Can we force an evolution in gun manufacturing to enable a more safe weapon (like cars have been und

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siberbat

Originally posted by anton74
Scotus decided that forcing someone to disable their gun violates the 2nd Amendment. Besides it is very easy to disable a firearm if you want to.


Other than law enforcement, firearms are forbidden in schools, hospitals, and government buildings as is. So, carrying a firearm into these areas would be illegal anyway. Not covered by the 2nd ammendment if you are already breaking the law. With what I propose, the firearm would deactivate in these areas.


And someone would only need to replicate the signal near your home before they rob you. You actually propose a firearm that could be deactivated by anyone, thus violating the 2nd Amendment.




posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siberbat

Originally posted by anton74
Scotus decided that forcing someone to disable their gun violates the 2nd Amendment. Besides it is very easy to disable a firearm if you want to.


Other than law enforcement, firearms are forbidden in schools, hospitals, and government buildings as is. So, carrying a firearm into these areas would be illegal anyway. Not covered by the 2nd ammendment if you are already breaking the law. With what I propose, the firearm would deactivate in these areas.


That's a good point, using NFC (Near-Field Communications technology). This would be covered under existing law....which I prefer to creating new laws. We should also be pressing for enforcement of existing firearm laws wherever they are found to be in violation.

I would also add that the use of the RFID disarming signal should be only possible in these designated areas. Will it stop people from doing it in the parking lot of these areas. or setting up a sniper nest in the surrounding area, no, of course not. But, it is LIMITING the ability to choose viable enclosed locations.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by anton74

Originally posted by Siberbat

Originally posted by anton74
Scotus decided that forcing someone to disable their gun violates the 2nd Amendment. Besides it is very easy to disable a firearm if you want to.


Other than law enforcement, firearms are forbidden in schools, hospitals, and government buildings as is. So, carrying a firearm into these areas would be illegal anyway. Not covered by the 2nd ammendment if you are already breaking the law. With what I propose, the firearm would deactivate in these areas.


And someone would only need to replicate the signal near your home before they rob you. You actually propose a firearm that could be deactivated by anyone, thus violating the 2nd Amendment.


Do you propose any of your own ideas, or just here to deflate everyone's ideas? The point of brainstorming sessions is to throw many ideas out there (valid or not), and not shoot them down immediately. I would love to hear any ideas you may have to limit the risk to innocents being gunned down by someone with a firearm.

I'm really trying to open the discussion on alternatives other than an all-out ban, or doing nothing.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by anton74

Originally posted by Siberbat

Originally posted by anton74
Scotus decided that forcing someone to disable their gun violates the 2nd Amendment. Besides it is very easy to disable a firearm if you want to.


Other than law enforcement, firearms are forbidden in schools, hospitals, and government buildings as is. So, carrying a firearm into these areas would be illegal anyway. Not covered by the 2nd ammendment if you are already breaking the law. With what I propose, the firearm would deactivate in these areas.


And someone would only need to replicate the signal near your home before they rob you. You actually propose a firearm that could be deactivated by anyone, thus violating the 2nd Amendment.


Oh, and if the signal is encrypted, using a one-time rolling salt key, then replication would be rendered moot. But, there are downsides to that approach as well.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krakatoa

Originally posted by anton74

Originally posted by Siberbat

Originally posted by anton74
Scotus decided that forcing someone to disable their gun violates the 2nd Amendment. Besides it is very easy to disable a firearm if you want to.


Other than law enforcement, firearms are forbidden in schools, hospitals, and government buildings as is. So, carrying a firearm into these areas would be illegal anyway. Not covered by the 2nd ammendment if you are already breaking the law. With what I propose, the firearm would deactivate in these areas.


And someone would only need to replicate the signal near your home before they rob you. You actually propose a firearm that could be deactivated by anyone, thus violating the 2nd Amendment.


Do you propose any of your own ideas, or just here to deflate everyone's ideas? The point of brainstorming sessions is to throw many ideas out there (valid or not), and not shoot them down immediately. I would love to hear any ideas you may have to limit the risk to innocents being gunned down by someone with a firearm.

I'm really trying to open the discussion on alternatives other than an all-out ban, or doing nothing.


I not trying to deflate any ideas. I'm merely pointing out that there are several ways to stop someone from using your firearm and to make you aware that the SCOTUS decided that forcing people to keep their guns in a disabled state violates the 2nd Amendment. Here is an idea, use a gun lock, every firearm is sold with one.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

I not trying to deflate any ideas. I'm merely pointing out that there are several ways to stop someone from using your firearm and to make you aware that the SCOTUS decided that forcing people to keep their guns in a disabled state violates the 2nd Amendment. Here is an idea, use a gun lock, every firearm is sold with one.


Excellent, thanks for clarifying your position. I agree, gun-locks are great when used....the issue I have at this point in time, is that perhaps we can innovate on that gun-lock idea. As it stands, gun-locks are completely removable from the piece....right? What if the gun-lock was embedded as part of the overall design as opposed to an after-thought? Is it a 100% solution, again, no...but it is an improvement, an innovation (like airbags are an innovation over set belts).



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 


Perhaps a gun-lock that was as simple as preventing the trigger from operating (like a trigger-lock does) but is not an external device? Like an improved safety that is keyed (sort of a hybrid of trigger-lock and safety switch).



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Some guns do have integral locks, but I believe it is a common key. I'd have to open my safe to find out. Removing a vital piece of the gun is another way to disable it. Not to derail the thread but, I feel that the return of mental institutions would help as well.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by anton74
 


I agree....that is another aspect of a solution in properly re-mantling our mental health system in this country. But, as we can all guess, that is one herculean effort....but not impossible...we just have to stat taking it seriously.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
There are already trigger locks which prevent someone from firing a hand gun or rifle. Many who do not have a safe use them if the weapon is stored where someone might accidentally find them. Takes some work with a cutter to get them off.

Many people borrow or swap rifles for certain hunts; usually extended family members. I realize people want those who have guns to be safe and secure in their possession; I totally agree.

The (some) manufactures are producing rifles and hand guns that can not be fired unless the magazine is in the well even if a round is already chambered. Sounds good until you get someone who knows that about your firearm as he wrestles you to take possession. He hits your mag release and you now basically have a club to fight with. Easy to bypass this feature for anyone with a screw driver.

Most people get up and go to work and have never had a problem other than some verbal sparing or possibly a physical altercation sometime during their youth or life. To them all this gun stuff makes absolutely no sense; yet they are one mugging or one loved one hurt from taking responsibility for their own safety and deciding they will never be a victim again....

THESE ARE THE 4 RULES; THEY WORK EVERY TIME
1 Treat all guns as if they are loaded. People are shot with supposedly unload guns?
2 Never let the muzzle of a gun point at anything you do not want to destroy, hit or kill. refer to rule one
3 Keep your finger straight and off the trigger. Never put you finger on the trigger until ready to shoot.
4 Be absolutely sure of your target, and what is behind it. Cops in N.Y. who shot many bystanders need a refresher course on rule 4.
I will add a #5 thought: Dead is a forever deal. Once a bullet leaves the muzzle, you can't bring it back even though there is usually a lawyer attached to it.

abcnews.go.com...



William Spengler raised no alarms in prison for 17 years and for more than a decade afterward. Well-spoken, well-behaved and intelligent, his demeanor was praised by four straight parole boards that nevertheless denied him parole, worried that bludgeoning his 92-year-old grandmother with a hammer showed a violent streak that could explode again. After his sentence was up in 1996, he stayed out of trouble until 2010, police said Friday. That's when Spengler went to a sporting goods store with a neighbor's daughter, picked out a Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle and a shotgun and had her buy the guns that the convicted felon couldn't legally possess. On Monday, he used the weapons to ambush firefighters lured to a blaze he set at his house in upstate Webster, killing two people and wounding three others before killing himself.
There are laws on the books that would have prevented this if the law had been followed. LAW BREAKERS! Laws were broken...In the business it is called a "Straw Man Sale"...Against the law...so much for the law, no? What is the magic number of laws that will suddenly make criminals obey the law?

Notice there is no mention made of any "Dangerous high capacity mag/ clip" in the article.
New York has a magazine restriction of 10 shots for the rifle so the reporters had to go after the permanently attached muzzle device for psychological effect.. No agenda here move along nothing to see. . Many rifles have some sort of muzzle device, some for flash, some for recoil, and some for muzzle rise when shooting.

[QUOTE] The .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle, which had a combat-style flash suppressor, is similar to the one used by the gunman who massacred 20 children and six women in a Newtown, Conn., elementary school earlier this month. [QUOTE] is filler space in the article which is doing everything for the uninformed minds of the general population to demonize....Combat-style flash suppressor sounds much more evil, than a flash suppressor or muzzle break ?



NY Penal Code 265.00 As used in this article and in article four hundred, the following terms shall mean and include: 23. "Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, manufactured after September thirteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition; provided, however, that such term does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition. NY Penal Code 265.02 A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree when: (8) Such person possesses a large capacity ammunition feeding device. Criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is a class D felony.


To many people are realizing (and fighting back with facts) that a semi-auto rifle is not an assault rife because it can not fire full auto so assault weapon is now morphing into "military style weapon".



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Essentially, you are disabling your weapon if you place a trigger lock on it. My second idea would work in the same way a proximity lock works, only the signal source would come from the weapon to a micro or nano device located in a necklace, braclet, or ring. The credentials would be transmitted to the weapon, activating it, not deactivating it. It is the same idea as the trigger lock, but access to the weapon from the appropriate credentials would be immediate.

My first idea was about creating a firearm free zone in a public area which, by law, is already considered weapon free. To clerify, I was not suggesting a private residence or private property. Places like government buildings, schools, and hospitals are public areas.

I want to bring up the SCOTUS as it has been mentioned a couple of times. They have done a poor job at interpeting our constitutional rights when it comes to laws such as the NDAA (2012), The Affordible Care Law, and the constant stripping away of the 4th ammendmant by Justices Alito, Roberts, and Scalia. No, I'm not impressed with the Supream Court.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 


I will repost this from another thread….

I don’t think it’s a good idea for the following reason.

"No defensive firearm should ever rely upon any technology more advanced than Newtonian physics. That includes batteries, radio links, encryption, scanning devices and microcomputers. Even if a particular system could be 99.9% reliable, that means it is expected to fail once every 1000 operations. That is not reliable enough. My life deserves more certainty."
Smart Gun



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Krakatoa
 


I will repost this from another thread….

I don’t think it’s a good idea for the following reason.

"No defensive firearm should ever rely upon any technology more advanced than Newtonian physics. That includes batteries, radio links, encryption, scanning devices and microcomputers. Even if a particular system could be 99.9% reliable, that means it is expected to fail once every 1000 operations. That is not reliable enough. My life deserves more certainty."
Smart Gun




Are the existing magazine designs even that reliable? How many times have we heard or experienced them jamming? Same effect I'd say, it makes the weapon a big paperweight.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 



Are the existing magazine designs even that reliable? How many times have we heard or experienced them jamming? Same effect I'd say, it makes the weapon a big paperweight.


I agree...there are already many variables and nothing is perfect. You can have mechanical issues and there's always operator error. This technology would be adding another potential obstacle for use though....kind of like the use of the smart gun cases that use fingerprint technology.

Ask yourself this - when you need your gun fast, in the middle of the night to defend your life, do you want to fumble around in the dark with a smart gun or smart safe and hope it works?





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join