|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On November 07 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:
I guess my assumption is that the % of mass-shooter types who are also able to build their own guns is low? And when you look at where most gun deaths come from, that number gets even lower.
The majority of twelve year olds could build an AR-15 from scratch given a few hours on the Internet. You can Google the instructions yourself and judge whether that's hyperbole or not.
Removing a rate limiter from a gun would be even easier; guns simply are not reliant on electricity, let alone electronics.
|
On November 07 2017 01:38 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 01:18 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't think I understand. Why would it be difficult? There are a million other physical processes that we keep reliant on digital feedback. I'm sure there are lots of creative ways to accomplish this. People build AR-15s and AK-47s in their garage on a daily basis using hand tools; guns are mechanically simple in a way a "million other physical processes" aren't. Their method of operation is completely independent of electricity, let alone electronics.
How many mass shootings, or shootings of any sort for that matter, have been commited with truely selfmade guns?
Your post is just another "nothing can be done sais only nation where this happens all the time", just whiteout the sarcasm.
|
On November 07 2017 02:10 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:
I guess my assumption is that the % of mass-shooter types who are also able to build their own guns is low? And when you look at where most gun deaths come from, that number gets even lower. The majority of twelve year olds could build an AR-15 from scratch given a few hours on the Internet. You can Google the instructions yourself and judge whether that's hyperbole or not. Removing a rate limiter from a gun would be even easier; guns simply are not reliant on electricity, let alone electronics.
Are you talking about dipshits patting themselves on the back for building something using a kit? Or someone machining their parts?
|
On November 07 2017 02:10 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:
I guess my assumption is that the % of mass-shooter types who are also able to build their own guns is low? And when you look at where most gun deaths come from, that number gets even lower. The majority of twelve year olds could build an AR-15 from scratch given a few hours on the Internet. You can Google the instructions yourself and judge whether that's hyperbole or not. Removing a rate limiter from a gun would be even easier; guns simply are not reliant on electricity, let alone electronics.
i’m impressed by your confidence in being able to remove something that, to my knowledge, doesn’t yet exist.
a car doesn’t have to be reliant on electronics either, and yet so many of them would fail without.
|
2774 Posts
I don't really see how regulating firearms with electronic checks would ever work. You'd basically have to change how guns fundamentally work for it to even make sense. What about all the firearms already out there?
It just sounds like complete nonsense without a proper explanation on how it would mechanically work. I'd rather focus on other forms on regulation and not mechanisms.
|
On November 07 2017 02:49 Nixer wrote:
I don't really see how regulating firearms with electronic checks would ever work. You'd basically have to change how guns fundamentally work for it to even make sense. What about all the firearms already out there?
It just sounds like complete nonsense without a proper explanation on how it would mechanically work. I'd rather focus on other forms on regulation and not mechanisms.
i don’t necessarily disagree with your first paragraph, but i do think it is a fundamentally awful argument against anything progressive. not even with respect only to guns, but everything. like, why ever change anything then? there already exists an entire history (of the world) without it.
|
On November 07 2017 02:52 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 02:49 Nixer wrote:
I don't really see how regulating firearms with electronic checks would ever work. You'd basically have to change how guns fundamentally work for it to even make sense. What about all the firearms already out there?
It just sounds like complete nonsense without a proper explanation on how it would mechanically work. I'd rather focus on other forms on regulation and not mechanisms. i don’t necessarily disagree with your first paragraph, but i do think it is a fundamentally awful argument against anything progressive. not even with respect only to guns, but everything. like, why ever change anything then? there already exists an entire history (of the world) without it.
The problem with your example is that technology in cars benefits the user. Adding this technology to guns just hinders their operation so there is no reason for gun owners to want to use it.
|
On November 07 2017 02:58 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 02:52 brian wrote:On November 07 2017 02:49 Nixer wrote:
I don't really see how regulating firearms with electronic checks would ever work. You'd basically have to change how guns fundamentally work for it to even make sense. What about all the firearms already out there?
It just sounds like complete nonsense without a proper explanation on how it would mechanically work. I'd rather focus on other forms on regulation and not mechanisms. i don’t necessarily disagree with your first paragraph, but i do think it is a fundamentally awful argument against anything progressive. not even with respect only to guns, but everything. like, why ever change anything then? there already exists an entire history (of the world) without it. The problem with your example is that technology in cars benefits the user. Adding this technology to guns just hinders their operation so there is no reason for gun owners to want to use it.
certainly. but there are a lot of inhibitors and governers in the world that exist for societies benefit as a whole in small detriment to the user. nobody likes speed limits but we all (i mean, within reason right?) obey them.
people install speed governers on ATVs and 4 wheelers all the time, and by choice!
|
On November 07 2017 03:01 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 02:58 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 07 2017 02:52 brian wrote:On November 07 2017 02:49 Nixer wrote:
I don't really see how regulating firearms with electronic checks would ever work. You'd basically have to change how guns fundamentally work for it to even make sense. What about all the firearms already out there?
It just sounds like complete nonsense without a proper explanation on how it would mechanically work. I'd rather focus on other forms on regulation and not mechanisms. i don’t necessarily disagree with your first paragraph, but i do think it is a fundamentally awful argument against anything progressive. not even with respect only to guns, but everything. like, why ever change anything then? there already exists an entire history (of the world) without it. The problem with your example is that technology in cars benefits the user. Adding this technology to guns just hinders their operation so there is no reason for gun owners to want to use it. certainly. but there are a lot of inhibitors and governers in the world that exist for societies benefit as a whole in small detriment to the user. nobody likes speed limits but we all (i mean, within reason right?) obey them. people install speed governers on ATVs and 4 wheelers all the time, and by choice!
At the end of the day, convincing rural folks their icon of masculinity needs to be inhibited in some way is going to make them whiny. Lots of rednecks see their guns as somewhat of an extension of themselves. They identify with their collection, lol.
|
2774 Posts
Guns are designed to kill people (and other living things) though, that's their core design and idea, so behind an electronic check a standard firearm still has this fundamental mechanism. What prevents you from eliminating this check?
What I'm wondering is how you're going to integrate a check into a rifle so that the rifle can not function without it in place. I'm all for it if it's possible of course, I'm just questioning the mechanics and the logistics. In the far away future? Sure. Whatever.
(I don't give a shit about actual gun ownership rights, save for rifles for hunting use I don't see any reason to own a firearm. I'm not actually going to preach about that in here of course. Just trying giving you my perspective, someone who has studied firearms, their production and mechanisms.)
|
On November 07 2017 03:01 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 02:58 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 07 2017 02:52 brian wrote:On November 07 2017 02:49 Nixer wrote:
I don't really see how regulating firearms with electronic checks would ever work. You'd basically have to change how guns fundamentally work for it to even make sense. What about all the firearms already out there?
It just sounds like complete nonsense without a proper explanation on how it would mechanically work. I'd rather focus on other forms on regulation and not mechanisms. i don’t necessarily disagree with your first paragraph, but i do think it is a fundamentally awful argument against anything progressive. not even with respect only to guns, but everything. like, why ever change anything then? there already exists an entire history (of the world) without it. The problem with your example is that technology in cars benefits the user. Adding this technology to guns just hinders their operation so there is no reason for gun owners to want to use it. certainly. but there are a lot of inhibitors and governers in the world that exist for societies benefit as a whole in small detriment to the user. nobody likes speed limits but we all (i mean, within reason right?) obey them. people install speed governers on ATVs and 4 wheelers all the time, and by choice!
Sure and most guns already have safeties. You're going to have to convince people to use something in addition to that which is electronic so presumably runs on batteries and not have that hinder operation of their firearm. Good luck.
|
i mean this isn’t Riot Games, you can’t just pretend the technology ‘isn’t there yet.’
i accept the argument that people don’t want it. 100% and i agree. there are a lot of things we live with that we don’t want, though.
but to pretend making a fail safe electronic inhibitor is impossible seems pretty short sighted though. we went to the moon 50 years ago. we can probably install kill switch into a piece of electronics into a gun. if we want to. (which again, maybe we just don’t.)
|
On November 07 2017 03:25 brian wrote:
i mean this isn’t Riot Games, you can’t just pretend the technology ‘isn’t there yet.’
i accept the argument that people don’t want it. 100% and i agree. there are a lot of things we live with that we don’t want, though.
but to pretend making a fail safe electronic inhibitor is impossible seems pretty short sighted though. we went to the moon 50 years ago. we can probably install deadmans switch into a piece of electronics into a gun. if we want to. (which again, maybe we just don’t.)
Feel free to explain how it works like Nixer requested if it is so easy.
|
On November 07 2017 03:26 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 03:25 brian wrote:
i mean this isn’t Riot Games, you can’t just pretend the technology ‘isn’t there yet.’
i accept the argument that people don’t want it. 100% and i agree. there are a lot of things we live with that we don’t want, though.
but to pretend making a fail safe electronic inhibitor is impossible seems pretty short sighted though. we went to the moon 50 years ago. we can probably install deadmans switch into a piece of electronics into a gun. if we want to. (which again, maybe we just don’t.) Feel free to explain how it works like Nixer requested if it is so easy.
you don’t ask an historian to explain number theory. that doesn’t make number theory less easy.
|
Will people still argue for their right to have a lethal weapon when a good non lethal alternative becomes cheap/available?
|
On November 07 2017 03:27 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 03:26 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 07 2017 03:25 brian wrote:
i mean this isn’t Riot Games, you can’t just pretend the technology ‘isn’t there yet.’
i accept the argument that people don’t want it. 100% and i agree. there are a lot of things we live with that we don’t want, though.
but to pretend making a fail safe electronic inhibitor is impossible seems pretty short sighted though. we went to the moon 50 years ago. we can probably install deadmans switch into a piece of electronics into a gun. if we want to. (which again, maybe we just don’t.) Feel free to explain how it works like Nixer requested if it is so easy. you don’t ask an historian to explain number theory. that doesn’t make number theory less easy.
You do expect that person to have a basic understanding of how a gun works if he is going to enter a conversation about guns. I'm not looking for your million dollar patent idea here, just how you think this electronic device prevents a gun from operating.
|
On November 07 2017 03:31 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 03:27 brian wrote:On November 07 2017 03:26 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 07 2017 03:25 brian wrote:
i mean this isn’t Riot Games, you can’t just pretend the technology ‘isn’t there yet.’
i accept the argument that people don’t want it. 100% and i agree. there are a lot of things we live with that we don’t want, though.
but to pretend making a fail safe electronic inhibitor is impossible seems pretty short sighted though. we went to the moon 50 years ago. we can probably install deadmans switch into a piece of electronics into a gun. if we want to. (which again, maybe we just don’t.) Feel free to explain how it works like Nixer requested if it is so easy. you don’t ask an historian to explain number theory. that doesn’t make number theory less easy. You do expect that person to have a basic understanding of how a gun works if he is going to enter a conversation about guns. I'm not looking for your million dollar patent idea here, just how you think this electronic device prevents a gun from operating.
make the the firing pin and primer rely instead on some kind of electronic signal. that should be pretty simple.
honestly this seems like a weak and useless sidebar to an otherwise productive conversation.
|
On November 07 2017 03:31 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 03:27 brian wrote:On November 07 2017 03:26 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 07 2017 03:25 brian wrote:
i mean this isn’t Riot Games, you can’t just pretend the technology ‘isn’t there yet.’
i accept the argument that people don’t want it. 100% and i agree. there are a lot of things we live with that we don’t want, though.
but to pretend making a fail safe electronic inhibitor is impossible seems pretty short sighted though. we went to the moon 50 years ago. we can probably install deadmans switch into a piece of electronics into a gun. if we want to. (which again, maybe we just don’t.) Feel free to explain how it works like Nixer requested if it is so easy. you don’t ask an historian to explain number theory. that doesn’t make number theory less easy. You do expect that person to have a basic understanding of how a gun works if he is going to enter a conversation about guns. I'm not looking for your million dollar patent idea here, just how you think this electronic device prevents a gun from operating.
You completely redesign the gun. This isn't some kind of engineering impossibility. It would be costly and a big development burden to manufacturers, but it's by no means impossible. Drastic changes would likely increase the cost of guns quite a bit by reinforcing tamper-proof stuff. And while there are always going to be some people who can break through tamper-proof stuff, with enough manufacturing cost thrown at it, eventually you have something 99.9% of people would simply not have the equipment to thwart.
This is kind of a pipe dream, since the regulations needed to make this effective are completely impossible politically. But a gun that only shoots once every 5 seconds and is 99.9% tamper proof is just expensive, not difficult to engineer.
|
On November 07 2017 02:36 Mohdoo wrote:
Are you talking about dipshits patting themselves on the back for building something using a kit? Or someone machining their parts?
That depends. Are you planning to attach somehow-irremovable electronics to every part that could conceivably be used in a firearm, or are you planning to make the receiver itself electronic?
Guns are far less complicated than cars and computers. A lot of posters here seem to want to wish that away through hopes and prayers, but don't seem to have a fundamental understanding about how guns work...let alone what they want to do to change that.
|
On November 07 2017 03:31 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 03:27 brian wrote:On November 07 2017 03:26 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 07 2017 03:25 brian wrote:
i mean this isn’t Riot Games, you can’t just pretend the technology ‘isn’t there yet.’
i accept the argument that people don’t want it. 100% and i agree. there are a lot of things we live with that we don’t want, though.
but to pretend making a fail safe electronic inhibitor is impossible seems pretty short sighted though. we went to the moon 50 years ago. we can probably install deadmans switch into a piece of electronics into a gun. if we want to. (which again, maybe we just don’t.) Feel free to explain how it works like Nixer requested if it is so easy. you don’t ask an historian to explain number theory. that doesn’t make number theory less easy. You do expect that person to have a basic understanding of how a gun works if he is going to enter a conversation about guns. I'm not looking for your million dollar patent idea here, just how you think this electronic device prevents a gun from operating.
How about something that goes between the bullet and whatever ignites the gun powder? That can move after x amount of time. Make it illegal to produce anything that fucks with this part?
it can probably go something like this
Start (empty)
if (fired )
gun.closed
if(closed.time >= x)
gun.open
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
