mr2mk1g 10 #26 November 26, 2004 Only till they brought out “Smart Bullet 1.2” with new "unzip" algorithms and optional “press stud removal” settings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #27 November 26, 2004 QuoteClothing could confuse a "smart" bullet. Why not just strap some pork chops to your shirt? -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Falko 0 #28 November 26, 2004 QuoteWhy not just strap some pork chops to your shirt? Bwahahaa!! Good one. Well who knows what the future brings, maybe the device can distinguish if it's pig or human flesh that it's penetrating. Then again... with some fellas out there it might have a hard time telling the difference... Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #29 November 26, 2004 QuoteI was reading about a new push for that a couple of years ago. Kinda scary actually, you figure the system will work perfectly fine, then a LEO will be killed because of a mal on the system. That's on mal too many for something like this. Well, you've got the story right, but you picked the wrong main character. Let me explain. In New Jersey, there is now a law on the books that basically says once someone, anyone, offers a "smart gun" for commercial sale, all other handguns are banned. Don't ask the specifics, I do'nt remember, but it is there. Oh, the provision important to your story? LEOs are exempt from the ban. They are still allowed to use standard firearms. Only law abiding gun owners like you and I must deal with the increased complexity and failure rates. Nice, huh?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #30 November 26, 2004 QuoteWould all you Pro-gun owners support a ban on all fatal ammunition - in support of a instant acting tranquiliser bullet that renders your attacker unconcious? If you could produce such a bullet (and that is a huge "if"), then I would be happy to use them for self defense, presuming that they are reasonably priced, and function correctly and reliably in my gun. However, I'll still need regular ammo for practice shooting, which will be cheaper, and more accurate ammo for 1,000-yard shooting. And the criminals will still use old ammo anyway, so it would all be a fruitless effort toward stopping murder. ---------------------- "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would subject innocent person to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for the unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments,Italian criminologist, 1764. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #31 November 27, 2004 QuoteRelax, noone wants to take away your bullets and handguns. Several times, I and others have posted long lists of attributed, verifiable quotes by people in power who DO want EXACTLY THAT. Do you think that just because you claim it, it's true? QuoteIf "smart" tranquilizing handguns would prove to be reliable and working, and people have seen the results, I'm sure many people would give it a try. Yes, but what you're ignoring is that saying, "IF smart tranquilizing handguns would prove to be reliable and working," is kind of like saying, "IF I could buy a pair of robotic legs that could enable me to jump to the moon, would I decide to jump to the moon?" Pish-posh. The question is moot. There are too many obstacles to your magic-bullet dream ever working reliably. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #32 November 27, 2004 QuoteWould all you Pro-gun owners support a ban on all fatal ammunition - in support of a instant acting tranquiliser bullet that renders your attacker unconcious? You really ought to have asked, "Would all you pro-gun owners support the HYPOTHETICAL IDEA of having only non-fatal, tranquilizing ammunition?" See, we already know that a ban on "everyone" having lethal ammunition would succeed in keeping only good people from having lethal ammo. Those who didn't feel like going along with the smart-ammo scheme (criminals, etc.) would simply not give theirs up; would use illegal sources; would manufacture their own lethal ammo... Like ANY OTHER BAN, it would affect only those not determined to evade it. So my answer remains no. Why should I agree to put restrictions on myself voluntarily when I know my enemies will do no such thing? -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #33 November 27, 2004 Quote[Wait, liberal thinking? I'm left of center, but VERY pro-gun. Ok, so someone is naive, does that mean they are liberal? It's laughable how the conservative right will whine about how the universities are filled with liberals, yet use arguments about naivete / ignorance and attach that to liberalism. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Wait, you're arguing that just because someone has a university education he can't possibly be naive or ignorant? That itself is naive and ignorant. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #34 November 27, 2004 QuoteI don't carry, but I own plenty. I used to carry, but it isn't wise to do so. Your decisions are your own, but when you say something like, "It isn't wise to [carry]," you overstep your own authority. There is no validity to a blanket statement that it is unwise to carry a gun. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #35 November 27, 2004 QuoteYes, but what you're ignoring is that saying, "IF smart tranquilizing handguns would prove to be reliable and working," is kind of like saying, "IF I could buy a pair of robotic legs that could enable me to jump to the moon, would I decide to jump to the moon?" Pish-posh. The question I posed here was a hypothetical one. And I did want to avoid the issue of if a suitable tranquiliser was available. I wanted to know if gun owners were defense minded or power influenced. If its pish-posh discussing a question of this type - dont take part! Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #36 November 27, 2004 QuoteYou really ought to have asked, "Would all you pro-gun owners support the HYPOTHETICAL IDEA of having only non-fatal, tranquilizing ammunition?" See, we already know that a ban on "everyone" having lethal ammunition would succeed in keeping only good people from having lethal ammo. Those who didn't feel like going along with the smart-ammo scheme (criminals, etc.) would simply not give theirs up; would use illegal sources; would manufacture their own lethal ammo... Like ANY OTHER BAN, it would affect only those not determined to evade it. So my answer remains no. Why should I agree to put restrictions on myself voluntarily when I know my enemies will do no such thing? -Jeffrey Thats my question exactly... As a legal gun owner, why would you carry lethal ammo.. to defend against an illegal ammo user? When you could render them harmless without it. That is the hypothetical situation I was looking to explore. If that is the case - it sounds more like the right to punish someone with an equal violence that they were intending - rather than just the ability to defend yourself. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 November 27, 2004 And how do you design it where it can be used against animal attacks, attacks by people that are on drugs, etc? Do you REALLY think this ammunition is going to be anywhere NEAR affordable? Unless it acts virtually instantly (i.e., sub one-second time frame to COMPLETE incapacitation) it's going to be useless as a defense round regardless of the items I mentioned above. Tell you what - when they make this reliable enough that the military and police are issued it for ALL situations, THEN I'd consider using it...not before. To me, this seems like another answer in search of a problem... or an excuse to say that legal gun owners are on a power trip. I'll leave the solution to that statement as an exercise for the class...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #38 November 27, 2004 Hypothetically speaking, I would carry the rounds that would incapacitate. I own guns and used guns for work but don't carry. I don't like hurting people. I'm not against concealed laws but I have felt a lot of "barney Fife" vibes from most people that do carry._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #39 November 27, 2004 Having looked at both this tread and the "Wisconsin" thread, I have come to this conclusion: ALL Guns must be immediately confiscated and fitted with some form of "Idiot-Detector". The gun will function partially BUT with a heat sensor like those in Westworld to stop them being fired at a warm target!This sensor can be overriden for varying time periods depending on the type of gun simply by the user holding the grip and then correctly answering 5 random questions designed to ensure he/she is not an idiot. Stuff like: Which Country is Edinburgh in? How many in a Bakers Dozen? Is your Mother also your Sister? What is the capital of Germany Does anyone call you and your cousin "Mummy & Daddy"? If all questions are answered properly, then the gun is fully functional until you let go of the grip. There it is. The simple solution to the problem... And the technology already exists; It only needs to be retro-fitted to all guns! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #40 November 27, 2004 I see a personal attack in such a proposal as I am a gun owner but no idiot! Silly questions: What's a Bakers Dozen? 13. Including the baker Capital City of Germany is... is..was .... May I replace that question by explaining how to calculate a WL? Smart aleck: me too! dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #41 November 27, 2004 QuoteMay I replace that question by explaining how to calculate a WL? Nope! My idea was to use the guts out of all those old electronic "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" games. But Just For You We'll do a special German version... Where you have to correctly supply the punchlines to jokes!!! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #42 November 27, 2004 Jokes? Which jokes? I'll take the audience joker now dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #43 November 27, 2004 If attacked I want to kill my attacker. No chance for a dead man to pull a piece when down. Gun control is being able to hit your target."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #44 November 27, 2004 Quote If attacked I want to kill my attacker. Maybe I should have setup a poll to ask that question.... And maybe that ought to be the question you are asked when registering a gun..... I wont even start on how wrong I think that is. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #45 November 27, 2004 QuoteQuote If attacked I want to kill my attacker. Maybe I should have setup a poll to ask that question.... And maybe that ought to be the question you are asked when registering a gun..... I wont even start on how wrong I think that is. Just as many of us think it is wrong to meekly submit to those who would do violence against you... Alas, Britannia...how the mighty have fallen...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #46 November 27, 2004 Killing someone is wrong IMHO, regardless if they wanted to do me harm. I can agree with the right to defense, and using whatever force to achieve tht defence.... But wanting to kill someone should be abhorent to all. Clearly its not sadly. Meakly submitting is never something I said I would do, and would certainly would give as good as I get - but even when in a situation like that would not want the other person to die. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #47 November 27, 2004 Quote Killing someone is wrong IMHO, regardless if they wanted to do me harm. I can agree with the right to defense, and using whatever force to achieve tht defence.... But wanting to kill someone should be abhorent to all. Clearly its not sadly. Meakly submitting is never something I said I would do, and would certainly would give as good as I get - but even when in a situation like that would not want the other person to die. This is something the anti-gun types cannot seem to understand (or they ignore it because it doesn't fit their agenda of creating monsters out of law abiding citizens): When you go through the training to become a concealed handgun license holder, you are NOT trained to kill - you are trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized - the perpetrator stops what he was doing that made him a threat. If he dies from that, then he dies - HE created that consequence when he attacked me. Again, I will reference Raging Against Self Defense - please read it this time. I will also add in A Nation Of Cowards by Jeff Snyder - please give this a look as well. Hopefully they will explain the mindset that you either cannot or will not understand. Good luck.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #48 November 27, 2004 I think if you go up a little and read.... I replied to the statement... 'IF ATTACKED I WANT TO KILL MY ATTACKER' That is fairly clear, and stopping someone regardless of the outcome is not the point Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #49 November 27, 2004 Yes, I saw that - and I am responding to YOUR response.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #50 November 27, 2004 Dont follow your point then? I dont have a problem if in defending yourself someone dies... I have an issue with anyone that wants to kill someone because they attack you. Clear difference. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
