DiscussMormonism.com

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Wed May 17, 2023 12:59 pm

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Tue May 16, 2023 5:04 pm

An armed society is a dead society.

How do we disarm society?

Wrong question. Asking questions like that is how we got here in the first place.

Gunnar wrote: ↑

Wed May 17, 2023 1:46 pm

Some Schmo wrote: ↑

Wed May 17, 2023 1:40 pm

Ask Australia. They did it.

Very good point! Unfortunately, however, a distressingly large proportion of far-right, fanatical conservatives refuse to accept even the mere suggestion that there is any virtue in disarming society!

Unfortunately, it’s not happening. It’s just not in the realm of possibility. The best we can do is get to the place of better or responsible gun ownership. Perhaps one day we’ll get Conservatives to agree to licensing and insuring people who own guns, kind of like we do with cars. We’ll have to have probably around ten times or more mass shootings for them to even consider it, and only if it affects them directly. Even then they’ll want alternative expenditures like armed guards at schools, or shutting down unrestricted access to the Internet for minors.

I dunno, but they’re dead set on keeping their arms. 100% intractable on how they view the Second Amendment. So, people who are anti-gun will have to get comfortable with working with Conservatives around the fringes of the issue.

- Doc

I always believed the long term solution to much of this is with smart guns.

Imagine a future when no gun can be fired unless it is absolutely being triggered by its rightful, lawful, registered gun owner.

Last month I switched out our front doors for 8 ft doors and replaced the lock. It has a fingerprint reader and I've programmed the fingerprints of everyone in the family so they can just touch the reader and the door opens.

If it were mandated that every future gun need to have this feature, what constitutional argument can really be made against it? You're not denying anyone a gun, even an AR-15. I think this is just as much for the protection for the gun owner as anything else. Imagine the times a robber breaks into a home unarmed but then uses the homeowners gun against the family. Imagine the legal liability that could be avoided in cases where a gun is stolen from careless gunowners, and then used in crimes.

Vēritās wrote: ↑

Wed May 17, 2023 4:51 pm

I always believed the long term solution to much of this is with smart guns.

Imagine a future when no gun can be fired unless it is absolutely being triggered by its rightful, lawful, registered gun owner.

Last month I switched out our front doors for 8 ft doors and replaced the lock. It has a fingerprint reader and I've programmed the fingerprints of everyone in the family so they can just touch the reader and the door opens.

If it were mandated that every future gun need to have this feature, what constitutional argument can really be made against it? You're not denying anyone a gun, even an AR-15. I think this is just as much for the protection for the gun owner as anything else. Imagine the times a robber breaks into a home unarmed but then uses the homeowners gun against the family. Imagine the legal liability that could be avoided in cases where a gun is stolen from careless gunowners, and then used in crimes.

That's perfectly reasonable, which is why it won't make sense to gun nuts or GOP politicians.

Vēritās wrote: ↑

Wed May 17, 2023 4:51 pm

I always believed the long term solution to much of this is with smart guns.

Imagine a future when no gun can be fired unless it is absolutely being triggered by its rightful, lawful, registered gun owner.

Last month I switched out our front doors for 8 ft doors and replaced the lock. It has a fingerprint reader and I've programmed the fingerprints of everyone in the family so they can just touch the reader and the door opens.

If it were mandated that every future gun need to have this feature, what constitutional argument can really be made against it? You're not denying anyone a gun, even an AR-15. I think this is just as much for the protection for the gun owner as anything else. Imagine the times a robber breaks into a home unarmed but then uses the homeowners gun against the family. Imagine the legal liability that could be avoided in cases where a gun is stolen from careless gunowners, and then used in crimes.

Maybe. The first truly smart gun can now be preordered for delivery next year. It's a 9mm handgun that uses both handprint and facial recognition technology. It costs $1499. An inexpensive 9mm is about a third of that price. That could certainly come down, but that all depends on acceptance by purchasers of handguns. None of the major manufacturers have been interested, so sales by this start up company will probably set the future course.

It certainly has the potential to eliminate accidental shootings by and of children by someone other than the gun owner. I'm less sanguine about the stolen gun issue. How secure would the system be in terms of preventing someone from reprogramming the stolen gun.

And, of course, there's the problem of the 400 million guns currently in circulation. Likely much more by the time the technology is available on all firearms.

Heller found a specific requirement for trigger locks in the home unconstitutional. But the problem was the interference with the use of the handgun for home defense. But the rationale of Heller puts a heavy burden on imposing any restriction that didn't exist in the late 1700's or mid 1800's. Passing constitutional muster probably means outwaiting the current conservatives on the court.

Vēritās wrote: ↑

Wed May 17, 2023 4:51 pm

I always believed the long term solution to much of this is with smart guns.

Imagine a future when no gun can be fired unless it is absolutely being triggered by its rightful, lawful, registered gun owner.

Last month I switched out our front doors for 8 ft doors and replaced the lock. It has a fingerprint reader and I've programmed the fingerprints of everyone in the family so they can just touch the reader and the door opens.

If it were mandated that every future gun need to have this feature, what constitutional argument can really be made against it? You're not denying anyone a gun, even an AR-15. I think this is just as much for the protection for the gun owner as anything else. Imagine the times a robber breaks into a home unarmed but then uses the homeowners gun against the family. Imagine the legal liability that could be avoided in cases where a gun is stolen from careless gunowners, and then used in crimes.

While I agree with you in theory, that won't work for me. I don't have fingerprints. I'm not joking here.

Some Schmo wrote: ↑

Wed May 17, 2023 1:40 pm

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Wed May 17, 2023 12:59 pm

How do we disarm society?

Ask Australia. They did it.

A cursory search tells me that AUS confiscated 650K guns in a population of 25+M people.

If RI's above post is correct, there are some 433M guns in the US in a population of 331+M people.

So...how do you propose this country go about doing the same as AUS? How you think it's possible to wrangle that many weapons out of that many civilians in the US?

And would you stop at guns?

ETA: I live in a rural area. I guarantee you that 98% of this place is armed and for good reason. We have huge lag times in response from LE and area ranchers need guns to protect livestock from predators. How would you address this issue in terms of outlawing firearms?

I appreciated this proposal that Cam made on my Gun Control thread.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 29, 2023 1:49 am

Back to Jersey Girl’s topic. I suppose we should first close the gun show loophole, first. In many-a-county they have the occasional gun show for, say, 2 days of the month at their fairgrounds. Fairground buildings are opened for public access; people of all ages can attend for a nominal fee with no background checks. Private sellers and gun dealers are able to buy/sell firearms once you walk in past the LEOs who’ll clear your firearm before entry, usually locking it with a zip tie. You can find a private seller in less than a minute.

Worse, people will stand around in the buildings and parking lot to sell their guns on fairgrounds property, where they don't do background checks for a private sale, and you give them cash, so it's essentially an untraceable ghost gun. This is all sanctioned by local LEOs that are pro-Second Amendment, and don't bat an eye other than to stand there for presence on their off-duty work details.



- Doc

posting.php?mode=quote&f=7&p=2829313

Jersey Girl wrote: ↑

Wed May 17, 2023 7:37 pm

While I agree with you in theory, that won't work for me. I don't have fingerprints. I'm not joking here.

That's interesting. My wife has essentially the same problem. Her fingerprints have been so permanently damaged by repeated exposure to formaldehyde in her biology classes in both high school and college that they are nearly indiscernible. Unlike most of the lab partners she had in those classes, she was not too squeamish to handle animal specimens preserved in formaldehyde that were provided for science experiments, so they just let her do all the handling. Apparently the teachers did not realize or care that too much exposure to formaldehyde could lead to permanent damage to the fingerprints and were too cheap to provide latex gloves.

Did something like this happen to your fingerprints, or did you just never have normal fingerprints?

Gunnar wrote: ↑

Wed May 17, 2023 8:30 pm

Jersey Girl wrote: ↑

Wed May 17, 2023 7:37 pm

While I agree with you in theory, that won't work for me. I don't have fingerprints. I'm not joking here.

That's interesting. My wife has essentially the same problem. Her fingerprints have been so permanently damaged by repeated exposure to formaldehyde in her biology classes in both high school and college that they are nearly indiscernible. Unlike most of the lab partners she had in those classes, she was not too squeamish to handle animal specimens preserved in formaldehyde that were provided for science experiments, so they just let her do all the handling. Apparently the teachers did not realize or care that too much exposure to formaldehyde could lead to permanent damage to the fingerprints and were too cheap to provide latex gloves.

Did something like this happen to your fingerprints, or did you just never have normal fingerprints?

I've shared that previously on the board. I did have normal fingerprints. Decades of teaching in the early childhood environment, using bleach water solutions for sanitizing and disinfecting continuously throughout the day is what took away my fingerprints. I hardly ever used gloves because as I said, it was continuous. Sanitizing a drinking fountain and sink after each use and disinfect the toileting area after each use in a classroom of 16 young children as per health department regulations. That doesn't include sanitizing tables before meals or disinfecting equipment each day. So yes, chemical burns.

The first hint of this was trying to check in at the gym I used to belong to where I thought the machine was malfunctioning. Then not being able to gain entry at Universal Studios using the same type of machine. I had to use a photo ID. Then finally, the last time I was fingerprinted for a FBI/CBI background check to work in the school district again just before the pandemic broke loose. They had to wave the fingerprint portion of the filing.