As it stands only purchases made at gun stores require background checks.
The issue is not the 2nd, but the 4th Amendment in that case. The gun involvement is merely coincidental at that point.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
How? The Supreme Court has already established that regulation of firearms is not unconstitutional. If implementing a requirement to register firearms (in addition to requiring a background check) is not viewed as an invasion of privacy, it could be argued that a requirement to consent to a monthly/yearly/random search regarding registered firearms only is not a violation as well. I'm not arguing that it is or isn't (unconstitutional), but it could be open to interpretation, much like existing gun laws are. It would be interesting to see a law like that (what I mentioned) passed and then argued in the Supreme Court.FEOS wrote:
But the issue is that law would be unconstitutional.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Whether or not the gun is the only thing stolen is really of no relevance - the idea is that if you leave your home, lock up your weapon so it cannot be stolen and used in a crime.
The idea regarding a law allowing random checks on the security of your guns isn't that it is a law decided on by the police, it is enforced by the police. Just like any other law, the police wouldn't be able to decide anything other than what the law stipulates. If the law is written in a way that allows minimal judgement calls by the police there will be little to worry about in that regard.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
there are 250-350 million privately owned firearms in the US. if such a technology were implemented, non-regulated guns would eventually become extremely valuable to criminals and you'd likely see an increase in burglaries with no change in homicide statistics. and there's always a way to get around technology. i could machine a crude pistol in a few hours with some basic equipment. wait, let me guess, biometrics on tools and raw materials as well. sounds like a fun new world.
The constitution seems to be quite a big thing in the US.
In Australia we don't seem to have issues with it. It's not that we disregard it (as some members may try to say), it's just that our constitution seems not to get in the way of legislation.
Come to think of it, most people don't give a toss about what laws are being made, unless the government is being run by an idiot like Rudd.
In Australia we don't seem to have issues with it. It's not that we disregard it (as some members may try to say), it's just that our constitution seems not to get in the way of legislation.
Come to think of it, most people don't give a toss about what laws are being made, unless the government is being run by an idiot like Rudd.
Last edited by some_random_panda (2009-04-17 22:47:51)
Ya, and your internet is filtered too. So you only see what your gov thinks you should see. Thats real cool.some_random_panda wrote:
The constitution seems to be quite a big thing in the US.
In Australia we don't seem to have issues with it. It's not that we disregard it (as some members may try to say), it's just that our constitution seems not to get in the way of legislation.
Come to think of it, most people don't give a toss about what laws are being made, unless the government is being run by an idiot like Rudd.
Biometrics would not work. WAY too much money, no replacing the existing guns. etc.
Criminals commit crimes with rifles too. and shotguns.
The reason the second amendment was created, is not for fun and recreation, its not for hunting, and its not for business.
The second amendment was created so that the people of the country could fight on level ground with the gov, if they decide to.
15 more years! 15 more years!
Ignorance spews forth - it's not filtered right now. Good job Mitch, that's real cool.Mitch wrote:
Ya, and your internet is filtered too. So you only see what your gov thinks you should see. Thats real cool.some_random_panda wrote:
The constitution seems to be quite a big thing in the US.
In Australia we don't seem to have issues with it. It's not that we disregard it (as some members may try to say), it's just that our constitution seems not to get in the way of legislation.
Come to think of it, most people don't give a toss about what laws are being made, unless the government is being run by an idiot like Rudd.
Now, where did I say any of that? Or are you assuming that any comment on constitutions in general (not even a particular country's) is a direct attack on yours? Not everyone is out to get you, Mitch.Mitch wrote:
The reason the second amendment was created, is not for fun and recreation, its not for hunting, and its not for business.
Last edited by some_random_panda (2009-04-18 00:25:19)
I'll be the first to hold my hands up and say I have very little experience in mechanics and only marginally more when it comes to electronics, I do read a lot of academic papers though and almost all good ideas start on paper. I am admittedly looking at the thing in broad strokes and your post raises some good practical questions. However, technology is advancing at the fastest rate ever seen by man today and things that may have been problems as little as ten years ago are now no longer problems. Technology in many fields is getting smaller and more robust on an almost monthly basis.imortal wrote:
The problem is biometric technology is that the electronics are not robust enough to handle the recoil of a firearm, and quickly break. Also, when you start adding in things like gun oil, powerder residue, shooting gloves, dirt, mud, blood... all things things work agianst the system. Also a matter of time. No matter who you are, if you need to use your firearm, odds are heavy there is a pretty strong time element involved. Taking .25 - .50 second to get the electronics to 'catch up,' or worry about placing your finger just so,] can be the difference between life and death. Also, sometimes you have to grab someone else's gun; when you do, it would be nice if it worked.
...and what happens if you forget to replace the batteries?
There was a design 30 or 40 years ago with a revolver, that had a safety bar in the handle that would prevent the gun firing unless the 'key' (in this circumstance a magnetic ring on the shooters' firing hand) moved the bar out of the way. This was a pretty good sounding system, except that you could not use your off hand for firing unless you wore two rings, and since both the rings were magnetic, some trouble handling things. That is even more applicable nowadays, with credit cards and thumb drives being in common use. Also, if you forgot to put your ring on (or you slept without it) your gun is now just a paperweight. Lose your ring and then you are in trouble. After all, can't just sell them at the corner store, or they lose their effectiveness.
Lots of edits... It has been thought of over here. In fact, there is a state up there (New York, New Jersey or something) that tried to pass a law that stated that once a biometric gun was commerically available, that all non-biometric firearms would be banned 5 years from that time. Since I plan to never live in a state that repressive to gun owners, I just made a note and moved on.
I do not mean to offend, Braddock, but this has the hallmarks of someone who thinks it sounds great but has little practical experience with the issue. Looks pretty on paper, but unworkable in exectution. I can definately see how this would be a benificial idea; would be great for law enforcement if they could iron the kinks out, or even as a possiblity for a loaded home defense firearm, for child safety. However, I get a bit hesitant as soon as someone starts mandating changes like that. Especially if someone else could somehow alter how MY firearm operates.
As regards the robustness of biometric technology, perhaps it's not up to the task at the moment but that won't be the case forever. I remember thinking hand-scan locks were the stuff of movies and yet they have them in offices and server rooms all over the place nowadays.
Perhaps at some point in the future any onboard power demands could be in some way powered by the kinetic energy of the gun itself, being that a gun generates an incredible amount of kinetic energy? Even solar power might be an option, solar-powered calculators seem incredibly reliable.
On the issue of situations requiring the use of someone else's gun... well, I guess the way to look at it is for every negative scenario there will be a positive scenario. By that I mean there would also be situations where your would-be attacker would have had a gun but could not get access to a firearm that worked with his print, or situations where a kid wanted to mow down his class but couldn't get a firearm to do the job, or a situation where your attacker got a hold of your weapon but couldn't operate it. It's a give and take scenario I guess... but yes, this would be a big issue for people who demand the right to unfettered and easy access to firearms at all times.
I still think the biggest issue would not be the technology but rather the logistics of the transition process from the old system to the new one. That and the diversity in attitude among many people in society when it comes to firearms.
Good post though, cheers.
My only point about gloves was that if you had regular gloves on and it would not recognize you, you would have to remove them, and that would cost precious seconds in which you could be shot.Braddock wrote:
Good post.nickb64 wrote:
I don't think it's something I would support because it would probably be difficult to pass on guns from one owner to the next, as well as the fact that it would probably be possible to get around in some way.
There have been attempts at similar projects that I have read about, but they failed for many different reasons. One was for the shooter to wear something( like a ring) that would signal to the gun that it was the correct owner, but that was dropped because it got in the way of the shooter's gripping of the gun. My main reason for opposing that would be that, unless there was a way for it to be programmed to accept more than one shooter, it would not be good for home defense if the only accepted shooter was killed/immobilized or out of the house/away. It would also hamper the ability to inherit guns when the owner died, unless it would accept multiple owners. If that was possible, I might reconsider, but another issue would be "What if the shooter wore gloves?" I think that would disable the gun's fingerprint detection ability, and it would be inconvenient to remove one's gloves when in a tense dangerous situation when you needed to be able to fire immediately. That was the reason for the idea for a ring or other object worn by the shooter that would enable the gun to recognize them as the allowed user, which did not work out effectively.
Multiple shooters shouldn't be a problem. I used to work in a place where we had a barometric hand-print lock that accepted multiple prints, there's no reason why the same technology can't be adapted.
As regards gloves, there is such a thing as shooting gloves where the index finger is removable... I guess you have to ask yourself do want high gun-homicide rates or cold hands? You can't always have your cake and eat it.
In terms of transferring ownership, there's no reason why the police (or another State body of some sort, or possibly even the manufacturers themselves) can't have a controlled and authorised system whereby gun-user profiles can be switched or ported.
It's true that hacked and black market guns would be a problem but one might assume that these dodgy firearms might not operate as smoothly as fully licensed, above-board firearms and so the more effective firepower would be in the hands of the law-abiding citizen.
I wouldn't have that big of an issue with it if multiple owners and transfer would be relatively easy.
I'm quite content doing just that. Freedom has it's risks.Braddock wrote:
If that's the case America can lie in the bed it has made for itself as far as I'm concerned and I just hope and pray that Europe never go down the same road as America when it comes to gun ownership.
ATG wrote:
Great, so instead of teaching my son to target shoot with the .22 calibre rifle I've had for 27 years I get to go out and by some liberal approved pos and spend ten times the normal amount on ammo that the state approves of?
Fuck gun control and the horse it rides in on.
If the bastards spent as much time enforcing existing laws as the do dreaming up new ways to destroy my freedom there would not be such a problem.
he makes it sound like some kind of post-apocalyptic wild west. as i understand, we're all far more likely to be killed by a doctor's mistake or a dirty hospital than by gun violence.Stingray24 wrote:
I'm quite content doing just that. Freedom has it's risks.Braddock wrote:
If that's the case America can lie in the bed it has made for itself as far as I'm concerned and I just hope and pray that Europe never go down the same road as America when it comes to gun ownership.
That or a car accident ... I drive to and from work 400 miles every week. Far more likely some numbnut will run me off the road.
we already have pistol locks
For all that gun crime sounds really scary, it is actually a pretty rare event here. Rare enough that it still makes the news in a big way. Internationally, you hear when it happens, and only when it happens, so it feels to you like it happens more often than it does. I live right here in the dead center of Texas, and I can't remember the last time I heard a gunshot outside a shooting range. And yet, there are tens of thousands of Texas residents carrying concealed firearms.
@ Braddock:
I think on how to look at it, I look at the situation not as an engineer or designer making a product, but as an end user of said product. I am a gun owner and shooter. I am a concealed gun carrier. I am a combat vet. I know how guns can and should be used. I know the mulititude of circumstances in which they may be employed while not at a range, or even a convenient time or place. You can not just say "Well, they will have to change the way they shoot guns," because when your life depends on your firearm, you rarely are able to choose how, when or where you are going to use it. If you are able to sense a situation developing that you may need your firearm, you are better served removing yourself from that situation if at all possible.
I just think we have a very different viewpoint, looking at it with a different set of values. I don't see it as a "gun problem." I see it as a 'people problem.'
@ Braddock:
I think on how to look at it, I look at the situation not as an engineer or designer making a product, but as an end user of said product. I am a gun owner and shooter. I am a concealed gun carrier. I am a combat vet. I know how guns can and should be used. I know the mulititude of circumstances in which they may be employed while not at a range, or even a convenient time or place. You can not just say "Well, they will have to change the way they shoot guns," because when your life depends on your firearm, you rarely are able to choose how, when or where you are going to use it. If you are able to sense a situation developing that you may need your firearm, you are better served removing yourself from that situation if at all possible.
I just think we have a very different viewpoint, looking at it with a different set of values. I don't see it as a "gun problem." I see it as a 'people problem.'
Our Constitution is the basis of our laws, not the other way around. I suppose if you don't treat a Constitution like what it is--the foundation of law in a country--then it's really not that big of a deal.some_random_panda wrote:
The constitution seems to be quite a big thing in the US.
In Australia we don't seem to have issues with it. It's not that we disregard it (as some members may try to say), it's just that our constitution seems not to get in the way of legislation.
Come to think of it, most people don't give a toss about what laws are being made, unless the government is being run by an idiot like Rudd.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
And concealed handguns are a better way to be protected anyway because they could be anywhere, which likely deters some criminals, as well as the police are not everywhere and are obvious. Holders of Concealed carry permits kill in error 1/3 the number of times that police do. Permit holders also rarely commit crimes.imortal wrote:
I can't remember the last time I heard a gunshot outside a shooting range. And yet, there are tens of thousands of Texas residents carrying concealed firearms.
yep, Oregon is a very pro-gun state and i haven't heard non-recreational gunfire in years, not since a knife wielding schizo committed suicide-by-cop a few blocks from where i lived.imortal wrote:
I live right here in the dead center of Texas, and I can't remember the last time I heard a gunshot outside a shooting range.
How often do you think people are mudrered with a gun in Texas? What's your definition of rare?imortal wrote:
For all that gun crime sounds really scary, it is actually a pretty rare event here. Rare enough that it still makes the news in a big way. Internationally, you hear when it happens, and only when it happens, so it feels to you like it happens more often than it does. I live right here in the dead center of Texas, and I can't remember the last time I heard a gunshot outside a shooting range. And yet, there are tens of thousands of Texas residents carrying concealed firearms.
I consider rare to be that I do not hear of it locally on a daily basis. If you ask any local law enforcement officer in Austin what our largest problem with untimely death is in our city, you will hear, without fail, DUI. There have been a couple shootings this year; it is either a legal shooting, or it is not. If it is not a legal shooting, all hell breaks loose with the PD until they find the bad guys.PureFodder wrote:
How often do you think people are mudrered with a gun in Texas? What's your definition of rare?imortal wrote:
For all that gun crime sounds really scary, it is actually a pretty rare event here. Rare enough that it still makes the news in a big way. Internationally, you hear when it happens, and only when it happens, so it feels to you like it happens more often than it does. I live right here in the dead center of Texas, and I can't remember the last time I heard a gunshot outside a shooting range. And yet, there are tens of thousands of Texas residents carrying concealed firearms.
Rare, to me comes under how they are reported. How often do they appear on the news, and how high up the chart? The more often a shooting occurs, the less of a big deal it is, and the lower it will be in the news cycle. The more nights that go by with no word of a shooting at all, the more rare it is. It is not scientific or an imperical study, but it is how I judge it. Oh, and since I talk to a lot of local LE and EMS, I do actually hear about a lot of these.
Oh, and a counter point. Why do any of you really care? If you don't live in the US, espeically those of you that live in countries with restrictive gun control laws, why do you particularly care what our laws are like? And while I am on it, how do you think your ability is to judge our daily and local lifestyles by doing nothing more than looking at it over the internet?
imortal, the picture youre painting of texas is quite different than the one I lived in for 5 years. I spent nearly every weekeden in Austin.
Not to mention the trash around killeen and the crime around dallas or harris county.
I remember a shooting at a club in riverside, in austin, that occured 30 minutes after I left.
Ive spent time in bell county jail and I could tell you there isnt a shortage of people committing crimes with guns. and dui's, lots of dui's.
I found it funny how texas seemed to look at home invasion robbery a lot worse than actual murder.
Not to mention the trash around killeen and the crime around dallas or harris county.
I remember a shooting at a club in riverside, in austin, that occured 30 minutes after I left.
Ive spent time in bell county jail and I could tell you there isnt a shortage of people committing crimes with guns. and dui's, lots of dui's.
I found it funny how texas seemed to look at home invasion robbery a lot worse than actual murder.
Last edited by Man With No Name (2009-04-19 16:44:06)
Hey, "he needed killin'," right?
I live in Austin; I don't live in Killeen anymore. You also can paint a very poor picture of Texas by looking at the Fort Hood area. It is not idealic, but it is not a land of hell, either.
I live in Austin; I don't live in Killeen anymore. You also can paint a very poor picture of Texas by looking at the Fort Hood area. It is not idealic, but it is not a land of hell, either.