I think I would like the idea of a biometric reader on a gun better, actually. I think I'd feel a lot better about guns that could only ever be used by specific people.

You realize that this gun can be disabled remotely right? That's all we need some criminal breaking in a house with a disarming electronic device so the home owner is defenseless.

With my vast knowledge of mechanics and electronics I expect defeating this unsafe feature would be simple. A small machined part would be all it takes. Make your sissy guns, I'll fix them.

(February 22, 2014 at 9:35 am)KUSA Wrote: You realize that this gun can be disabled remotely right? That's all we need some criminal breaking in a house with a disarming electronic device so the home owner is defenseless.

With my vast knowledge of mechanics and electronics I expect defeating this unsafe feature would be simple. A small machined part would be all it takes. Make your sissy guns, I'll fix them.

Yeah, yeah, out of your cold, dead hands, we get it.

We can't do anything to make guns safer because it wouldn't reduce gun deaths to zero (not that it really matters), but we have to avoid implementing safety features so as to avoid a potential pitfall which has probably a one in several million chance of ever happening to anyone. I love the logic.

btw, are you Gilgamesh? Do you even lift?

(February 22, 2014 at 1:13 am)EgoRaptor Wrote: If this is going to be a required safety feature, why don't we make it required that all scissors be safety scissors? How about all knives are required to be too blunt to hurt anyone?

Are you familiar with the slippery slope fallacy, Ego?

KUSA Wrote:You realize that this gun can be disabled remotely right? That's all we need some criminal breaking in a house with a disarming electronic device so the home owner is defenseless.

I know, right? And regular guns are rendered just as useless, because bullet proof vests exist! The nerve of those... human beings, not wanting to be shot!

You know, I've heard that sometimes people can miss when they fire a gun? Isn't that an insane violation of their rights?!

This just in: something having flaws does not invalidate its existence.

(February 22, 2014 at 12:01 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: btw, are you Gilgamesh? Do you even lift?

Do you mind explaining what this means?

---

(February 22, 2014 at 12:09 pm)Esquilax Wrote: This just in: something having flaws does not invalidate its existence. :dodgy:

I am not interested in adding flaws to something.

(February 22, 2014 at 2:35 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(February 22, 2014 at 12:01 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: btw, are you Gilgamesh? Do you even lift?

Do you mind explaining what this means?

Gilgamesh was a former member who got banned.

(February 22, 2014 at 12:01 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: btw, are you Gilgamesh? Do you even lift?

Quote: Banned Gilgamesh for continuing to make deeply personal attacks, despite prior Staff action. Should've learned to lift, mate.

I did a little searching and found out who this person is/was. Are you implying that I make deeply personal attacks?

The gun battle is a tricky one, I understand the need for something to be done as well as the gun culture that imposes such restrictions. That said, those in support of gun culture would probably be against this device not because it's a good idea, but because any thing that has to do with guns the clutch on to with out thinking rationally.

That said, if this fire arm was implemented, and we compared numbers of gun murders it would increasingly be lowered. Sure some might hack the signal, but how many stick up guys, drug dealers, and potential school shooters are hackers or would spend the time to learn to hack these signals. The numbers would lower period.

With the advancement of technology we could then secure certian areas as no gun zones with disabling such signals. Sure we can argue that a technology would be out to counter this, but the numbers would still drop.

sound like a win -win to me. If people want to keep gun at least be reasonable on modifications to help future casualties.

(February 23, 2014 at 8:34 pm)KUSA Wrote: I did a little searching and found out who this person is/was. Are you implying that I make deeply personal attacks?

I think it had more to do with your attitude.

(February 23, 2014 at 8:34 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(February 22, 2014 at 12:01 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: btw, are you Gilgamesh? Do you even lift?

Quote: Banned Gilgamesh for continuing to make deeply personal attacks, despite prior Staff action. Should've learned to lift, mate.

I did a little searching and found out who this person is/was. Are you implying that I make deeply personal attacks?

I'm implying that your defense of completely unregulated guns consists mostly of acting like you're a cartoonish badass, which was more or less his trademark personality trait.