[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39730541]And you will literally never pass an Amendment abolishing the 2nd, and if America ever did there'd be a civil war, so your propositions will remain unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
This is kind of bizarre logic.
1. It will never happen.
2. If it does, lots of bad things will happen.
3. Therefore, you are wrong.
That doesn't affect the argument itself.
I could argue that new strains of bacteria resistant to antibiotics could not possibly come about.
If they did, then a lot of people would suffer badly.
Therefore, it can't happen.
In the argument, you actually have to work out what reality is, and not use "X will happen if it turns out to be true/false" as a way to dismiss it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39730568]This is kind of bizarre logic.
1. It will never happen.
2. If it does, lots of bad things will happen.
3. Therefore, you are wrong.
That doesn't affect the argument itself.
I could argue that new strains of bacteria resistant to antibiotics could not possibly come about.
If they did, then a lot of people would suffer badly.
Therefore, it can't happen.[/QUOTE]
Apples and oranges, evolution of bacteria is a completely unrelated topic to a revolution. Not to mention the purpose of the 2nd was to protect itself and the other amendments of the Constitution, as Jefferson said, "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." You cannot control the evolution of bacteria, you can control the revision of a national constitution.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39730585]Apples and oranges, evolution of bacteria is a completely unrelated topic to a revolution. You cannot control the evolution of bacteria, you can control the revision of a national constitution.[/QUOTE]
Well actually, you can control evolution, although the term is called artificial selection.
[quote]Not to mention the purpose of the 2nd was to protect itself and the other amendments of the Constitution, as Jefferson said, "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."[/quote]
It may be possible that laws change over time too.
[editline]27th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=download;39730526]Your tracking device idea is unworkable on so many levels[/QUOTE]
This post is where I see the strengths of the opponents argument rather than your own. Most of this post was mostly ideological attacks, that didn't even seem to take into account all of the content of the post. Perhaps a good deal of it wasn't read?
For instance, you seem to forget most of his other points, and pick out one you can attack with, rather than actually addressing each point. You do realize that in order to learn, you must first learn to realize when you are wrong as well?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39730603]Well actually, you can control evolution, although the term is called artificial selection.
It may be possible that laws change over time too.
[editline]27th February 2013[/editline]
This post is where I see the strengths of the opponents argument rather than your own. Most of this post was mostly ideological attacks, that didn't even seem to take into account all of the content of the post. Perhaps a good deal of it wasn't read?
For instance, you seem to forget most of his other points, and pick out one you can attack with, rather than actually addressing each point. You do realize that in order to learn, you must first learn to realize when you are wrong as well?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you need to practice what you preach.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39730648]Perhaps you need to practice what you preach.[/QUOTE]
You haven't addressed the point that "the second amendment will never change".
How can you predict the future?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39730664]You haven't addressed the point that "the second amendment will never change".
How can you predict the future?[/QUOTE]
To name off the top of my head several US states that will never vote to repeal that amendment you have Texas, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Vermont, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Mississippi, Virginia, Nevada, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Alaska. Considering you need the support of a majority of states, I can't remember if it's 2/3 or 3/4, to get a new amendment through, you will not pass an amendment repealing the 2nd. And while I can't predict the future, this is a safe assumption to make given the overall political landscape around guns in these states.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39730714]To name off the top of my head several US states that will never vote to repeal that amendment you have Texas, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Vermont, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Mississippi, Virginia, Nevada, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Alaska. Considering you need the support of a majority of states, I can't remember if it's 2/3 or 3/4, to get a new amendment through, you will not pass an amendment repealing the 2nd. And while I can't predict the future, this is a safe assumption to make given the overall political landscape around guns in these states.[/QUOTE]
Some of those states used to have slavery, or segregation, or anti-sodomy laws, and the general assumption at the time was that something like that would never go away.
Given that gun ownership (as in, people who personally own a firearm) is in a decline, I would say that sustaining that level of support for the amendment might be impossible in the long run at that rate.
Other countries don't have traditions of gun culture, and can easily easily change those laws. American gun culture seems to be declining at the moment (although the average number of guns per person has increased, the number of people is declining, which suggests only the true hobbyists will be left).
The total number of guns has also increased, as has concealed-carry of firearms, and women's ownership of firearms is on the rise because more women are arming for self-defence.
It also took a civil war to abolish slavery, it would take another to abolish gun ownership, and unlike the war on slavery, the war on gun ownership would be lost because it wouldn't be a straight north-south thing, you'd be fighting millions of people across the country, as well as members of the US Armed Forces and a number of state's National Guards. You won't legislate gun ownership out of America, you'd have to take it by force, and that's an absolutely impossible task.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39730828]The total number of guns has also increased, as has concealed-carry of firearms, and women's ownership of firearms is on the rise because more women are arming for self-defence.[/quote]
Yet the total numbers of all people as a percentage of the population is declining.
Also women don't make up very many gun owners. Last I heard, about 80% of gun owners also owned penises.
[quote]It also took a civil war to abolish slavery, it would take another to abolish gun ownership, and unlike the war on slavery, the war on gun ownership would be lost because it wouldn't be a straight north-south thing, you'd be fighting millions of people across the country, as well as members of the US Armed Forces and a number of state's National Guards. You won't legislate gun ownership out of America, you'd have to take it by force, and that's an absolutely impossible task.[/QUOTE]
Well surprisingly enough, the complex and intricate political details for both those things (slaves and firearms) aren't really comparable. Slave states nearly seceded when the Federal government brought in some new tariff. The states today seem fine (they may be pissed off and contest it) enough to accept its authority however.
Plus gun control is really not something people will fight each other over. What's most likely to happen is that gradualist politics will erode and reduce the number of gun owners over time until it becomes a non-issue.
This is more likely, than the so famed revolution I hear about, that hasn't arrived yet. When Marx or Jefferson claims a revolution is inevitable, I take it with a grain of salt.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39730875]Yet the total numbers of all people as a percentage of the population is declining.
Also women don't make up very many gun owners. Last I heard, about 80% of gun owners also owned penises.
Well surprisingly enough, the complex and intricate political details for both those things (slaves and firearms) aren't really comparable. Slave states nearly seceded when the Federal government brought in some new tariff. The states today seem fine (they may be pissed off and contest it) enough to accept its authority however.
[B]Plus gun control is really not something people will fight each other over. What's most likely to happen is that gradualist politics will erode and reduce the number of gun owners over time until it becomes a non-issue.[/B]
This is more likely, than the so famed revolution I hear about, that hasn't arrived yet. When Marx or Jefferson claims a revolution is inevitable, I take it with a grain of salt.[/QUOTE]
Which is precisely why gun owners oppose all forms of gun control at every turn, you have now just admitted the intention of "reasonable" gun control is to slowly erode away one's gun rights in increments until they have been removed completely, not anything to do with public safety, which is precisely why any attempt at further gun control is staunchly opposed.
[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/999z-mpdxusifn-unxc5pq.gif[/img]
Gun ownership is going up with both genders
[QUOTE=download;39730526]Please explain how these tracking devices are unbreakable/uremovable/etc
Lets see, Maccas turns a profit?[/QUOTE]
Pretty simple, as soon as one was broken or removed it would instantly go off? That's not difficult. Doesn't really matter whether McD's turns a profit, have you seen what the government will sink money into? For public safety, paying guards already isn't an issue.
[quote]Handy dandy magical tracking devices that don't need battery power and related infustructer to work?[/quote]
They put them on whales in the arctic, I'm pretty sure we can put them on guns in an armory.
[quote]Please, tell me where I said that? People who want to actually off themselves aren't going to be stopped by not having access to a gun. There are plenty of things about that can kill you very quickly and effectively[/quote]
You keep implying that taking away an easy and effective method of suicide is a bad thing because they're just going to do it anyway? How is that an okay argument? The people who chose a firearm for their method of suicide obviously liked that option more than any other available to them, so by taking that away, it can only make it easier to get help to them. This isn't hard to figure out.
[quote]By a small percentage, whatever[/quote]
It's significant enough to be pointed out by multiple articles. Just admit you're wrong instead of trying to minimalize it and dismiss it by saying "whatever."
[quote]A patrol boat, in the middle of one of Australia's largest military bases, with an armed guard, in an armoury, isn't secure? You'll have trouble making them more secure than military bases, and when you do, the criminals will just target military bases instead of civilian armouries[/quote]
Yes, a super duper secure patrol boat that some thugs just walked onto and overpowered all [B]one[/B] of the guards on board. And the boat wasn't in an armory, what are you talking about? It's also very easy to make them more secure than military bases. Hell, you can get onto the base I'm on right now and all you'd need is a stepping stool, no barbed wire or anything.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39730541]And you will literally never pass an Amendment abolishing the 2nd, and if America ever did there'd be a civil war, so your propositions will remain unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
That just doesn't make any sense, for exactly the reasons Sobotnik states. You just saying it's unconstitutional doesn't make it unconstitutional, but good try.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39730585]Apples and oranges, evolution of bacteria is a completely unrelated topic to a revolution. Not to mention the purpose of the 2nd was to protect itself and the other amendments of the Constitution, as Jefferson said, "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." You cannot control the evolution of bacteria, you can control the revision of a national constitution.[/QUOTE]
Ignoring that the Constitution that was signed by 38 other founding fathers explicitly allows its own amendment because all of those who signed it knew that things change and the Constitution would have to change with it to stay relevant, as it has through the years.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39730714]To name off the top of my head several US states that will never vote to repeal that amendment[/QUOTE]
[quote]And while I can't predict the future,[/quote]
SO THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP TRYING
Jesus H. Christ, you're naming off states that are pro-gun [I]right now.[/I] States and their politics change. Thirty years ago, my home state of Oregon consistently voted Republican. Not anymore. You're right, you can't predict the future, so stop acting as though things are set in stone.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39730828]You won't legislate gun ownership out of America, you'd have to take it by force, and that's an absolutely impossible task.[/QUOTE]
More predicting the future and claiming more than you could possibly know.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39730927]Which is precisely why gun owners oppose all forms of gun control at every turn, you have now just admitted the intention of "reasonable" gun control is to slowly erode away one's gun rights in increments until they have been removed completely, not anything to do with public safety, which is precisely why any attempt at further gun control is staunchly opposed.[/QUOTE]
It actually has everything to do with public safety. Whether it will positively impact public safety or not remains to be seen, but that is the goal, so you can't say it has nothing to do with public safety when that's the entire point.
Keep white-knuckle grippin' those guns though, I'll die before they ever take 'em!!!
[QUOTE=download;39730942][IMG]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/999z-mpdxusifn-unxc5pq.gif[/IMG]
Gun ownership is going up with both genders[/QUOTE]
...are you serious? Look at that chart. It's going up for both genders [I]in the last year or so.[/I] Actually look at that chart all the way across. Male gun ownership was steadily declining until a sudden jump upward. Female keeps going up and down in the last ten years. How can you possibly point out any trends with that? Not to mention that's a graph about the percentage of people saying there is a gun in their home, not exactly the same thing as personally owning a gun.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39731164]Pretty simple, as soon as one was broken or removed it would instantly go off? That's not difficult. Doesn't really matter whether McD's turns a profit, have you seen what the government will sink money into? For public safety, paying guards already isn't an issue.
They put them on whales in the arctic, I'm pretty sure we can put them on guns in an armory.[/quote]
That's completely different. What those beacons do is record the location of the whale every time it surfaces, then after a pre determined time it breaks off, floats to the surface, and broadcasts a pulse. The pulse doesn't have any data in it. From there they need to spend tonnes of time finding it using a directional antenna
[quote]
You keep implying that taking away an easy and effective method of suicide is a bad thing because they're just going to do it anyway? How is that an okay argument? The people who chose a firearm for their method of suicide obviously liked that option more than any other available to them, so by taking that away, it can only make it easier to get help to them. This isn't hard to figure out.[/quote]
Because other methods that are nearly just as successful are available? Most people have rope in their house, most people have a local bridge or tall building, it's really not that hard.
How does this stop people killing themselves with guns anyway? All they have to do is say "I'm going hunting, give me a gun", then blast their brains out. Andy why do you only with to stop their suicide method? Why not ban other things that are lethal suicide tools? If we banned paracetamol we could save lives, it might only be a few (but hey, that's what it's about, a few lives?)
[quote]
It's significant enough to be pointed out by multiple articles. Just admit you're wrong instead of trying to minimalize it and dismiss it by saying "whatever."[/quote]
[/quote]
Amazing, I misread you, not like you've never done it
[quote]
Yes, a super duper secure patrol boat that some thugs just walked onto and overpowered all [B]one[/B] of the guards on board. And the boat wasn't in an armory, what are you talking about? It's also very easy to make them more secure than military bases. Hell, you can get onto the base I'm on right now and all you'd need is a stepping stool, no barbed wire or anything.[/quote]
Yes, they just leave assault rifles lying around on boats for anyone to steal. Of course they have fucking armouries on boats. So what if it was one guard? You think one more is going to make it super secure and impenetrable?
I wasn't talking about them being less secure than military bases, I meant that if they are more difficult, then military armouries will be targeted instead
[quote]
...are you serious? Look at that chart. It's going up for both genders [I]in the last year or so.[/I] Actually look at that chart all the way across. Male gun ownership was steadily declining until a sudden jump upward. Female keeps going up and down in the last ten years. How can you possibly point out any trends with that? Not to mention that's a graph about the percentage of people saying there is a gun in their home, not exactly the same thing as personally owning a gun.[/QUOTE]
I'm looking at the chart now, and I can tell you, with a trend line in it, it will be very flat. Regardless, it's going up now
[QUOTE=download;39732222]That's completely different. What those beacons do is record the location of the whale every time it surfaces, then after a pre determined time it breaks off, floats to the surface, and broadcasts a pulse. The pulse doesn't have any data in it. From there they need to spend tonnes of time finding it using a directional antenna[/QUOTE]
GPS tracking units can be configured to start transmitting when an event occurs (such as a gun being removed from a vault) and then to transmit their location at set intervals, for example, every 5 or 10 minutes. Even if the battery lasts just a day (that would be a very shitty and cheap tracking unit), that's plenty of time to respond to a major armory robbery.
[QUOTE]Because other methods that are nearly just as successful are available? Most people have rope in their house, most people have a local bridge or tall building, it's really not that hard.
How does this stop people killing themselves with guns anyway? All they have to do is say "I'm going hunting, give me a gun", then blast their brains out. Andy why do you only with to stop their suicide method? Why not ban other things that are lethal suicide tools? If we banned paracetamol we could save lives, it might only be a few (but hey, that's what it's about, a few lives?)[/QUOTE]
You're actually trying to trivialize upwards of fifteen thousand firearm suicides a year as "a few lives"? I'm not saying this is the only suicide method, but this one happens to be very popular because it's very easy and very effective. Driving out to rent a gun at least potentially exposes you to help and intervention, and it's made more difficult because it's more expensive.
It's also not at all comparable to paracetamol which isn't a hobby that also happens to kill a lot of people, it's got very tangible positive effects when it isn't misused, and legislators are actively trying to reduce misuse of the drug. And unlike paracetamol, guns kill quite a few of their users [I]as well[/I] as other people. If there's a future that includes paracetamol being used in over ten thousand homicides each year, please, let me know.
[QUOTE]Amazing, I misread you, not like you've never done it[/QUOTE]
You just like to do it on about every post I make
[QUOTE]Yes, they just leave assault rifles lying around on boats for anyone to steal. Of course they have fucking armouries on boats. So what if it was one guard? You think one more is going to make it super secure and impenetrable?[/QUOTE]
Well obviously they weren't the least bit prepared for their patrol boat to get jumped like that.
[QUOTE]I wasn't talking about them being less secure than military bases, I meant that if they are more difficult, then military armouries will be targeted instead[/QUOTE]
Because if we moved to centralized storage in secure armories then we would probably forget to make our [I]military[/I] armories more secure too.
[QUOTE]I'm looking at the chart now, and I can tell you, with a trend line in it, it will be very flat. Regardless, it's going up now[/QUOTE]
Regardless, it's still a pretty worthless graph that goes up and down every couple years and isn't even indicative of gun ownership as a whole.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39730927]Which is precisely why gun owners oppose all forms of gun control at every turn, you have now just admitted the intention of "reasonable" gun control is to slowly erode away one's gun rights in increments until they have been removed completely, not anything to do with public safety[/QUOTE]
Can you try refuting my statesments that gun ownership is on a decline, that women gun owners make up a minority of gun owners, or why a revolution will occur?
[quote]which is precisely why any attempt at further gun control is staunchly opposed.[/quote]
I don't care what happens to your guns, can you answer my questions? The number of firearms owners are shrinking and making increasingly smaller groups. That's probably why gun control is allowed, since opposition is shrinking.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39735139]GPS tracking units can be configured to start transmitting when an event occurs (such as a gun being removed from a vault) and then to transmit their location at set intervals, for example, every 5 or 10 minutes. Even if the battery lasts just a day (that would be a very shitty and cheap tracking unit), that's plenty of time to respond to a major armory robbery. [/quote]
Wow, not like that can't be circumnavigated. Let see...
Oh wait, knock out the local telephone tower this device needs to be tied to to function, get away with the guns. Or, load ever gun into an RF shielded truck so they can't be tracked. Or, destroy the tracking device on every gun. Or spoof the tracking signal so it looks like it's still in the armoury. I can keep going on
Your idea is retard, either you're too stupid to see that or you're too stubborn to admit it's stupid
[quote]
You're actually trying to trivialize upwards of fifteen thousand firearm suicides a year as "a few lives"? I'm not saying this is the only suicide method, but this one happens to be very popular because it's very easy and very effective. Driving out to rent a gun at least potentially exposes you to help and intervention, and it's made more difficult because it's more expensive.
It's also not at all comparable to paracetamol which isn't a hobby that also happens to kill a lot of people, it's got very tangible positive effects when it isn't misused, and legislators are actively trying to reduce misuse of the drug. And unlike paracetamol, guns kill quite a few of their users [I]as well[/I] as other people. If there's a future that includes paracetamol being used in over ten thousand homicides each year, please, let me know.[/quote]
No, I'm trivialising the small amount of deaths if suddenly you removed ever gun in existence and people replaced them with nooses.
[quote]
You just like to do it on about every post I make[/quote]
You regularly misinterpret what I say, shut up.
[quote]
Well obviously they weren't the least bit prepared for their patrol boat to get jumped like that. [/quote]
Yea, who expect their boat in the middle of a military base to be attacked and robbed?
[quote]
Because if we moved to centralized storage in secure armories then we would probably forget to make our [I]military[/I] armories more secure too.[/quote]
Try convince the military to fit tracking device to their guns, I dare you
[quote]
Regardless, it's still a pretty worthless graph that goes up and down every couple years and isn't even indicative of gun ownership as a whole.[/QUOTE]
"When given data that doesn't support my view I dismiss it"
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39737077]Can you try refuting my statesments that gun ownership is on a decline, that women gun owners make up a minority of gun owners, or why a revolution will occur?
I don't care what happens to your guns, can you answer my questions? The number of firearms owners are shrinking and making increasingly smaller groups. That's probably why gun control is allowed, since opposition is shrinking.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50d0c9c9ecad04ab2e00000b-900/the-south-consistently-has-the-highest-gun-ownership-rate.jpg[/img]
Doesn't look like it going down to me
[QUOTE=download;39743104]
[img]http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50d0c9c9ecad04ab2e00000b-900/the-south-consistently-has-the-highest-gun-ownership-rate.jpg[/img]
Doesn't look like it going down to me[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20759139[/url]
[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64837000/gif/_64837724_gun_ownership_624.gif[/img]
While some 46% of households and 29% of individuals said they owned a gun in 1990, two decades later this had fallen to 32% and 21%.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39743288][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20759139[/url]
[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/64837000/gif/_64837724_gun_ownership_624.gif[/img]
While some 46% of households and 29% of individuals said they owned a gun in 1990, two decades later this had fallen to 32% and 21%.[/QUOTE]
Different sources, different results
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx[/url]
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
I find it interesting Democrat gun ownership has jumped 10% in 2 years
[QUOTE=download;39743378]Different sources, different results
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx[/url]
[editline]28th February 2013[/editline]
I find it interesting Democrat gun ownership has jumped 10% in 2 years[/QUOTE]
Your source doesn't cover personal ownership.
Also my source reports the same findings for the same time period covered.
Do bear in mind that your source covers different time periods, but is more or less the same as well.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39743436]Your source doesn't cover personal ownership.
Also my source reports the same findings for the same time period covered.
Do bear in mind that your source covers different time periods, but is more or less the same as well.[/QUOTE]
[quote=Gallup]A clear societal change took place regarding gun ownership in the early 1990s, when the percentage of Americans saying there was a gun in their home or on their property dropped from the low to mid-50s into the low to mid-40s and remained at that level for the next 15 years. [b]Whether this reflected a true decline in gun ownership or a cultural shift in Americans' willingness to say they had guns is unclear.[/b] However, the new data suggest that attitudes may again be changing. At 47%, reported gun ownership is the highest it has been in nearly two decades -- [b]a finding that may be related to Americans' dampened support for gun-control laws.[/b] However, to ensure that this year's increase reflects a meaningful rebound in reported gun ownership, it will be important to see whether the uptick continues in future polling.[/quote]
From the Gallup source posted.
And last I checked, "There is a gun in this household" sounds like personal ownership to me.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39743471]From the Gallup source posted.[/quote]
I used a BBC source. Is support for gun control declining too?
[quote]And last I checked, "There is a gun in this household" sounds like personal ownership to me.[/QUOTE]
Households can have multiple people living in them. The best way to measure personal ownership is actually measuring personal ownership.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39743608]I used a BBC source. Is support for gun control declining too?
Households can have multiple people living in them. The best way to measure personal ownership is actually measuring personal ownership.[/QUOTE]
Yes, support for gun control is declining:
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx[/url]
[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ylqmvpzqn0muer-v0mqgkq.gif[/img]
[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/n9ggmdee1k60atawqdbprq.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39743645]Yes, support for gun control is declining:
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx[/url]
[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ylqmvpzqn0muer-v0mqgkq.gif[/img]
[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/n9ggmdee1k60atawqdbprq.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Is personal firearm ownership on the increase as well?
[QUOTE=download;39743104]Wow, not like that can't be circumnavigated. Let see...
Oh wait, knock out the local telephone tower this device needs to be tied to to function, get away with the guns. Or, load ever gun into an RF shielded truck so they can't be tracked. Or, destroy the tracking device on every gun. Or spoof the tracking signal so it looks like it's still in the armoury. I can keep going on[/QUOTE]
lmao because not one of those events wouldn't immediately alert authorities of what was going on, it's like you pick out one key word and try to debunk my argument without reading the rest of it
please elaborate on the spoofed tracking signal one too, that's brilliant
[quote]Your idea is retard, either you're too stupid to see that or you're too stubborn to admit it's stupid[/quote]
no you is retard
[quote]No, I'm trivialising the small amount of deaths if suddenly you removed ever gun in existence and people replaced them with nooses.[/quote]
you're still not getting it
[quote]Yea, who expect their boat in the middle of a military base to be attacked and robbed?[/quote]
Exactly?
[quote]Try convince the military to fit tracking device to their guns, I dare you[/quote]
The military is actually all about accountability, and outside of special forces, I don't think it'd be hard at all. You seem to have some other idealization about the military though, let me hear it
Not to mention that firearms kept in military armories wouldn't be being rented out, so it wouldn't be even necessary to affix every single one with a tracking device, just one in five or even less would prevent a major robbery
[quote]"When given data that doesn't support my view I dismiss it"[/quote]
1. that's literally what you've been doing ever since I started posting in this thread
2. I didn't dismiss data that doesn't support my view, I dismissed data that doesn't support anyone's view because the stupid chart shows a timeline of ten years with no real progress in either direction, and the question gallup asked doesn't even give real numbers on gun ownership, it gives numbers on who has a gun in their home
[quote]
[IMG]http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50d0c9c9ecad04ab2e00000b-900/the-south-consistently-has-the-highest-gun-ownership-rate.jpg[/IMG]
Doesn't look like it going down to me[/quote]
It doesn't really look like it's going up, either. One year isn't enough upward trend to show any real significance. Especially such a sudden and extreme one, that sort of trend doesn't sustain itself. You should know that, come on man.
[editline]27th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39743436]Your source doesn't cover personal ownership.
Also my source reports the same findings for the same time period covered.
Do bear in mind that your source covers different time periods, but is more or less the same as well.[/QUOTE]
lol he keeps quoting "gun in the household" surveys and pretending that's indicative of gun ownership
[editline]27th February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39743645]Yes, support for gun control is declining:
[URL]http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx[/URL]
[IMG]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ylqmvpzqn0muer-v0mqgkq.gif[/IMG]
[IMG]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/n9ggmdee1k60atawqdbprq.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Election season is probably going to show how much people care for guns better than that to be honest
Yes, destroying the tracking device would theoretically alert authorities to the fact that the gun is being stolen, now how the hell are they supposed to find it, [I]the tracking device is gone[/I]. Installing a GPS tracker on every gun won't work because these trackers are not an infallible device, they can be broken, shielded, removed, or spoofed, and it's actually as easy as putting them in a block of metal or concrete, something like, say, the back of an armoured van perhaps.
From part of the Gallup quote DaCommie1 posted: "However, to ensure that this year's increase reflects a meaningful rebound in reported gun ownership, it will be important to see whether the uptick continues in future polling." gallup agrees with me goodness do i feel special
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39743830]Yes, destroying the tracking device would theoretically alert authorities to the fact that the gun is being stolen, now how the hell are they supposed to find it, [I]the tracking device is gone[/I]. Installing a GPS tracker on every gun won't work because these trackers are not an infallible device, they can be broken, shielded, removed, or spoofed, and it's actually as easy as putting them in a block of metal or concrete, something like, say, the back of an armoured van perhaps.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't removing all of them take a long time? Especially if it's a big heist.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39743738]Is personal firearm ownership on the increase as well?[/QUOTE]
[img]http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/032708guns4.gif[/img]
It's clearly not on the decrease, and this is old data, 2008.
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/Public-Believes-Americans-Right-Own-Guns.aspx[/url]
In the [url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx]2011 one posted earlier[/url], the rate was 34% of adults. The rate of personal gun ownership up until last year was relatively constant from 2000 onwards.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39743830]Yes, destroying the tracking device would theoretically alert authorities to the fact that the gun is being stolen, now how the hell are they supposed to find it, [I]the tracking device is gone[/I]. Installing a GPS tracker on every gun won't work because these trackers are not an infallible device, they can be broken, shielded, removed, or spoofed, and it's actually as easy as putting them in a block of metal or concrete, something like, say, the back of an armoured van perhaps.[/QUOTE]
you don't need to tell me, i know how radio waves and signals work, i maintain them
of course the tracking device is gone but you don't think authorities wouldn't be on their way to the site before the robbers are even halfway finished loading their armoured van? which is also quite the conspicuous vehicle, not sure how easy it would be to elude pursuers in one of those. as soon as a firearm is picked up it's going to start transmitting its location, and someone's going to see something is going on. i see it as being extremely difficult to feasibly prevent every one of those signals from getting out while escaping in a big black armored beacon in a timely manner. I'm not saying it's absolutely foolproof, but I'm not a security expert, either. I'm sure the people whose job it would be could find ways to plug even more holes.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39743857]Wouldn't removing all of them take a long time? Especially if it's a big heist.[/QUOTE]
The most likely place for the tracker is in the stock, it's the most easy to put something into, and also the location where the chip will get the least wear on it due to the gun being used. All they'd need to do is put all the guns in the back of an insulated van and chop off all the stocks and dump them, thus making the gun somewhat more concealable and removing the tracker from them. The cops would think they'd found the criminal armoury the guns are being stored in, and instead they find a dumpster full of wood and plastic.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
