Man hurt after blasting wheel with shotgun / Gun Control debate, onoes

[Reese Tora]

Interestingly, I understand that, in the US, there is a positive correlation between strength of gun laws and incidence of gun related crimes. (not necessarily a strong correlation, but check out gun crime in Washington DC, which has, to my knowledge, the most draconian gun laws in the entire US)

So far as the right to bear arms goes, it goes back to something other than serving in militia.  The idea is not only for military service, but to allow the people the ability to, if necessary, and if no other means are available, have the option to take back the country from a corrupt beyond redemption government.

Personally, I don't care for guns, I don't own any, and I wouldn't (now, I quite like the sport of archery with fixed targets, and there is a place for guns as a recreational tool for target shooting as well, but that's not the topic, is it?).  I find the idea of people using them on other people especially repugnant (or any use of weapons against others outside a safe form of competition, for that matter), but I don't think that guns should be made illegal.  Guns are a tool.  Obviously, some people take that mroe to heart than others (shooting a wheel point blank? there are limits to the definition of tool, man!), but it's certainly a valid point that there are still legitimate reasons for civilians to own and use guns.

If anything, the article demonstrated the need for proper gun education as a prerequisite to owning one (like a test before being allowed to purchase a gun similar to those required by the DMV to operate a car.)

[Netrogo]

Oh, what the hell. I rename the topic, and people suddenly start talking about the original subject?

I hate you all. Die. 

My work here is done

[RobbieThe1st]

Interestingly, I understand that, in the US, there is a positive correlation between strength of gun laws and incidence of gun related crimes. (not necessarily a strong correlation, but check out gun crime in Washington DC, which has, to my knowledge, the most draconian gun laws in the entire US)

So far as the right to bear arms goes, it goes back to something other than serving in militia.  The idea is not only for military service, but to allow the people the ability to, if necessary, and if no other means are available, have the option to take back the country from a corrupt beyond redemption government.

Personally, I don't care for guns, I don't own any, and I wouldn't (now, I quite like the sport of archery with fixed targets, and there is a place for guns as a recreational tool for target shooting as well, but that's not the topic, is it?).  I find the idea of people using them on other people especially repugnant (or any use of weapons against others outside a safe form of competition, for that matter), but I don't think that guns should be made illegal.  Guns are a tool.  Obviously, some people take that mroe to heart than others (shooting a wheel point blank? there are limits to the definition of tool, man!), but it's certainly a valid point that there are still legitimate reasons for civilians to own and use guns.

If anything, the article demonstrated the need for proper gun education as a prerequisite to owning one (like a test before being allowed to purchase a gun similar to those required by the DMV to operate a car.)

Honestly, although I was thinking nearly the same thing when I made my post, I wasn't sure how to put it, and so went for something I could back up. Thanks for posting this.

I completely agree with the education part - that would be fine.


Also, with the computer-controlled cars, that would be so scary, and it would be a PR nightmare at the very least. As it is, people have been reading sci-fi for 50 years, including stories talking about the same thing, and everyone knows that when you have a huge computer that controls huge amounts of stuff, it goes crazy(would it really happen? Probably not. still everyone thinks it will, deep down.).

The issue of privacy would be very large, seeing as already there are little devices that can be stuck in any car which will track its movements via GPS and cell-phone towers. If anyone developed this system, the government would have to approve and install it, and you just know that the information would be given to people who most likely shouldn't have it.
Data storage is cheap, it *would* all be logged.

Also, people like driving, perhaps not all the time, but it is fun, which means people wouldn't adapt as readily.
I mean, just look around - most people drive, even in places with good mass-transit systems. People like having a vehicle that can be driven at any time to any place, they can leave their stuff in it, and talk with anyone else in the car without anyone else overhearing, or having to listen to other people.


-RobbieThe1st

[Cogidubnus]

 There is a story about an ancient samurai, who was engaged in a duel with another samurai.

During the course of this duel, his opponent managed to gain the advantage, and lopped off the man's right hand, disarming him in the process. Before slaying his opponent, the victorious samurai sheathed his blade and began to gloat over his doomed opponent.
Seeing his chance, the samurai who lost his hand proceeded to lunge forward and stab his opponent in the neck, using the jagged edge of bone protruding from his wrist.

The samurai who survived learned to use a sword left-handed.

A weapon is a tool. If you want to kill a man, the weapon you use is a secondary concern.

[Reese Tora]

Also, with the computer-controlled cars, that would be so scary, and it would be a PR nightmare at the very least. As it is, people have been reading sci-fi for 50 years, including stories talking about the same thing, and everyone knows that when you have a huge computer that controls huge amounts of stuff, it goes crazy(would it really happen? Probably not. still everyone thinks it will, deep down.).

This is an issue I've thought about a lot.  You would want a decentralized system that because a alrge single system is a single point of failure, and transportation is the single most important system in any country.  I had an idea of a system where cars would transmit thier coordinates and heading via low-power RF (bluetooth, anyone?) to it's neighbors, and all the cars would be autonomous and avoid eachother.  The problem, then, lies in two areas: keeping the cars on the road, and providing support for legacy vehicles that don't have this function.  This sort of thing needs a lot of groundwork laid in advance, and it has to be robust to eliminate the potential for a malfunctioning unit or mechanical failure causing an accident because human lives are at stake. 

The system also has to be secure to prevent abuse, you don't want a hacker crashing your 80,000 car highway in the most litteral sense imagniable, you don't want someone installing spyware to your car, you don't want your car to refuse to start unless you wire $10,000 to an off-shore bank account in exchange for an unlock code, or for someone to hijack your car and make it drive itself to the chop-shop.

The issue of privacy would be very large, seeing as already there are little devices that can be stuck in any car which will track its movements via GPS and cell-phone towers. If anyone developed this system, the government would have to approve and install it, and you just know that the information would be given to people who most likely shouldn't have it.
Data storage is cheap, it *would* all be logged.

Car rentals that come with built in GPS already track your movements; the rental places actually tried to charge fines to drivers that exceeded the speed limit in cars thus marked.  Thankfully, this was beaten in court, but the possibility is already very real.
Then, too; all cellphones on the market today are required to be e911 compliant, which means that the phone must transmit it's GPS location in teh event that you need to dial 911.  Most phones allow tracking to be turned on as accessable to anyone who knows the information for your phone (parents activate this on thier kids cellphones to keep an eye on them. )

Big Brother is watching, and he's your mom, your dad, and big buisness.

Also, people like driving, perhaps not all the time, but it is fun, which means people wouldn't adapt as readily.
I mean, just look around - most people drive, even in places with good mass-transit systems. People like having a vehicle that can be driven at any time to any place, they can leave their stuff in it, and talk with anyone else in the car without anyone else overhearing, or having to listen to other people.

Legacy support, like I mentioned.  I read a book called Red Thunder that had automated highways that slaved your car to a central navigation system and had the cars going 80MPH+ bumper to bumper while on it.  The main cahracters' car didn't have such a system, and they had to use second hand highways.  This is not an ideal solution, though.  You need to be able to allow human drivers, you need to support the 'installed user base' who own cars that don't have automatic systems (classic car enthusiasts, for one) You can't just say 'everyone off the highway that can't afford a remote controlable car'

[Valynth]

I am referring of course to the fact that the government would always know where you are. Also, have you never heard of watching the landscape?

Um, how would the gov't know where you are? The system is closed and automated, only regularly check by technicians to make sure everything's working hunky-dory. And the landscape? Simple: Turn your seat around.

It's not only that, but you are also relying on a machine that simply can't adjust to a changed environment.  For example, if a bridge was to fall, or a road would be out of repair, the cars on the road would not know of this and would continue to drive despite the obvious risk to the humans.  The only way to combat that would be to have humans constantly monitor the roads and what data is being sent back to the car to make sure that A) the car knows what the road is like,  B)  the car can stop before hitting an unknowing pedestrian, and C) the car does not become a mighty weapon of a hacker.

Believe it or not, machines are actually very stupid.  They only do what we tell them to do.  The advances so far have simply been an advancement in our ability to code and design commands leading to a pseudo-sophistication of computer processing.  Essentially the A.I.'s that we have now are simply really huge and complicated lines of commands, but they cannot adjust for areas between command triggers.  Granted we can go in a add another layer of code, but the machine itself cannot do so and hindsight usually contains a dead body or forty.

[techmaster-glitch]

[snipped rant about machine limitations]

Believe me, as robots are my passion, I know their limits. While I am quite the optimist for the future, I know what the can and can't do today. A system like this cannot be implemented at this exact moment in time, because it is still to complex.
What you seem to have failed to realize is that this is obviously a theoretical discussion, not one that has any bearing on today's current technology.

That and you are simply talking stuff that should be in the A.I. thread, not here.

Anyway, moving back on, to answer you points directly,
A) It's really not that difficult to recognize a paved road when a robot sees it
B) It's even harder to miss a human-'shaped' object
C) The explanation for his one gets a little long. Basically, there wouldn't be any central hub controlling the cars. They would all be in continuous, undending contact with each other working a little bit like a 'hive' mind. If you wanna get today's tech, that's actually the best method we have of giving robots autonomy, they can solve all kinds of puzzles when it's a group effort for them. Anyway, the radio is used so that all the cars all know the routes of everyone else, so they can plan their own with the best efficiency avaliable. Anyway, for hackers; the system would be on a dedicated channel and frequency. Even if a hacker could find this (not that hard, I'll admit), the cars themselves have lines and lines of security codes to recognize each other with. The cars don't even take orders from each other, they work together to plot each others routes. When it comes to actually moving along the roads, they still uses sensors to know where everyone else is, and avoid any accidents. The most a hacker could do is try to plant a false route for a nonexistant car. This wouldn't be that much of a detriment in the first place, but even so, if a hacker does this and doesn't have his codes to the letter, he is immediately booted off the airwaves and reported to the authorities. Then only way that a hacker could get the codes is if they were to try and open up the control system for a car, but any tampering at all would immediately result in system shutdown (violently) and authority tip-off.
And then there's any number of other antihacker systems and backups and even entirely different systems from the one I just described and all kinds of other crazy shit I haven't thought of. It could all be used.
Am I saying this is entirely 100% foolproof? No. Nothing ever is. Someone could still find a way around this. But even if he did, there's not much damage he could cause, and the police would still know about it and arrest him.


There's probably some other things I've forgotten to say ut I gotta go now.

[EvilIguana966]

Guns cause violence do they?  Here, read this: http://www.theacru.org/on-the-air/Worldwide_Data_Obliterates_Notion_that_Gun_Ownership_Correlates_with_Violence.pdf

Bottom line, there is no positive correlation between gun ownership and violent crime.  Where a correlation can be established by removing outside variables it is a negative one.  Wherever strict gun laws are enacted, crime goes up dramatically.  Simply put, gun ownership saves lives and property.  If you don't think firearms are an effective home/personal defense weapon, you are either gravely misinformed or in serious denial. 

Furthermore, restricting the ability to own weapons is one of the first steps towards authoritarian government.  And armed populous, organized or not, is far, far harder to oppress than one without weapons.  The notion that Americans are somehow especially irresponsible with weapons is a crock.  The vast majority of gun owners are responsible ones.  Yes we have a criminal element that makes use of guns, but even if we could take away all guns; not likely since criminals who are disinclined to obey murder laws are also disinclined to obey firearms laws; they would simply use other tools to commit violent felonies. 

You are much safer facing a gun armed criminal with a gun of your own than you are facing a sword armed criminal with a sword of your own.  Guns are equalizers, they are user friendly.  Almost anyone can learn to be proficient with a firearm in their spare time.  Not so with melee weapons.  It takes years to become a master swordsman.  Take away guns, people will rely on swords.  The criminals who use swords will be the ones with the experience to win.  The rest of us will be spending our time doing productive things, rather than devoting our life to mastering a tool of warfare.  That puts the advantage solely in the hands of the criminals. 

[gh0st]

ok first of all thats asking for a flame...

anyways i am from new york so when i moved down here i ran into a lot more of those stupid idgits better known as a hillbilly. (seriously they have commercials on tv about respecting hillbilly pride it's freaking annoying) my dad taught me something about driving it goes in the line of "don't be pride full in the fact that you can drive the second that you do you will crash" basically don't be a idiot and go on a binge then try to drive. i also think that the same thing could apply to guns and alot of dangerous stuff.

so we have all stated and agreed with the fact that people are stupid right? so the problem isn't the gun itself it's the owner of the gun, take the gun away from the owner and he'll find an aerosol can or a spud gun. take that away and he'll become creative, so instead let him keep the gun just quietly send over ninjas to replace the gun with a plastic copy.no really you want to stop gun related crime then just find a way to educate americans about guns driving and alcohol. unfortunately the average incest ridden red neck family will not give up their guns if it meant losing their dog truck and wife in that order. all in all it's not the weapon it's the people that make crimes. (think about it if there is nobody left on earth and every gun goes off it's not going to break a law. have every human in a massive room and you will have more crime then you'd like to admit)

[Netrogo]

Guns cause violence do they?  Here, read this: http://www.theacru.org/on-the-air/Worldwide_Data_Obliterates_Notion_that_Gun_Ownership_Correlates_with_Violence.pdf

Bottom line, there is no positive correlation between gun ownership and violent crime.  Where a correlation can be established by removing outside variables it is a negative one.  Wherever strict gun laws are enacted, crime goes up dramatically.  Simply put, gun ownership saves lives and property.  If you don't think firearms are an effective home/personal defense weapon, you are either gravely misinformed or in serious denial. 

Furthermore, restricting the ability to own weapons is one of the first steps towards authoritarian government.  And armed populous, organized or not, is far, far harder to oppress than one without weapons.  The notion that Americans are somehow especially irresponsible with weapons is a crock.  The vast majority of gun owners are responsible ones.  Yes we have a criminal element that makes use of guns, but even if we could take away all guns; not likely since criminals who are disinclined to obey murder laws are also disinclined to obey firearms laws; they would simply use other tools to commit violent felonies. 

You are much safer facing a gun armed criminal with a gun of your own than you are facing a sword armed criminal with a sword of your own.  Guns are equalizers, they are user friendly.  Almost anyone can learn to be proficient with a firearm in their spare time.  Not so with melee weapons.  It takes years to become a master swordsman.  Take away guns, people will rely on swords.  The criminals who use swords will be the ones with the experience to win.  The rest of us will be spending our time doing productive things, rather than devoting our life to mastering a tool of warfare.  That puts the advantage solely in the hands of the criminals. 

So you just ignored my earlier statement about a gun armed criminal entering your house gun in hand and you having to go and get yours out of a close. Seriously. Do you think they're going to wait patiently for you to go get your damn gun? Having a gun in your house doesn't make it any safer. I'll give you credit there are alot of places in the world where gun laws and violent crime don't seem to gel right, but fine. You explain why Canada has a lower crime rate then the US, while we have very strict gun laws.

[Cogidubnus]

So you just ignored my earlier statement about a gun armed criminal entering your house gun in hand and you having to go and get yours out of a close. Seriously. Do you think they're going to wait patiently for you to go get your damn gun? Having a gun in your house doesn't make it any safer. I'll give you credit there are alot of places in the world where gun laws and violent crime don't seem to gel right, but fine. You explain why Canada has a lower crime rate then the US, while we have very strict gun laws.

* Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

* In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." (16c)

(http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)

You explain why Canada has a lower crime rate then the US, while we have very strict gun laws.

Well, at the very least, the population of Canada is 33,390,141, while the population of the United States is 301,139,947. That's 267,749,806 more people. The United States will always have more crime than Canada.
As far as crime rate, do you mean total crime, violent crime, or crimes committed with guns?

[Vidar]

I got a (very polite) message from a moderator (who shall remain nameless) about my conduct on this forum regarding the hijack of this thread.
My apologies to Zedd, the mods, and all those who took offense.


About the automated car debate: that's still a very long way off. Much of the technology exists today, but the will to implement it doesn't. Also, I think there will be a series of in-between models, where driving will not be fully automated, but is instead assisted by a computer, which automatically does things like keeping a set distance from the car in front of it, and keeps it inside the lane, unless direction is given to change lanes, and so forth. That way the driver still gets the feeling that he\she is in control, while much of the risk with driving is minimised.
These assisting technologies are already emerging. ABS, Brake Assist, and other acronyms are saving lives, and more acronyms are are coming.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

You explain why Canada has a lower crime rate then the US, while we have very strict gun laws.

Well, at the very least, the population of Canada is 33,390,141, while the population of the United States is 301,139,947. That's 267,749,806 more people. The United States will always have more crime than Canada.
As far as crime rate, do you mean total crime, violent crime, or crimes committed with guns?

*cough* you're avoiding the statement. He said "crime rate", not "total crime numbers" - that is, as I understand it, number of crimes per 1000 population per year (generally).

On that basis, yes, I'd expect the USA to have a much larger total crime number. The significance is in the -rate-, not the total value.


... notwithstanding that, he didn't quote any references, which I'd be interested to see...

[Netrogo]

Well I've got to leave on some business in shortly so I don't have time to scrounge up some research, I did manage to get this scale. And yes like Llearch said I said and meant RATE not numbers. If I meant numbers then of course the US would be higher, but I was talking the rate which is a percentage and therfor a much more realistic number. (Rates and percentages are also why some countries that are QUITE smaller then the US and Canada are ranked higher in this list)

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita&int=-1

True it does show that the US by comparisson to alot of places is by no means the highest, Canada is still quite a bit below it.

[bill]

Is a difference of .03 people per 1000 a year seriously significant? Honest question, I'm not a statistics guy.

[Valynth]

Well I've got to leave on some business in shortly so I don't have time to scrounge up some research, I did manage to get this scale. And yes like Llearch said I said and meant RATE not numbers. If I meant numbers then of course the US would be higher, but I was talking the rate which is a percentage and therfor a much more realistic number. (Rates and percentages are also why some countries that are QUITE smaller then the US and Canada are ranked higher in this list)

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita&int=-1

True it does show that the US by comparisson to alot of places is by no means the highest, Canada is still quite a bit below it.

The difference in population is a significant factor even when dealing with percentages.  The lower population of Canada results in a higher likely hood of criminals being identified, this fact alone can cause a significant discrepency in the crime rate because criminals are actually quite intelligent and can tell when the odds do not favour them.

There is also a fact that a sword, even in the hands of a neophyte can be a lethal weapon against an unarmed and unarmored foe.

[bill]

Well I've got to leave on some business in shortly so I don't have time to scrounge up some research, I did manage to get this scale. And yes like Llearch said I said and meant RATE not numbers. If I meant numbers then of course the US would be higher, but I was talking the rate which is a percentage and therfor a much more realistic number. (Rates and percentages are also why some countries that are QUITE smaller then the US and Canada are ranked higher in this list)

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita&int=-1

True it does show that the US by comparisson to alot of places is by no means the highest, Canada is still quite a bit below it.

The difference in population is a significant factor even when dealing with percentages.  The lower population of Canada results in a higher likely hood of criminals being identified, this fact alone can cause a significant discrepency in the crime rate because criminals are actually quite intelligent and can tell when the odds do not favour them.

I'd wager that the local population, rather than the national population is much more important when identifying criminals.

Also, as far as murderers go, I don't think swords are quite as popular as a knife, or a good piece of pipe, if you want to kill someone without a gun.

[Reese Tora]

Raw crime rates aren't real a good measure.  You would need to compare two areas of similar population density, police presence, and culture; there are a lot of variables that the raw crime rate doesn't take in to account.  You might try comparing two cities, like Toronto and NewYork (or, better yet, the average crime rate of cities with a population density between 200k/sqmi and 1000k/sqmi and a population level between 300k and 500k overall; NewYork has twice the population density of the second and third next densest cities in the US!)

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027.html

[Cogidubnus]

As far as crime rates go, murder rates are higher in the United States, and lower in Canada. However, in recent decades the homicide rate in Canada has been increasing, while the homicide rates in the United States has been steadily decreasing since 1991. (This is according to wikipedia)

I would also cite the crime statistics of Florida, after the right-to-carry laws were instituted. The homicide rate, and especially the crime rate with firearms, dropped dramatically, from 1987-1996. (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)

The simple fact is, that taking away a weapon does not diminish a person's will or ability to kill. Reese Tora is correct - Washinton D.C. has the most draconian gun laws in the United States, and has one of the highest homicide rates in the country.

As tired as the phrase is, guns do not kill people. People kill people. To say that banning guns will end violence is wishful thinking. Banning guns makes guns illegal. It does not diminish a criminals ability to get one, and what's more, those who do buy firearms legally and have a license are the least likely party to commit a homicide with one.

[DoctaMario]

This has been a really interesting thread thus far!

While it is true that the 2nd Amendment was written in a time of militia and posse rule, when only those in a position of authority have weapons, that is a dangerous situation. We've all seen the episodes of police brutality (that seem to be going on more regularly these days) and being that the US seems, in some regions, inching its way toward being a police state, taking guns away from the people is a bad idea. Yeah there are some idiots who get trigger happy, but there are cops who get trigger happy too, are we going to take guns away from ALL the cops just because of a bad few? And yes, I know, cops have  responsibility to defend the community, but people have as much of a right to defend themselves and their community should the cops not be able to make it. Sometimes the one thing keeping some criminal from breaking into someone's house is the thought that maybe the guy inside's got a gun himself. Trying to steal a tv set isn't worth getting capped over and most criminals know this.

That said, gun control laws never do what they claim to do. They don't make it any harder for the criminal element to get ahold of guns, just the law abiding population who actually goes about it the legal way. People often have to wait a week or more for all the red tape to clear to be able to buy a gun.

Finally, I have three words for you, uttered by Denis Leary once upon a time: "Natural Fucking Selection." We can't protect everyone on the face of the earth, particularly not from themselves. Not everyone's dumb, but not everyone's smart, and I think it's foolishness to think that we can keep everyone out of harm's way. People have to take responsibility and watch out for themselves, not rely on the government to do it for them. It may sound insensitive, but I don't want to have my liberties compromised just because of a few people who are lazy and/or unintelligent.

[RJ]

I had always thought the US gun laws were misinterpreted from each state's individual right to bear arms...

Meh, follow Australia's example. Guns are only allowed to be owned in special circumstances here (ie. farmers to protect their property from feral animals). It doesn't stop illegal firearms from getting in, assuredly, but it's always news whenever there's even been shots fired somewhere.

(And in relation to the original post... Hehehe... reminds me of that story with the guy who shoved a gun down his pants while running from a crime he committed and accidentally shot a certain part off)

[RobbieThe1st]

Also, with the computer-controlled cars, that would be so scary, and it would be a PR nightmare at the very least. As it is, people have been reading sci-fi for 50 years, including stories talking about the same thing, and everyone knows that when you have a huge computer that controls huge amounts of stuff, it goes crazy(would it really happen? Probably not. still everyone thinks it will, deep down.).

This is an issue I've thought about a lot.  You would want a decentralized system that because a alrge single system is a single point of failure, and transportation is the single most important system in any country.  I had an idea of a system where cars would transmit thier coordinates and heading via low-power RF (bluetooth, anyone?) to it's neighbors, and all the cars would be autonomous and avoid eachother.  The problem, then, lies in two areas: keeping the cars on the road, and providing support for legacy vehicles that don't have this function.  This sort of thing needs a lot of groundwork laid in advance, and it has to be robust to eliminate the potential for a malfunctioning unit or mechanical failure causing an accident because human lives are at stake. 

Yes, however there is a large problem with radio computer wise - It is so easy to disrupt. If your system relied on RF-anything, and if contact was lost  all the cars stopped, how long do you figure it would be before a terrorist simply builds a simple RF blocker. It wouldn't need to be precise or all that powerful, and it could knock out the system and basically shut the entire local economy down for hours, as the roads would be backed up for miles.

Remember how much noise a leaky car ignition system is, and that has only a tiny fraction of the power leaking and causing interference!

I think an able person could probably build, for about $30-40, a powerful EMP(which could destroy the transceiver of a few of the cars) or interference generator.

The system also has to be secure to prevent abuse, you don't want a hacker crashing your 80,000 car highway in the most litteral sense imagniable, you don't want someone installing spyware to your car, you don't want your car to refuse to start unless you wire $10,000 to an off-shore bank account in exchange for an unlock code, or for someone to hijack your car and make it drive itself to the chop-shop.

The issue of privacy would be very large, seeing as already there are little devices that can be stuck in any car which will track its movements via GPS and cell-phone towers. If anyone developed this system, the government would have to approve and install it, and you just know that the information would be given to people who most likely shouldn't have it.
Data storage is cheap, it *would* all be logged.

Car rentals that come with built in GPS already track your movements; the rental places actually tried to charge fines to drivers that exceeded the speed limit in cars thus marked.  Thankfully, this was beaten in court, but the possibility is already very real.

Yea, I know this, also law enforcement can legally stick a gps tracker in your car, I saw a video about that.

Then, too; all cellphones on the market today are required to be e911 compliant, which means that the phone must transmit it's GPS location in teh event that you need to dial 911.  Most phones allow tracking to be turned on as accessable to anyone who knows the information for your phone (parents activate this on thier kids cellphones to keep an eye on them. )
Big Brother is watching, and he's your mom, your dad, and big buisness.

Hm... Didn't know that, but its not surprising in the least.
Good thing I don't have a phone!

Also, people like driving, perhaps not all the time, but it is fun, which means people wouldn't adapt as readily.
I mean, just look around - most people drive, even in places with good mass-transit systems. People like having a vehicle that can be driven at any time to any place, they can leave their stuff in it, and talk with anyone else in the car without anyone else overhearing, or having to listen to other people.

Legacy support, like I mentioned.  I read a book called Red Thunder that had automated highways that slaved your car to a central navigation system and had the cars going 80MPH+ bumper to bumper while on it.  The main cahracters' car didn't have such a system, and they had to use second hand highways.  This is not an ideal solution, though.  You need to be able to allow human drivers, you need to support the 'installed user base' who own cars that don't have automatic systems (classic car enthusiasts, for one) You can't just say 'everyone off the highway that can't afford a remote controlable car'

Yea, however, it would cause some problems with the coding, seeing as humans are unpredictable and avoiding a human-controlled vehicle would be a problem.


-RobbieThe1st

[Reese Tora]

Yes, however there is a large problem with radio computer wise - It is so easy to disrupt. If your system relied on RF-anything, and if contact was lost  all the cars stopped, how long do you figure it would be before a terrorist simply builds a simple RF blocker. It wouldn't need to be precise or all that powerful, and it could knock out the system and basically shut the entire local economy down for hours, as the roads would be backed up for miles.

Remember how much noise a leaky car ignition system is, and that has only a tiny fraction of the power leaking and causing interference!

I think an able person could probably build, for about $30-40, a powerful EMP(which could destroy the transceiver of a few of the cars) or interference generator.

For interference, we just need to step up to a better grade of transmission scheme; most modern cell phones sue a multi-band singnaling scheme that is difficult to jam because the signal is being transmited on multiple bands.  it's not impossible to jam such systems, but it's more difficult.  A wide band, low range CDMA system would be ideal, though it coulds potentially fail if too many cars were in close proximity.  Typical CDMA systems, like verizon's or sprint's, can serve only a few hundred phones per channel, you can increase the capacity by running multiple channels, and decrease the potential load by reducing the power of an antenna to reduce it's service area.  The system would most benefit from small areas, perhaps to a range of 1/4 mile or 1/2 kilometer, you would need the channels to stagger so either give the car a specialized processor for negotiating channel spacing and distribution with surrounding cars or put markers on the roads that transmit channel rules to the cars, acting like wireless base stations.

So far as EMP goes, your typical high-powered EMP would knock out most cars, never mind the transciever, and never mind the loss of the guidance computer.

of course, EMP that effects a large area typically requires a nuclear detonation... or a very large array of capacitors antennae, and so on. (the military instalation for testing equipment for resistance to EMP that I saw on TV used a large facility and antenna to produce a very localized pulse)
(wikipedia did mention other bombs specifically designed to produce an electromagnetic shockwave that could carry long distances, but didn't go too deeply in to about them ot thier theoretical capacity.)

Yea, however, it would cause some problems with the coding, seeing as humans are unpredictable and avoiding a human-controlled vehicle would be a problem.

Well, in my idea, all cars would have maneuvers programmed in that scale based on the operational abilities of the vehicle, and condiiton sensors and heuristics based performance monitors that would degrade the operation abilities values in order to allow for safe operation.  Since the cars could be programmed to exacting specifics and have better reaction times than a human driver, the program that runs the vehicles would just need to be set to allow greater distance in a human controlled vehicle (which would be obvious from the transponder signal) similar to how a human driver would leave a larger space between himself and a suspected drunk driver.

[RobbieThe1st]

Yes, however there is a large problem with radio computer wise - It is so easy to disrupt. If your system relied on RF-anything, and if contact was lost  all the cars stopped, how long do you figure it would be before a terrorist simply builds a simple RF blocker. It wouldn't need to be precise or all that powerful, and it could knock out the system and basically shut the entire local economy down for hours, as the roads would be backed up for miles.

Remember how much noise a leaky car ignition system is, and that has only a tiny fraction of the power leaking and causing interference!

I think an able person could probably build, for about $30-40, a powerful EMP(which could destroy the transceiver of a few of the cars) or interference generator.

For interference, we just need to step up to a better grade of transmission scheme; most modern cell phones sue a multi-band singnaling scheme that is difficult to jam because the signal is being transmited on multiple bands.  it's not impossible to jam such systems, but it's more difficult.  A wide band, low range CDMA system would be ideal, though it coulds potentially fail if too many cars were in close proximity.  Typical CDMA systems, like verizon's or sprint's, can serve only a few hundred phones per channel, you can increase the capacity by running multiple channels, and decrease the potential load by reducing the power of an antenna to reduce it's service area.  The system would most benefit from small areas, perhaps to a range of 1/4 mile or 1/2 kilometer, you would need the channels to stagger so either give the car a specialized processor for negotiating channel spacing and distribution with surrounding cars or put markers on the roads that transmit channel rules to the cars, acting like wireless base stations.

So far as EMP goes, your typical high-powered EMP would knock out most cars, never mind the transciever, and never mind the loss of the guidance computer.

of course, EMP that effects a large area typically requires a nuclear detonation... or a very large array of capacitors antennae, and so on. (the military instalation for testing equipment for resistance to EMP that I saw on TV used a large facility and antenna to produce a very localized pulse)
(wikipedia did mention other bombs specifically designed to produce an electromagnetic shockwave that could carry long distances, but didn't go too deeply in to about them ot thier theoretical capacity.)

Well, considering the first transmitters were simply spark-coils, and that goes over the entire spectrum, I figure you would need basicly a car battery(cheap, plenty of electricity), a small 555-timer circuit, a MOSFET for switching, and then run the timed pulses of electricity into a car coil(the MOSFET would carry enough, considering they can switch 90+ amps each).
You could probably use a spark-gap, or perhaps just a specially angled coil causing interference.
Hm... http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/27/36078/01710047.pdf&tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=1710047
There you go...

Yea, however, it would cause some problems with the coding, seeing as humans are unpredictable and avoiding a human-controlled vehicle would be a problem.

Well, in my idea, all cars would have maneuvers programmed in that scale based on the operational abilities of the vehicle, and condiiton sensors and heuristics based performance monitors that would degrade the operation abilities values in order to allow for safe operation.  Since the cars could be programmed to exacting specifics and have better reaction times than a human driver, the program that runs the vehicles would just need to be set to allow greater distance in a human controlled vehicle (which would be obvious from the transponder signal) similar to how a human driver would leave a larger space between himself and a suspected drunk driver.

True, although I would figure it would be quite hard to program none the less...


-RobbieThe1st

[Reese Tora]

True, although I would figure it would be quite hard to program none the less...

No question there, I imagine that an entire year would have to be added to car model lead time for the extra programming and testing that would be needed, and that's not even taking in to account the core program that would provide the underlying logic.

As for the interference, I'll take your word for it.  After all, cars would be a much more tempting target to disrupt compared to cellphone service.  I just can't see any other way to reliably transmit navigation information between cars.

Right, then, back to that gun control stuff and everything.

[Valynth]

I had always thought the US gun laws were misinterpreted from each state's individual right to bear arms...

Meh, follow Australia's example. Guns are only allowed to be owned in special circumstances here (ie. farmers to protect their property from feral animals). It doesn't stop illegal firearms from getting in, assuredly, but it's always news whenever there's even been shots fired somewhere.

(And in relation to the original post... Hehehe... reminds me of that story with the guy who shoved a gun down his pants while running from a crime he committed and accidentally shot a certain part off)

I don't know about you, but even in gun-sporting countries a gun shot isn't exactly treated with a "meh" by everyone who hears it.

Also, what about the urbanite's right to defend him/herself and their property?

[RJ]

Also, what about the urbanite's right to defend him/herself and their property?

Guess I'm just going to have to use a shovel or something.

[Fuyudenki]

don't get involved, don't get involved, don't get involved...

phooey!

Also, what about the urbanite's right to defend him/herself and their property?

Guess I'm just going to have to use a shovel or something.

eesh, I'd rather get shot.

Like DoctaMario said, the second amendment wasn't intended to let individuals protect themselves from criminals, it was intended to let the public protect themselves from the government.

On a side note, it's been shown that when people don't have guns, they invariably turn to other means of killing each other.  Baseball bats tend to be a popular one.  Again, I'd rather get shot.

Personally, I do not own a gun.  I don't trust myself with it, but I think that's a personal decision to be made by every individual about themselves.  If a man thinks a gun will protect him, then by all means, he should get a gun, practice with it, learn how to use it.  If a man believes he's too much of a loose cannon to be trusted with something so powerful, then he should have the option of not owning a gun.  Beating the stuffing out of someone with my fists is more satisfying, anyway.

I'm still a fairly good shot, though.

[Valynth]

Considering that at the time the militia were responsible for arming themselves, it stands to reason that the amendment extends to individuals.

[Netrogo]

It stands to reason that this conversation is probably not going to go anywhere, and I should have realized that before getting into it. The people who think guns should be banned will continue to think so regardless of any evidence put before them, while the people who feel they should stay will continute to think so as well. It's like debating evolution versus creation, you never have a clear victor in the end, just a whole lot of people who're just a little more pissed at each other then they were to begin with.

Although I do agree that the whole original reason for the right to bear arms (against the possibility of the government going dictorial) is a good thing, although as earlier stated criminals can and will get guns no matter what. If the government turned sour the people going against them would be pegged as criminals and I bet if you were really determined, with a whole group of people to overthrow the government, you'd find a way to get some guns yourself regardless of the laws.