Technology and Gun Control

[Chilly]

I'm referring to this article: http://www.newscientist.com/blog/invention...ed-bullets.html

 

Can everyone just agree that making guns illegal won't solve anything?

 

I've always thought that Chris Rock's comedy on gun control, making the bullets cost $10,000 each, was funny, but had some truth to it.

 

I've always thought bullets and guns in the future should have some sort of key. Password protecting them is not the answer, but registering the bullets is something that should be done better and this is a step in that direction.

 

What if bullets were fine-tuned for their guns, where each bullet is designed to only go off in a specific gun?

 

Technology is obviously not secure enough to be able to provide this type of solution yet - it would be easily hacked into. But I do believe this is where the future of gun control will be headed.

 

I know nothing about bullets though or the feasibility of this. Some questions that I have: How hard is it to make bullets? Would it be easy for bullets to show up on the black market for older guns, effectively eliminating the safeguards for anyone except law abiding citizens? I'd imagine it wouldn't be too hard, but I don't know.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

What if bullets were fine-tuned for their guns, where each bullet is designed to only go off in a specific gun?

714760[/snapback]

 

 

That would certainly accomplish Chris Rock's suggestion.

[Movinon]

If you have a reloader it's not at all hard to make ammo.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

If you have a reloader it's not at all hard to make ammo.

714785[/snapback]

 

It's not that hard to make your OWN ammo for your OWN gun. Try doing that for every gun, for retail sales.

[Alaska Darin]

1999 CDC Statistics:

 

Deaths from heart attack & other cardiovascular failure: ........ 892,558

 

Deaths from cancer: ................... 549,838

 

Deaths from flu & pneumonia: .... 67,730

 

Deaths from kidney failure: ......... 35,525

 

Deaths from diabetes: .................. 68,399

 

Deaths from alcohol ingestion .....19,171

 

Deaths from gun homicides: ....... 10,217 (includes self-defense and police killings of criminals)

 

Deaths from gun accidents .............. 824 (not a typo)

 

Of the 2.39 million US deaths that year, gun homicides comprised about 0.4%. Of course that number can be sizeably reduced by a few lifestyle changes. (like don't deal drugs or join gangs). Gun accidents comprised three one-hundreds of one percent.

 

Guns are simply another boogie man that freedom hating liberals use as their fear tool. Last year nearly 100,000 Americans died due to Medical Malpractice - or about 10 times the number killed by guns.

 

Stop wasting taxpayer money on a problem that doesn't exist. The only thing you're effectively doing is making it alot easier for criminals to put you in harm's way.

[D_House]

Guns are simply another boogie man that freedom hating liberals use as their fear tool.  Last year nearly 100,000 Americans died due to Medical Malpractice - or about 10 times the number killed by guns.

714801[/snapback]

so what you're saying is we need more trial lawyers?

[ch19079]

people are worried about gun accidents because gun accident kill innocent people just walking to work or some 5 year old kid who found his parents gun.

 

a person who is shot by a gun intentially is different. many feel that a majority of those killed by guns intentially either deserved to get shot or were "asking for it" because of their life style.

 

this is america, they will not ban guns.

 

a dead drug dealer is not news, but a dead 5 year old will make the front page of the paper.

[Jon in Pasadena]

I know nothing about bullets though

Well, that's pretty obvious, since if you did you'd know that ammo comes in "rounds" not "bullets"

 

A "bullet" is just a little lump of lead. That's all it is. Your basic "round" of ammo is like a little bitty rocket engine with the bullet as the payload, a powder charge for fuel/oxidizer, a little tube of brass for a "fuel tank" and optionally some amount of thin metal jacketing wrapping up some or all of the payload. Oh yeah, and a little packet of primer (technically an initiator) to ignite the powder when struck by a metal pin.

 

It's trivial to make your own ammo (especially if you save or scavenge discarded casings), and with a little trial and error it will be quite as deadly as the store-bought variety, but it's nearly impossible to make reloads that will shoot as accurately/repeatably as factory ammo. So your groupings will suffer. But gang-bangers seem to hit people they're not aiming at half the time anyway, so I'm not sure you'd notice the difference. Seems to me that a much more effective solution would be to just take out all the gang-bangers once and for all and be done with it.

[Chilly]

 

That would certainly accomplish Chris Rock's suggestion.

714782[/snapback]

 

 

I'm more or less thinking of decades at the very minimum in the future, not the present, after such technology would drop big time in price as well as just the ability to do so. Most likely after I'm dead before such things would be realized, but interesting to think about nonetheless.

 

Well, that's pretty obvious, since if you did you'd know that ammo  comes in "rounds" not "bullets"

 

A "bullet" is just a little lump of lead. That's all it is. Your basic "round" of ammo is like a little bitty rocket engine with the bullet as the payload, a powder charge for fuel/oxidizer, a little tube of brass for a "fuel tank" and  optionally some amount of thin metal jacketing wrapping up some or all of the payload. Oh yeah, and a little packet of primer (technically an initiator) to ignite the powder when struck by a metal pin.

 

It's trivial to make your own ammo (especially if you save or scavenge discarded casings), and with a little trial and error it will be quite as deadly as the store-bought variety, but it's nearly impossible to make reloads that will shoot as accurately/repeatably as factory ammo. So your groupings will suffer. But gang-bangers seem to hit people they're not aiming at half the time anyway, so I'm not sure you'd notice the difference. Seems to me that a  much more effective solution would be to just take out all the gang-bangers once and for all and be done with it.

714914[/snapback]

 

Thanks for the info. :-)

 

Imagine a scene in which both sides have to stop before shooting to type in their password, and the person who does it quickest wins, lol.

[Jon in Pasadena]

I'm more or less thinking of decades at the very minimum in the future, not the present, after such technology would drop big time in price as well as just the ability to do so.  Most likely after I'm dead before such things would be realized, but interesting to think about nonetheless.

Thanks for the info. :-)

I could be wrong but weren't the Sandman guns in Logan's Run somehow keyed to the operative? It's been a long time but I thought I remembered that. HOMER!

 

Imagine a scene in which both sides have to stop before shooting to type in their password, and the person who does it quickest wins, lol.

714929[/snapback]

At the rate my three year old is picking up this computer thing, he'd probably take over the world before Kindergarten. (Think Stewie from Family Guy )

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

This has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I have seen in a while! There is a reason low tech revolvers and calibers haven't changed for years....They work when you pull the trigger. The most popular current style of handgun was created in the early 1900's with few changes since then. Your car is much more likely to kill an innocent person than my guns. Thank god I have enough rounds to take out a few hundred bad guys in case the gun control crowd gets their way. Can you say grandfather policy. I don't understand the concept of total dependence on a stranger for safety and protection. Anyone who suppports this idea should be forced to put a sign on their house and car declaring that they do not own any evil old guns. Can you imagine the outcry if anti-gun advocates had to give up the security they enjoy because criminals do not know who owns guns and who is defenseless. Put your money where your mouth is and let the world know that you will not be able to fight back when confronted with a knife, bat, gun, etc. Hypocrisy runs deep with this issue. Chucky Shumer has a carry permit and carries a gun to all his events yet fights to take away your right to protect yourself. He is evidently more important that you and your family. Hillary Clinton enjoys armed protection at all times and has secret service living on her property (tax payer funded of course) yet is one of the countries biggest anti-gun advocates.

[Chilly]

This has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I have seen in a while!  There is a reason low tech revolvers and calibers haven't changed for years....They work when you pull the trigger.  The most popular current style of handgun was created in the early 1900's with few changes since then.  Your car is much more likely to kill an innocent person than my guns.  Thank god I have enough rounds to take out a few hundred bad guys in case the gun control crowd gets their way.  Can you say grandfather policy.  I don't understand the concept of total dependence on a stranger for safety and protection.  Anyone who suppports this idea should be forced to put a sign on their house and car declaring that they do not own any evil old guns.  Can you imagine the outcry if anti-gun advocates had to give up the security they enjoy because criminals do not know who owns guns and who is defenseless.  Put your money where your mouth is and let the world know that you will not be able to fight back when confronted with a knife, bat, gun, etc.  Hypocrisy runs deep with this issue.  Chucky Shumer has a carry permit and carries a gun to all his events yet fights to take away your right to protect yourself.  He is evidently more important that you and your family.  Hillary Clinton enjoys armed protection at all times and has secret service living on her property (tax payer funded of course) yet is one of the countries biggest anti-gun advocates.

715258[/snapback]

 

Your assumption, that gun control = no guns, is a false one sir.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

Your assumption, that gun control = no guns, is a false one sir.

715281[/snapback]

 

 

Keep telling yourself that! Criminals are not allowed to own guns or use them when committing crimes. Surprisingly, the criminals often don't obey that law. How does limiting/prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning a gun make anyone safer? (other than criminals). Enforce the current laws, and there is no reason to create more restrictions and bans. I don't think there are many pro-gun advocates that are opposed to harsher penalties for crimes involving guns. (again, other than criminals).

 

Just look at D.C., Chicago, NY City., or San Francisco as an example of what the "gun control" politicians would like. They have banned virtually all handgun ownership. Try concealing a shotgun when walking home down a dark street!

 

Gun control means hitting what you are aiming at right?

[KRC]

Keep telling yourself that!  Criminals are not allowed to own guns or use them when committing crimes.  Surprisingly, the criminals often don't obey that law.  How does limiting/prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning a gun make anyone safer? (other than criminals).  Enforce the current laws, and there is no reason to create more restrictions and bans.  I don't think there are many pro-gun advocates that are opposed to harsher penalties for crimes involving guns. (again, other than criminals).

 

Just look at D.C., Chicago, NY City., or San Francisco as an example of what the "gun control" politicians would like.  They have banned virtually all handgun ownership.  Try concealing a shotgun when walking home down a dark street! 

 

Gun control means hitting what you are aiming at right?

715295[/snapback]

 

The quickest way to shut up those people is to ask them a simple question: If the criminals are not obeying the laws now, how is making more laws going to stop the criminals? They are already ignoring the laws.

 

They usually do not have an answer for that and start resorting to guilt-trips. "Think of the children."

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

You cannot take away all the guns in existence in the U.S. even if you passed a law prohibiting gun ownership. Britian tried to eliminate gun ownership in America long ago and it didn't work out too well. Unless you can assure me that no criminal will ever get their hands on a gun, you cannot take away my right to protect myself against that criminal. That includes pricing guns out of the market with idiotic requirements like "smart bullets".

 

One other point on the new bullet technology. If it is too expensive to practice markmanship and shooting skills, how many more misses and mistakes will this "improvement" cause. You cannot just pick up a handgun and hit everything you aim at without practice and training. I spend a lot of time at the range improving my skills unlike the common street thug who hits every bystander within 50 feet.

[Chilly]

Keep telling yourself that!  Criminals are not allowed to own guns or use them when committing crimes.  Surprisingly, the criminals often don't obey that law.  How does limiting/prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning a gun make anyone safer? (other than criminals).  Enforce the current laws, and there is no reason to create more restrictions and bans.  I don't think there are many pro-gun advocates that are opposed to harsher penalties for crimes involving guns. (again, other than criminals).

 

Just look at D.C., Chicago, NY City., or San Francisco as an example of what the "gun control" politicians would like.  They have banned virtually all handgun ownership.  Try concealing a shotgun when walking home down a dark street! 

 

Gun control means hitting what you are aiming at right?

715295[/snapback]

 

Politicians and non-politicians are two different things. I agree with you that politicans will go overboard, and outlawing guns won't do anything. At the same time I do feel that there is a need for increased gun control.

 

My feeling is that we should have stricter controls over tracking guns. Make it easier to identify and prosecute people who misuse them. I also do think that technology will allow us to individualize them: perhaps biometrically, perhaps some other way. If you aren't the person who owns the gun, then you can't fire it. This is going to take generations to do, but I believe its the future of realistic gun control

 

 

The quickest way to shut up those people is to ask them a simple question: If the criminals are not obeying the laws now, how is making more laws going to stop the criminals? They are already ignoring the laws.

 

They usually do not have an answer for that and start resorting to guilt-trips. "Think of the children." 

715299[/snapback]

 

One of the main problems is that anytime a gun control law goes into effect, its going to take generations before the full effect is felt for safety purposes, and its never going to be 100%.

 

Think of the whole freon ban, and how some people are still using it decades later, and you can still buy it if you talk to the right people. However the supply IS getting smaller, but the effects take decades to be felt. I think that gun control would take much, much longer, but the same ripple effect would be felt.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

Politicians and non-politicians are two different things.  I agree with you that politicans will go overboard, and outlawing guns won't do anything.  At the same time I do feel that there is a need for increased gun control.

 

My feeling is that we should have stricter controls over tracking guns.  Make it easier to identify and prosecute people who misuse them.  I also do think that technology will allow us to individualize them: perhaps biometrically, perhaps some other way.  If you aren't the person who owns the gun, then you can't fire it.  This is going to take generations to do, but I believe its the future of realistic gun control

One of the main problems is that anytime a gun control law goes into effect, its going to take generations before the full effect is felt for safety purposes, and its never going to be 100%.

 

Think of the whole freon ban, and how some people are still using it decades later, and you can still buy it if you talk to the right people.  However the supply IS getting smaller, but the effects take decades to be felt.  I think that gun control would take much, much longer, but the same ripple effect would be felt.

715385[/snapback]

 

 

I suppose if they could invent a safety device that in no way reduces the reliability of a gun, you might see some acceptance. As I said before, some of the most popular gun designs and calibers are decades old simply because the fire when you pull the trigger virtually every time. I would never trust a computer chip and battery to recognize me before my gun could fire. Gloves, hand injury, blood, could all render your gun useless.

 

As far as tracking guns, the current systems do not work well at all. The balistic fingerprint program has been a huge waste of money. We have a system in Rochester that is supposed to track gunfire and notify the police of the location and type of gun used. So far it too is a failure. Hopefully they get the bugs worked out because it seems like a good idea if it works. The key to any "gun control" law is restricting the bad guys from getting guns without restricting the good guys. Not an easy proposition. Until they figure this out, the more good guys firing back at the bad guys, the better.

[Alaska Darin]

Politicians and non-politicians are two different things.  I agree with you that politicans will go overboard, and outlawing guns won't do anything.  At the same time I do feel that there is a need for increased gun control.

You mean because they don't enforce the 20,000 gun laws on the books then there is obviously the need for more? Welcome to the reason they don't enforce the ones on the book. At the end of the day it's to give the excuse that "nothing we do has worked, guess we'll have to ban the things outright." You think gun violence and other violent crimes are bad now? Wait until law abiding citizens aren't allowed to have defend themselves.

 

My feeling is that we should have stricter controls over tracking guns.  Make it easier to identify and prosecute people who misuse them.  I also do think that technology will allow us to individualize them: perhaps biometrically, perhaps some other way.

Won't matter. It'll just cost alot of money, making the average American less safe. Criminals will simply bypass anything that's put into play, regardless of your ideological pipe dream. There isn't an affordable security system on the planet that can't be bypassed by a professional in a small amount of time.

 

The states that have implemented ballistic fingerprinting are finding out exactly that. Spend alot, no results. Absolute failure. One of the reasons they were able to pass it is the ignorance of the populace on the entire issue.

 

Think of the whole freon ban, and how some people are still using it decades later, and you can still buy it if you talk to the right people.  However the supply IS getting smaller, but the effects take decades to be felt.  I think that gun control would take much, much longer, but the same ripple effect would be felt.

715385[/snapback]

Doubtful - and guns are simply used as a crutch for the larger problems society refuses to address. Your "solutions" are essentially the equivalent of putting a bandaid on a brain tumor.

[Wacka]

Most of the "children" the anti gun people say are shot are gang bangers shooting each other.

 

What happens if your wife is home alone and someone breaks in? She reaches for your biometric gun in the nightstand. It won't fire because it only works for you, not her.

[KRC]

At the same time I do feel that there is a need for increased gun control.

 

If the current laws are not being enforced, what good will it do to make additional laws?

 

 

 

My feeling is that we should have stricter controls over tracking guns.  Make it easier to identify and prosecute people who misuse them.  I also do think that technology will allow us to individualize them: perhaps biometrically, perhaps some other way.  If you aren't the person who owns the gun, then you can't fire it.  This is going to take generations to do, but I believe its the future of realistic gun control

One of the main problems is that anytime a gun control law goes into effect, its going to take generations before the full effect is felt for safety purposes, and its never going to be 100%.

 

Think of the whole freon ban, and how some people are still using it decades later, and you can still buy it if you talk to the right people.  However the supply IS getting smaller, but the effects take decades to be felt.  I think that gun control would take much, much longer, but the same ripple effect would be felt.

715385[/snapback]

 

Gun laws do not go after the root cause of the problem, so it is nothing more than a Band-Aid for the issue. Just look at the "assault weapons" ban. The advocates of lower magazine size and reduction in the sales of "assault weapons" claimed that this law was needed because of:

 

1) The number of people killed per incident

2) This was the "weapon of choice" for the criminals

3) Blah...blah...blah

 

After it was put in place, statistics showed no difference in the areas used to sell the ban.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

If the current laws are not being enforced, what good will it do to make additional laws?

Gun laws do not go after the root cause of the problem, so it is nothing more than a Band-Aid for the issue. Just look at the "assault weapons" ban. The advocates of lower magazine size and reduction in the sales of "assault weapons" claimed that this law was needed because of:

 

1) The number of people killed per incident

2) This was the "weapon of choice" for the criminals

3) Blah...blah...blah

 

After it was put in place, statistics showed no difference in the areas used to sell the ban.

715465[/snapback]

 

 

The "assault rifle" ban is a mess of insignificant restrictions. After purchasing my post ban AR-15, I was not allowed to put a collapsable stock so I simply bought a standard stock, no less lethal. I could not buy NEW magazines that held more than 10 rounds, so I bought some military surplus $15 30 round magazines, still no less lethal. I can not mount a bayonette on my rifle so no more stabbing sprees I guess, possibly less lethal. I guess these restrictions make the uninformed feel safer without actually accomplishing any real reduction in crime, so it fits the mold of most recent gun control laws.

 

I don't know about crimes in your town, but most shootings I hear about in rochester involve cheap, small caliber guns that can be tossed away after the shooting. Not many street hoods carry thousand dollar guns!

[KRC]

The "assault rifle" ban is a mess of insignificant restrictions.  After purchasing my post ban AR-15, I was not allowed to put a collapsable stock so I simply bought a standard stock, no less lethal.  I could not buy NEW magazines that held more than 10 rounds, so I bought some military surplus $15 30 round magazines, still no less lethal. I can not mount a bayonette on my rifle so no more stabbing sprees I guess, possibly less lethal.  I guess these restrictions make the uninformed feel safer without actually accomplishing any real reduction in crime, so it fits the mold of most recent gun control laws.

 

I don't know about crimes in your town, but most shootings I hear about in rochester involve cheap, small caliber guns that can be tossed away after the shooting.  Not many street hoods carry thousand dollar guns!

715532[/snapback]

 

It was "feel good" legislation. It accomplishes nothing except to make people feel better so they can say that they are "addressing the problem." Its good come re-election time, which is all that really matters.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

I remember hearing about some very rural towns in the midwest requiring all residents without a criminal background to have a gun in the house. If you did not want to keep a gun on hand, you needed to file a request with the town. Can you imagine a better way to convince a criminal to move out of your town or skip it all together!

[MattyT]

I remember hearing about some very rural towns in the midwest requiring all residents without a criminal background to have a gun in the house.  If you did not want to keep a gun on hand, you needed to file a request with the town.  Can you imagine a better way to convince a criminal to move out of your town or skip it all together!

715545[/snapback]

Link? This I gotta see.

 

Never mind...found it myself

 

Holy schitt!

Edited June 28, 2006 by MattyT

[Chilly]

You mean because they don't enforce the 20,000 gun laws on the books then there is obviously the need for more?  Welcome to the reason they don't enforce the ones on the book.  At the end of the day it's to give the excuse that "nothing we do has worked, guess we'll have to ban the things outright."  You think gun violence and other violent crimes are bad now?  Wait until law abiding citizens aren't allowed to have defend themselves.

 

I don't think the rules on the book are adaquate to do anything, which is one of the reasons a different law is needed.

 

Won't matter.  It'll just cost alot of money, making the average American less safe.  Criminals will simply bypass anything that's put into play, regardless of your ideological pipe dream.  There isn't an affordable security system on the planet that can't be bypassed by a professional in a small amount of time.

 

The states that have implemented ballistic fingerprinting are finding out exactly that.  Spend alot, no results.  Absolute failure.  One of the reasons they were able to pass it is the ignorance of the populace on the entire issue.

Doubtful - and guns are simply used as a crutch for the larger problems society refuses to address.  Your "solutions" are essentially the equivalent of putting a bandaid on a brain tumor.

715420[/snapback]

 

I'm not referring to technology available today. As I said previously, it will take decades and decades to get afordable, yet strong, security, as technology matures.

 

I agree, today's security "solutions" are pointless adn not needed. However, the technology will be different in the future, and I mean way off in the future, and possibly make what I'm talking about achieveable.

 

 

 

 

If the current laws are not being enforced, what good will it do to make additional laws?

Gun laws do not go after the root cause of the problem, so it is nothing more than a Band-Aid for the issue. Just look at the "assault weapons" ban. The advocates of lower magazine size and reduction in the sales of "assault weapons" claimed that this law was needed because of:

 

1) The number of people killed per incident

2) This was the "weapon of choice" for the criminals

3) Blah...blah...blah

 

After it was put in place, statistics showed no difference in the areas used to sell the ban.

715465[/snapback]

 

What, exactly, is the root of the problem? How do you go after it? How do you do this in the future, as technology improves? This is what I'm trying to get at.

 

Bash today's laws all you want, but as technology improves and evolves, its going to influence the way gun control works. Decades in the future. Thats what I'm referring to here.

[Alaska Darin]

I don't think the rules on the book are adaquate to do anything, which is one of the reasons a different law is needed.

Mostly because you don't know what you're talking about. I'd love to hear some of your "new" suggestions, as I'm sure most of them are in place in some form already.

 

I'm not referring to technology available today.  As I said previously, it will take decades and decades to get afordable, yet strong, security, as technology matures. 

I didn't realize we were talking about pipe dreams. Thankfully I'll likely be long dead by the time something like that is workable, though I think those who remain will be subserviant to another culture and the majority of guns will be confiscated by force.

 

What, exactly, is the root of the problem?  How do you go after it?  How do you do this in the future, as technology improves?  This is what I'm trying to get at.

There are numerous "roots". Opportunity, lack of morals, public "education", overbearing government, hopelessness, the fact that there will always be human beings who are willing to harm others to achieve their goals, etc.

 

Bash today's laws all you want, but as technology improves and evolves, its going to influence the way gun control works.  Decades in the future.  Thats what I'm referring to here.

715780[/snapback]

Yeah. Can't wait to pick up my gun to defend my house, only to be told I have a virus or need to reboot. Sorry, it defeats the purpose it's intended for. No matter what pipe dream you have, criminals, by definition, will bypass it meaning only the law abiding will suffer. There isn't a technology available that is foolproof and there never will be. I can't wait to talk to you in 10 years, once you've been away from academia for awhile.

[Chilly]

Mostly because you don't know what you're talking about.  I'd love to hear some of your "new" suggestions, as I'm sure most of them are in place in some form already.

 

I already admitted that I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

Personally, I think making gun laws isn't going to do sh-- until technology gets better.

 

I didn't realize we were talking about pipe dreams.  Thankfully I'll likely be long dead by the time something like that is workable, though I think those who remain will be subserviant to another culture and the majority of guns will be confiscated by force.

 

Yeah, I will be long dead as well.

 

 

There are numerous "roots".  Opportunity, lack of morals, public "education", overbearing government, hopelessness, the fact that there will always be human beings who are willing to harm others to achieve their goals, etc.

 

Which is why gun control through any other means then future technology beyond what we have is pointless.

 

Yeah.  Can't wait to pick up my gun to defend my house, only to be told I have a virus or need to reboot.  Sorry, it defeats the purpose it's intended for.  No matter what pipe dream you have, criminals, by definition, will bypass it meaning only the law abiding will suffer.  There isn't a technology available that is foolproof and there never will be.  I can't wait to talk to you in 10 years, once you've been away from academia for awhile.

715894[/snapback]

 

Technology does suck at times.