Encrypted Ammunition? 909
holy_calamity writes "A patent has been filed for bullets with built-in encryption. Pulling the trigger sends a radio signal to the cartridge in the chamber, but the charge only goes off if the right encryption key is sent. The aim is to improve civilian firearm security." Not sure I'm quite ready to trust the average techno-gadget failure rate on something like this just yet.
Re: Bullet encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you say "war dialing"? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, now your ammo will have to be protected from radio waves. And the device will have to be small enough to fit into the round yet smart enough to store the signal and check incoming signals.
Is this a joke?
This is just stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight.
I can see it now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine if world armies had this kind of hardware... load of fun I'd imagine. No need to drop 10t bombs on heavily fortified installations... Just drop one that has no explosive payload, just LOTS of EM/RF Gear in an attempt to make everyone shoot each other.
Remember Kids! Friendly Fire, Isn't.
Just Gun Control with Encryption! (Score:4, Insightful)
Here are the only ways I am ever going to use this, if the police and the bad guys do it first. As soon as the police and criminals sign up for Gun Control, I will.
Sort of misses the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad guys will wait (Score:2, Insightful)
Gizmos aren't the answer, proper education and securing your firearms are. an no I wouldn't rush out to pay a premium for that functionality. When not in use I properly secure my Firearms in a safe, use a trigger lock, locked case or whatever measure is appropriate for the situation.
I'm an avid fan of shooting sports: Skeet, Trap, CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program), Action Pistol, Black Powder, etc.. etc.. Many of us reload our own ammunition to help keep costs down, since we go through so much ammunition in the course of an event. This silly 'invention' would make the ammo cost so much it would be difficult to afford. It would also prevent re-loaders from being able to load their own ammunition.
Oh gee I brought the wrong ammo for this firearm looks like I am stuck, and won't be able to participate today..
A technological crutch is no replacement for education, and owner responsibility
A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, given the incredible insecurity of RFID technology, it wouldn't take much to "modify" the things.
To top it off, how is a radio signal of sufficient strength going to get past that much lead? And what's to keep a bank robber or other criminal to carry a small EMP generator to effectively disarm any cop whose pistol is so equipped?
Man, someone wasted a lot of money with that patent...
Bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Guns. (Score:2, Insightful)
That is such a dumb idea (Score:2, Insightful)
And it's not like criminals get their guns through legal sources anyway. They're already moving tons of drugs into the country every year. They already move thousands of guns in every year. Are they suddenly going to start installing all this circuitry into their illegal guns?
http://californiaccw.org/ [californiaccw.org]
Re:Guns. (Score:3, Insightful)
Except after outlawing them, Gun violence went up dramatically in the UK. See, the thing y'all haven't figured out is, criminals-- you know, the ones we want protection from-- thy don't follow the law. All the UK has done is make the innocent people defenseless.
Generally, in areas with more guns, there is less crime.
Law enforcement first!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You know... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Guns (Score:2, Insightful)
Secondly, criminals don't care about laws - that's what makes them criminals.
Finally, I will not live in a country where the only people allowed to have guns are the police and the military. That's a recipie for disaster.
The Second Amendment is what makes the protection of our other rights possible.
Re:Can you say "war dialing"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seen the right way, it's classic two-factor authentication.
I am guessing that the "key or signal" is delivered from a device that is perhaps embedded in the handle to read your fingerprints, RFID tag embedded in your wrist, or some other biometric.
Re:You know... (Score:1, Insightful)
You are really naive, aren't you ?
The government has helicopter gunships, tanks, LAW rockets ( as well as other weapons they aren't disclosing just yet ).
And you think that you and your guns have a chance of success ? You're just kidding yourself.
Remember Waco, and what the bastards did there ? End of story.
Let me point out that I wish things were not like they are, but only a fool ignores reality.
There's a better way... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Handle every gun as though it were loaded, even if you KNOW it's not.
2. Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction - down range, at your target, or down into the ground.
3. Always keep the safety "on" until you are ready to shoot.
4. Don't shoot at anything unless you intend it to die.
5. Don't store guns loaded.
6. Teach your children respect for guns and what they can do.
I really think that rule 6 is the most important. I'm not saying following these rules would cure all accidental discharges, but it sure wouldn't increase the number of tragic accidents that occur.
Re: Bullet encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
Ban objects! People are fine. (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting up your dukes isn't very helpful against knives, or cricket bats, or just someone who is a lot larger or more drunk than you are.
Ever occurred to you that perhaps it's cultural? I suppose someone in your neck of the woods has decided so - I mean, if your folks can't manage to just go watch a sporting event without assaulting one another [blackpooltoday.co.uk], then I suppose it makes sense that your medical community thinks that the only cure for violence is to ban objects, rather than holding people truly responsible for their actions. You know, we can't have Brits owning kitchen knives [bbc.co.uk], now, can we? After all, the only way to prevent someone from being stabbed is to ban them entirely, right?
New meaning for BSOD (Score:3, Insightful)
tm
Re:sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry. A gun is a tool. Just like any other tool. If I hit you with a bat it doesn't mean bats need to be taxed more.
Re:sounds good (Score:2, Insightful)
First off, I don't own a gun. That's mostly for cost reasons however ( cost of purchasing the gun, cost of ammunition, and more importantly cost of training and cost of time spent training ) . I do know several very responsible gun owners however, and I am quite glad that they do exist. Several live in areas where the extra protection to their family is welcome ( and in a couple of cases, tried and necessary ).
Yes, I agree that gun safety is extremely important ( note the two final reasons I don't own a gun - I don't have time or money to spend on keeping myself and others safe from it ) - but it seems quite foolish to throw away the second amendment. I think I'll take the advice of the authors of the constitution over yours.
Missing their point (Score:3, Insightful)
> device to their already expensive repertoire of presses, measurement tools, and cleaning equipment?
They aren't going to 'talk' you into anything. They will simply pass a law, which is one of the whole points of this exercise. No sane person would ever buy any of this crap, the point is to turn the screws of gun prohibition one more turn. Raise the price of guns and ammo enough to make it a sport for the upper classes only, eliminate reloaders (who they can't otherwise control) and set the stage for the next round of 'common sense gun control.'
> Also, given the incredible insecurity of RFID technology, it wouldn't take much to "modify" the things.
Also totally not the point, since only criminals would do that since attempting to do so or talking about it would be illegal. qed. They don't care about criminals, they care about the lawful. And they don't care if your gun is reliable, in fact if they bacame totally unreliable they (the Brady Bunch pushing this BS) would be happy as hell.
Join the NRA people, before it is too late. The ballot and soap boxes rest firmly atop the cartridge box, lose (or willingly surrender as your case may be) one fundamental Right and eventually you will lose them all.
I'm not a fan of the NRA, but (Score:5, Insightful)
"Gun safety" is fine, but how long would it be until the U.S. government started requiring this in all firearms? And, of course, they would have all the encryption keys. And, of course, they would know how to JAM the signals.
A lot of the reason we have a "right to bear arms" is so that we can fight the tyranny of our OWN government, if we need to. This technology would allow us to maintain that right, but make it completely ineffectual.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:1, Insightful)
Proving once again that Clippy is useless. If he REALLY knew how to help, I'd be asked if I want an alibi.
Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:5, Insightful)
eventually we may have to worry about a criminal throwing a radio device that brute forces all the weapons in a certain radius into a secure area -- discharging every officer's weapon in the building.
Well, the signal is supposedly encrypted so that it can't be triggered by an outside party. But that doesn't mean some outside party couldn't just broadcast a very strong NOISE signal (aka, jamming) on the same frequency, thereby disabling any gun within a few hundred feet.
The ability to disarm every cop in the building with the push of a button. Yeah, this is a great idea!
Re:sounds good (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Guns. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me tell you a little story currently taking place in the US...
A few years ago, Boston all-but-banned guns, and the whole state of Massachusetts has extremely restrictive gun laws in general.
Since then, the level of gun crime there has gone UP, drastically.
Now, MA has three neighbors to the North - VT, NH, and ME, all of which have a healthy tradition of personal gun ownership, largely for hunting purposes.
All three of those states have very low rates of gun crime.
So how does Boston respond to this glaringly obvious trend?
A PR campaign trying to get its Northern neighbors (and a few other random states) to all but ban guns as well.
As a resident of one of those states, I have to laugh at how absurd they sound - Not only for ignoring the obvious fact that gun control increases gun crimes, but also that, at least with current attituteds, even if the federal government banned guns, the Northern New England states would most likely secede rather than comply.
If it's hard for just anyone to get a gun though, then you're less likely to be defending yourself against a gun.
Do you have any idea of the level of tech required to build a basic firearm? Not talking about a "safe to use" firearm, or an extremely accurate one, but a device capable of accelerating a small projectile in a specific direction (more or less) to sufficient velocity to penetrate a human body?
Pretty freakin' low. If you actually have modern mass-produced cartridges, you can literally do it with the contents of a typical desk drawer. Without that, it takes a $20 trip to the hardware store.
Whatever happened to "putting up your dukes".
Ever seen Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?
Or on a more serious note - An oppressive government doesn't fight fair. They don't line up mano-a-mano and whichever side wins gets to lead like some cheesy 1950's Western. And while a 9mm might not do much when the tanks start rolling over students a la Tiennamen Square, a fully armed populace means that, at least in theory, an oppressive government would need to kill every man, woman, and reasonably-old-enough child to keep control over... Over a population of corpses.
Re:Please be honest: (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the whole point of having a gun. The fact that it exists, as a deterrent, generally reduces the need to actually shoot it. In areas where right-to-carry is present, violent crimes go down. In areas (or whole countries) where guns are banned, violent crimes go way up.
But in cases where the conceptual deterrent isn't really registering with some punk, the far, far more common defense is called "brandishing." Showing someone the gun and a willingness to use it generally defuses the situation. I have personally been in that situation with a completely drug-addled bruiser beating on our back door in the middle of the night. The cops were 15 minutes in arriving, but his willingness to continue to beat down the door ended when he saw the business end of a gun pointed at him.
And, I guess you don't get out past the shopping mall much, huh? Ever dealt with a poisonous snake cornered in a barn? A 160-pound wounded buck crashing around your back yard? A rabid raccoon threatening a domestic pet? A coyote stalking your neighborhood kids and animals? A mountain lion raiding a camp site? People use guns in self defense all the time - thousands and thousands of times a year, against people and critters. I have, more than once. Many people I know have. Your ignorance is showing.
Basically... Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
When they are sold, cartridges could be programmed with a password that matches the purchaser's gun. An owner could set the gun to request the password when it is reloaded, or to perform a biometric check before firing. The gun could also automatically lock itself after a pre-set period of time has passed since the password was entered.
The system would undoubtedly cost more than a conventional gun, but many firearm enthusiasts would surely pay a premium for such added security.
So, I can only use this ammo in one firearm (too bad if I have another with the same calibre), then while dodging my assailaints bullets, I'm entering in a password. If I get the password wrong, or the solid state switch fails (*gasp!*), then I've got to try again, but the pre-set period of time re-locks the gun. For anyone dumb enough to buy this, I hope your assailant has bad aim! btw, firearm enthusiasts will not "surely pay a premium" as there is no "added security".
I've noticed this paradigm with new handguns that were designed in the last 5 years. Trying to make them safer so little Johnny doesn't blow his brains out on accident, but making the firearm near useless as a defense tool. Considering ~300% more children die each year from 5 gallon buckets, I don't think "safe guns" are a needed focus.
Re:I'm not a fan of the NRA, but (Score:4, Insightful)
How? I'd hazard the guess that you'd be labled a terrorist and prosecuted.
A dangerous breach of the KISS principle (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, safety is an issue, but 9 out of 10 accidents happen with people who don't know JACK about handling guns or are in no shape or condition to handle one. Does it happen to expert weaponsmiths who handle them on a daily base? To people who spend more time at the shooting range than at home?
It happens to people who do not know how to safety handle a gun.
If you want to "secure" guns, make it a law that you have to store them in a safe place, out of the reach of kids and people unable to handle them properly. But a device like that is ridiculous at best, dangerous at worst.
So the bullet ignites if it gets the right signal. Can we forsee some "pranksters" running around trying to figure out the frequency on cop guns? What are we gonna call it, warblowing? Imagine a firefight where the cop suddenly gets "shot" with high-freqency radio signals from the geek he's fighting, pretty much blowing his gun up in his hand. Would work, the bullets are "hot", after all he planned to use them.
There are a lot of dangerous loopholes that could be easily abused by criminals (and law enforcement) alike. If you want to increase gun security, teach people how to handle them properly instead of trying to keep them out of their hands!
Another example of "why security by obscurity is a failed design".
Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Modern guns, themselves, are not inherently unsafe. Guns do not spontaneously jump up and shoot people. Guns only discharge when the trigger is pulled; while this can occur unintentionally, e.g., due to a dog stepping on the trigger of a loaded, unsafed gun left laying on the ground (don't laugh, this does happen!), almost 100% of such incidents are due to NEGLIGENCE.
Nearly all incidents of unintended or illegal shootings are due to negligence, lack of training and practice, or intentional criminal activity. Negligence includes such actions as: allowing unauthorized access to a weapon by a minor, pointing a weapon at something other than a target or a safe downrange area, and placing one's finger on the trigger when the weapon is not pointed in a safe direction. Lack of training and practice leads to negligence; there are numerous incidents of police officers, who, in principle, should be some of the best-trained firearms handlers among us, who have shot themselves in the foot or leg while handling their own weapons.
At the end of the day, it is the person, the gun owner, who is responsible for safety. When a gun discharges, it is because of someone's actions; full stop. It's not the gun's fault and it's not the manufacturer's fault.
We also must remember that the purpose of most weapons -- handguns, assault rifles, tactical shotguns, etc. -- is for defensive or offensive use against other humans. Put more simply: they're designed to stop human adversaries, by injury or death. In principle, their use, particularly by civilians, should be very infrequent. I am a relatively highly-trained defensive shooter; I believe that I am capable of defending myself, my family, and my home, should the need arise. But I hope and pray that I never need to do so. I think that most police will tell you that they hope to have to shoot a suspect, but that they are trained and prepared to do so to protect others or themselves.
If and when, however, the time comes that a weapon is needed, one must be supremely confident in the reliability of the weapon. This means that simpler is necessarily better. When you pull the trigger, you want to hear "BANG", not "click" or "beep". You don't want to have to fiddle with magic decoder rings, tiny keys, batteries and secret codes, etc. in the dark, under pressure, with your child screaming in the background. And a cop can't be worrying about passwords and encrypted ammunition in the heat of a pursuit. He must know that his weapon will fire when he pulls the trigger -- he's betting his life on it.
The technology described in this article is just another way to make owning firearms more difficult and more expensive. Criminals, by definition, have no regard for laws. You can make all guns illegal and the bad guys will still find a way to arm themselves. Look at Chicago or Washington, DC for prime examples. Those of you in Austraila and Britian have seen a rise in violent crime, including home invasions and broad-daylight robberies, since you banned guns.
The technological achievement expressed in this article is impressive. I'm happy that people are exploring the uses of modern computer and cryptographic techniques. But be skeptical and wary as well... Your rights are at stake here.
Re:Fixes the wrong problem (Score:5, Insightful)
20% of non-gun users are shot once in their lifetime (100% by guns they don't own/carry)
10% of gun-owners/carriers are shot once in their lifetime (55% by guns they do own/carry)
So if you own a gun (in this secnario) you have a 5.5% chance of being shot with it, a 4.5% chance of being shot with someone elses. If you don't own a gun, you have a 20% chance of being shot with someone elses. Which odds do you like better?
But another way: Sure, the gun you carry may be the most likely to shoot you, but it's entirely possible that this is because the gun someone else carries doesn't do them any good after you shoot them for breaking into your house.
The point is that it's just a worthless statistic that sounds scary without actually signifying anything.
-stormin
peaceful protest always trumps armed "protest" (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure some slaphappy mod will label me a troll, but if your side is valid, so is mine: all too often it is a "death thing", and it is people's inability to control themselves that results in inventions like "cryptograhic bullets". Too many gun owners simply can't control themselves OR their guns.
I'm still holding on to a sliver of hope that a well armed citizenry is a slight barrier to a completely totalitarian govt. in the future...
Did you sleep through history class? In our own country: Women's suffrage movement, civil rights movement, and protests against Vietnam. In Europe, several brutal dictatorships were overthrown by masses of people who simply showed up at their leader's buildings and said "we're not going anywhere until you leave." None of these movements involved guns in the hands of protestors, shooting at the powers-that-be.
Being unarmed is the most effective way to protest- violence against you is viewed as fairly heinous by most of the population, if not a large chunk of the "free" world; the issue becomes less -your- issue and more the fact that the existing government was willing to shoot you. Two famous examples would include the Boston Massacre* and Kent State. Being unarmed, you take a chance that the policeman or soldier on the other side of that barrier is too "human" to shoot a massive crowd of peaceful, unarmed people. If it's not worth that risk- I guess what you're protesting isn't important enough to you, or you are a coward.
*(which is somewhat disputed by historians- some think there were a few guns among colonialists, but the end result was that British soldiers were seen as having mowed down unarmed civilians)
Re:peaceful protest always trumps armed "protest" (Score:5, Insightful)
As for people controlling themselves... freedom is also the freedom to make mistakes. You punish the mistakes, but don't restrict people to supposedly "prevent" them. That doesn't work. You can't use the government to fix a social problem.
The civil rights movement did use guns, as did suffrage, just not by the general population. The threat of government force through police actions was an important factor. The *protesters* did not use guns, though.
Once the government is willing to use guns against the populace, the populace needs a way to defend itself. Protest won't work at that point. History will show the use of deadly government force as heinous, but that does not help when you are in the thick of it. Your two examples are examples nearing that breaking point. People were protesting, the government used force, and in one case the people rebelled, in the other there was a lot of legal action, and additional protest.
Re:Missing their point (Score:1, Insightful)
Hope you see my point then. That if you weaken any of the Fundamental Human Rights they all suffer. And whether or not your government is oppressing you or not, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, to defend oneself against those who would use Force against you whether they be common brigands or a government run amok, are Fundamental Human Rights everywhere. It is no coincidence that the only nation state to enshrine ALL of the basic Human Rights in our highest laws is also the most free and prosperous nation in history. Doing do has allowed our system of government to withstand a century of determined effort to overthrow it by Socialism.
Re:sounds good (Score:4, Insightful)
Bull. That is like saying everyone who drives is responsible for drunk drivers killing people, or that the library is responsible for weapons of mass destruction because they have chemistry books. A gun is a TOOL. Like every tool it has valid uses and invalid ones.
As for your comment about a culture of violence, get a grip and check out the REAL world. Violence will not disappear if private citizens lose their guns. The Hutus were very effective using machetes. The Nazis and the Soviets both killed millions. Violence is a fact of life. You can not wish it away. If your response when threatened with violence is cowering, then you are cattle and will be treated as such.
Re:Please be honest: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, like Canada, one of the most violent places to live...
Re:It's becomming obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
But you're also an idiot because legislating gun laws isn't going to do a damn bit of good. 80% of guns used in crimes (That's eight-zero-percent) were purchased or obtained through illegal means [usdoj.gov].
Plus, guns were used in only 6% of the 4.8 MILLION violent crimes that took place in 2004. (Also from the same website).
That's okay though, you're probably the same guy who thinks it's okay that the government is spying on its citizens and shredding our constitution as long as it makes you safer. Insert applicable Liberty / Security / deserve neither quote here.
Re:It's becomming obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
This won't work! (Score:2, Insightful)
This particular idea is actually worse. How exactly does encryption help? Do I enter a password to unlock my secret key every time I fire the gun? If so, I'd rather take my chances defending myself with a knife. If I don't have to authenticate myself to the gun somehow, then what is the point of the encryption? Maybe to ensure that there won't be any third-party bullet manufacturers... kinda like inkjet cartridges. What's next? Cheap guns with very expensive bullets, because you can only buy the bullets manufactured by the gun manufacturer?
Re:Please be honest: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you raise the barrier, the other guy will follow! Thats why the world "leaders" got nukes, when someone ups the ante you fold or follow. Thats why most homocides here in Denmark are done with knifes - we haven't raised the stakes to guns! If people started showing off guns homocides would increase, with knifes you can try to run and defuse the situation, with a gun you got big trouble.
Re:I'm not a fan of the NRA, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I do not support the Iraqi resistance/terrorists/freedom fighters/whatever nor do I support a violent or armed overthrow of the US government. Every 2-4 years we get our chance for a peaceful revolution, and this system has worked more or less ok for roughly 230 years.
More Fun With Statistics!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's make handguns look dangerous first. Then we can say:
Of course, there's no way to determine how many lives were actually saved by the presence of guns in the homes. Either a potential robber is an acquaintance of the home and doesn't want to rob where there are guns, or there's a posted "I have a gun" sign so a stranger is deterred, or there's just the general fact that criminals know that home invasion in the U.S. is like Russian roulette. Sooner or later you invade the wrong home and find a shotgun. That's why I own a 12-gauge. Not just for my own protection, but to be just one more reason for people to not risk attacking my neighbors either (regardless of whether or not they own a gun, I don't know). I looked for the rates of home invasion, which I believe are increasing in Canada and the UK, but could not find them.
In 2003 there were 44,800 unintentional motor vehicle deaths in the U.S. I'm assuming that the number of intentional motor vehicle deaths is negligible. (http://www.nsc.org/library/report_injury_usa.htm
In 2003 there were 30,136 gun deaths in the U.S. The majority - 56% - were from suicide. 40% were from homicide. And then there were 2% unintentional and 2% unknown. (http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm) There are over 200 million guns in the United States. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/feature
If you do the math, this means that cars - which, by the way, aren't intended to kill people, are more dangerous to American citizens than guns - which are designed to kill people. You should also consider that a lot (nobody knows how many) of the suicides and murders from guns would have been accomplished without guns anyway. Guns make it easier to kill, but they don't generally make people want to commit murder/suicide for no reason. And remember, the accidental gun death totals were less than 1,000 for all of 2003. So in terms of accidents there's not even a comparison between guns and cars: cars are more dangerous by orders of magnitude.
Oh yeah, and it's probably the car you own that is most likely to kill you too.
-stormin
Re:peaceful protest always trumps armed "protest" (Score:2, Insightful)
Our own country (by which I presume you mean the US) was also founded via armed rebellion against a monarch. It seems unlikely any amount of non-violent protest would have resulted in such foundation, at least at that time.
At some point, you have to have an option if non-violent protest does not work. If you have no guns, you have no option. Moreover, you have no threat of such an option. You simply can say "we're going to protest more."
Maybe it'll work... historically it works sometimes and not others. I wouldn't want to be caught in the "not others" column without any option to escalate things.
Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure that the pro is really that narrow. I would think that most instances of someone getting shot with their own gun, especially for law enforcement, occur within seconds of it being stolen. If there is a struggle for the gun, the owner can just release the gun if they are in danger of being shot. I would presume that the technology is good enough that the owner could get away before the security could be bypassed.
Re:Please be honest: (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you actually even think about what you're saying, or connect your response in any way to what you're reading? Just because I've cited circumstances in which lethal force, or the reserved option to use it, makes sense doesn't mean that every encounter with anything unpleasant is best dealt with that way.
Pre-emption would mean that if I see someone on the street that I'm pretty sure is going to try to break down my door in the middle of the night, that I do something about him before he acts. But I don't have that luxury, or generally the ability to even draw that conclusion. So, how is it "pre-emptive" to react to someone or something that is actually, literally, right that moment, being a threat? That's the opposite of pre-emption, and being hesitant under those circumstances frequently results in later regret. I've hesitated to deal with a diseased-looking feral cat, thinking that nature would just run its course... only to have it attack and infect a pet (also nature running its course, but if you're going to disrupt nature by doing things like domesticating animals in the first place, you've got a certain obligation to step in).
Basically, you're an immoral person
Really! So, how does putting a rabid animal out of its misery and thus preventing the likely (and horrid) death of other animals qualify as "immoral?" How does stopping a person who is, quite literally, terrifying your family in the middle of the night qualify as immoral? It's moral if I pay someone else to do it (say, the police), but it's immoral if I do it myself, with the urgent threat actually unfolding and about to escalate to actual injuries before the police could possibly arrive to help? Better to explain to your injured family that you were just doing the moral thing? These aren't hypotheticals, this is actual person experience. That you're so anxious to grind your witless anti-American axe in this way - especially given the context - says plenty about how distorted your view is.
Re:Please be honest: (Score:2, Insightful)
Come on, now, read some actual statistics! In counties like Australia, where the guns were banned and largely confiscated, not only to knife-murders go up, but overall crime and murder went up entirely. Fewer guns in the hands of people willing to defend themselves, and people willing to kill with a knife or their bare hands are less worried about being stopped. This is true in certain states/cities in the US (say, in Florida, where once people were recently allowed once again to carry a gun, knifings went down, as did all violent crime).
Most likely the longer Danish history of less violent crime has to do with having a smaller, less stratified population in a much smaller area. As your population so dramatically shifts (with your huge immigration issues), you may see a situation much more similar to that of the Paris suburbs. I hope not
Re:More Fun With Statistics!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
You always hope against experience that the slashdot mods aren't going to mod based on their politics, but it always happens. What's with the "overrated" mods anyway? I don't think I've ever given out a negative mod myself. The point is to find good points to mod up, not to piss on people's arguments if you feel offended. What good can come of downmodding?
Anyway, in the spirit of hunting for "overrated" mods, I found out that I had left out some additional interesting info I'm sure some doe-eyed liberal can take horrible offense at. It's a better response to the Kellermen quote I listed above than the one I included in my own post.
From wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the
I guess the lesson should be to beware of statistics. Take the car insurance stat you hear all the time. "Our users saved an average of x when they switched to us!" What does that really mean? It took an average savings of x to induce someone to switch. If you said "our users saved an average of 10,000 by switching!" what would that mean? Well first of all, it may be that only
But in the gun-rights debate, it seems that the "save the children" crowd are the ones most prone to either make up random statistics or misuse actual ones.
-stormin
Re:Missing their point (Score:3, Insightful)
They are not a fundamental right in my country even.
Don't get me wrong. You can still get a gun legaly. It is just not "shop, buy, done". You have to register it with the local authorities (police), have no criminal record and follow a few other rules. As long as you plan to keep your gun in your home, it is fairly straightforward. Carrying a gun is, on the other hand, much more complex. To get a carrying permit, you will have, among other things, to prove you have a real need for it.
Interesting enough, there some some studies around here that prove that more than 40% of the guns owned by criminals were stolen from people who legaly owned them. I don't have the exact number, but once I saw an article on a newspaper saying it was more than 70% (not that likely, tho). So you have to consider you are also providing the criminals with guns.
Add to that the fact that a criminal will be more proficient with a gun than 99% of the people how are being attacked, and that he is much more prone to shoot if he sees you too have a gun, and you even have a bit more of a mess.
I'm not against owning guns. I'm againt irresponsible gun ownership, which you have in most (all?) of the states in USA. So the first thing that comes to your mind about having a gun is "right" ? To me, the first thing is "responsibility".
Re:peaceful protest always trumps armed "protest" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A big waste, considering the commodity... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fixes the wrong problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Missing their point (Score:3, Insightful)
On this, we agree completely. Unfortunately, you can't outlaw stupidity. The best bet in this area is education. But the only group in America that does this type of education is the NRA, and they get attacked for it.
Re:Missing their point (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I would put the right to have enough to eat as more basic than the right to bear arms, while I'm sure you'd call that socialism. I call protecting your government sanctioned monopoly on your property socialism. What do non-property owners get out of upholding the rights of property holders? The government is subsidizing your right to hold private property by protecting your property through the initiation of force.
There are no Fundamental Human Rights. There are only rights that we as a society deem important. Appeal to authority all you like, capitalize any word you want, that still doesn't change the fact that without society, there are no rights. With society, there are only the rights that society says are important. Just because you use Important Capitals and call it Fundamental doesn't mean anyone has to agree with you. We as a society choose what rights to uphold based on pragmatism, not Nature, and not God.
The US interpretation of basic human rights does not coincide with the UN definition of basic human rights. By UN standards, the US does not provide most basic human rights. As the UN definition is more all-encompasing, wouldn't it be fair to say their list is even more basic and important? Or does the fact that the US did it a certain way automatically mean that that list is the best, most fundamental list of rights?
Who decides?
Nice idea, but what about the bugs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, what's that? Their firearms are already safe? Oh, well then if our existing firearms are already good enough for the police and military then it must be good enough for me!
Re:It's becomming obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Missing their point (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be trolling. The right to bear arms is an American one, not an intrinsic human right. It's no coincidence that the US has the largest number of murders per capita either.
Besides that, when you live in a nation that violates human rights on the scale of the US, what with its torture camps/secret prisons, its kidnapping and forced deportation of innocent citizens, you might not want to flaunt your freedom, prosperity and adherence to human rights so much.
Re:Missing their point (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no reason to think that if it became tougher for law-abiding citizens to get guns, that it would be any harder for criminals to do so. After all, we've more or less admitted that we cannot, as a country, stop thousands of people from literally walking across our borders (both the northern and southern one). Now consider how much easier it is to move a gun than a person -- guns don't need air or water and don't mind being stuck in the false bottom of a crate for a few months (or years). You can't sniff them out like drugs or bombs, and it's not hard to take them apart so that they're hard to pick out on an x-ray. In short, there's not any way (at least not feasibly, without completely changing how we run our borders) to prevent guns from being imported illegally.
Not to mention the fact that guns really don't wear out (at least not quickly, under typical use; machine guns excepted), and even if you could somehow magically stop all illegal importation, it would take centuries to use up the supply of guns already in criminals' hands.
The single effect that disarming legitimate owners would have, or even making it substantially harder for legitimate citizens to obtain guns, would be to raise the ratio of guns owned by criminals to guns owned by law-abiding people. The numbers don't substantiate the legitimate-owners-supplying-crime arguement, at least in this country.
Also, your theory about criminals being more proficient with guns than most civilian gun owners is also false. Criminals, for the most part, don't go down to the range and practice very often: their guns get used when they're committing crimes, and I doubt they want to draw attention to themselves by doing a lot of target practice. It doesn't take much skill to pick up a gun and wave it around, or to shoot someone from a few feet away; certainly it's nothing like the skill that's required for even the most basic target shooting exercises, or hunting (which a fairly large number of rural and suburban gun owners in the United States are involved with). Even if we factor in the gun owners who don't actually shoot regularly, but just have a gun for defense purposes and have perhaps taken it down to the range once or twice, I think you're vastly overestimating the skills of criminals. Trust me -- I've seen the aftermath of some urban shootings, and there's a lot of "spray and pray" involved.
I agree that owning a firearm carries with it a certain responsibility. However, where I disagree with you is that we should deny that responsibility to an otherwise law-abiding adult by default. In my country, our entire society is predicated on the assumption that everyone is worthy of a host of important responsibilities (including voting, serving in the military, drinking alcohol), if they haven't done anything to prove that they can't handle it. In geek terms, we've created a society that has "allow by default" as its basic policy with regards to its citizens. An adult who has not done anything wrong and is of normal intelligence and sound mind, should not have to prove their worthiness to some authority in order to own a gun. I have no problem denying this responsibility to people who have shown that they can't handle it (similarly, I have no problem denying to people who've demonstrated a propensity for violence many other rights that normal people enjoy, including life itself if the situation warrants it), but there's a key difference between a system that assumes that the average person is capable of making important decisions, including ones regaring gun ownership, and a system which assumes only a select few are capable or should be allowed this and other responsibilities.
Re:It's becomming obligatory (Score:1, Insightful)
Next, I must ask, are aware of the legalities of owning an "Ingram Mac 10", particularly in california?
Well, its really simple. They aren't legal to own or purchase without a speciall highly restrictive license that only special firearms sellers can get. (Class 3)
So, giving that the "Ingram Mac 10" is illegal to own in california, and that it is no longer being produced, why is it that I can buy one in South Central Los Angeles for $245?
The argument that "they're stolen from all the people in the country who own them" is hard to believe, when they are not legal in California, and have not been since the 70's.
But you see, we have this little thing to the south of us, here in California, called "Mexico".
Where, well frankly, no one there gives a damn about doing illegal acts.
It is so easy to smuggle guns across our southern border, its not even funny. Its downright scary actually.
I am reminded of an old saying:
"If catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults."
Just recently the 1984 Assault weapon ban expired. Now that it has expired, have you seen or heard of a rash of "Police shoot outs with automatic weapons" or "Killing sprees" by people with weapons that were banned in the 1984 Assault Weapon ban?
I'd like to see this evidence you speak of, claiming that "Of course they're mostly obtained illegally; they're stolen from all the people in the country who own them. If you all didn't own then, they would be must harder to steal, wouldn't they? "
Your naiveté is so astounding, I am almost at a loss of words!. Almost, since I've seen so many ignorant people. Wake up. Go see a movie titled "God of War." (Since you seem to be very susceptible to media propaganda and influence). Read up about the REAL PERSON the movie was based on.
Sure, there are a portion of crimes committed with legally owned firearms. And there is a portion committed with legally owned firearms, that were stolen from their legal owners. But you are misrepresenting the proportions of these demographics.
Stop and think how much violence and death is caused by cars? And of these, how many are caused by stolen vehicles? Yet I don't see people like you lobbying to outlaw cars. Simply put, if there were much less cars, there would be less people killed by them! DUH!!!!
So, in conclusion. Quit reading Michael Moore. Quit wrapping your lips around the media and propaganda, and support lets see the facts where you are claiming that "they're mostly obtained illegally; they're stolen from all the people in the country who own them." And when you do, you need to differentiate violent crime, from accidental deaths.
Like another poster mentioned, there are more accidental deaths from buckets and plastic bags than accidental discharges.
Shouldn't you be complaining about them?
Re:It's becomming obligatory (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, now ask me if I really care whether the big guy invading my home has a gun or a knife or a baseball bat that he wants to kill me with. I really don't care what weapon he has. I want the most effective weapon I can get for self-defense. That's a gun. Hands down.
First of all, there's absolutely no way to get rid of the guns. As long as there is a demand somewhere, anywhere, there will be plenty of guns available. We can't seem to prevent massive amounts of drugs from being brought into the country. Do you really think we can prevent guns from being brought in? Second, what do you believe people are going to use to protect themselves? Women should all be at the mercy of anyone who breaks into their home? Smaller guys are at the mercy of bigger guys who break in? The police can't and won't protect people, so we're all responsible for protecting ourselves. That's a simple fact of life.
Sacrificing it all for the 2nd. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's face it. Most modern day gun owners are more likely to think that security is freedom and are the most dedicated supporters of everything that is being done to tear the Constitution in half.
I know a couple of dedicated gun owners who aren't this way, but they're definitely in the minority in my experience.
Re:Missing their point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Missing their point (Score:3, Insightful)
As to the support of republicans: you don't see Bush signing more gun control measures. Clinton signed the useless "assault weapon" ban whose goal was to ban anything which looked scary, facts be damned. After that bill passed, if you died at the front of a rifle, it was brown and not black.
Republicans generally support the 2nd amendment, and Democrats are constantly trying to weaken it. I realize that there are individual exceptions, but this is true in most cases. So of course the NRA tends to support republicans. I certainly wish that the NRA would support some democrats, but first some democrats have to come out and say that private gun ownership is a good idea -- but that goes against the party line.
I have several reasons to be resentful of President Bush, but his stance on the 2nd amendment is not one of them.
Re:Oh oh, I want to ignore reality too. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nanite Defuser . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not as big or as strong as a lot of folks out there. If somehow the Glock 23 I'm wearing didn't work, how would you expect me to defend myself from a meth-head with a knife?
Far from being an unfair advantage, guns ARE the great equalizer. I'm a law-abiding citizen with a carry permit, and my high-capacity pistol has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car. What's wrong with that?
Re:Oh oh, I want to ignore reality too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever you introduce more complexity to a system, there's a risk/benefit tradeoff. Your comparison to ABS brakes is not a particularly apt one, but I'll work with it: basically, most people feel that the modern ABS system produces enough benefit to outweigh the complexity (and thus risk of failure) that it introduces. The point is that I don't think that the additional complexity of these safety systems produces enough benefit to be worth it the increased risk of failure, particularly when the failure mode of a non-firing gun is so severe. (Gun doesn't go off, user may well end up dead.)
Your second response is silly as well. To begin with, guns don't unload themselves over time. A loaded gun will still be loaded tomorrow, provided someone hasn't unloaded it. Thus, it's far easier to accidentally have a gun where the batteries aren't charged, than one that's not loaded. Second, anyone who even has a basic idea of how a firearm works knows that in order for it to fling little lead things out the front, it has to have a supply of little lead things. It's less obvious that it also has to have a battery. Because the cartriges are fundamentally required for operation of the gun, they're difficult to forget. Any safety system would by design be nearly transparent, and thus easy to forget about except when it doesn't work.
Regarding handcuffing suspects: the police have carefully thought-out procedures for how to handcuff people in order to reduce the chance of the suspect being able to attack them. Generally, it's done by two people: if the person is really dangerous, you wouldn't even try to get close to them (or let them get close to you) until another person arrived to cover them. And then the weapon goes into a holster, which is designed to be difficult for another person to remove the gun from. (Actually, such holsters are an example of complexity that's probably worth it in terms of a tradeoff, because it doesn't introduce too much.)
Oh look, you made fun of how I openly admitted that I wasn't going to try to prop my argument up with statistics. Wooo. I see you don't have any in return to discuss exactly how many officers are shot with their own weapons in the absence of mitigating factors, in order to underline exactly how severe this problem is? Your side of the argument is predicated on the assumption that there is a substantial risk to officers of being shot with their own guns, and that this risk warrants introducing a needlessly complex, expensive, and failure-prone safety system. I'm saying I don't think the risk is that great. Burden of proof is on you if you still think so, particularly if you want to make fun of my lack of statistics. Who's not wearing any clothes?
And as for your last point, you decided to deprecate another safety system which probably could have helped your argument, since it's an example of a worthwhile complexity/safety tradeoff. As I mentioned earlier, most police forces (at least those that I've interacted with the members of, admittedly all in the US) have discovered that it's not a great idea to get close to a dangerous suspect with a drawn weapon, and have instituted procedures that minimize the need for this. You don't cuff someone without backup (and when you do, if you're the person doing the cuffing, you holster the weapon as you approach), etc. There are probably exceptional circumstances where these procedures can't be followed, but without evidence of how commonplace they are, it's hardly a convincing justification for such safety systems.
I never said at any point that there aren't places for RFID-enabled guns; I can think of a few, they're just few- and far-between. Places where guns currently can't be taken (secure facilities, prisons) might be included, but in general, I think people substantially overestimate the need or demand for such systems in average civilian or police use.
Give me Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't buy cheap guns, beater guns, or unsafe weapons. I can think of few things that make a gun more unsafe that FAILING to perform it's intended task in a life or death situation. I'll stick with my old, unsafe, and trustworthy pistols, thanks all the same.
Re:Sacrificing it all for the 2nd. (Score:2, Insightful)
Adding any kind of smarts to a gun is bad (Score:3, Insightful)
The parts of a gun required to fire are all mechanical and most guns are (or at least should be) built so that the number of parts which can fail and prevent the gun from firing is as few as possible.
Adding things like "encrypted bullets" or judge-dredd like DNA checks for authorized users just makes it less likely that the gun is going to fire when it needs to.
Bullet Control!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
We need BULLET CONTROL!!!
-- Chris Rock