I really don't get the problem with Smart Guns. As I understand it it is basically a sort of combination between license plates and car keys. Do not see where the problem lies in preventing other people from stealing your shit and abusing it, or making it easier to track people who do.
The problem with tech that can be used to ID a murderer is the chance that it could be altered/abused and used to frame an innocent person for a crime.
That's ridiculous as an argument. By that logic, we shouldn't have VINs and license plates on cars, because I could use them to frame an innocent person for a crime.
The key difference is VINs and license plates have a primary purpose other than affixing blame in criminal cases. The only purpose for the 'gun IDs' is to affix blame.
Actually, that is pretty much the express purpose of license plates in a practical sense. License plates on cars are pretty much entirely irrelevant unless the driver of the car does something illegal or against the rules of the road.
License plates are essentially a state issued serial number for your car. They are used to tax and track your vehicle.
They can also be used to frame someone for a crime (works best if you use same make/model/color of vehicle.)
While they are used by law enforcement they are not used solely as a law enforcement tool. Microstamping of firing pins (gun ID) serves no purpose outside of law enforcement. Grip sensors and RFID watches, when they fail to work, are described as working because failure results in the gun not working. If a problem with your seat belt prevented your car from working would you consider that a beneficial feature or a failure of the safety device?
If someone wants to purchase a 'smart gun' I have no problem with that purchase. However with laws such as the one in NJ that bans all 'dumb' gun sales three years after the first smart gun goes on sale well... That law fucks everything up. If we had a similar law banning all internal combustion vehicles X years after the first non-internal combustion car was available for sale we would never have seen Tesla Motors.
If these smart techs are so good why is the transition not being spearheaded by government agencies? They spearheaded alternative fuel vehicles by mandating their purchase for use in their vehicle fleets why not do the same with smart guns?
My local police carry 9mm on one hip and a non-lethal tazer on the other. The tazer is trackable in that the discharge debris is trackable. The 9mm is not. Why not institute microstamping on police guns? Trial it for a few years before attempting to force it on the public? Same with grip sensors and RFID based systems. See if police report problems as features or failures.
Thoughts aren't evil. Actions are evil. Although I was explaining why Scott would call someone evil, not calling him/her evil. Implying someone is a disturbing cunt is not calling them evil.
Sorry, I misread you on that one. I'm glad to hear you're not with Scott on using the term "evil".
If someone wants to purchase a 'smart gun' I have no problem with that purchase. However with laws such as the one in NJ that bans all 'dumb' gun sales three years after the first smart gun goes on sale well... That law fucks everything up. If we had a similar law banning all internal combustion vehicles X years after the first non-internal combustion car was available for sale we would never have seen Tesla Motors.
That's a reasonable point, because there are indeed vested interests that would lobby against the smart guns. However, it's still possible to stand up to the gun lobby on this issue, even without changing that NJ law.
If these smart techs are so good why is the transition not being spearheaded by government agencies? They spearheaded alternative fuel vehicles by mandating their purchase for use in their vehicle fleets why not do the same with smart guns?
The most obvious reason why is that microstamping on the guns of government agencies would make those agencies more accountable, and they don't like being accountable. Besides that, there is also the matter of political influence, particularly that of the gun lobby. Even a relatively innocuous measure like microstamping on police guns is extremely difficult to enact.
My local police carry 9mm on one hip and a non-lethal tazer on the other. The tazer is trackable in that the discharge debris is trackable. The 9mm is not. Why not institute microstamping on police guns? Trial it for a few years before attempting to force it on the public? Same with grip sensors and RFID based systems. See if police report problems as features or failures.
Is there any data (or anecdotal evidence) on tazers as self defense and/or home defense weapons instead of guns?
With a gun if I shoot someone they either die or suffer an injury that seriously inhibits their ability to threaten me. With a tazer they are temporarily incapacitated but what happens as they recover? Do I have to taze them again while waiting for cops to arrive?
Edit: from what I have read a tazer is a horrible self defense weapon. You are better off with mace or pepper spray if you want to go the non-lethal route.
License plates are very handy in tracking stolen vehicles. That's not attaching blame, just trying to find the damn thing.
That is basically just one degree removed from what I said, but not substantial different in the act itself. It's trying to prove illegal conduct not by the owner of the vehicle, but a different person.
While [License Plates] are used by law enforcement they are not used solely as a law enforcement tool.
I seriously doubt that License plates on a car have ever been used as anything but a law enforcement tool by a government agency. Please name one purpose other than law enforcement that license plates serve. I include "taxation" as law enforcement, because taxes are laws.
Taxes are law enforcement? I have never had a police officer involved in the process of paying my car taxes.
Taxes are laws. And police is not the only type of law enforcement agency in the world. The IRS for example is tasked with enforcing the tax code of the US.
I seriously doubt that License plates on a car have ever been used as anything but a law enforcement tool by a government agency. Please name one purpose other than law enforcement that license plates serve. I include "taxation" as law enforcement, because taxes are laws.
You have crafted the question in a manner in which no answer I give will satisfy you. By restricting my answers to government agencies you can claim any answer I give touches on law enforcement.
Town clerk uses marker tags for tax assessments which you will claim is law enforcement.
State uses car registration data to assess car ownership levels and average fuel economy for the state as well as tracking adoption of high mpg and alternative fuel vehicles. Since such collection of information exists because a law was passed mandating such information collection it becomes law enforcement under your definition.
Since everything done by a government agency has to have a basis in law everything they do is technically law enforcement.
Let me reverse the question. What do government agencies do that is not related to enforcing laws?
The point that I was trying to make is that marker plates have uses outside of criminal law enforcement while gun microstamping (gun ID) only has usage under criminal law.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that if you really think you need a firearm for self-defense, you need to re-evaluate your sense of danger. Unless you're a police officer or soldier or something, the likelihood that you're going to be placed in a situation that would actually call for the use of deadly force is probably pretty small.
NASA or the NEA are not law enforcement agencies though they are government agencies. State-run universities are similar. Your example of calculating fuel consumption would actually a decent argument if it was done by such a university. Similar research could be done with gun IDs, gauging sales numbers, popularity, number of guns in circulation, etc by collecting dispensed cartridges from firing ranges.
The bigger problem however is that this piggybacks on the existence of license plates and vehicle registration and isn't a cause for it to exist. License plates are there to give an easy way to identify a vehicle, and the scenario in which this becomes most relevant and important is when that vehicle has been involved in a crime. The same is true for identification methods used in smart guns.
I have yet to see a good argument that clearly draws a useful distinction in the purpose of or intrusion caused by license plates as opposed to smartgun identification technology. If people are fine with driving cars that require license plates I do not see how they have a problem with gun ID.
There is a clear separate set of arguments to be made here.
One case (arguably the one the Framers intended) involves mass defense against institutionalized aggression. (e.g., resisting government "oppression," partisan actions, etc...).
Another entirely separate case is personal self-defense.
The arguments for the two are entirely different for all practical purposes. The former would imply that assault rifles and other "serious" arms are allowed to be maintained, but provides no rationale for individuals carrying them around on their persons except in the actual case of revolution. The latter implies access to a much more limited set of proven self-defense weapons, but no rationale for more lethal or generally applicable weapons.
Pick your poison: the two debates are entirely separate.
Guns already have serial numbers, why do they need a second serial number via microstamping?
If the microstamps are tracked (which they would have to be in order to serve their purpose) then how is this not a form of gun registration?
Aside from criminal investigations what purpose does microstamping serve that the serial number could not serve?
Guns and cars are not really analogous. Rym brought up license plates and I countered that they have uses outside of criminal investigations.
There is also a segment of the gun culture that opposes any form of registration or tracking of guns. Some of that is based on conspiracy theories while other parts are based on historical facts.
For example three states currently have "one gun a month" laws. While this sounds reasonable to a non gun owner it sounds like bullshit to a collector. What's that, you just found three rare guns for sale? Too bad you can only buy them at a rate of one a month and you just purchased one last week. There is also the historical problem of registration leading to confiscation.
If we changed all the words from guns to slaves.... "I'm only allowed to buy one slave a month? that's BS"
Just thinking that if a society starts to think lethal weapons of many types are morally wrong or a societal issue does it matter if you are a collector of them or not?
Guns already have serial numbers, why do they need a second serial number via microstamping?
Cars could also be identified through the vehicle identification number. Why do they need license plates? Because it makes things easier.
I actually think cars and guns are very analogous, which is why I often make comparisons between the two. Both can be useful in defined situations. Both can be deadly to self or others if operated by the inexperienced or the stupid. Both should require special permits and safety training to be allowed to be operated and both should be regulated by the government.
The difference is that one of them is essentially a modern day commodity and in many places a necessity for the individual to have and to be allowed to operate. The other should be a rarity that should only be of use in very circumstances.
The real travesty is that it is easier to obtain a firearm than it is to obtain a car in the US, despite their utility suggesting the direct opposite.
How is it easier to purchase a gun than an automobile? What statistics are you basing this claim on? Anyone who has the money can buy a car, a drivers license is not a perquisite to owning a car.
License plates are hats for cars. All the plebians get regular numbers, if they're lucky they get an arbitrary number that means something in their culture. Those that actually buy the hats get whatever hat they want based on how willing they are to support the provider.
How is it easier to purchase a gun than an automobile? What statistics are you basing this claim on? Anyone who has the money can buy a car, a drivers license is not a perquisite to owning a car.
And here comes the semantic nitpicking.
To get a car and drive it, rather than having it sit somewhere and admire it from time to time you need: * Be of a certain age * Money for driving lessons and the test * The time to take those lessons and study for the test * Pass the test * Pass mandatory safety training * Buy a mandatory insurance (unless you are in Virginia, New Hampshire or Mississippi) * Pay a license fee for the plates
To acquire a gun you need: * Be of a certain age * Pass a background check (passive) * Wait a couple of days (passive)
That is it as far as I can find. There are far greater restrictions and costs involved (excluding the respective cost of the car and the gun itself) in having the right to operate a vehicle than owning a gun.
You are comparing two very different things. You are comparing acquiring and driving a vehicle on a public road to purchasing a gun. Further you are adding extra steps to the car side and ignoring all of the permitting involved in not just owning bit also carrying a gun in public.
Legaly buy a car: 1) have money to buy the car.
Legally buy a gun: 1) have money to buy the gun 2) have permit to own a gun (varies by jurisdiction) 3) pass a background check.
There is also the fact that a drivers license is universally accepted across the US, not so with firearm permits/licenses.
It is easier both to purchase and use an automobile legally within the US.
You also have the added benefit in that an angry ex girlfriend can go to the court for a restraining order causing you to lose ALL of your guns and your second amendment rights.
If the microstamps are tracked (which they would have to be in order to serve their purpose) then how is this not a form of gun registration?
Serial numbers can already be tracked. If by your own admission, Microstamping is basically the same as a serial number, therefore you already have registration, and it's a moot point. Also, prove the harm of registration.
Guns and cars are not really analogous. Rym brought up license plates and I countered that they have uses outside of criminal investigations.
They are when we want to compare what kills more people in a year, since cars kill more. Also, coming from a country with mandatory gun registration, and having lived in another - turns out, they do actually serve more purposes than assigning blame in criminal investigations. Stolen firearms and lost firearms have been connected to rightful owners, for example.
There is also a segment of the gun culture that opposes any form of registration or tracking of guns. Some of that is based on conspiracy theories while other parts are based on historical facts.
Conspiracy theories are nothing new, but this is the first time I've heard of any historical facts. What are they?
For example three states currently have "one gun a month" laws. While this sounds reasonable to a non gun owner it sounds like bullshit to a collector. What's that, you just found three rare guns for sale? Too bad you can only buy them at a rate of one a month and you just purchased one last week.
There is also the historical problem of registration leading to confiscation.
Yeah, and? You still need to prove that's what will actually happen. Also, on the other side of that coin, basically every gun control measure, depending on your point of view, has lead to confiscation.
On top of that, I've literally never heard the "There's a historical problem with registration leading to confiscation" argument without it leading almost directly into "And so did Hitler, therefore the US government are actually gun-grabbing facists." Considering that he's basically one of the biggest examples of that actually happening - It didn't happen here, didn't happen in the UK, didn't happen in Japan, I'm honestly struggling to think of a non-hitler example where registration has provably led to confiscation on a wider level.
New Zealand, Australia, UK, Canada have all used registration lists to confiscate weapons (not all weapons just ones that later become illegal).
Absolutely untrue. I see no evidence of the government confiscating weapons. Buyback schemes, grace periods allowing citizens to turn in their firearms, etc. sure, but I've found no evidence of the government taking action to go out and confiscate firearms from it's citizenry.
And I'll give you my personal guarantee that it's the case with Australia, considering that I lived in a house with firearms present at the time, and I knew others who had firearms that had become unlawful to own after the new laws came in - there was no large-scale government seizing of firearms.
But true or not(and it's not), the point still stands - you still have to prove that is what will happen. And you can't point to Here, NZ, the UK, Canada and say "Oh, but it happened there"(the fact that it didn't aside) - because they don't have constitutions that enshrine the right to bear arms like the US constitution does, nor do they have an even remotely similar legal framework built around that quite explicit right.
Has there ever been an instance where a gun registry was used for something other than confiscation? Have they ever been used to inform owners of recalls, safety classes, free bullets?
Nope, still no good. First, those people own firearms that they're not legally allowed to have - felons and the mentally ill are mentioned specifically, both groups who are not legally allowed to own firearms.
Second, There's mention of cross-referencing databases, but no mention of any sort of tracking of registered firearms, only sales and potential ownership, this is purely a state initiative in the famously anti-gun California, not a federal effort.
I see where you were going with it, but it's simply not evidence of the government previously or planning to in the future seize legally owned firearms, nor is it in any way evidence that registration will lead to confiscation.
In fact, if anything, it proves the opposite - despite the lack of universal registration, they're still able to track down these illegally owned firearms, thus registration puts you at no more risk of confiscation than the current situation - because they can clearly find out who owns what sort of gun without a registry.
Comments
Actually, that is pretty much the express purpose of license plates in a practical sense. License plates on cars are pretty much entirely irrelevant unless the driver of the car does something illegal or against the rules of the road.
They can also be used to frame someone for a crime (works best if you use same make/model/color of vehicle.)
While they are used by law enforcement they are not used solely as a law enforcement tool. Microstamping of firing pins (gun ID) serves no purpose outside of law enforcement. Grip sensors and RFID watches, when they fail to work, are described as working because failure results in the gun not working. If a problem with your seat belt prevented your car from working would you consider that a beneficial feature or a failure of the safety device?
If someone wants to purchase a 'smart gun' I have no problem with that purchase. However with laws such as the one in NJ that bans all 'dumb' gun sales three years after the first smart gun goes on sale well... That law fucks everything up. If we had a similar law banning all internal combustion vehicles X years after the first non-internal combustion car was available for sale we would never have seen Tesla Motors.
If these smart techs are so good why is the transition not being spearheaded by government agencies? They spearheaded alternative fuel vehicles by mandating their purchase for use in their vehicle fleets why not do the same with smart guns?
My local police carry 9mm on one hip and a non-lethal tazer on the other. The tazer is trackable in that the discharge debris is trackable. The 9mm is not. Why not institute microstamping on police guns? Trial it for a few years before attempting to force it on the public? Same with grip sensors and RFID based systems. See if police report problems as features or failures.
With a gun if I shoot someone they either die or suffer an injury that seriously inhibits their ability to threaten me. With a tazer they are temporarily incapacitated but what happens as they recover? Do I have to taze them again while waiting for cops to arrive?
Edit: from what I have read a tazer is a horrible self defense weapon. You are better off with mace or pepper spray if you want to go the non-lethal route.
Are you using a commerce clause style of interpretation of law enforcement?
Town clerk uses marker tags for tax assessments which you will claim is law enforcement.
State uses car registration data to assess car ownership levels and average fuel economy for the state as well as tracking adoption of high mpg and alternative fuel vehicles. Since such collection of information exists because a law was passed mandating such information collection it becomes law enforcement under your definition.
Since everything done by a government agency has to have a basis in law everything they do is technically law enforcement.
Let me reverse the question. What do government agencies do that is not related to enforcing laws?
The point that I was trying to make is that marker plates have uses outside of criminal law enforcement while gun microstamping (gun ID) only has usage under criminal law.
The bigger problem however is that this piggybacks on the existence of license plates and vehicle registration and isn't a cause for it to exist. License plates are there to give an easy way to identify a vehicle, and the scenario in which this becomes most relevant and important is when that vehicle has been involved in a crime. The same is true for identification methods used in smart guns.
I have yet to see a good argument that clearly draws a useful distinction in the purpose of or intrusion caused by license plates as opposed to smartgun identification technology. If people are fine with driving cars that require license plates I do not see how they have a problem with gun ID.
One case (arguably the one the Framers intended) involves mass defense against institutionalized aggression. (e.g., resisting government "oppression," partisan actions, etc...).
Another entirely separate case is personal self-defense.
The arguments for the two are entirely different for all practical purposes. The former would imply that assault rifles and other "serious" arms are allowed to be maintained, but provides no rationale for individuals carrying them around on their persons except in the actual case of revolution. The latter implies access to a much more limited set of proven self-defense weapons, but no rationale for more lethal or generally applicable weapons.
Pick your poison: the two debates are entirely separate.
If the microstamps are tracked (which they would have to be in order to serve their purpose) then how is this not a form of gun registration?
Aside from criminal investigations what purpose does microstamping serve that the serial number could not serve?
Guns and cars are not really analogous. Rym brought up license plates and I countered that they have uses outside of criminal investigations.
There is also a segment of the gun culture that opposes any form of registration or tracking of guns. Some of that is based on conspiracy theories while other parts are based on historical facts.
For example three states currently have "one gun a month" laws. While this sounds reasonable to a non gun owner it sounds like bullshit to a collector. What's that, you just found three rare guns for sale? Too bad you can only buy them at a rate of one a month and you just purchased one last week. There is also the historical problem of registration leading to confiscation.
Just thinking that if a society starts to think lethal weapons of many types are morally wrong or a societal issue does it matter if you are a collector of them or not?
I actually think cars and guns are very analogous, which is why I often make comparisons between the two. Both can be useful in defined situations. Both can be deadly to self or others if operated by the inexperienced or the stupid. Both should require special permits and safety training to be allowed to be operated and both should be regulated by the government.
The difference is that one of them is essentially a modern day commodity and in many places a necessity for the individual to have and to be allowed to operate. The other should be a rarity that should only be of use in very circumstances.
The real travesty is that it is easier to obtain a firearm than it is to obtain a car in the US, despite their utility suggesting the direct opposite.
To get a car and drive it, rather than having it sit somewhere and admire it from time to time you need:
* Be of a certain age
* Money for driving lessons and the test
* The time to take those lessons and study for the test
* Pass the test
* Pass mandatory safety training
* Buy a mandatory insurance (unless you are in Virginia, New Hampshire or Mississippi)
* Pay a license fee for the plates
To acquire a gun you need:
* Be of a certain age
* Pass a background check (passive)
* Wait a couple of days (passive)
That is it as far as I can find. There are far greater restrictions and costs involved (excluding the respective cost of the car and the gun itself) in having the right to operate a vehicle than owning a gun.
Legaly buy a car:
1) have money to buy the car.
Legally buy a gun:
1) have money to buy the gun
2) have permit to own a gun (varies by jurisdiction)
3) pass a background check.
It is easier both to purchase and use an automobile legally within the US.
You also have the added benefit in that an angry ex girlfriend can go to the court for a restraining order causing you to lose ALL of your guns and your second amendment rights.
On top of that, I've literally never heard the "There's a historical problem with registration leading to confiscation" argument without it leading almost directly into "And so did Hitler, therefore the US government are actually gun-grabbing facists." Considering that he's basically one of the biggest examples of that actually happening - It didn't happen here, didn't happen in the UK, didn't happen in Japan, I'm honestly struggling to think of a non-hitler example where registration has provably led to confiscation on a wider level.
And I'll give you my personal guarantee that it's the case with Australia, considering that I lived in a house with firearms present at the time, and I knew others who had firearms that had become unlawful to own after the new laws came in - there was no large-scale government seizing of firearms.
But true or not(and it's not), the point still stands - you still have to prove that is what will happen. And you can't point to Here, NZ, the UK, Canada and say "Oh, but it happened there"(the fact that it didn't aside) - because they don't have constitutions that enshrine the right to bear arms like the US constitution does, nor do they have an even remotely similar legal framework built around that quite explicit right.
Has there ever been an instance where a gun registry was used for something other than confiscation? Have they ever been used to inform owners of recalls, safety classes, free bullets?
What you're advocating is that if we ban a certain kind of gun, we don't actually enforce said ban. That's independent of whether we keep a registry.
Second, There's mention of cross-referencing databases, but no mention of any sort of tracking of registered firearms, only sales and potential ownership, this is purely a state initiative in the famously anti-gun California, not a federal effort.
I see where you were going with it, but it's simply not evidence of the government previously or planning to in the future seize legally owned firearms, nor is it in any way evidence that registration will lead to confiscation.
In fact, if anything, it proves the opposite - despite the lack of universal registration, they're still able to track down these illegally owned firearms, thus registration puts you at no more risk of confiscation than the current situation - because they can clearly find out who owns what sort of gun without a registry.