Guns should be re-tooled.

[Renwiick]

Guns should not be instruments of death. Gun should be neutralizers.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. I'm totally in agreement. nt

[Renwiick]

2. Why don't you agree?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. I do! I said I was in agreement. Guns should not be killing implements nt

[Renwiick]

5. what does the "nt" mean at the end of your sentences?

[Baikonour]

6. It means "no text."

Meaning the subject line was the whole of their post.

[malaise]

7. no text n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. OH! That means "no text" in the body of the message area nt

[Occam Bandage]

18. It means "Nipponese translation." There's a big Japanese community on DU, and

they've developed automatic translation software. But it glitches from time to time, and so to prevent any unintentional misunderstandings, it puts "nt" on the end of each of their posts.

[cliffordu]

38. Well.....

:rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. How would you retool guns to make them less lethal?

[Renwiick]

8. A rubber bullet designed to break the skin and release a sleeping agent

[Occam Bandage]

11. Why bother with the rubber bullet?

Why not just replace guns with tranquilizer/paralytic dart guns?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

13. What sleeping agent would you use?

[dairydog91]

72. Which opens up an enormous can of worms.

An agent powerful enough to drop an adult male in a matter of seconds would be incredibly, frighteningly potent. There'd still be danger to an attacker's life, and a child who was dosed might very well die.

[Posteritatis]

79. And then we'll buy phasers from the future! (nt)

[vadawg]

9. fit each gun with someone who knows what they are doing and are legal to own one

according to statistics. The grab a gun crowd are nuts if they believe that people are going to give up their rights when it comes to guns.

[Occam Bandage]

10. Okay.

[vadawg]

15. saw one of these adapted to fit a 12 gauge, damn thing would pass muster

unless looked at real close. wouldnt be surprised to see someone killed in the future for pointing a nerf gun at the popo

[OffWithTheirHeads]

14. Tools should be shot.

[Renwiick]

17. 000

[onehandle]

16. They should just be renamed.

How about calling them...

...penises?

[Occam Bandage]

19. But then what would we call penises?

[One_Life_To_Give]

77. Call them Assualt Weapons of course! nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. Then telling someone to suck your dick could be construed as a threat.

[dairydog91]

73. Then...

...would we have to start referring to holsters as "vaginas"?

[krispos42]

76. "vagina"... Latin for "sheath"

It's what the legionaires kept their gladii in when they weren't using them.

[readmoreoften]

20. Kinda like a TASER!!!

And there we have it. The world is full of answers.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. Tasers are intentionally deadly weapons don't you know.

[Solon]

21. Why not design guns to make it so its more difficult to use them in an unauthorized way?

An example of this is for a gun to be user authorised only, tied to a single person somehow, usually by pairing it with another device, fitted to a ring, so that anyone who is not wearing the ring cannot fire the gun.

Of course, security would be an issue then, but its adds a layer that people will have to get around to make the gun usable, at the very least, this will reduce the number of people killed by stolen weapons.

[Renwiick]

23. Interesting concept.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

24. They have prototypes.

So far they haven't proved reliable enough and are extremely expensive.

David

[Renwiick]

27. ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. ...?

[vadawg]

26. seems like a good idea, but i want my wife to be able to use any weapon i own anytime

it would mean both of us having to wear rings that im sure the bad guys could defeat anyway. i have found the best way to secure your weapon is to always carry it on you,

[BostonMa]

32. What a heman

[vadawg]

43. no idea what you are getting at, lots of people are always armed and for different reasons

[dysfunctional press]

52. until something comes along that makes guns useless and obsolete- they're here to stay.

(and rubber bullets filled with a "sleeping agent" wouldn't come close to doing the trick.)

[Cid_B]

53. I saw Judge Dredd too..

nt

[benEzra]

54. Magical thinking, IMO. You can already get guns with integral locks

or put them in a safe (my choice), and the other device needed to operate them is the key (or in the case of a safe, a combination).

The problem with fingerprint readers, magic decoder rings, and other esoterica is that a firearm is a high-temperature, high-shock, high-g environment not conducive at all to electronics, they function for decades or centuries, and they MUST be absolutely reliable and not delay the legitimate use of the firearm more than 0.1 second or so. Non-bypassible authentication systems capable of operating for decades INSIDE a firearm while providing 0.9999 reliability under adverse conditions with multiple users and 0.1 second access time would cost many times more than the firearm itself.

[wtmusic]

59. Electronics are more than durable enough

and wouldn't delay the use of the firearm more than .001 second. They could easily function for decades, not sure about centuries, but would be installed as part of a failsafe system - the electronics don't work, the gun doesn't work.

Not sure where you're getting the .9999 figure from or just thinking "lots of nines" - but in reality an owner would lose a ring or bracelet far more often than the gun would fail.

Also not sure where you get your conclusion that a device like this would cost "many times more than the firearm itself". This is not advanced electronics by a longshot, and would save lives.

[benEzra]

61. The most common proposals require fingerprint readers or dynamic grip recognition

ergo, the New Jersey "smart gun" statute, and constructing a system that will function for decades in the temperature and shock environment of a firearm, while recognize all authorized users inside .1 second with even .999 reliability under adverse conditions (unacceptably low), is proving difficult indeed, and they still have not constructed a practical prototype despite years and millions of dollars invested.

If you're only going to use a ring, why not use a key and not have to worry about the serious reliability issues?

.9999 is a reasonable reliability standard because anything less would significantly increase the failure rate of a quality centerfire handgun, and even .999 reliability would increase the failure rate of a quality 9mm with factory defensive ammunition by a whole order of magnitude.

There are very good reasons why police agencies have given a resounding "hell no" to authorized-user technologies, even though 20% of police officers shot to death in the line of duty are killed with their own guns. The reason being that fingerprint based systems are unworkable/unreliable/slow, grip recognition systems unreliable, and RF systems too easy to remotely disable.

[one-eyed fat man]

67. If the "smart gun" is......

such a great idea. Why is it every time the subject comes up, gun control advocates trot out stories and statistics about cops who were shot with their own guns, yet EVERY piece of legislation they propose EXEMPTS law enforcement firearms? Why are the police and their unions adamantly opposed to being issued such firearms?

Will the "secret decoder ring" tell me to buy more Ovaltine? or is it "kool-aid" I am supposed to drink?

[HALO141]

71. or...

until the battery rand down.

[gorfle]

74. When the police use them

I will consider using them.

[HALO141]

70. Not on my guns thankyouverymuch. n/t

[Evoman]

25. No way...a better solution would be to graft mini-guns on to everybodies arms when they are born.

[Tejas]

30. What about the guns that criminals already possess?

Just curious, does your fantasy include them marrily dropping their guns off at the local Police station?

Anyway, run your idea by the Military and get back to us, and and while you're at it, ask your local LEO. Hopefully he won't summon the men in the white coats to cart you off.

[Pavulon]

31. Lazy people and pols should address root cause

society has major issues contributing to violent behavior. Idiotic drug laws, lack of mental health (majority of gun death is suicide), poverty and community assistance would all be productive. This is why the swiss and fins, and canadians for that mattter, have access to various weapons and have a tiny fraction of the US murder rate.

Most gun crime is unreported or local news as it is impoverished or "not real people" being impacted.

Spree killings are rare and atypical of the majority of death from firearms.

But stupid gun laws are easier to pass than real solutions.

[wartrace]

33. I agree, I could shoot anyone that pissed me off with little repercussion! n/t

[corruptmewithpower]

34. The best use of guns is to prevent genocide.

An unarmed populace is vulnerable to genocide and genocide was one of the leading causes of death in the twentieth century.

Death by Gun Control

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

[Occam Bandage]

36. The global arms trade has done wonders for the genocide in Sudan. nt

[corruptmewithpower]

37. In Sudan, like in many many places in the world, its the people without

access to firearms that are the victims.

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."
Vladimir Lenin

[Occam Bandage]

42. Certainly. My point is only that

the global arms trade exacerbates and does not mollify or prevent human-rights crises. Genocides only occur against populations that are impoverished, capable of being isolated, and politically powerless. Such people are not able to arm themselves. The only impact of the global arms trade is that their bloodthirsty tormentors are able to replenish their arsenals even in spite of worldwide political efforts to disarm the aggressors.

In situations where both sides are equally able to arm themselves, in which people are reliant on themselves instead of a legitimate government for defense, and in which at least one group has genocidal intent, the situation is hardly better. The cascading history of wars that have wracked Africa for decades are fueled by the world arms industry. One can hardly say that the 5.4 million dead Congolese from 1998 to 2003 were "saved" by that country's free and open access to firearms.

Protection against genocide does not come in the form of a rifle. It comes in the form of open, stable, transparent government with direct representation and military possessing both a monopoly of power and a culture of rule of law.

[corruptmewithpower]

44. "military possessing . . . . a monopoly of power "

That is an absolute recipe for disaster. Government is very usefel for some things, but must NEVER be trusted with the lives of the citizenry.

History is absolutely clear on this point.

Please please become more familiar with the history of genocide and democide before you set your opinion in concrete on this issue.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
----Lord Acton

Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely.
----This Web Site

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

[Occam Bandage]

47. National militaries possess a monopoly of force in virtually every country on Earth.

In those they do not--Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Congo--people suffer. I am disheartened, but not surprised, that you omitted a crucial part of my post. I do see that I wrote "power," and would hope that you could understand that in the sense of "military force" (given that absolute military political power is incompatible with the other things I listed), but will be more accurate in this post.

For a populace to be safe, it must have an open, transparent government (a necessary part of which is an unfettered press), direct representation, and a military possessing both a monopoly of force and a culture of rule of law. No internal genocide has ever been committed while such conditions have been met. I have posted counterexamples to your claim that an armed populace is a safe populace; now do the same for my claim.

[corruptmewithpower]

51. R. J Rummel would agree with you on much,

You really should become more familiar with his website. try a search on "democratic peace"

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/

like I mentioned. it's the unarmed folks that have always been the victims.

[DainBramaged]

56. So just arm everyone and let God sort it out? What bullshit.

Why do gun threads bring so many 'new' members?

I see ignored people

[Tejas]

68. Guess you'd rather the defenseless keep getting slaughtered?

Why do gun threads bring so many armchair quarterbacks?

[one-eyed fat man]

80. tribal wars

Tribal wars in Africa have been going on for more millenia than recorded history. When one tribe wanted to expand their gene pool, steal food or water, or simply for entertainment, they made war on their neighbors. One result of those ancient tribal wars was that women too old or ugly to rape and those opposing warriors they didn't kill would have been sold to passing Arab traders destined for Dutch and Portuguese slave ships. Remember, rape, sack, loot and pillage were the reenlistment bonus for tribal warriors while the selling of slaves was their retirement fund.

For five centuries the colonial powers drew boundaries in Africa to suit their purposes regardless or despite ethnic, tribal or political divisions of the existing populations. One result of those policies was to put ancient enemies into competition for power of present day countries. Plenty of examples of tribal and ethnic cleansing are evident in present day Sudan, Rwanda, Congo and Kenya. There is still a booming slave trade in west Africa and along the Ivory Coast.

Using mostly machetes, axes and other farming implements, Hutus engaged in the mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Rwanda's Tutsis. Over the course of approximately 100 days, from April up until mid July, most estimates indicate between 800,000 and 1,000,000, or roughly 70% of the Tutsi population were hacked to pieces.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230.stm

Khmer Rouge, heavily armed with all manner of genuine military firearms killed of approximately 2 million Cambodians between 1975 and 1979.

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/deaths.htm

Had the genocide in Cambodia kept pace with Rwanda the death toll over 4 years would have been between 116,800,000 and 146,000,000. (Just about everybody between the California state line and the Atlantic coast)

Even, the program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by Nazi Germany pales in comparison to the savagery of Rwanda. The total number of victims of Hitler's genocidal policies, including the handicapped and Romani, Poles and Soviet POW is generally agreed to be between 9 and 11 million. Even killing on an industrial scale failed to eclipse the unmitigated savagery of the Rwandan genocide.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=lpDTIUklB2MC&pg=PP1&dq=...

The mere possession of a more efficient tool is no substitute for a truly murderous heart!

[jody]

81. Darn it one-eyed fat man, that's not fair using facts to explain the natural, inherent, inalienable/

unalienable right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and state.

I hereby award you the the Heracles Fifth Labour Badge for cleaning out a stable full of gun-grabber deposits.

[Lorien]

58. Genocide which is commited with guns

all gets kinda circular, doesn't it?

[corruptmewithpower]

60. No, genocide is very direct and it happens when the populace

is easy to kill.

[Occam Bandage]

66. Which isn't that meaningful of a statement.

The global arms trade does absolutely nothing to ensure that the subjects of a genocide are able to arm themselves. An AK-47 can be purchased throughout many parts of sub-Saharan Africa for as little as $20. Yet the victims of genocides in modern Africa are simply unable to arm themselves; genocide victims are always first isolated from the outside world.

Moreover, even if you had a magic gun teleportation device that ensured guns went into the hands of the right people, it would not diminish the amount of death or suffering in the slightest, as is seen in the two wars fought in the Congo over the past decade and a half. I fail to see how an unchecked war in which 5 million are killed is somehow better than a genocide in which half a million are killed.

A responsible, transparent, accountable, representative state with a monopoly of military force is the only defense against genocide. Personal armament to an extent that the state's force is challenged is only a catalyst for internal war.

[Hanse]

35. Captain Kirk should come back in time and give us phasers.

Then we could put them on stun and that shit would be totally awesome.

[Morning Dew]

39. that would violate the prime directive. nt.

[Hanse]

41. Well fine then.

Stormtroopers should come into the future from a long, long time ago and give us their blaster rifles which they can set on stun like they did that one time when they stunned Princess Leia in the first five minutes of the original movie and never did again in the entire canon of Star Wars because, when you get right down to it, it was kind of dumb.

[Morning Dew]

45. Cool. I hope I get one!

I'd take a light saber too, but I doubt they'll be bringing them along.

[Hanse]

46. light sabers are a brutal, barbaric weapon.

Unless they're set to "tickle."

[Morning Dew]

48. LOL. I lost the train of the thread . . . stunning and tasering and kind and gentle...

Oops.

[Occam Bandage]

49. Please be gentle. It's my first tasering.

[Morning Dew]

50. with my erratic heartbeat, I might be better off shot than tasered.

a light saber would do me in for sure.

[slackmaster]

64. DUzy material

:rofl:

Kirk violated the Prime Directive in almost every episide.

[Angleae]

75. Since when did that matter to Kirk?

[1]

40. hell, what kind of fun would that be? every citizen should be required to strap on a piece...

like the wild, wild west.

"you looking at me?"

"draw, partner..."


booya!

[Kingofalldems]

55. Oh man, what would the gun hicks of America do?

Riding around the countryside with rubber bullets. Those things won't penetrate road signs.

[Tejas]

69. LOL! - n/t

[aikoaiko]

57. death is neutral.

[Tim01]

62. There are lots of less lethal tools comming out

Tasers,rubber bullets, pepper spray,sticky foam. Some of them are really great when the goal is to incapacitate without harm,and the range is very very close.
They are not suitable for war, and they are not suitable when the only way to stop the bad guy is to kill him. But some of them are excellent for things like law enforcement, much superior to guns.

[slackmaster]

63. They are already both instruments of death and neutralizers

Also conversation pieces, investment vehicles, and recreational equipment.

[dashrif]

65. like this class III nerf

And they made look it evil



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dokbdPPqkFU

[jody]

78. Guns in the hands of an experienced law-abiding citizens are neutralizers. I've seen them neutralize

the s*** out of an attacking criminal.

That's why 835,000 sworn law enforcement choose handguns because they are the most effective, efficient tool for self-defense.

That's also the reason why law-abiding citizens choose handguns when they exercise their natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.