I'm fine with the technology being developed for voluntary usage. It should not be compulsory, though.

5/5/2014 10:31:59 PM

not to mention how easy these devices would be to bypass/remove/defeat

5/5/2014 10:32:12 PM

Quote :

"I don't really like the bracelet tech btw, it's a crude solution, but it's the first step in smart guns, if the market weren't being stifled by gun nuts."

you apparently like it enough to mandate it

5/5/2014 10:53:05 PM

ha, mandate smart guns, not bracelets...

5/6/2014 1:29:13 AM

That's the only smart gun so far, it's what you want to mandate

5/6/2014 6:01:53 AM

Sounds like another impulse murder/suicide. Poor kids: http://www.wral.com/couple-killed-in-morrisville-home-in-apparent-domestic-dispute/13619288/

5/6/2014 9:28:34 AM

damn, if only that guy had a magic bracelet

5/6/2014 9:38:49 AM

Separate accessories to make a firearm functional are just not a good solution. Try again.

5/6/2014 10:36:29 AM

Yeah, I definitely don't think a wearable key is the best solution for this sort of thing long term. Some kind of biometric scanner would be better, although that technology definitely has reliability issues. As a proof of concept for a "smart" gun though, it does the job. I really could care less either as this is simply treating a symptom, not the cause, which is there are just too many guns and they are too easy to acquire.

5/6/2014 11:35:32 AM

^^^^^
There are companies that have biometrics, and probably other implementations, but why bring them to market if the future is uncertain? A mandate would remove this uncertainty.

5/6/2014 11:43:40 AM

why bring them to market if hardly anyone is interested in that bullshit?

5/6/2014 12:43:50 PM

We don't know who's interested, because the NRA suppresses interest.

I first saw the bracelet gun when a gun nut on my Facebook posted it (he has 3 daughters-- i'm guessing why he's interested), not realizing the NRA and other gun nuts didn't like smart guns.

Plus, if it weren't for nudges by the public, people would just stick with what they know, it's human nature. We'd still be using antiquated food safety processes or incandescent bulbs.

5/6/2014 12:48:13 PM

^^ Why not let the market decide how many people want them instead of threatening the shop owner?

Plenty of people own guns that they don't use for protection, and some portion of those people overlap with people who like technology and gadgets.

[Edited on May 6, 2014 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

5/6/2014 12:57:50 PM

that's exactly what i mean. communicating threats is illegal and the perpetrators should be prosecuted. i never insinuated otherwise and i'm sorry if it came off that way.

i do, however, think that New Jersey crystal ball mandate is ridiculous.

5/6/2014 1:09:09 PM

agreed

5/6/2014 1:10:42 PM

this is why we can't have nice things:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/guns-bullying-open-carry-women-moms-texas

5/16/2014 8:19:14 AM

^because women lie?

5/16/2014 2:19:49 PM

^based on comments like that, it's because of people like you.

5/16/2014 2:27:36 PM

no, pretty sure it has more to do with some woman making up shit to push her political agenda.

5/16/2014 6:35:22 PM

Nope, the people threatening to rape her are the problem
And idiots like you.

5/16/2014 10:03:21 PM

figments of her imagination are the problem - got it.

5/16/2014 11:30:00 PM

Quote :

"Nope, the people threatening to rape her are the problem And idiots like you."

Help me understand.

Of all the deplorable threats and harassment detailed in that opinion piece, which were all vile and worthy of police action...not a single one had anything to do with rape. Rape was only used once in the entire article near the end and not even referring to a specific instance, just a woman not previously mentioned musing that people want to "kill, rape, or silence her."

So tell me, of all the heinous threats of violence and intimidation, did you only mention rape? Why did the author not put threats, harassment, intimidation, but rape threats in the title?

5/17/2014 1:39:59 PM

gotta get those clicks and outraged comments.

gonna be awesome when somebody gets killed in their own home one day when the battery dies in their "smart" gun.

5/17/2014 1:46:01 PM

^^ because rape

5/17/2014 1:57:41 PM

heard that some evidence to the contrary was now out...

5/21/2014 1:08:19 PM

i heard that the evidence is that she probably was asking for it

Do you guys never internet? Gun nuts throw this shit around daily.

Open carry supporter posts 911 caller's personal info
http://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2014-04-29/shell-shock/

Quote :

"On April 10, Sanders posted full audio of the call – obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request – on his YouTube channel. The description reads, "Another helpless sheep calls its master to report scary inanimate objects and shaking flags." The tone is mocking provocation, and the video is barely discernible from the many other gun control "exposés" spread through the right-wing internet. But this one had a little something extra – an implied warning. The audio included the caller's name and cell number, which Sanders annotates with text."

Quote :

"Open carry advocates have long maintained that they pose no danger to the general public. But the YouTube comments tell a different story. Some supporters blamed the caller for any harassment, saying she should have known better than to give personal information. Several comments used misogynistic language. One commenter bemoaned that "the stupid bitch changed her number." Perhaps to the Second Amendment crowd, the number change was purely coincidental."

I used to go to open carry events, but in the past few years they have become a rally place for fat idiots to spout dogmatic bullshit and harass anyone open to discussing reasonable controls

[Edited on May 21, 2014 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

5/21/2014 1:33:19 PM

Quote :

"But the YouTube comments tell a different story."

Dear god, not trolling YouTube comments!!!!!

5/21/2014 1:36:41 PM

To be fair, that's where most of the GOP is located. There and GOLO.

5/21/2014 1:43:00 PM

Quote :

"Dear god, not trolling YouTube comments!!!!!"

so if i posted your name and address in a youtube video about a controversial and heated topic, and then people started making a bunch of hateful and threatening comments, you wouldn't feel intimidated? you would, that's intimidation.

5/21/2014 1:45:25 PM

^^The last time I checked GOLO, the left wing nutters far surpassed the right wing nutters in terms of numbers of people and posts.

5/21/2014 1:54:56 PM

^you're completely wrong, it's always been a bastion of conservative retards. check again.

[Edited on May 21, 2014 at 1:56 PM. Reason : ]

5/21/2014 1:55:36 PM

yeah, its not even close

5/21/2014 1:56:20 PM

Quote :

"so if i posted your name and address in a youtube video about a controversial and heated topic, and then people started making a bunch of hateful and threatening comments, you wouldn't feel intimidated? you would, that's intimidation. "

hateful comments, no.
threatening comments, yes. Contact the police, unless you don't believe the threat to be credible (which is called trolling).

5/21/2014 2:56:48 PM

could you please PM me your name and address

5/21/2014 3:19:53 PM

I found a picture of disco_stu at home:

5/21/2014 4:07:40 PM

^^Why don't you just pretend you have it and make whatever point you were going to make.

If you made a threat that was credible (good luck in context of a conversation about non-credible threats) I would call the police. Do you want to bring that headache upon the current owners of TWW to prove a point?

5/21/2014 8:28:06 PM

its your position, not mine, why would i be trying to defend it?

please post your name and address, why are you so afraid if its not an intimidating thing to do?

5/21/2014 8:52:38 PM

Trolling is just another word for bullying or being an asshole. There's nothing cool about being a troll. Don't be a douche.

5/21/2014 11:37:38 PM

Quote :

"please post your name and address, why are you so afraid if its not an intimidating thing to do?"

I never said it wasn't intimidating, but goalpost moving is so predictable.

Now, why would I give my personal information to someone I don't know that is local to my area when they could just prove their point otherwise?

Two things at play here. One, it would be really fucking simple for someone to spend 5 minutes on the Internet to find out my real identity. Two, I don't know you from anyone else. What point could you possibly be trying to make or you could actually try to harm me or my family? If that were the case, and with so easy it would be to identify me, why would I make it easier for you?

Just pretend you have it. Ooooh, you threatened my family. I call the police, they subpoena the site owners, we figure out who you are and we go to court. What is the fucking point? If the woman *actually* felt threatened she'd do the same thing. If she didn't, she's being trolled. Get it?

I don't need you to pantomime threatening me to understand this point. Yes, doxing someone and threatening them is in fact threatening. Being adjacent to a doxing and saying hateful things is not in fact threatening in and of itself.

This is the histrionics I'm referring to: all Internet trolling is not in and of itself threatening or harassment. Credible threats deserve judicial scrutiny; otherwise you can't use them as points to prove how oppressed you are. I don't care how many "death threats" or "rape threats" you get from anonymous sources. If it isn't real enough to involve the police then it isn't real.

In closing, if you find it in your brain to figure out who I am and make threatening comments to me or my family, unlike the online hysterics that only blog about it I will call the police on you and we will go through this insanity to prove a point.

Quote :

"Trolling is just another word for bullying or being an asshole. There's nothing cool about being a troll. Don't be a douche."

I'm not arguing that it's cool, I'm arguing that it's inconsequential.

[Edited on May 21, 2014 at 11:58 PM. Reason : .]

5/21/2014 11:55:39 PM

I know you're not, but the recent generation's frenzy on "hehe you got trollololololled" is hurting our society. The internet is a different society from reality, however, it still affects how people in reality treat and interact with one another. :/ My comment was more of a tangent than one directed at the conversation at hand. Please pardon my interruption.



[Edited on May 22, 2014 at 12:16 AM. Reason : .]

5/22/2014 12:16:18 AM

Quote :

"I don't need you to pantomime threatening me to understand this point. Yes, doxing someone and threatening them is in fact threatening. Being adjacent to a doxing and saying hateful things is not in fact threatening in and of itself."

but no one would need to explicitly threaten you, just find an inflammatory statement you've made about a controversial topic and post it on YouTube with your name and address then share it on a few blogs with people opposed to your viewpoint.

according to you that's perfectly fine since they wouldn't be explictly threatening you. When people start assembling outside of your meetings with guns, and showing up at your house, you can't complain because that would just be histrionics because you haven't been threatened. It's just inconsequential trolling, lol!

One of the images in your gallery is from facebook, the filename identifies the image, the image links to the profile who posted it. i bet if someone dug through your posting history they could gather enough information to social engineer your identity. But why would you make someone do that instead of just posting your info, its all good as long as someone doesn't explicitly threaten you right?!

5/22/2014 9:19:52 AM

Not to pull an aaronburro here but you're arguing against points I'm not making. In this very thread I've referred to in-person threatening/harassment as vile, heinous, and illegal.

Let me distill it down.

-Online threats that are credible (doxxing someone and then threatening them personally IS credible) are equivalent to RL threats and should be treated as such.
-Anonymous online "threats" that are not credible are inconsequential.
-Anonymous online harassment (no matter how misogynistic or rape threaty) are inconsequential.

The problem that I have is that when you equivocate trolling with armed assemblies outside my house, you're diminishing the seriousness of legitimate threats.

[Edited on May 22, 2014 at 10:42 AM. Reason : .]

5/22/2014 10:39:41 AM

so if you agree that online threats and doxxing are credible threats, and we know that this happened to the woman (the youtube video is even still online), then what the fuck are you arguing about?

5/22/2014 11:29:48 AM

That you don't get to use the existence of any and all anonymous online trolling as evidence of some actual harassment or threatening campaign against you. Here's the original quote I was responding to.

Quote :

"But the YouTube comments tell a different story. Some supporters blamed the caller for any harassment, saying she should have known better than to give personal information. Several comments used misogynistic language. One commenter bemoaned that "the stupid bitch changed her number." Perhaps to the Second Amendment crowd, the number change was purely coincidental.""

I don't find any of that particularly threatening and why "misogynistic language" from anonymous assholes is worth mentioning is completely beyond me (except to set up this narrative where trolling is just evidence of an epidemic of harassment).

Quote :

"so if you agree that online threats and doxxing are credible threats"

Just to clarify, I'm referring to combining doxxing with threats, not all online threats. Like: I know where you live (list address) and I'm going to come there and kill you. Credible. Call the police. An anonymous "you're stupid bitch and I hope you get run over by a car" even in a thread that includes doxxing? Not credible.

[Edited on May 22, 2014 at 12:49 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2014 12:46:14 PM

but what is happening to this women is, by your definition, credible. so what the fuck are you even talking about?

5/22/2014 2:32:47 PM

This thread sure has been hijacked.

5/22/2014 2:34:14 PM

^^
Let's just drop it.

[Edited on May 22, 2014 at 3:31 PM. Reason : meh]

5/22/2014 3:24:33 PM

You know if people had guns they could take the thread back from the hijackers. As long as the hijackers didn't have a bomb.

5/22/2014 6:25:01 PM

This is old, but:
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

Quote :

"10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down Fact-checking some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments shows they're full of holes. —Dave Gilson on Thu. January 31, 2013 7:01 AM PDT By cutting off federal funding for research and stymieing data collection and sharing, the National Rifle Association has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. No wonder: When it comes to hard numbers, some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments are full of holes. Myth #1: They're coming for your guns. Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1. gun ownership Sources: Congressional Research Service (PDF), Small Arms Survey Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people. Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate. ownership vs gun death Sources: Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society. Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively. • Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without. • In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides. Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys. Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0 • Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5 Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer. Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun. • For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home. • 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm. • In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger. Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer. Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime. • In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument. • A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater. Myth #7: Guns make women safer. Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers. • A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun. • One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates. Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns. Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan? United States Japan Per capita spending on video games $44 $55 Civilian firearms per 100 people 88 0.6 Gun homicides in 2008 11,030 11 Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey (PDF), UN Office on Drugs and Crime Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners. Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population. • About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun. • Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each. Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have. Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally. • Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way. • An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check. • 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers. • The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees."

5/29/2014 9:48:29 AM

^and a respone to that: http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2014/01/evaluating-mother-jones-10-pro-gun-myths-shot-down/

5/29/2014 10:07:52 AM