Ferguson Riots

[Balta1701]

Was it Judge Dredd where their guns could only be fired by someone with the DNA linked to the gun or something like that?

Actually it's real life, they're called smart guns.Variety of ways to make it happen, could actually work. They're therefore the only type of gun the NRA despises.

[Jenksismyhero]

Actually it's real life, they're called smart guns.Variety of ways to make it happen, could actually work. They're therefore the only type of gun the NRA despises.

 

This wouldn't work for my family (or most gun owners I suspect). We share, depending on what we're hunting/shooting. Nor could you pass down guns through generations, as my grandfather did to me.

[StrangeSox]

This wouldn't work for my family (or most gun owners I suspect). We share, depending on what we're hunting/shooting. Nor could you pass down guns through generations, as my grandfather did to me.

You could conceivably have more than one authorized user and get that authorized user updated/changed.

[Jenksismyhero]

You could conceivably have more than one authorized user and get that authorized user updated/changed.

 

Seems like a lot of work and cost to prevent pretty rare events.

[pettie4sox]

Seems like a lot of work and cost to prevent pretty rare events.

 

If gun owners are as lazy as you then I advocate taking all of them away...

[StrangeSox]

Seems like a lot of work and cost to prevent pretty rare events.

1.4M guns were stolen between 2005 and 2010. If every gun were hypothetically this sort of "smart gun," a stolen gun wouldn't do much good. You'd also eliminate kids taking their parents' guns etc. etc.

 

Or it could be more limited specifically to police officers such that their personal sidearms can be used by them and only them. That way, even if someone did get a hold of their gun, it's not life-threatening.

[pettie4sox]

The next argument could be that if a smart gun has a glitch in which is doesn't respond to the owner when he needs it. That could be detrimental.

[StrangeSox]

It is another point of failure, but guns have mechanical and user failures as it is.

[EvilMonkey]

Smart guns do not work. So far the only variant was a .22 cal which is almost useless. Anything stronger jars the electronics after a few shots to the point of breaking. You need to be wearing a huge, ugly wrist band in order for it to work, with a range of about 6 inches. So if you grab the gun with the wrong hand, 'click', no boom, you could be dead. The NRA doesn't hate them they just resist them being mandated. Give them to police if they are so good. let them be the experiment.

[Jenksismyhero]

If gun owners are as lazy as you then I advocate taking all of them away...

 

It's not really a question of laziness, it's just another requirement that would replace an existing requirement that should be preventing the (rare) tragedies you're seeking to prevent. If you're worried about kids, only moronic, irresponsible and criminal parents let their kids get to their guns. They should locked up and unloaded. That's the law.

 

Criminals. Well, they're criminals. I'm sure they'd totally abide by new laws, because they follow the existing ones! There's no way they'd try to get around the "smart" feature of the gun or use false applications and whatnot to become a registered user! And you've got millions and millions of guns out there. They'd simply get one of those guns, not the smart ones. So again, you're just punishing lawful gun owners to make a dent in a relatively small number of crimes that will occur anyway. It's just another pointless restriction.

 

I could maybe support this restriction on cops, assuming it works flawlessly (i'd be concerned about how long it would take to verify you are the one that can use the gun), so that some perp can't go after a cops gun and use it. It's not like those guns can be shared with family/friends or passed down anyway. It's a service weapon only to be used by that cop. But given all the other s*** local communities have to pay for, not sure that extra perk is really in the budget or on the priority list for most departments/communities.

[StrangeSox]

It's not really a question of laziness, it's just another requirement that would replace an existing requirement that should be preventing the (rare) tragedies you're seeking to prevent. If you're worried about kids, only moronic, irresponsible and criminal parents let their kids get to their guns. They should locked up and unloaded. That's the law.

 

No, it isn't. Heller explicitly rejected the DC requirements to keep a gun unloaded or with a trigger lock. Plenty of people keep guns unlocked, loaded or both.

[RockRaines]

Smart guns do not work. So far the only variant was a .22 cal which is almost useless. Anything stronger jars the electronics after a few shots to the point of breaking. You need to be wearing a huge, ugly wrist band in order for it to work, with a range of about 6 inches. So if you grab the gun with the wrong hand, 'click', no boom, you could be dead. The NRA doesn't hate them they just resist them being mandated. Give them to police if they are so good. let them be the experiment.

Maybe the way they are built today, but the technology exists to make this use case extremely easy, guns manu's just dont want it to work because it decreases the black market.

[pettie4sox]

It's not really a question of laziness, it's just another requirement that would replace an existing requirement that should be preventing the (rare) tragedies you're seeking to prevent. If you're worried about kids, only moronic, irresponsible and criminal parents let their kids get to their guns. They should locked up and unloaded. That's the law.

 

Criminals. Well, they're criminals. I'm sure they'd totally abide by new laws, because they follow the existing ones! There's no way they'd try to get around the "smart" feature of the gun or use false applications and whatnot to become a registered user! And you've got millions and millions of guns out there. They'd simply get one of those guns, not the smart ones. So again, you're just punishing lawful gun owners to make a dent in a relatively small number of crimes that will occur anyway. It's just another pointless restriction.

 

I could maybe support this restriction on cops, assuming it works flawlessly (i'd be concerned about how long it would take to verify you are the one that can use the gun), so that some perp can't go after a cops gun and use it. It's not like those guns can be shared with family/friends or passed down anyway. It's a service weapon only to be used by that cop. But given all the other s*** local communities have to pay for, not sure that extra perk is really in the budget or on the priority list for most departments/communities.

 

Should have used green. That's my bad.

[Jenksismyhero]

No, it isn't. Heller explicitly rejected the DC requirements to keep a gun unloaded or with a trigger lock. Plenty of people keep guns unlocked, loaded or both.

 

It's still the law in Illinois:

 

(720 ILCS 5/24-9)

Sec. 24-9. Firearms; Child Protection.

(a) Except as provided in subsection ©, it is unlawful for any person to store or leave, within premises under his or her control, a firearm if the person knows or has reason to believe that a minor under the age of 14 years who does not have a Firearm Owners Identification Card is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor's parent, guardian, or person having charge of the minor, and the minor causes death or great bodily harm with the firearm, unless the firearm is:

(1) secured by a device or mechanism, other than the

 

firearm safety, designed to render a firearm temporarily inoperable; or

(2) placed in a securely locked box or container; or

(3) placed in some other location that a reasonable

 

person would believe to be secure from a minor under the age of 14 years.

(b) Sentence. A person who violates this Section is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than $1,000. A second or subsequent violation of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor.

© Subsection (a) does not apply:

(1) if the minor under 14 years of age gains access

 

to a firearm and uses it in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another; or

(2) to any firearm obtained by a minor under the age

 

of 14 because of an unlawful entry of the premises by the minor or another person.

(d) For the purposes of this Section, "firearm" has the meaning ascribed to it in Section 1.1 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act.

(Source: P.A. 91-18, eff. 1-1-00.)

 

edit: Where in Heller did it address this? I thought the decision was pretty broad - we recognize the right to bear arms, but we also recognize there are common sense restrictions.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Maybe the way they are built today, but the technology exists to make this use case extremely easy, guns manu's just dont want it to work because it decreases the black market.

 

The problem is to ensure the safety of an officer it would have to be an instantaneous read. Even a second could be too much time.

[StrangeSox]

It's still the law in Illinois:

 

 

 

edit: Where in Heller did it address this? I thought the decision was pretty broad - we recognize the right to bear arms, but we also recognize there are common sense restrictions.

 

It was the first ruling to find an individual right (both the majority and the dissent played amateur historian), but the trigger lock/unloaded requirement was also essential to the ruling.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of...umbia_v._Heller

 

Many of the more...ardent gun supporters argue that you need to have your weapon ready at all times.

[StrangeSox]

Ferguson Police Routinely Violate Rights of Blacks, Justice Dept. Finds

 

The Justice Department will issue findings Wednesday that accuse the police department in Ferguson, Mo., of racial bias and routinely violating the constitutional rights of black citizens by stopping drivers without reasonable suspicion, making arrests without probable cause and using excessive force, officials said.

 

[…]

 

The findings come as Justice Department officials negotiate a settlement with the police department to change its practices. If they are unable to reach an agreement, the Justice Department could bring a lawsuit, as it has done against law enforcement agencies in other jurisdictions in recent years. A U.S. official said that Ferguson officials have been cooperating.

 

As part of its findings, the Justice Department concluded that African Americans accounted for 85 percent of all drivers stopped by Ferguson police officers and 90 percent of all citations issued.

 

The Justice Department also plans to release evidence this week of racial bias found in e-mails written by Ferguson police and municipal court officials. A November 2008 e-mail, for instance, stated that President Obama could not be president for very long because “what black man holds a steady job for four years.”

 

[...]

 

In compiling the report, federal investigators conducted hundreds of interviews, reviewed 35,000 pages of police records and analyzed race data compiled for every police stop. They concluded that, over the past two years, African-Americans — who make up about two-thirds of the city’s population — accounted for 85 percent of traffic stops, 90 percent of citations, 93 percent of arrests and 88 percent of cases in which the police used force.

 

Black motorists were twice as likely as whites to be searched but were less likely to be found in possession of contraband such as drugs or guns.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Ferguson Police Routinely Violate Rights of Blacks, Justice Dept. Finds

 

Would you have confidence in this police force to do the right thing? Would you believe their statements?

[Balta1701]

And here's what this dept. is doing on their business email accounts.

[chw42]

And here's what this dept. is doing on their business email accounts.

 

People in Missouri are racist...that's so surprising.

[StrangeSox]

Ta-Nehisi Coates on The Gangsters of Ferguson

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/...erguson/386893/

 

Focusing on some awful emails or the findings specific to Darren Wilson obscures what really happens in Ferguson and numerous other cities across the country.

[cabiness42]

Ta-Nehisi Coates on The Gangsters of Ferguson

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/...erguson/386893/

 

Focusing on some awful emails or the findings specific to Darren Wilson obscures what really happens in Ferguson and numerous other cities across the country.

 

I've said from the beginning that this was a "bad" police department and that it's always a terrible idea to have a police department whose demographics are so far misaligned with the community's, but I've also said from the beginning that Wilson was not acting improperly in this particular case.

 

I have no problem with people continuing to be very angry at that police department, but they really need to leave Wilson alone.

[Jenksismyhero]

They should have tried to talk them down first:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/philade...killed-29426922

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

Ferguson Police Routinely Violate Rights of Blacks, Justice Dept. Finds

I will say that the even bigger picture is being missed here. it isn't JUST race, it is a government run amok, using law enforcement as a stealth tax system. It isn't about catching robbers and killers as it is shaking down peeps for tinted windows and making sure beauticians have the 'proper' licenses. There are towns all across the country that are infamous for shaking down motorists for the slightest of things, often just making them up, to provide revenue. I remember a story of a town that had only 250 residents but had a police force of 20, and had more tickets than most of their state combined. This is tyranny, and it doesn't matter the race. People rightly should be upset at the systematical targeting of citizens by police simply to feed their coffers.

[Y2HH]

I will say that the even bigger picture is being missed here. it isn't JUST race, it is a government run amok, using law enforcement as a stealth tax system. It isn't about catching robbers and killers as it is shaking down peeps for tinted windows and making sure beauticians have the 'proper' licenses. There are towns all across the country that are infamous for shaking down motorists for the slightest of things, often just making them up, to provide revenue. I remember a story of a town that had only 250 residents but had a police force of 20, and had more tickets than most of their state combined. This is tyranny, and it doesn't matter the race. People rightly should be upset at the systematical targeting of citizens by police simply to feed their coffers.

 

They complain, but then then they'll re-elect the very people that cause this from the top down.