Connect with us

Hammers and guns and Jim and Michael

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Charles, Jan 13, 2013.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Charles

    Charles Guest

  2. mpm

    mpm Guest

    Haven't read the link yet, but if one considers all of time (i.e., back tothe caveman days) then perhaps "hammers" have killed many more people thanguns of any kind. Just a thought.

    As to the topic of guns, in general I support a sane person's right to own weaponry of reasonable lethality. And - I would imagine that many, probably "most", gun owners support reasonable actions to curb gun violence.

    However, there's the right-wing gun-nut crowd out there that somehow believes ANY restriction is an attack on their 2nd Amendment rights. (Of course,those same nut-jobs fail to comprehend that assault weapons would be totally useless against a US Government hell-bent on their destruction. Google:Cruise Missile for example. As such, the 2nd Amendment underpinning re: militias seems pretty retarded and outdated.)

    That said - I don't see how meaningful gun restrictions can be imposed absent some sort of gun registry. The nut-job crowd probably believes that a registry naturally leads to a confiscation program down the road... It's hard to argue that, since it's fundamentally a hypothetical situation. But the chances are clearly not ZERO, so there's likely at least some merit to their fears.

    -mpm
     
  3. Nico Coesel

    Nico Coesel Guest

    There are three sensible things to comment on this:
    - How many people can you kill with a hammer in a restaurant before
    getting smacked down?
    - Is there any other use for a gun except for killing people and
    hunting?
    - Is putting more guns in the hands of potential lunatics the
    solution?

    Over here they are currently looking into all licensed gun owners.
    Anyone who has (had) mental problems has to turn in their guns and the
    license.
     
  4. miso

    miso Guest

    So you are saying we need restrictions on handguns as well as rifles.
    Good idea. I agree. And the sooner the better.

    What we also need are people to take responsibility for their weapons,
    much like Australia established at their massacre. The cops come by and
    want to see if you still have the gun. No big deal. Let them in and show
    them your weapon(s). That would get rid of the straw purchases.
     
  5. Guest

    There are numerous, current examples of citizens using small arms to
    resist governments--even ours--e.g., Iraq.
    Google "Battle of Athens." Or watch it on YouTube.
    It's perfectly rational. The anti-gun crowd has clearly said that they
    want to erode the right of self-defense, with confiscation being their
    stated ultimate goal.

    What's irrational is the grabbers, who want to manifest their paranoid
    fears by disarming _good people_. They're gonna get a lot of people
    killed.

    I don't own any guns, turned down an offer for some that were free. I
    don't like them, and I don't want the responsibility, but I personally
    know at least four people alive today because of them, all without
    firing a shot.

    A family friend drove deep into the Mojave, vacationing with his
    wife. They were 50 miles from nowhere, sought out a hidden closed
    canyon, and went camping. A motorcycle gang tracked their location,
    cornered and confronted them, a couple dozen against a man and his
    lovely young wife. As they closed in our friend drew a handgun, aimed
    at the leader's head, and said "Your guys may kill me, but you [the
    leader] are gonna die first, and [pointing] five more with you." The
    gang mounted up and drove off.

    That's two of them.

    We hear successful defense stories at least once or twice a month on
    the radio where I live. None of the grabbers are counting those,
    which is dishonest. The FBI doesn't count them either, because
    _they're_not_crimes_. _Yet._ Would you make these instances of self-
    defense crimes?

    Not that these examples should determine our decision, they're only
    exemplary. Self defense is a basic human right.


    James Arthur
     
  6. Guest

    Of course, how silly. Guns aren't for killing people--that's illegal,
    and severely punished. They're for defense, for sport, and for food.
    Many people are alive today because they used a gun defensively, as is
    their right.

    We've got almost 300 million guns in America. If they were for
    KILLING people, we'd have bodies everywhere.

    James Arthur
     
  7. Guest

    So you're saying that the person in a mass killing is more "valuable"
    than the individual.
    Certainly! The biggie is self defense, but you already knew that.
    No but putting more guns in the hands of the common citizen quite
    obviously is.
    Who the **** cares what they do "over here"? Die, for all I care.
    Until that happens, BUTT OUT.
    Ignorant boob.
     
  8. Guest

  9. Guest

    Excellent example. We hear them _all the time_, in the local news.

    As for rifles, when you say no one needs to have more than 10 rounds,
    you're saying a Korean shopkeeper in Los Angeles, defending his life,
    store, and family against a mob for six days during the LA riots only
    gets 10 shots, right? You're condemning him to _death._ The same
    applies in Katrina, and other civil unrests.

    http://www.ammoland.com/2012/05/01/...nians-learned-then-forgot-to-embrace-the-gun/
    http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/92-la-riots-current-uk-t91688.html

    What does it matter how many rounds a law-abiding good guy wants to
    carry? It doesn't.

    James Arthur
     
  10. legg

    legg Guest

    Oh no! Not the list! Anything but the list.....

    This thing with numbers. Maybe we're looking at it the wrong way.

    How about a 'homicides per single weapon' index ?

    That's where the tens and twenties of victims show up, when
    semi-automatic mechanisms with large magazines are involved.

    Other types of firearms gives us-all Pac-people the opportunity to
    make ourselves either scarce, or heroes, after the first few rounds.

    Oh well, as you'd say - Life ain't fair.

    RL
     
  11. Guest

    By that measure, let's ban airplanes, and register box-cutter buyers
    and rental-truck renters. Background checks for all--let's start
    files on 'em! Fees too (this stuff isn't free)!
    Then if you live on a remote property and several assailants come
    after you, you just have to die? Ask them to wait while you change
    magazines? Or if there's civil unrest, or a natural disaster? Sure,
    rifles can be misused. But, it's rare.

    If the real concern were saving human life, sooo many preventable
    things kill far more people. Teen drivers. Alcohol. Tobacco.
    Hospitals.

    At bottom it's that guns are scccarrrrry--an irrational hysteria
    clouds this whole issue. Good guys with guns protecting their own
    lives are a blessing to liberty and a problem to no one, as proved by
    the 100 million of them every day. How many rounds they need is none
    of our business, any more how many romantic partners someone's
    allowed.
     
  12. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 22:35:10 -0800 (PST),
    It's too late for Congress to worry about large magazines.
    I'm already 3D printing them to arbitrary size and am
    experimenting with ABS plastic springs for tension, too. If I
    can do it.... anyone can.

    Jon
     
  13. Guest

    With regard to gun ownership and the 2nd amendment:

    Unless we the “people” have a few A1 Abrams, Appache helicopters and F22s lying around, it’s not likely well do much to fend off the Government.

    Don’t ever forget Ruby Ridge or Waco.

    If the concept is to be able to effectively counter a “perceived” tyrannical government, we’re headed in the wrong direction. We need at least full auto, access to grenades, rocket launchers, etc!

    Hell the state I live in won’t allow full auto of any sort. We the “folks” are just plain too damn under “armed” to make much of an impact. But what the heck, we can smoke pot!

    The 2nd amendment needs to revised, or thrown out.

    But what is clear, is that this nonsense re s/a weapons, is because most ofthe people targeting the weapons don’t understand the weaponry.

    The real issue is the nut behind the trigger, and everybody knows it. But I suspect, providing an effective solution will be way too costly and much more difficult.

    Easier to make busy work and go after high profile emotional topics than fix problems.

    Having said all that I’ve been staring at my AR-10 for several hours and it has yet to jump up and battery a charge. I have no “frigin” idea what’s wrong with this damn thing!

    My .02 worth.
     
  14. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    Can't disagree with that. (See long note below, though.) The
    original purpose of the 2nd Amendment no longer exists in the
    form it did when it was written. For many reasons.

    But you may miss my point, given the rest I see below. I'll
    resay it again, at the end, after the "..."
    The original purpose included foreign invasion as well as
    internal revolt as well as providing the "last" and "final"
    check against those who might wish to use a federal force
    against those in a state of the union.

    Other checks were added, including a bar against the idea of
    a standing military -- also a barrier long since broken for
    reasons both good and bad.

    But at the time, there wasn't a standing, well trained army;
    and there wasn't nearly as large a distinction in weaponry.
    And the world was different in other ways. (Though I think
    after reading the massive book, Les Miserables, I'm starting
    to take the position that there isn't anything at all new
    about politics.)
    Pot is harmless. If legal, there'd also be no violence
    because the courts would then be available to settle
    disputes.

    My next door neighbor sells full auto. But if I remember
    correctly in the US these are quite limited -- no additional
    pieces are authorized and the existing stock is the only
    legal stock allowed. And licence fees must be paid ever year,
    if I remember right. (Never owned one, though.)
    It's already been revised. A 1939 Supreme Court decision used
    an entirely "prudential" argument having nothing whatever to
    do with original intent, in my opinion.

    However, at least there remains an individual right that was
    recently upheld... for whatever that turns out to be worth.

    I'll add below a long comment I'd written in 2004 on this
    topic. Might be interesting to refresh memories.
    That's largely true.
    It may also require deeper self-examination than most are
    willing to engage in. As well as the expense.
    Looking busy, though.
    I don't often see those and know nothing about their design.
    But I do know my weapons well enough to make and replace some
    of the parts. (I don't do rifling for example.)

    ....

    My point wasn't to either encourage or defend any particular
    side in this seemingly perennial debate or to take sides.
    There are strongly felt and reasoned feelings from many
    quarters.

    My intent was to point out that while it once might have once
    been practical to ban large magazines from sales at stores,
    it no longer is. 3D printing has already been able to cheaply
    build lower receivers that can withstand "some" use before
    breaking. It certainly can be and is being used to build
    large capacity magazines that work rather well. Banning
    larger magazines today, in 2013, will only create a lucrative
    niche market for 3D printing. It's effect now will be much
    less than it might have been a few decades ago. (And again,
    I'm not arguing about that effect. It probably had little to
    no effect for the intended reasons at the time.)

    I also imagine it will be 'very hard' to make semiautos
    illegal. What would be the alternate? Revolvers? Single fire
    break-barrel designs like a Barreta 86-F, but without a
    magazine? I don't think any of that would pass, either.

    Time needs to be put elsewhere. The magazine debate is
    pointless. It would, even if passed, only create a new
    marketplace as well as accelerated efforts towards cheaper,
    more advanced 3D printer designs. That genie is out of the
    bag, now. There's no putting it back.

    http://wordpress.digitalcrowbar.net/?p=167
    http://defdist.tumblr.com/post/37023487585/printed-reinforced-ar-lower-review
    http://defensedistributed.com/

    ....


    I'm going to quote a little from the Federalist papers. I
    want to make it clear that at the time they were published
    they were not the only opinions around. But they were popular
    ones and written to push a point of view. There were a number
    of other factions, including the anti-federalists (like the
    "Federal Farmer".) Still, the 2nd Amendment was well
    understood and commonly accepted as wise at the time.

    The Supreme Court (itself ever changing) gleans intent not
    just from the Federalist Papers. Those papers tell how some
    thought and, to the degree that their arguments won through
    in writing specific phrases and lines in our Constitution,
    you can find some measure of "original intent." But there is
    also the intent of those who actually wrote specific elements
    and the intent of those who voted in support of the final
    document and that is gleaned from elsewhere, including
    reading the debates in the various legislatures that
    ratified. (As well as in letters, trial versions of the text
    before editing changes, and so on.)

    Modern Constitutional analysis doesn't just conclude even
    from these original intent arguments. Current thinking seems
    to include:

    (1) textual arguments, which appeal to the unadorned language
    of the text and without any 'original intent' analysis to
    speak of (on the theory that the document is the controlling
    agreement that was signed, and not just what some folks may
    have read into it at the time);

    (2) historical arguments, appealing to an historical
    background, such as specific appeals to the intentions of
    framers, as lit by their many writings on the subject (this
    is more of that original intent thing);

    (3) structural arguments, analyzing the particular structures
    established by the Constitution, such as the tripartite
    division of the national government or the separate existence
    of both state and nation as political entities and/or the
    structured role of citizens within the political order (a bit
    of an abstraction, but useful in understanding the _thrust_
    of intent where specific details may be lacking);

    (4) doctrinal arguments, focusing on implications of prior
    cases decided by the Supreme Court (stare decisis);

    (5) prudential arguments, which emphasize the consequences of
    adopting any proffered decision in any given case;

    As an example of number (5) above, the 2nd Amendment was in
    many ways thoroughly changed from original intent when the
    U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S.
    174 (1939), that the Second Amendment was designed to protect
    only the ability of the states to maintain a well regulated
    militia. This 1939 case is the only modern case in which the
    Supreme Court has addressed this issue, and since this Miller
    decision, every federal court that has considered the issue
    has rejected the contention that the Second Amendment confers
    a right to firearm possession unrelated to militia service.
    (Until District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
    appeared on the scene, anyway.)

    However, this 1939 position was NOT the original intent nor
    can it be taken from the language.

    Well before District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
    (2008), the constitutional authority, Professor Laurence
    Tribe, confirmed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual
    right. See "American Constitutional Law, 2nd ed., 1988." He
    does so in a somewhat offhand way, but freely admits the
    difficulty of any other interpretation, writing, "...the
    debates surrounding congressional approval of the second
    amendment do contain references to individual self-protection
    as well as to states' rights." And Tribe was supportive of
    strong gun control laws.

    James Madison writes about the subject in Federalist #46,
    saying "...the advantage of being armed, which the Americans
    possess over the people of almost every other nation...forms
    a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more
    insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form
    can admit of."

    He also discusses the idea that a Federal Army might be
    formed in order to subdue the people. He leads his point by
    first trying to get an estimate of just how big an army the
    Federal gov't might possibly be able to muster. He then
    dispels it by saying, "To these would be opposed a militia
    amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in
    their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves,
    fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted
    by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It
    may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced
    could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular
    troops."

    Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist #29, "...but if
    circumstances should at any time oblige the government to
    form an army of any magnitude that army can never be
    formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a
    large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them
    in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend
    their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This
    appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a
    standing army, and the best possible security against it, if
    it should exist."

    If you read the Virginia Legislature debates or what exists
    of the many writings by the various important visionaries
    around this time, well documented in George Bancroft's
    "History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United
    States of America" (which is often referred to by members of
    the US Supreme Court), or if you carefully read through the
    Federalist Papers, in particular #24 to #29, #46, and others,
    you will find a continuing and clear understanding that
    common citizens must be afforded the right to keep and bear
    arms.

    Even the opposition writers to the Federalists, for example
    the "Federal Farmer," an anti-federalist critic of the
    Constitution and its absence then of a Bill of Rights, wrote
    "to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of
    the people always possess arms, and be taught alike,
    especially when young, how to use them..."

    Frankly, on this subject, there was little disagreement back
    then.

    But, as you imply when you bring up F22's and the A1 Abrams,
    the prudential argument wins out at this time. Despite the
    original writings and intent. The essence of this position is
    based on (5), mentioned above. And it amounts to asking this
    question,

    "What would happen *if* we decided that the Second Amendment
    provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right
    to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to
    resist government tyranny?"

    If one then decides that there *is* such an absolute right,
    then one is forced to the conclusion that the Second
    Amendment must allow individuals to possess bazookas,
    torpedoes, SCUD missiles, biological weapons, and even
    nuclear warheads, for they are, like rifles and pistols,
    __arms__. Certainly, it is hard to imagine any serious
    resistance to an organized and well funded standing military
    without many of such arms.

    Since to most people in the US today that is clearly
    unacceptable to social stability, the question is therefore
    reduced to a different one. No longer is it whether or not
    to restrict arms ownership, as that is already been
    determined by examining alternatives. The question becomes
    only by how much to restrict it. The Second Amendment's
    origianl intent has bene demolished by a prudential refusal
    to accept the original arguments and intent.

    The important issues won't be examined. They are more
    abstract, largely unattended, and will take time to consider
    and then turn into concrete goals. It's much easier to pick
    on pithy adages that play well with an ignorant public.

    The debate about magazine size will continue. I just think
    that it won't achieve its goals, even if some restricting law
    comes to pass. Today, it will be even less useful because of
    the ready availability of 3D printers and the ease of making
    them if you don't already have one, from readily available
    parts. I'll be using heavy rollers and aluminum I-beams
    designed for pocket doors by Johnson Hardware on the next one
    I build, for example. They aren't going to control pocket
    door hardware, nor the software that is readily available for
    driving these machines with good accuracy. And they are
    getting easier to buy or make, by the day. And Pirate Bay has
    already set up a special section just for these "Physibles."
    As well as the links I provided above.

    Interesting times.

    Jon
     
  15. mpm

    mpm Guest

    I plan to "retire" in a couple years (at 52) and one of my longtime desireshas been to just travel the world with my cameras. Maybe a well-equipped but small RV stateside, and who knows elsewhere. I don't own a firearm either, but I do think I would purchase one (and get trained in how to use it) if I do end up on that photo safari.

    Of course, with all the gear in the camera pack, it'll probably have to be a little pea-shooter of a gun. I wonder if something like that would even scare off the would-be robber? Maybe I'll get a really lightweight gun that looks big and impressive, but doesn't shoot worth a sh^t?
     
  16. Guest

    On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 00:55:26 -0800 (PST), wrote:

    Fix your damned line length! Idjits.
    Idiotic statement. One person, probably not. A community, well, take
    a look at The Battle of Athens. No tanks or F22s around. Rifles,
    yes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
    Indeed. You conveniently forget The Battle of Athens, though.
    Repeating nonsense doesn't make it any more true.
    Who's fault is that? It just shows how dumb you can be.
    Go for it. Until then, it is the law.
    Yet you're all for it anyway. Go figure.
    No, the real solution is to harden the targets so the little
    chichenshits have a harder time. You'd piss your pants, though.
    True. That Constitution thing is just so limiting. Just ignore it,
    right? Who cares if a family or a hundred is wiped out, ten thousand
    killed, or a million more crimes as long as we do nothing about the
    "problem". Actually, banning guns makes the "problem" worse.
    You are some piece of work.
    You got ripped off.
     
  17. Guest

    Be careful where you travel. In some states, getting caught with a
    loaded gun will get you a *long* vacation in the graybar hotel. Also,
    you'll have to get a carry license, even for those states that are
    more reasonable. Research which state has the widest reciprocity.
    Claim residence there. That said, you can transport weapons (but you
    won't be able to carry) through all states but you still have to be
    very careful.
    Why in hell would you go to all that trouble and then still not be
    able to defend yourself? That's nuts. I get a small weapon (I'd
    recommend at least two, one easily carried and a hand-cannon).
     
  18. mkr5000

    mkr5000 Guest

    only thing that can kill a bad guy with a a hammer is a good guy with a carpenters knife.

    Oh, and --

    (are 30 guns better than 3000?)

    YES.

    Screw the NRA.
     
  19. Nico Coesel

    Nico Coesel Guest

    Now give a real reason for needing a gun. The whole reason people
    think they need guns to protect themselves is because every grazy
    person can get a gun. Its utter fear! And its just a placebo. You
    really don't stand a chance against someone who comes at you with a
    gun prepared for any defensive move. Anyone who wants to prove
    otherwise should walk into a back ally in some shady part of New York
    and try to pull the gun when they get mugged.

    About 25 years ago I worked for a couple of Israelis on a project. At
    some point they where identifying project hazards. When they came to
    bomb attacks they said 'Err.. no, we are in the Netherlands so that is
    not a thread'. At that moment I realised that a big part of freedom is
    being able to go to bed at night without being afraid some idiot with
    a gun or bomb turns up.
    Having guns didn't do the people much good. Lots of dead resistance
    fighters to name streets after... not to mention the random mass
    killings for revenge.
    Just wait until some lunatic starts shooting around in the shopping
    mall where your family does their shopping. Happened to me... my kids
    could have been there but plans changed and I went alone to my parents
    later that day. It never ever seemed so long before my parents
    answered the phone when I called to check whether they where OK. So
    really don't tell me to get my facts right.
     
  20. Jon Kirwan

    Jon Kirwan Guest

    The links I provided in a way-too-long post show that there
    are both organized groups of individuals and individuals
    working hard to develop practical 3D printing capabilities
    bent towards this aim. Particularly, a lot of time on the
    idea of the lower receivers, which are what is the controlled
    part of an auto weapon in the US.

    I'm kind of curious how all this is going to play out in
    countries where guns are much more restricted, though. Even a
    single shot capability before the weapon becomes useless
    could be enough to change local situations for law
    enforcement practices. In the US, probably not so much.

    Since spending time actually building a 3D printer and now
    having the ability to produce not only very nice and rather
    complex project boxes (big boon for me) but also the ability
    to print out larger capacity magazines that actually work
    well... I am beginning to realize increasingly the potential
    impacts of 3D printing. It's not exactly the same situation
    as when the Altair 8800 and, later, the IMSAI 8080 appeared
    on the scene. (Creating one component to an acceptance of low
    cost computers into business -- the other component being
    Visicalc on the Apple II.) But there are similarities and
    perhaps a promise of some of the kinds of revolutionary
    social change, as well.

    It will be interesting to see how the next few years play
    out.

    Jon
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-