The Clockwork Mansion

Just like the title says...Weridst newsreport to hear and read: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/13/wgun113.xml

QuoteThe 66-year-old American shot the wheel from arm's length with a 12-gauge shotgun and was peppered with ricocheting buckshot and debris.

advertisement
According to a sheriff's office report, he was taken to Tacoma General Hospital with severe but not life threatening injuries.

His legs, feet and abdomen were worst affected, but some injuries went as high as his chin.

The man had been repairing a Lincoln Continental for about two weeks at his home near Southworth in Washington state, about ten miles from Seattle.

He had successfully removed all but one wheel-nut on the right rear wheel and resorted to firepower out of sheer frustration on Saturday afternoon.

"He's bound and determined to get that lug nut off," said Deputy Scott Wilson. "Nobody else was there and he wasn't intoxicated," he added.

The US has the highest rate of private gun ownership of any nation and the "right to bear arms" is enshrined in the constitution.

Under federal laws the sale of handguns is limited to over-21s, although over-18s can buy "long guns" - rifles or shotguns.

Some people are barred, such as more serious criminals, including those convicted of domestic violence or subject to a court order over harassment, illegal drug users, illegal immigrants, the mentally ill and those dishonourably discharged from the armed forces

Its so lucky the guy is still alive somehow... :erk

my lollerskates are on.

I should stop posting now.
Good to know who can't bare arms now though. >:3

Roflcopter.

I think the US should bar stupid people from owning guns, too. (or not, and let the problem solve itself).

I'm going to say something that might lead to a discussion or me getting flamed (maybe).
I think the "right to bear arms" in the US constitution is an archaic leftover from a time when law-enforcement wasn't in place across the nation, and the only way to defend yourself from thieves, robbers, looters, killers, and other unsavouries was to have some firepower on your person.
Now that law-enforcement is in place across the nation, maybe it's tome to put the right to bear arms to bed, and move on. Right now, guns are causing more problems than they solve anyway.

Quote from: Vidar on November 18, 2007, 02:46:40 AM
Roflcopter.

I think the US should bar stupid people from owning guns, too. (or not, and let the problem solve itself).

I'm going to say something that might lead to a discussion or me getting flamed (maybe).
I think the "right to bear arms" in the US constitution is an archaic leftover from a time when law-enforcement wasn't in place across the nation, and the only way to defend yourself from thieves, robbers, looters, killers, and other unsavouries was to have some firepower on your person.
Now that law-enforcement is in place across the nation, maybe it's tome to put the right to bear arms to bed, and move on. Right now, guns are causing more problems than they solve anyway.

I agree entirely with that. Specifically, it says that the right to bear arms will not be infringed because of a militia being needed for the security of the state...someone should point out in the Supreme Court that if someone doesn't actually belong to a militia, they don't need a gun.

Of course, we don't have militias anymore, them being useless, unnecessary, and outdated >:3

I have a severe hate of the National Rifle Association...I think every one of them should be shot with their own guns, see how they like it.

Maybe they should just outlaw guns entirely?

:B

Quote from: Sienna Maiu - M T on November 18, 2007, 04:56:15 AM
Maybe they should just outlaw guns entirely?

:B

Seeing as how much Americans love their things that go boom, that might not be such a good idea. There's too much reistance for an all-out ban to be successful, but the USA could always ban the sale og guns in wallmarts across the country for a start, and slowly work it's way up from there.

Well, for one thing, people like having them, and for the issue of 'safety', you can get hurt badly with just about anything other than Nerf stuff...

Heck, I am pretty sure that more people die in a week from car crashes than from anything gun-related(at least, here in the US, not counting wars and such) in a year, so I figure its low on the scale.

And yea, Americans *do* love things that go boom!  :3

Also, a segment of the population has been attempting to get guns banned for who knows how many years, yet they aren't now. Why? The majority of people like them. Simple.


-RobbieThe1st

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 18, 2007, 08:04:02 AM
Well, for one thing, people like having them, and for the issue of 'safety', you can get hurt badly with just about anything other than Nerf stuff...

"Hey, these things work much better if you take the foam off" *whack*
"D'oh!"

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 18, 2007, 08:04:02 AM
Heck, I am pretty sure that more people die in a week from car crashes than from anything gun-related(at least, here in the US, not counting wars and such) in a year, so I figure its low on the scale.

.. that's not as good as you might wish. There's more people die in car crashes in the US alone, per year, than in the entire Iraq war.

That doesn't mean there's not very many die in the war. It means there are -very- many that die on the roads. Pick another statistic.

Quote from: Sienna Maiu - M T on November 18, 2007, 04:56:15 AM
Maybe they should just outlaw guns entirely?

:B

Well hunters would disagree with that

*Cracks knuckles* Oh this is gonna be a long one...

Alright first off I personally think that the whole 'right to bear arms' is another way of saying 'The overblown right to hide being a cowardly fuckbag behind the ability to pull a two inch semi circular strip of metal and fix anything'. Seriously guns just make cowardly retards think they're safe. When you really look at it having a gun in the house doesn't protect anything, other then your peace of mind. If someone breaks in odds are they'll have a gun and, unless you're so paranoid that you sleep with one tucked under your pillow, they'll be able to shoot you long before you get it out of the closet. Besides that guns aren't the best home invasion weapons anyways. They rely on line of sight and a direct line to the target. That means invading any overly cluttered house in the world with a gun is like trying to play pinball with a wad of gum instead of a bouncing metal ball. You're more likely, in the event of a home invasion, to defend yourself with a shoe or the nearby home phone then you are the gun in your closet.

The US needs to stop pandering to the redneck demographic and realize that the reason they have the highest gun crime rate in the world, is BECAUSE of the fucking gun laws. Canada allows you to own weapons but you have to get licenses and shit for them and you have to go to specialty stores that will actually verify all your information. Unlike our brothers to the south who can walk in to the nearest Walmart and pick up a jug of milk, a t-shirt, two sofas, and a semi-automatic assault rifle. Then have it all rung in by some pimple faced kid who doesn't even know enough of the alphabet to get to the letter I much less associate it with the letter D.

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on November 18, 2007, 09:12:47 AM

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 18, 2007, 08:04:02 AM
Heck, I am pretty sure that more people die in a week from car crashes than from anything gun-related(at least, here in the US, not counting wars and such) in a year, so I figure its low on the scale.

.. that's not as good as you might wish. There's more people die in car crashes in the US alone, per year, than in the entire Iraq war.

That doesn't mean there's not very many die in the war. It means there are -very- many that die on the roads. Pick another statistic.

Also, saying "more people die from a than from b, so we don't need to do anything" is a stupid and irresponsible thing to say. If lives can be saved, save them, and don't be lazy about it.
Fact is, people die from guns getting fired at them. You'll probably never get rid of all the guns, but limiting their availability is bound to save some lives.

Quote from: Netrogo on November 18, 2007, 02:21:44 PM
*Cracks knuckles* Oh this is gonna be a long one...

Alright first off I personally think that the whole 'right to bear arms' is another way of saying 'The overblown right to hide being a cowardly fuckbag behind the ability to pull a two inch semi circular strip of metal and fix anything'. Seriously guns just make cowardly retards think they're safe. When you really look at it having a gun in the house doesn't protect anything, other then your peace of mind. If someone breaks in odds are they'll have a gun and, unless you're so paranoid that you sleep with one tucked under your pillow, they'll be able to shoot you long before you get it out of the closet. Besides that guns aren't the best home invasion weapons anyways. They rely on line of sight and a direct line to the target. That means invading any overly cluttered house in the world with a gun is like trying to play pinball with a wad of gum instead of a bouncing metal ball. You're more likely, in the event of a home invasion, to defend yourself with a shoe or the nearby home phone then you are the gun in your closet.

The US needs to stop pandering to the redneck demographic and realize that the reason they have the highest gun crime rate in the world, is BECAUSE of the fucking gun laws. Canada allows you to own weapons but you have to get licenses and shit for them and you have to go to specialty stores that will actually verify all your information. Unlike our brothers to the south who can walk in to the nearest Walmart and pick up a jug of milk, a t-shirt, two sofas, and a semi-automatic assault rifle. Then have it all rung in by some pimple faced kid who doesn't even know enough of the alphabet to get to the letter I much less associate it with the letter D.

I have been waiting forever for someone to get this. Beautifully well said, Netrogo.

What people don't seem to get is that they don't need personal firearms anymore, but they go on about how they do just because they can't let it go. It's saddening and sickening. Also, from the hunter's perspective: They need guns to hunt. They contend that there isn't anything wrong with hunting.
To a few points, I will agree. Predation is a natural part of the life cycle. Things die. Human hunting isn't much of a problem to me, just so long as nothing goes to waste and it isn't overdone. But guns? Do you really need one to hunt your dinner? Hmm...let's look at our ancestors, shall we? Did they have guns? No... Could they go to the nearest supermarket and buy some fish off the counter? No... How did they get food? They hunted it with either a spear OR THEIR BARE HANDS. The reason why i don't like guns in hunting is, so long as the hunter is a good shot, the chances of survival for the hunted are almost nil. One shot and it's over. No contest over who's the stronger or faster. Just a speeding chunk of metal and wham. I say to all the hunters in the world:
If you want to hunt, get out a whetstone, your pocketknife, some rope, sharpen a rock, straignten a stick, and put the rock on trhey stick. There you go. Instant hunting weapon. See if you still want to hunt now.

Quote from: Vidar on November 18, 2007, 02:35:20 PM

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on November 18, 2007, 09:12:47 AM

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 18, 2007, 08:04:02 AM
Heck, I am pretty sure that more people die in a week from car crashes than from anything gun-related(at least, here in the US, not counting wars and such) in a year, so I figure its low on the scale.

.. that's not as good as you might wish. There's more people die in car crashes in the US alone, per year, than in the entire Iraq war.

That doesn't mean there's not very many die in the war. It means there are -very- many that die on the roads. Pick another statistic.

Also, saying "more people die from a than from b, so we don't need to do anything" is a stupid and irresponsible thing to say. If lives can be saved, save them, and don't be lazy about it.
Fact is, people die from guns getting fired at them. You'll probably never get rid of all the guns, but limiting their availability is bound to save some lives.

You make a very good point as well, Vidar.

What are guns designed to do? What is their one, and ONLY, function? To kill instantly. They are never defensive weapons. So of course people die whenever they are fired.
As for the number of car accidents, I've imagined a system where every single car is computer-controlled, and all linked together on a nationwide network. They all work together, plan out their routes, and above all, never have an accident, because they all know exactly where all the other 'parts' of themselves are at the same time (Yes, there are plenty of technical aspects to this, but I've thought of most of them. If anyone requests or challenges, I can provide a rundown of how the whole thing works).
Bacially, I'm saying: No more human driving. At all. Zip. Nada. Humans, especially Americans, suck shit when driving. And by that same thing, no more civillian ownership of guns.

Quote from: techmaster-glitch on November 18, 2007, 02:57:04 PM

Quote from: Netrogo on November 18, 2007, 02:21:44 PM
*Cracks knuckles* Oh this is gonna be a long one...

Alright first off I personally think that the whole 'right to bear arms' is another way of saying 'The overblown right to hide being a cowardly fuckbag behind the ability to pull a two inch semi circular strip of metal and fix anything'. Seriously guns just make cowardly retards think they're safe. When you really look at it having a gun in the house doesn't protect anything, other then your peace of mind. If someone breaks in odds are they'll have a gun and, unless you're so paranoid that you sleep with one tucked under your pillow, they'll be able to shoot you long before you get it out of the closet. Besides that guns aren't the best home invasion weapons anyways. They rely on line of sight and a direct line to the target. That means invading any overly cluttered house in the world with a gun is like trying to play pinball with a wad of gum instead of a bouncing metal ball. You're more likely, in the event of a home invasion, to defend yourself with a shoe or the nearby home phone then you are the gun in your closet.

The US needs to stop pandering to the redneck demographic and realize that the reason they have the highest gun crime rate in the world, is BECAUSE of the fucking gun laws. Canada allows you to own weapons but you have to get licenses and shit for them and you have to go to specialty stores that will actually verify all your information. Unlike our brothers to the south who can walk in to the nearest Walmart and pick up a jug of milk, a t-shirt, two sofas, and a semi-automatic assault rifle. Then have it all rung in by some pimple faced kid who doesn't even know enough of the alphabet to get to the letter I much less associate it with the letter D.

I have been waiting forever for someone to get this. Beautifully well said, Netrogo.

What people don't seem to get is that they don't need personal firearms anymore, but they go on about how they do just because they can't let it go. It's saddening and sickening. Also, from the hunter's perspective: They need guns to hunt. They contend that there isn't anything wrong with hunting.
To a few points, I will agree. Predation is a natural part of the life cycle. Things die. Human hunting isn't much of a problem to me, just so long as nothing goes to waste and it isn't overdone. But guns? Do you really need one to hunt your dinner? Hmm...let's look at our ancestors, shall we? Did they have guns? No... Could they go to the nearest supermarket and buy some fish off the counter? No... How did they get food? They hunted it with either a spear OR THEIR BARE HANDS. The reason why i don't like guns in hunting is, so long as the hunter is a good shot, the chances of survival for the hunted are almost nil. One shot and it's over. No contest over who's the stronger or faster. Just a speeding chunk of metal and wham. I say to all the hunters in the world:
If you want to hunt, get out a whetstone, your pocketknife, some rope, sharpen a rock, straignten a stick, and put the rock on trhey stick. There you go. Instant hunting weapon. See if you still want to hunt now.

Nice idea, but the people of the pre-gun era were hella-trained with their weapons because they are a hell of a lot more difficult to effectively use than "aim, pull trigger". Fat overweight city-dwelling weekend warriors are completely incapable of hunting with spears or bow-and-arrow arrangements. Part of this is because city folk can no longer even track and find their prey anymore. With this low level of skill in hunting, the old tools would be absolutely useless.
Also, since MacDonalds-fed lard-asses tend to make the ground they tread on tremble with their footfalls, any critter still around when they enter a forest a) is stupid b) has a death-wish c) is really deaf.

Quote from: techmaster-glitch on November 18, 2007, 02:57:04 PM

Quote from: Vidar on November 18, 2007, 02:35:20 PM

Quote from: llearch n'n'daCorna on November 18, 2007, 09:12:47 AM

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 18, 2007, 08:04:02 AM
Heck, I am pretty sure that more people die in a week from car crashes than from anything gun-related(at least, here in the US, not counting wars and such) in a year, so I figure its low on the scale.

.. that's not as good as you might wish. There's more people die in car crashes in the US alone, per year, than in the entire Iraq war.

That doesn't mean there's not very many die in the war. It means there are -very- many that die on the roads. Pick another statistic.

Also, saying "more people die from a than from b, so we don't need to do anything" is a stupid and irresponsible thing to say. If lives can be saved, save them, and don't be lazy about it.
Fact is, people die from guns getting fired at them. You'll probably never get rid of all the guns, but limiting their availability is bound to save some lives.

You make a very good point as well, Vidar.

What are guns designed to do? What is their one, and ONLY, function? To kill instantly. They are never defensive weapons. So of course people die whenever they are fired.
As for the number of car accidents, I've imagined a system where every single car is computer-controlled, and all linked together on a nationwide network. They all work together, plan out their routes, and above all, never have an accident, because they all know exactly where all the other 'parts' of themselves are at the same time (Yes, there are plenty of technical aspects to this, but I've thought of most of them. If anyone requests or challenges, I can provide a rundown of how the whole thing works).
Bacially, I'm saying: No more human driving. At all. Zip. Nada. Humans, especially Americans, suck shit when driving. And by that same thing, no more civillian ownership of guns.

As for the car stuff, there is a show on Discovery that details exactly that kind of system, though it is still very far into the future. I first see a transition era, where automatic vehicles and traditional cars operate side by side. Also, people like being in control of where they go, and are reluctant to hand that control over to a computer.

Quote from: Vidar on November 18, 2007, 03:17:26 PM
Nice idea, but the people of the pre-gun era were hella-trained with their weapons because they are a hell of a lot more difficult to effectively use than "aim, pull trigger". Fat overweight city-dwelling weekend warriors are completely incapable of hunting with spears or bow-and-arrow arrangements. Part of this is because city folk can no longer even track and find their prey anymore. With this low level of skill in hunting, the old tools would be absolutely useless.
Also, since MacDonalds-fed lard-asses tend to make the ground they tread on tremble with their footfalls, any critter still around when they enter a forest a) is stupid b) has a death-wish c) is really deaf.

That's the whiole point. It would do these fat asses some good to get some REAL survival excersise.

Quote from: Vidar on November 18, 2007, 03:17:26 PM
Also, people like being in control of where they go, and are reluctant to hand that control over to a computer.

I know that. I say to those people the same thing I'm saying to everyone who wants to keep their gun:
Suck it up and shut it up asshole. Look at the REAL propblems, then say you keep your stance, THEN look me in the eye and just TRY to tell me you aren't a selfish son of a bitch who doesn't care about the safety of others.

Human, especially Americans, are irresponsible with their cars. Humans, especially Americans, are irresponsible with their guns. Since it's obvious that not everyone can up and be responsible, take that responsibility away. Problem solved.

Quote from: thegayhare on November 18, 2007, 11:22:46 AM

Quote from: Sienna Maiu - M T on November 18, 2007, 04:56:15 AM
Maybe they should just outlaw guns entirely?

:B

Well hunters would disagree with that

I was actually thinking about that as I typed it.

Quote from: Netrogo on November 18, 2007, 02:21:44 PM
The US needs to stop pandering to the redneck demographic and realize that the reason they have the highest gun crime rate in the world, is BECAUSE of the fucking gun laws. Canada allows you to own weapons but you have to get licenses and shit for them and you have to go to specialty stores that will actually verify all your information.

Dude.... seriously? I just assumed that they also had to fill out forms O_o

Quote from: Netrogo on November 18, 2007, 02:21:44 PM
Then have it all rung in by some pimple faced kid who doesn't even know enough of the alphabet to get to the letter I much less associate it with the letter D.

Oh. That's good.

Quote from: techmaster-glitch on November 18, 2007, 02:57:04 PM
As for the number of car accidents, I've imagined a system where every single car is computer-controlled, and all linked together on a nationwide network. They all work together, plan out their routes, and above all, never have an accident, because they all know exactly where all the other 'parts' of themselves are at the same time (Yes, there are plenty of technical aspects to this, but I've thought of most of them. If anyone requests or challenges, I can provide a rundown of how the whole thing works).

But... what about privacy? I know it's a fine line, but still...

Quote from: Sienna Maiu - M T on November 18, 2007, 10:15:37 PM

Quote from: techmaster-glitch on November 18, 2007, 02:57:04 PM
As for the number of car accidents, I've imagined a system where every single car is computer-controlled, and all linked together on a nationwide network. They all work together, plan out their routes, and above all, never have an accident, because they all know exactly where all the other 'parts' of themselves are at the same time (Yes, there are plenty of technical aspects to this, but I've thought of most of them. If anyone requests or challenges, I can provide a rundown of how the whole thing works).

But... what about privacy? I know it's a fine line, but still...

...What does privacy have to do with this? I, for one, want very much to NOT drive a car, if that means no one else does and it's all done by computers, as opposed to total dumbasses who can't tell 'yellow' and 'red' from 'goasfastasyoufuckingcan' and 'letsblowitanyway'. Sure there are plenty of people who do drive responsibly, and some would say this is unfair to them, but seriously...
Why do you WANT to drive so badly in the first place? What is the point? If the driving is being done for you, think of this; car could be build so that all seats face the center, and everyone can look at each other, talk, pass the time, and no one has to worry about that unnecessary burden called the 'steering wheel'. It just does not make any sense to have a human behind the wheel if it can be done otherwise.

this thread could have been funny and now it is ruined because people take things so damn seriously.


This thread is a story about a guy who injured himself because he used a shotgun to do something a shotgun is not designed to do. He is stupid. Can we talk about that, instead of one of the most divisive issues in our nation's current political state?

If you want a gun debate, make a thread. In related news, this guy is stupid lolololo.

I keep asking myself why Bill was made a Mod.  And then he makes posts like this.  And then I forget about that, because I'm too busy laughing.

Also, that was the only response to this thread I have read since reply #5.

Quote from: Sienna Maiu - M T on November 18, 2007, 10:15:37 PM

Quote from: Netrogo on November 18, 2007, 02:21:44 PM
The US needs to stop pandering to the redneck demographic and realize that the reason they have the highest gun crime rate in the world, is BECAUSE of the fucking gun laws. Canada allows you to own weapons but you have to get licenses and shit for them and you have to go to specialty stores that will actually verify all your information.

Dude.... seriously? I just assumed that they also had to fill out forms O_o

you do, atleast for hand guns and the like anyway.  When I purchased my revolver (mock me as a coward if you like but I'm a gay kid who grew up half an hour from chuck a homo bridge)   you fill out some forms, they fax it off for a back ground check and you wait in the gun shop it can take several hours for me and my dad it was only 30 minutes (I took that time to find me a nice pair of second hand pacmar grips.  I don't know about rifles or shotguns since I've never purchased any mine were always gifts.

and before some of you scoff at hunters and the like some familys do rely on the game to supplement there food.  A deer can go along way towards stretching a tight grocery budget.  I agree that sport hunting is horrible, but some hunting is nessicary.  My dad was a life long hunter he hunted with bow, rifle and black powder.  he also worked closely with wildlife groups to monitor the herd levels in the state.  Because of humans activities  natural preditors have lower populations.  With out the preditors to keep the herds in check there is a chance for overpopulating area's which can lead to several problems.  in the case of deer that can be increased traffic accidents as the larger population is forced into more human habited areas and starvation since the unchecked herd can deplete there food suppley. 

Shotguns: When regular tools just aren't good enough.

Around where I live, it's not uncommon for people to have 3 or 4 guns for hunting. Suffice to say, I'm one of the ones who don't hunt.


What about using guns for target practice? I'm a good shot with a pistol, but that says nothing about if I'll actually use one for anything else. As far as I can tell, people like guns, and we can't do much about it.

Quote from: Netrogo on November 18, 2007, 02:21:44 PM
*Cracks knuckles* Oh this is gonna be a long one...

Alright first off I personally think that the whole 'right to bear arms' is another way of saying 'The overblown right to hide being a cowardly fuckbag behind the ability to pull a two inch semi circular strip of metal and fix anything'. Seriously guns just make cowardly retards think they're safe. When you really look at it having a gun in the house doesn't protect anything, other then your peace of mind. If someone breaks in odds are they'll have a gun and, unless you're so paranoid that you sleep with one tucked under your pillow, they'll be able to shoot you long before you get it out of the closet. Besides that guns aren't the best home invasion weapons anyways. They rely on line of sight and a direct line to the target. That means invading any overly cluttered house in the world with a gun is like trying to play pinball with a wad of gum instead of a bouncing metal ball. You're more likely, in the event of a home invasion, to defend yourself with a shoe or the nearby home phone then you are the gun in your closet.

The US needs to stop pandering to the redneck demographic and realize that the reason they have the highest gun crime rate in the world, is BECAUSE of the fucking gun laws. Canada allows you to own weapons but you have to get licenses and shit for them and you have to go to specialty stores that will actually verify all your information. Unlike our brothers to the south who can walk in to the nearest Walmart and pick up a jug of milk, a t-shirt, two sofas, and a semi-automatic assault rifle. Then have it all rung in by some pimple faced kid who doesn't even know enough of the alphabet to get to the letter I much less associate it with the letter D.

Try this in any middle eastern country.

Yeah, banning guns only works as well as the criminals are going to let it.  Hell, most of the time the only thing holding society together when a policeman isn't around is the blatant fear that some one in the crowd will shoot you if you try something, hence the small pockets of peace that occur in the middle east.

I'm sorry, but I'm not just going to sit on my ass and wait for the police to get their asses to my location while I'm being robbed.  By God, I earned the money I have and any bastard that dares to try and unfairly take it from me is going to have one hell of a battle if he's going to even so much as think of touching my wallet.

Besides, while gun-related crimes are lower else where, crimes in total go up because as I've said, the police can't be everywhere unless you live in a police state in which case you're usually fucked anyway cause the police are the ones committing the damned crimes in the first place.

In short, don't blame the freaking guns you loons, blame the people wielding them.

Fine, here's your related content;
Has he never heard of WD-40?

Quote from: techmaster-glitch on November 18, 2007, 10:35:32 PM

Quote from: Sienna Maiu - M T on November 18, 2007, 10:15:37 PM

Quote from: techmaster-glitch on November 18, 2007, 02:57:04 PM
As for the number of car accidents, I've imagined a system where every single car is computer-controlled, and all linked together on a nationwide network. They all work together, plan out their routes, and above all, never have an accident, because they all know exactly where all the other 'parts' of themselves are at the same time (Yes, there are plenty of technical aspects to this, but I've thought of most of them. If anyone requests or challenges, I can provide a rundown of how the whole thing works).

But... what about privacy? I know it's a fine line, but still...

...What does privacy have to do with this? I, for one, want very much to NOT drive a car, if that means no one else does and it's all done by computers, as opposed to total dumbasses who can't tell 'yellow' and 'red' from 'goasfastasyoufuckingcan' and 'letsblowitanyway'. Sure there are plenty of people who do drive responsibly, and some would say this is unfair to them, but seriously...
Why do you WANT to drive so badly in the first place? What is the point? If the driving is being done for you, think of this; car could be build so that all seats face the center, and everyone can look at each other, talk, pass the time, and no one has to worry about that unnecessary burden called the 'steering wheel'. It just does not make any sense to have a human behind the wheel if it can be done otherwise.

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

Quote from: Sienna Maiu - M T on November 18, 2007, 11:44:38 PM
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.

Quote from: techmaster-glitch on November 18, 2007, 11:49:26 PM

Quote from: Sienna Maiu - M T on November 18, 2007, 11:44:38 PM
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.

Fair enough.

But I'd still say they would want access.
And who would operate it anyway? Not all cars are by the same maker, so somebody would have to control it, and where would they make their money?

I don't think they heard you, Bill.  You might try talking louder.

I'd split this topic, but there's nothing to split it from. Renamed instead.

Sorry 'bout that Bill. For years I've associated guns with stupid so hearing some retard shot himself doing something stupid with a gun just brought to mind the whole problem in general...

Oh god... I kendalled the joke :<

So I have a question... does the fact he was richocheted with debris, mean he was succesful?

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


I hate you all. Die.  :cry

And so it goes~

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.)

Quote from: BillBuckner on November 19, 2007, 12:16:42 AM
Oh, what the hell. I rename the topic, and people suddenly start talking about the original subject?

I hate you all. Die.  :cry

My work here is done 8)

Quote from: Reese Tora on November 19, 2007, 12:22:43 AM
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

 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.

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 19, 2007, 01:25:54 AMAlso, 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.

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 19, 2007, 01:25:54 AMThe 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. >:3 )

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

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 19, 2007, 01:25:54 AMAlso, 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'

Quote from: techmaster-glitch on November 18, 2007, 11:49:26 PM

Quote from: Sienna Maiu - M T on November 18, 2007, 11:44:38 PM
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.

Quote from: Valynth on November 19, 2007, 02:43:28 AM

[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.

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 (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. 

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)

Quote from: Evil.Iguana on November 19, 2007, 10:22:06 AM
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 (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.

Quote from: Netrogo on November 19, 2007, 11:22:44 AM
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.

Quote* 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)

QuoteYou 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?

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.

Quote from: Cogidubnus on November 19, 2007, 01:09:11 PM

QuoteYou 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...

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.

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

Quote from: Netrogo on November 19, 2007, 02:38:40 PM
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.

Quote from: Valynth on November 19, 2007, 03:27:07 PM

Quote from: Netrogo on November 19, 2007, 02:38:40 PM
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.

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

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.

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.

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)

Quote from: Reese Tora on November 19, 2007, 02:13:27 AM

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 19, 2007, 01:25:54 AMAlso, 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.

Quote from: Reese Tora on November 19, 2007, 02:13:27 AM
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.

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 19, 2007, 01:25:54 AMThe 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.

Quote from: Reese Tora on November 19, 2007, 02:13:27 AM
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. >:3 )
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! :P

Quote from: Reese Tora on November 19, 2007, 02:13:27 AM

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 19, 2007, 01:25:54 AMAlso, 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

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 21, 2007, 01:38:48 AM
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.)

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 21, 2007, 01:38:48 AM
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.

Quote from: Reese Tora on November 21, 2007, 02:24:06 AM

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 21, 2007, 01:38:48 AM
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...

Quote from: Reese Tora on November 21, 2007, 02:24:06 AM

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 21, 2007, 01:38:48 AM
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

Quote from: RobbieThe1st on November 21, 2007, 02:57:08 AMTrue, 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.

Quote from: RJ on November 20, 2007, 05:03:41 PM
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?

Quote from: Valynth on November 21, 2007, 03:59:05 AM
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.

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

phooey!

Quote from: RJ on November 21, 2007, 12:32:45 PM

Quote from: Valynth on November 21, 2007, 03:59:05 AM
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.

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

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.