Meet The $22,000, Self-Aiming, Wifi-Enabled Rifle

[Sean Kay]

I've got to say, this gun smacks of "All the gear, and no idea". As has been pointed out here, hunters won't want it, and I can't see any military paying for such an expensive system when basic marksman drills are more cost effective. This is a gadget, and like all gadgets its a bit too flash for the substance

 

[Pinkamena]

They should mount this thing on Petman.

 

[hooglese]

Wow, a real life aim-bot.. Never thought I'd see the day... I can imagine what the dude on the side that's being fired at will say.. "YOU HACKING SHIT!!! STOP WITH THE AIMBOT AND AIM FOR REAL YOU PUSSY!!!"

hahahahaha, just wait till it has the ability to look through walls.

The US really is starting to act like the kind of twat that actually likes using hacks in video games. I bet they'll have changed their name to [420] We3dK!l135 and they're anthem will be lolololol m1ddle east are n00bz in the next 1000 years if they still survive.

 

[Strazdas]

I won't argue with you that if we didn't have rifles, we would have fewer killings. However, we will never be free of firearms in the US, and that is a fact, not a guess. Even if we banned all firearms, asked for a national turn in, and then went door to door collecting all remaining leftovers, we would still have stowed firearms, imported firearms, and illegal firearms. What you are talking about is fact, if we had no guns, there would be less gun related death. I can't dispute that, but it is an unrealistic expectation. What I am talking about is applicable fact. This is the applied extrapolation based off of our situation. I can see that you don't live in the US, and that is fine, but what I am talking about applies to the US only. I don't know what the situation is in Lithuania, but it isn't the situation here.

if all you do is sit around repeating "it wont happen lets do nothing" of course it wont. Rome wasnt built in a day and all this stuff. lets at least first of all remove extremely easy acess to guns for almsot everybody and we got a start.

How is this a strawman at all? In fact I go so far as to elaborate on the differences between the countries being discussed. I will address this further if you elaborate on what made this paragraph a strawman. As far as any two countries being compared for the purposes of law enforcement, it does apply to everyone. Admittedly to varying degrees, but the point still holds. No two countries have the same culture or social standards, so why should they be compared for the purposes of laws?

taking example of 1 (one) single gang initiation ritual and applying it to all gun users is not a strawman?

How does this apply to my point at all? I halfway feel that you are being argumentative for the sake of arguing. We don't have any constitutional right to child pornography or child sex, so making it illegal is not removing anyones rights. We do have a right to own firearms, so taking them away removes our right. In the US you can only have rights removed from you if you are a criminal, a felon to be more precise. So by taking away our rights, without provocation, you are treating us as criminals. Once again, different countries, different laws. We are a democratic nation, and without a change in our governing documents, this is how things work here. If you don't agree with it, or like it, that is perfectly fine. I actually agree with you that we need a new form of governing body here (don't misread that as me saying we need to rebel, I think this can actually be done from inside the government), but until such a time as a new constitution is written, removing my right to own firearms is treating me like a criminal, and is an action I will not abide.

Fair enough, i misudnerstood what you originally meant, thanks for clarification.

Can somone who owns a 100 dollar gun shoot you from 2 km away with no witnesses and walk away like nothing happened?
yeah, thats what i though.

Uh, yes, they can?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

And before you say "The gun they used costs more than $100!!!!!"... it was STOLEN, so it was FREE.

not it wasnt free. stolen weapon was still paid for to begin with. the whole fact that your laws allow weapon storage so that they can be so easily stolen is a problem to begin with, but thats another topic. you still cant do that with 100 dollar gun.
i can steal a 500.000 gun and kill a bunch of people and claim i did it with a 100 dollar gun too, because after all i didnt pay more than that.

lol no, no you can't. I'm sure someone could modify the system to allow the WiFi to control the guns systems, but you still need to AIM THE GUN like ANY OTHER GUN in order to use it. It's not a magical robot, it's nothing more than a system that tells you which direction you need to point the gun before pulling the trigger. That's all it fucking is, why don't you guys understand this?

a RC toy car level of axis aiming thats controleld by wiki is not really something hard to shop for. and with this pointing system you can remote control to target corectly without needing to be there.

...because you can't assassinate 1 person from a distance with any other type of rifle in the world? Maybe you should call up John F. Kennedy and ask his opin-OH WAIT.

without extensive training you cant, unelss your very lucky.
JFK was short distance.

Yeah because you hear about SO MANY shootings happening with tanks and miniguns. Fact: America isn't the only country in which you can purchase a tank or a minigun.

in comparisong to the percentage of them existing compared to other guns? yeah.
and yes i know UK allow tank ownership too. point?

Bullshit hunting isn't a means of food... you know that not everyone lives in the middle of the city, right? There are people here in America who live an hour's drive from any type of business at all. You think they shouldn't be able to hunt for food? Beyond that, why SHOULDN'T people be allowed to hunt for their own food if they so choose? They should be forced to purchase it from the store? Really? Hunting is an IMPORTANT skill that must continue to be passed down through generations.

Yes, people should be buying their food that is grown without brutal slaughter of random animals if the possibility exists. it is purely a moral choice whether you think that shop meat or shooting animals is prefered, and according to my morals you should never hunt with exception of it being the only means of survival. The skills is only important if you want apocalypse.

Not only that, but hunting is NECESSARY for population control. Ever hear of the Department of Natural Resources? They're the guys that monitor wildlife population and issue certain numbers of "Tags" to thin the population. If we DON'T thin the population, they spread into our cities and run amok.

ah, that old population control excuse. you are controling populating to the level fo extinction, very nice. how about we start populating control with ourselves, we are 6 billions too many and have severely overran our natural habitat. but no, we are too selfish, we instead must kill other animals because we forced them out of their natural homes and now they dont for to places we left them.
Not to mention there are more efficient ways of population control thna random joe and his gun toting friends.

You are TRULY proving your ignorance by attacking hunting. You know nothing about it, and you shouldn't render your opinion until you educate yourself because honestly, what you've said is simply pathetic.

Supporting hunting is the ignorant decision here.

There is a huge black market for illegal weapons.

there is a huge black market for legaly bought weapons. in fact majority of black market in america is legally owned gun resale.

You ban them in one country, it creates a vacuum - a market for ILLEGAL guns. Ban them in America, they'll come from Mexico (they often already do). Since apparently it's "racist" to want to secure our borders, how do we stop that?

so if you ban guns in american they will come from american? because mexican illegla guns are the guns legally obtained in america. allowing easy access for guns to black market is "protecting our borders" now?

Not to mention, do you realize how many billions upon billions of guns exist in America alone? Do you truly expect to eliminate every last one of them with some sort of law? If you think there is ANY piece of legislation that will eliminate all guns and thus cure the need for innocent people to carry them to protect themselves, by all means, share it.

I never said it has to be done instantly with a single legislation. It has to be done gradually, over many years (think 50 or 100) slowly removing acess to new guns and purging out the old ones.

Apparently you don't, because if you did, you'd understand that this is nothing more than a crutch.

a crutch to a man with no legs is a lot.

hahahahaha, just wait till it has the ability to look through walls.

they already do
http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/03/researchers-use-wifi-radio-waves-to-see-through-walls/

 

[Kiardras]

So in 2013 we created a gun that aims for you, and yet the Kaminoans managed to produce an army incapable of a: coming up with this, and 2: aiming.

Also: There is a Brit called Noel Sharkey? Man this country is awesome.

I've met Dr. Sharkey, at a robot fighting tournament. Amazing man.

 

[KelDG]

Wifi Enabled?

Hope it doesn't use WEP

 

[Combustion Kevin]

and so, professional snipers will throw a bitchfit over taking the skill out of precision shooting.

just like knights did when they started using firearms.

or whoever was around when inventing the catapult.

Thing is, combat used to be an actual sport, but they made it way too easy to get into it and lowered the bar.
Nowadays it's way too mainstream and casual, RL auto-aim just proves it.

 

[barbzilla]

I won't argue with you that if we didn't have rifles, we would have fewer killings. However, we will never be free of firearms in the US, and that is a fact, not a guess. Even if we banned all firearms, asked for a national turn in, and then went door to door collecting all remaining leftovers, we would still have stowed firearms, imported firearms, and illegal firearms. What you are talking about is fact, if we had no guns, there would be less gun related death. I can't dispute that, but it is an unrealistic expectation. What I am talking about is applicable fact. This is the applied extrapolation based off of our situation. I can see that you don't live in the US, and that is fine, but what I am talking about applies to the US only. I don't know what the situation is in Lithuania, but it isn't the situation here.

if all you do is sit around repeating "it wont happen lets do nothing" of course it wont. Rome wasnt built in a day and all this stuff. lets at least first of all remove extremely easy acess to guns for almsot everybody and we got a start.

I'm not just saying it won't happen, lets do nothing. I am saying it won't happen, it doesn't need to happen, and with our current structure it makes little to no sense, so lets not do it. I do agree with making changes though, in case you missed that part from the post you originally quoted, I said that I would like for there to be stricter rules on who can own guns, and stricter rules on gun safety enforcement. In my opinion, since we can't get rid of guns in the US, we need to regulate them better. I am not one of the pro-gun nuts saying we don't need to do anything and that all guns should be legal, I just don't think banning the guns is the best course of action for us.

How is this a strawman at all? In fact I go so far as to elaborate on the differences between the countries being discussed. I will address this further if you elaborate on what made this paragraph a strawman. As far as any two countries being compared for the purposes of law enforcement, it does apply to everyone. Admittedly to varying degrees, but the point still holds. No two countries have the same culture or social standards, so why should they be compared for the purposes of laws?

taking example of 1 (one) single gang initiation ritual and applying it to all gun users is not a strawman?

You completely missed the point of my argument on this one. I was not applying one gang initiation to all gun users in any way shape or form. I was comparing gangs between two countries and their level of street violence as a way to help make my point clear on how the differences in countries show why laws can not be enforced universally around the world. Different cultures and different life styles make that impossible. I apologize if that wasn't clear enough.

How does this apply to my point at all? I halfway feel that you are being argumentative for the sake of arguing. We don't have any constitutional right to child pornography or child sex, so making it illegal is not removing anyones rights. We do have a right to own firearms, so taking them away removes our right. In the US you can only have rights removed from you if you are a criminal, a felon to be more precise. So by taking away our rights, without provocation, you are treating us as criminals. Once again, different countries, different laws. We are a democratic nation, and without a change in our governing documents, this is how things work here. If you don't agree with it, or like it, that is perfectly fine. I actually agree with you that we need a new form of governing body here (don't misread that as me saying we need to rebel, I think this can actually be done from inside the government), but until such a time as a new constitution is written, removing my right to own firearms is treating me like a criminal, and is an action I will not abide.

Fair enough, i misudnerstood what you originally meant, thanks for clarification.

No worries m8!

 

[barbzilla]

...because you can't assassinate 1 person from a distance with any other type of rifle in the world? Maybe you should call up John F. Kennedy and ask his opin-OH WAIT.

without extensive training you cant, unelss your very lucky.
JFK was short distance.

Yes, but it was two shots in less than 3 seconds at 81m, into two heads, at a moving vehicle. I don't think luck was a factor here guy. Did you know that very few killings are done in the US with a sniper rifle? In fact so few killings are done with a sniper rifle, that you always hear about it when one is used. The lack of an effective police force and lack of gun storage, makes it too easy to kill someone with a gun in the US. That is one of the major issues. The fact that 90% of our gun killings happen with cheap (300$ or less) firearms shows that you don't need a long distance rifle to get away with killing someone.

Keep in mind that I am not saying this to make us look good or anything, in fact I think it makes us look horrible. We need better gun control laws, and I don't disagree there.

Bullshit hunting isn't a means of food... you know that not everyone lives in the middle of the city, right? There are people here in America who live an hour's drive from any type of business at all. You think they shouldn't be able to hunt for food? Beyond that, why SHOULDN'T people be allowed to hunt for their own food if they so choose? They should be forced to purchase it from the store? Really? Hunting is an IMPORTANT skill that must continue to be passed down through generations.

Yes, people should be buying their food that is grown without brutal slaughter of random animals if the possibility exists. it is purely a moral choice whether you think that shop meat or shooting animals is prefered, and according to my morals you should never hunt with exception of it being the only means of survival. The skills is only important if you want apocalypse.

You realize that hunted food tends to lead a much better life than food kept in any form of mass production ranch and slaughter house. They do horrible things to your food that you find in the supermarket. Do me a favor, before you argue with me on this one, look it up... waiting... there, how did that make you feel about supermarket meat? Hunters are the humane one, not the supermarket shoppers.

You ban them in one country, it creates a vacuum - a market for ILLEGAL guns. Ban them in America, they'll come from Mexico (they often already do). Since apparently it's "racist" to want to secure our borders, how do we stop that?

so if you ban guns in american they will come from american? because mexican illegla guns are the guns legally obtained in america. allowing easy access for guns to black market is "protecting our borders" now?

Only a small percentage of mexican firearms come from the US. I have many mexican firearms that were imported from china, in fact one of my collectables is a japanese world war two gun that was made for mexico.

Not to mention, do you realize how many billions upon billions of guns exist in America alone? Do you truly expect to eliminate every last one of them with some sort of law? If you think there is ANY piece of legislation that will eliminate all guns and thus cure the need for innocent people to carry them to protect themselves, by all means, share it.

I never said it has to be done instantly with a single legislation. It has to be done gradually, over many years (think 50 or 100) slowly removing acess to new guns and purging out the old ones.

The issue is every time they make the laws more restrictive, gun sales go up, not down. With the last legislation gun sales have skyrocketed, and ammo is hard to find, because it is being purchased so quickly. Unless they do a full ban, which won't work, they will never be able to make any significant dent in the gun population.

 

[Strazdas]

snip

1st part: fair enough, i can udnerstand your position.
2nd part: what makes you so sure there are no similar gangs in other countries? I know they exist in russia. None that i know off in lithuania, but we are a very small and young country and we lack many things.

Yes, but it was two shots in less than 3 seconds at 81m, into two heads, at a moving vehicle. I don't think luck was a factor here guy. Did you know that very few killings are done in the US with a sniper rifle? In fact so few killings are done with a sniper rifle, that you always hear about it when one is used.

frankly, lets no go into debates of conspiracy or anything, but the time official ivnestigation came up with is 4.8 seconds needed to shoot twice in this gun. Oswald had good military training and had enchanted his rifle for accuracy (it was more accurate than the standard version in tests done afterwards). it is in no way a typical guy goes mad and starts shooting people scenario.
Do you always hear about it? how do you know how much you dont hear about? and its not the amount of killings i was discussing, its the ability to get away with it. How much % of sniper killers get away with it in comparison to regular gun killers?

You realize that hunted food tends to lead a much better life than food kept in any form of mass production ranch and slaughter house. They do horrible things to your food that you find in the supermarket. Do me a favor, before you argue with me on this one, look it up... waiting... there, how did that make you feel about supermarket meat? Hunters are the humane one, not the supermarket shoppers.

It leads to a healthier life only if you buy meat from the farms that do those horrible things you though i didnt already knew about. And while i agree that an average consumer might be one of those buyers, i would rather have this fixed than tell them to go hunting. why replace a problem with another problem instead of solving it?
There are farms that do not do horrible things to animals you know. and also once the societal irrationality about grown meant stops being so huge we will be able to eat meat without having to kill any animals to begin with.

Only a small percentage of mexican firearms come from the US. I have many mexican firearms that were imported from china, in fact one of my collectables is a japanese world war two gun that was made for mexico.

What i meant was that great many of illegaly used (think: drug cartels) guns in mexico came from legal ownership in US. not that collectors in Mexico buy everything from US.

The issue is every time they make the laws more restrictive, gun sales go up, not down. With the last legislation gun sales have skyrocketed, and ammo is hard to find, because it is being purchased so quickly. Unless they do a full ban, which won't work, they will never be able to make any significant dent in the gun population.

people are hoarding on expectation that they are going to restrict it further. and since those restirctions wont take away the weapons they already have (sadly, not practically possible). This is a short term effect that is not significant in the long term.

 

[barbzilla]

snip

1st part: fair enough, i can udnerstand your position.
2nd part: what makes you so sure there are no similar gangs in other countries? I know they exist in russia. None that i know off in lithuania, but we are a very small and young country and we lack many things.

I don't doubt that there are similar gangs in other countries, but the person I was speaking with was discussing the criminals in his country penchant for not harming innocent civilians. I was pointing out the differences in my country and his country. I am absolutely positive that I can find cultural differences between every single country, it is just part of human history.

Yes, but it was two shots in less than 3 seconds at 81m, into two heads, at a moving vehicle. I don't think luck was a factor here guy. Did you know that very few killings are done in the US with a sniper rifle? In fact so few killings are done with a sniper rifle, that you always hear about it when one is used.

frankly, lets no go into debates of conspiracy or anything, but the time official ivnestigation came up with is 4.8 seconds needed to shoot twice in this gun. Oswald had good military training and had enchanted his rifle for accuracy (it was more accurate than the standard version in tests done afterwards). it is in no way a typical guy goes mad and starts shooting people scenario.
Do you always hear about it? how do you know how much you dont hear about? and its not the amount of killings i was discussing, its the ability to get away with it. How much % of sniper killers get away with it in comparison to regular gun killers?

I don't mean to get into conspiracy theories, I was just pointing out that no matter how good or accurate the shooter, they will still likely get caught. As for the number of snipers I hear about, I can't be positive that I hear of all of them, but it usually makes big headlines. So unless it was swept under the rug by the government, I'm pretty sure we would have heard about it. As for the number that get away with it, from the number of snipers I've heard about in my lifetime (30 years), they have caught all but one. I'm sure there may even be a few innocent bystanders that were blamed, but that doesn't change the fact that most snipers are caught. The main reason they are caught has nothing to do with distance, in fact most of the shootings that take place where the shooter gets away they used a cheap throw away. When someone purchases high powered weapons and has a grudge (sniping is usually a grudge, or it ends in self termination) they leave a trail.

I don't mean to defend the public owning a rifle like this, I just don't see many killing happening using this rifle. Honestly I am perfectly okay with it being either a military owned rifle, or publicly owned, decommissioned (deactivated) rifle.

You realize that hunted food tends to lead a much better life than food kept in any form of mass production ranch and slaughter house. They do horrible things to your food that you find in the supermarket. Do me a favor, before you argue with me on this one, look it up... waiting... there, how did that make you feel about supermarket meat? Hunters are the humane one, not the supermarket shoppers.

It leads to a healthier life only if you buy meat from the farms that do those horrible things you though i didnt already knew about. And while i agree that an average consumer might be one of those buyers, i would rather have this fixed than tell them to go hunting. why replace a problem with another problem instead of solving it?
There are farms that do not do horrible things to animals you know. and also once the societal irrationality about grown meant stops being so huge we will be able to eat meat without having to kill any animals to begin with.

I highly doubt that any meat farm is going to have a better living situation than an animal's natural habitat. On top of that, I would ask you to further your research. I know that they have "humane" grown animals, but do some research on how "humane" they actually are. The only way you could actually knowingly get humanely grown meat is to buy it from a local farm that you visit and know to be humane.

Only a small percentage of mexican firearms come from the US. I have many mexican firearms that were imported from china, in fact one of my collectables is a japanese world war two gun that was made for mexico.

What i meant was that great many of illegaly used (think: drug cartels) guns in mexico came from legal ownership in US. not that collectors in Mexico buy everything from US.

Fair enough, I will concede this point to you as I don't have a working understanding of the illegal firearms trade in other countries.

The issue is every time they make the laws more restrictive, gun sales go up, not down. With the last legislation gun sales have skyrocketed, and ammo is hard to find, because it is being purchased so quickly. Unless they do a full ban, which won't work, they will never be able to make any significant dent in the gun population.

people are hoarding on expectation that they are going to restrict it further. and since those restirctions wont take away the weapons they already have (sadly, not practically possible). This is a short term effect that is not significant in the long term.

The same can be said of any restriction they place short of banning firearms, thus my point. Since an outright ban and collection is impossible, it will continue to be impossible to remove firearms fully from the country. Even countries that have implemented full firearms bans, and managed to get most of them out of the country, still have illegal firearms and illegal firearm trade. Yes, a full firearm ban and removal of all firearms would significantly (though by how much is debatable) reduce firearm related crimes, it would not end them. If you can show me a developed country that has zero firearm crimes I will support disarming an entire country (which will lead to further bloodshed).

 

[Strazdas]

I don't mean to get into conspiracy theories, I was just pointing out that no matter how good or accurate the shooter, they will still likely get caught. As for the number of snipers I hear about, I can't be positive that I hear of all of them, but it usually makes big headlines. So unless it was swept under the rug by the government, I'm pretty sure we would have heard about it. As for the number that get away with it, from the number of snipers I've heard about in my lifetime (30 years), they have caught all but one. I'm sure there may even be a few innocent bystanders that were blamed, but that doesn't change the fact that most snipers are caught. The main reason they are caught has nothing to do with distance, in fact most of the shootings that take place where the shooter gets away they used a cheap throw away. When someone purchases high powered weapons and has a grudge (sniping is usually a grudge, or it ends in self termination) they leave a trail.

Fair enough. Though it all people that get caught are probably not careful to begin with. you cant trace a bullet to an owner, it has no initials. and beside bullet and trajectory, you got nothing.

I highly doubt that any meat farm is going to have a better living situation than an animal's natural habitat. On top of that, I would ask you to further your research. I know that they have "humane" grown animals, but do some research on how "humane" they actually are. The only way you could actually knowingly get humanely grown meat is to buy it from a local farm that you visit and know to be humane.

Better - no. Acceptable - yes. most pet owners are more cruel than some of the farms. do you think we are better of shooting happy free animals?
I know that there are really bad farms. but not around here. that is illegal here, and there are no such farms here. most of our farms are way bellow in efficiency, but they treat animals right. our whole country farming is the "local farm". we dont have big farm companies here.
also you nicely ignored the grown meat argument (not the animal, meat).

The same can be said of any restriction they place short of banning firearms, thus my point. Since an outright ban and collection is impossible, it will continue to be impossible to remove firearms fully from the country. Even countries that have implemented full firearms bans, and managed to get most of them out of the country, still have illegal firearms and illegal firearm trade. Yes, a full firearm ban and removal of all firearms would significantly (though by how much is debatable) reduce firearm related crimes, it would not end them. If you can show me a developed country that has zero firearm crimes I will support disarming an entire country (which will lead to further bloodshed).

And.... removing large amount of guns in the long term at an expensice if short time hoarding is bad how? Countries that have implemented very strick gun bans have significantly lower amount of criminals using guns. exception being mexico where the guns come in from US. Of ccourse it would not end the crimes completely, if there existed a magical solution for that it would surely be used already. though i guess you will agree that 10 crimes is better than 100 wont you?

Yes, you CAN.

This is a gun you can buy for around $100, used. http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=342352099

Here it is making a 1,000 yard shot with nothing more than a good scope on it.

No i cant, and neither can you. Only a marksman can. How many people who kill others with guns are marksmen?
Also, scope price should come as part of weapon price, since without it you still cant do that.

Set that sucker up to Facetime and you've got a real time image of what your scope is seeing.

and this being so easy is not bad because?

...so we should all eat nothing but greens and berries?

no, we should eat products that does not involve shooting an animal and letting it die suffering and call it a sport.

Where do you think "shop meat" comes from?

slaughterhouse. Which is not the same as a hunter, mind i remind you?

Hundreds of livestock are raised, kept in barns unable to roam freely, then filed down the line one by one where their brains are pierced with a metal rod and they are butchered. Then the meat gets shipped to your local shop.

or, hundreds in of livestock allowed to roam freely on large area of grass that later gets killed by a instant-death method like a nail to the brain isntead of having your lungs shot and suffocate, then meant gets shipped to local shop.

"How about we start population control with ourselves" - And how do you suggest we do that?

your the one saying we shoudl do population control, your the one that should come up with a method, or do you want to use same methods you contrl populating in other animal cultures, like, say, shooting them when they are jsut going around thier bsuiness? but no, we go to jail for that apparently.

[quoet]You're already against gun violence.. if you want to thin our numbers and you truly believe that guns = mass death, shouldn't you be FOR guns? [/quote]
No, why would i? just because i want to thin our numbers does not mean i want to kill people. A much better solution would be to reproduce less.

The entire PURPOSE of the DNR is to ensure that animal populations remain at a good size, and there's more to it than just how many car/deer collisions there are per year - the entire eco system can be at risk if too many of one species exist in one place.

the entire ecosystem was fine till humans came. now suddenly there are too many animals.

Care to retract that statement yet, or should I share more cold hard facts and evidence as to why hunting is necessary?

you havent provided any.

ILLEGAL goods. That means not legal. Why in the hell would someone sell a LEGAL gun on the black market? You wouldn't need to! If the gun is LEGAL, you can LEGALLY SELL IT.

the same reason any ever sells anything to the black market. money. Lets say you can buy a weapon legally for 100 dollars, then you can sell it to someone who cant legally get one for 500 dollars. how many people would be willing to attempt that?

Mexico's illegal guns come from America and only America? There's no other place they could get them? Really? Ok then.

No, but a great many, majority by some estimations, do. There are other places of course. however it is far easier to smuggle from a neighboaring country than across an ocean isnt it?

I did not say that allowing easy access to black market guns is "protecting our borders", I said PROTECTING OUR BORDERS WILL HINDER THE BLACK MARKET. And it will. But we can't do that, because it's racist.

Fair enough, you got a point here, but i dont see how protecting borders enter this discussion. allowing guns to be owned easily by civilians will not protect borders.

How do you expect to purge the old ones? Do you really think people won't hide them if the government comes to collect them? Fact: you've never had to register any non-automatic long guns in the United States. Aside from a serial number on the manufacturer's manifest, once a rifle, shotgun or otherwise is sold, it might as well cease to exist.

lack of registration is a problem on its own. but i dont expect to purgle old ones. i expect them to get removed on their own. Guns in WW2 was more mass produced than they are now, and yet how many functional ones are there left around? see my point? they will degrate themselves. i never suggested a 1 day strategy to get rid of guns. i suggested a 100 years plan. because thats how long it takes for a place that has create culture around killing machines.

I can sell my shotgun to whomever I want, whenever I want, for however much money I want, and once it's out of my hands, who KNOWS where it'll end up. It has been this way since the dawn of time.

and humans have been killing eachother since the dawn of time. is that a good thing?

 

[barbzilla]

Fair enough. Though it all people that get caught are probably not careful to begin with. you cant trace a bullet to an owner, it has no initials. and beside bullet and trajectory, you got nothing.

You still have motive, rifling, potentially fingerprints on the casings, if the shot from a room in a high rise they can get rental records and or evidence from the physical location itself, there are a number of possibilities, and nobody is perfect.

Better - no. Acceptable - yes. most pet owners are more cruel than some of the farms. do you think we are better of shooting happy free animals?
I know that there are really bad farms. but not around here. that is illegal here, and there are no such farms here. most of our farms are way bellow in efficiency, but they treat animals right. our whole country farming is the "local farm". we dont have big farm companies here.
also you nicely ignored the grown meat argument (not the animal, meat).

Well in the US we have very few local farms like that. Now we have massive industrial farms that treat their animals horribly. So bad in fact that had these animals not been meant for food they would be arrested for animal cruelty, and that is the "humane" ones. As far as grown meat, I'm not entirely sure what you mean so I didn't address it.

And.... removing large amount of guns in the long term at an expensice if short time hoarding is bad how? Countries that have implemented very strick gun bans have significantly lower amount of criminals using guns. exception being mexico where the guns come in from US. Of ccourse it would not end the crimes completely, if there existed a magical solution for that it would surely be used already. though i guess you will agree that 10 crimes is better than 100 wont you?

I would agree that 10 crimes is better than 100, but that won't be the case. I know you only hear about the crazies that take a legal gun and shoot a place up, but in the US most of our gun crime is from criminal sources who obtain guns illegally. So trying to take guns from citizens by force would cause a lot of bloodshed for nothing, as the criminals wouldn't be giving theirs up in the first place. You are working with faulty information because of cultural differences and relying on media information. The media in the US is so slanted that you only really get to hear one side of any given story, and when you try to apply that information through your own cultural filter, you end up with incomplete information.

If I thought for a minute that banning guns would reduce crime by 90% I would be all over it. But in reality it would reduce crime by closer to 5-10%, and as a result the violent gun crimes would have a larger chance of mishap without a counterbalance. In the US the cities that have instituted stricter gun control and gun bans are the cities with the largest amount of gun crime, digest that information and then get back to me. If you don't believe me, feel free to look up our FBI crime statistics.

 

[Strazdas]

Fair enough. Though it all people that get caught are probably not careful to begin with. you cant trace a bullet to an owner, it has no initials. and beside bullet and trajectory, you got nothing.

You still have motive, rifling, potentially fingerprints on the casings, if the shot from a room in a high rise they can get rental records and or evidence from the physical location itself, there are a number of possibilities, and nobody is perfect.

Fair enough. after all most criminals are caught for stupid mistakes they make.

Well in the US we have very few local farms like that. Now we have massive industrial farms that treat their animals horribly. So bad in fact that had these animals not been meant for food they would be arrested for animal cruelty, and that is the "humane" ones. As far as grown meat, I'm not entirely sure what you mean so I didn't address it.

That is a problem indeed. You should regulate such farms, or if you arleady do - do it better.
The grown meant i meant the meat grown in the lab, meat that was not a live animal to begin with.

If I thought for a minute that banning guns would reduce crime by 90% I would be all over it. But in reality it would reduce crime by closer to 5-10%, and as a result the violent gun crimes would have a larger chance of mishap without a counterbalance. In the US the cities that have instituted stricter gun control and gun bans are the cities with the largest amount of gun crime, digest that information and then get back to me. If you don't believe me, feel free to look up our FBI crime statistics.

If that is truly the case then yeah, i guess first step is to change your culture.

 

[barbzilla]

Fair enough. Though it all people that get caught are probably not careful to begin with. you cant trace a bullet to an owner, it has no initials. and beside bullet and trajectory, you got nothing.

You still have motive, rifling, potentially fingerprints on the casings, if the shot from a room in a high rise they can get rental records and or evidence from the physical location itself, there are a number of possibilities, and nobody is perfect.

Fair enough. after all most criminals are caught for stupid mistakes they make.

Well in the US we have very few local farms like that. Now we have massive industrial farms that treat their animals horribly. So bad in fact that had these animals not been meant for food they would be arrested for animal cruelty, and that is the "humane" ones. As far as grown meat, I'm not entirely sure what you mean so I didn't address it.

That is a problem indeed. You should regulate such farms, or if you arleady do - do it better.
The grown meant i meant the meat grown in the lab, meat that was not a live animal to begin with.

If I thought for a minute that banning guns would reduce crime by 90% I would be all over it. But in reality it would reduce crime by closer to 5-10%, and as a result the violent gun crimes would have a larger chance of mishap without a counterbalance. In the US the cities that have instituted stricter gun control and gun bans are the cities with the largest amount of gun crime, digest that information and then get back to me. If you don't believe me, feel free to look up our FBI crime statistics.

If that is truly the case then yeah, i guess first step is to change your culture.

Yet another example of intelligent discourse winning the day. ;-P
Don't get me wrong, I am all for less crime, and if it wasn't such a dangerous venture to try to collect all the firearms, I would also be for that. However, it will never be feasible to do a door to door search for firearms without both excessive manpower, and needless bloodshed. I think the way the US will be able to work down gun violence is with proper rules regarding guns and gun safety. Right now there is nothing mandatory you have to do to own a firearm besides a background check, and you can avoid the background check by buying a local used firearm from a non FFL person.

We need to require stricter training and gun safety to be prevalent, we need better discrimination on who can own guns, and we need guns bought to be registered (along with their rifling pattern being registered for the purposes of identification). Many people in the US will fight tooth and nail about the registration alone, and we may see needless violence over that, but those things would allow for the same level of protection we enjoy today, and make it easier to catch criminals who use firearms. If we can make it easy enough to catch the criminal using the gun, they will be forced to stop using guns just for sheer efficiency.

 

[Strazdas]

Yet another example of intelligent discourse winning the day. ;-P

and on the internet too, imagine that.