Greg F

You really have a hard time with the truth. To which you responded: In response to your "If it prevents one shooting it's worth doing" I posted: To which you replied (Bold was what I didn't quote that your claiming removes context) The bold part has nothing to do with if it will work, it is clearly a response to the economics which you didn't grasp. Oh and by the way, the dollar figure was used just to demonstrate how opportunity costs work, it isn't a real number. Having spent a fair amount of my working life in manufacturing $1 is very generous. Add cell data charges to actually track something is hundreds of dollars a year. The part not in bold is you repeating the belief that GPS will work contradicting your admission that it is a "bad idea". Nothing out of context there, just more proof that honesty is not something you value.

At 06:43 PM you said: At 07:47 PM you repeat the "bad idea". So apparently it was only a bad idea for about an hour. Truth once again doesn't appear to be very important to you.

I already told you it wasn't possible but you persist in believing otherwise while admitting ignorance on the subject. You compound that by refusing to educate yourself, choosing to remain ignorant. Repeating "eventually all guns will be equipped with it" will not change the laws of physics, which you have now declared you are not interested in understanding. It doesn't make me feel good, it makes me sad that people like you prefer willful ignorance to truth. I sense your accusation of making me feel better is just projection. This belief you have in a solution makes you feel better. You don't want to know why it won't work because it makes you feel better thinking it will. Essentially the truth is not important to you. Good to know.

It can be if it is coupled with a cell phone that acts as a receiver for the bracelet. The bracelet periodically checks in with the cell phone and the cell phone periodically checks in with the monitoring station. The limitation is you have to have cell service. Putting the person with a bracelet in a metal box (like a walk in cooler) would set off the alarm. If you live in a city you are not going to understand why this system would not work in a lot of places people might tend to take guns due to poor to nonexistent cell service. Furthermore, putting a gun in a gun safe, or the trunk of your car would make that type of system unworkable. Go take a basic physics course. High school level would be good enough. Then you will understand why it is not even theoretically possible. Technology isn't magic.

You not only don't understand basic physics, you don't understand basic economics. Please acquaint yourself with 'opportunity costs'. 'Opportunity costs' basically says if you spend money on one thing you give up being able to spend it on another. So for the sake of argument lets say you can equip every gun with a GPS device for $1. A hundred million guns would cost $100,000,000. At the same time you determine that spending that same $100,000,000 on highways would reduce traffic fatalities by 50 per year. IOW, spending the money to get the most bang for the buck is the rational choice. Spending it to prevent "one shooting" is emotional foolery.

It works by supervising the signal from the bracelet. The bracelet periodically checks in with the receiver to confirm the person is within range. If bracelet fails to check in after a predetermined period of time an alarm is generated.

We already have the technology to put GPS trackers in just about anything you would want. The problem is it is trivial to defeat the tracking. You need to take a basic physics course then understand how GPS works. After that you will understand that a metal box or some aluminum foil will totally defeat any GPS tracker. And as Tom has pointed out, you have to have a way of transmitting the GPS data to someone who cares. The transmit also could be easily defeated by the same techniques mentioned above. Technology only appears to be magic by those who don't understand it. Those same people also don't understand the limitations dictated by the basic laws of physics.

Just remove the battery. Worse yet ... how is it going to work in a gun locker.

NYC science deniers!

In response to this question: Gator, who wouldn't let a fact get in the way of his beliefs, wrote: Here is "nothing": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932 http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcomp/documents/CT1970p2-12.pdf Pg 39: Summary of Federal Government Finances: 1929 to 1970 Under the Hoover Administration Federal outlays increased from $2.9 billion in 1929 to $4.8 billion in 1932. More than a 65% increase in just 4 years. Hoover shut the door to immigration http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=22581#axzz1V7klWwZu http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/labor/reforming-labor-union-laws Friend of Labor Unions: Lets not forget: Agricultural Adjustment Act National Recovery Administration Public Works Administration Reconstruction Finance Corporation And for a comprehensive history of Hoover and how he used government interventionist policy to plunge the country into a depression: https://mises.org/system/tdf/Americas%20Great%20Depression_3.pdf?file=1&type=document Gator appears to have a different definition of 'nothing'.

Please explain to us what Hoover did that makes him a libertarian?

Trump pays protection money, Hillary collects it. She doesn't just have ties, she is part of the gangster government.

It is sad. I am sure all the yahoo's calling for the banning of guns will be disarming their bodyguards any day now.

I have to disagree. It is no more appropriate to attempt to teach high school kids about climate change then it is to attempt to teach calculus to an 8th grader. To understand the global warming hypothesis one needs, at the very least, a basic understanding of physics (specifically thermodynamics and quantum mechanics), chemistry, calculus, and statistics. Although there may be a small minority of high school students who have taken sufficient AP course in the above disciplines, the vast majority of high school students lack the fundamental science and math proficiency to begin to understand the complexity of the thing we call climate.

Hover wasn't a libertarian. Sheesh.

You mean like they did with Obama.

Hold on there sparky. I and others have posted plenty of evidence that contradicts the hypothesis in this thread. I would suggest you go back and read it before running off on your little ad hominem attack. Try addressing the merits.

When you can't address the merits of an argument just attack the messenger. How convincing.

The no true Scotsman fallacy.

I am sure the ACLU will be on the case of this violation of the First Amendment any day now.

There ... phrase it that way and see how the numbers change.

Isn't being an ass one of the qualifications to run for president?

Wouldn't want you to miss out on your favorite part. You would have to be living under a rock to not know Obama said this multiple times.

It's the New York Times where the motto is 'do as I say, not as I do'.

If it's a conspiacy you would like there is the JournoList. Then there is the famous fake documents that eventually led to Dan Rather's dismissal. The national media ignoring the Climategate emails as 'scientist' conspired to muzzle anybody that questioned their opinions. And why do we hear about the Koch Brothers but never about George Soros?