Woman's life threatened by gun 'enthusiasts' after developing a safer firearm.

[RandySF]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Purveyor (a host of the General Discussion forum).

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Belinda Padilla does not pick up unknown calls anymore, not since someone posted her cellphone number on an online forum for gun enthusiasts. A few fuming-mad voice mail messages and heavy breathers were all it took.

Then someone snapped pictures of the address where she has a P.O. box and put those online, too. In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. “Belinda?” the person wrote. “Is that you?”

Her offense? Trying to market and sell a new .22-caliber handgun that uses a radio frequency-enabled stopwatch to identify the authorized user so no one else can fire it. Ms. Padilla and the manufacturer she works for, Armatix, intended to make the weapon the first “smart gun” for sale in the United States.

But shortly after Armatix went public with its plans to start selling in Southern California, Ms. Padilla, a fast-talking, hard-charging Beverly Hills businesswoman who leads the company’s fledgling American division, encountered the same uproar that has stopped gun control advocates, Congress, President Obama and lawmakers across the country as they seek to pass tougher laws and promote new technologies they contend will lead to fewer firearms deaths.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/us/politics/smart-firearm-draws-wrath-of-the-gun-lobby.html?hp&_r=1

[villager]

1. These "enthusiasts" are nothing but bullying, violent thugs

Less gun violence is that last thing they want to see.

[Skittles]

2. they are COWARDS

absolute COWARDS

[Spitfire of ATJ]

4. They're terrorists.

[Skittles]

6. SAME THING

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. No, they're not.

If they were then Obama would be constitutionally obligated to send the military to neutralize them by any means necessary. I don't see Obama doing that or anyone demanding that he do such a thing under threat of impeachment. All we really have is a bunch of blowhards -- on both sides.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

21. IOKIYAR.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Is that a new brand of Greek yogurt or something? I love that stuff!

[CrispyQ]

33. It's OK If You Are Republican

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. meh -- I like Greek yogurt better

[DanTex]

47. LOL. "both sides"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. Yes, as proven by the blowhard posts about "terr'ism!!!"

It's like walking into a neocon convention some days. Suddenly people are embracing war without goals or end, Gitmo, drone strikes, AC-130 gunships, killing entire families, etc. all in the name of an ill-defined need to get "The Other."

[DanTex]

56. Oh yeah, I forgot, you were the one comparing Cliven Bundy to Rosa Parks.

I guess that from your perspective, domestic terrorism is OK as long as it's done by racist gun nuts.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. Again, it's not terrorism. Anymore than OWS refusing to vacate property after being ordered was.

If you're so gosh-golly-darned convinced it really-truly-honest-to-goodness TERR'ISM!!! then how do you feel about Obama abdicating his oath? People act like Bundy fired on Fort Sumpter but then seem to what would be analogous to Lincoln declining to respond with barely more than a boilerplate statement.

It's real easy for the blowhard chickenhawks to stomp around a forum thumping their chests but at the end of the day their puffery doesn't stand the test of reality.

[DanTex]

63. Please proceed, governer...

Here's your Rosa Parks in action! You must be so proud!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. You forget to post the picture of your goons aiming sniper rifles long before that picture was taken

When the law becomes the oppressor it ceases to be legit.

This --



and this --




Leads to this --



Domestic terrorists?


Screw the goons.

[DanTex]

75. And, obviously, the solution is guns for everyone! Cliven Bundy, the hero!

I don't think you've really thought through the consequences of not having a police force and letting any band of gunslinging yahoos graze their cattle on any land they want. Think about it for a second.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. As opposed to the idea that the goons should have a monopoly on guns?

That isn't even a prospect to think through. History proves that is the worst idea ever. Every water hose and police dog employed in those pictures was from a gun-slinging yahoo.

Now we get a daily parade of yahoos that don't even have the spine to sling their own guns but want drones and gunships used to slaughter entire families of American citizens on American soil.

[DanTex]

87. Actually, yes, the state has a monopoly on the use of force. That's part of what makes it the state.

Personally, I am very happy that we are a nation of laws and that there are police officers enforcing those laws. It keeps me safe, without having to have my own personal army.

The other option is anarchy, which devolves into warlords and vigilantes. I'll say it again, you haven't thought the alternatives through very carefully. If you get rid of law enforcement, things get worse, not better.

[Throd]

90. The state is lawful and benevolent, until it isn't.

[DanTex]

92. Very profound.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. Your goons ARE the warlords.

They do not serve the law. They law is selectively applied. And they sure as hell don't serve justice. We are governed by brute force. You can deny that fact all you want but the goons do NOT serve justice or the law.

[DanTex]

98. Of course the police serve the law. As do the courts.

Is police brutality a problem? Sure. But, again, a society of laws, a police force, and a justice system, are far preferable to anarchy where the guy with the guns gets to do whatever he wants.

The police -- and the army, for that matter -- report to elected officials. This is how the use of force should work. It should be constrained and controlled by a democratic government. If you honestly think that police officers are "warlords", you should check out Somalia.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

108. The police serve the law?

Wall Street bankers get performance bonues while Occupy Wall Street gets pepper spray and truncheons.

That's your law.

[Throd]

114. The police serve the police.

[DanTex]

120. Very profound again.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

139. Not true.

They also unswervingly serve those who tell them to ignore bankers and pepper spray college students.

[DanTex]

119. Of course they serve the law. "Law Enforcement Officers".

And without them, we'd all be at the mercy of George Zimmerman and Cliven Bundy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

137. Just because the job description reads "Law enforcement officer" doesn't make it true.

Pictured above: Not Cliven Bundy.

By the way, it should be noted that a court of law determined Zimmerman operated within the law.

[DanTex]

140. Yes, it is true. And the fact that occasionally they do bad things doesn't change that.

For example, yes, the system failed in the case of George Zimmerman. That is an argument in favor of tighter gun laws, not an argument in favor of anarchy and vigilanteism.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

143. I'm sure you are very proud of your unflinching obedience to The State.

I'm also sure you will be well rewarded.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

149. "I imagine that you prefer the company of murderers and rapists"

I've been a constant advocate for a woman's right to choose to defend herself against rapists while you would demand she be unarmed. Maybe you don't have the preference for a rapist's company but you lack the basic sense of humanity to allow others to defend themselves from rapists and murderers.

I'm proud of the fact that I don't shoot people.

Some people can murder millions without ever having to personally pull a trigger or throw a switch. And they can do it all within the law.

Your every argument just adds to my confidence I have chosen the best path.

[DanTex]

152. Ah yes, the fantasy of women defending themselves from rapists with AR-15s.

I wonder if that has ever happened, like even once. I remember that nutty right-wing woman testifying in front of congress about that. How she needed a big scary gun to ward off multiple attackers while her children were screaming. Seriously, where do they dig up these people?

Never mind the statistical reality that guns are used to intimidate and abuse women far, far more often than they are used in self-defense.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

157. Since you asked --

Never mind the statistical reality that guns are used to intimidate and abuse women far, far more often than they are used in self-defense.

~90% of rapists are unarmed. Only 3% to 5% of rapists are armed with a gun. That means a woman who chooses to arm herself has a 3% to 5% chance of being on equal terms with an attacker. In all other cases she'll have the advantage.

Alcohol is a far more likely contributor to rape and violence but I doubt your lofty principles can be bothered to broach that subject.

[DanTex]

158. Umm, I don't see anything about an AR-15. And also, that was a robbery attempt, not a rape.

But nice try. You know you are in a weak position when you can't even come up with anecdotal evidence to support your case.

~90% of rapists are unarmed. Only 3% to 5% of rapists are armed with a gun. That means a woman who chooses to arm herself has a 3% to 5% chance of being on equal terms with an attacker. In all other cases she'll have the advantage.

And yet, despite all that, guns are used against women many times more often than they are used in self-defense. Perhaps because most women understand that non-lethal means of defense such as mace are just as or more effective, without the whole killing people aspect -- gun nuttery seems to be more of a man thing.

But here's a great solution. How about a smart gun that can only be used by the woman who owns it, and not her abusive boyfriend or husband? I know, I know, it's too logical. And too safe. I mean, you wouldn't want to get in the way of the rights of domestic abusers.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

159. "I don't see anything about an AR-15."

Stop playing silly games. The rifle she used was one of the dreaded, so-called "assault weapons." Whatever designator it bore it had no functional difference from an AR-15.

And also, that was a robbery attempt, not a rape.

How would you know that was the extent of their intentions? It was a home invasion.

guns are used against women many times more often than they are used in self-defense.

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]


http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

Links to the citations are provided at the website.

How about a smart gun that can only be used by the woman who owns it...

If the technology was as awesome as you pretend the police would be adopting it.

[DanTex]

161. Lordy. Here come the phony/cherry picked statistics from a right-wing website. Shocker!

From the "about JustFacts.com" link: "In general parlance, we are conservative/libertarian in our viewpoints..." No way! You, citing right-wing propaganda. Whoddathunkit!

The funny thing is that, even your right-wing sources don't actually address the issue of the effects of gun availability on violence against women. Apparently, even the most shameless propagandists can't find any statistics to cherry-pick on that topic.

In case you're interested in legitimate peer reviewed research (I know, you don't believe in science, but still, someone else might be), here's a recent peer reviewed survey from one of the experts in gun violence research. Here's an excerpt that deals with risks to women specifically.

Whereas most men are murdered away from home, most children, older adults, and women are murdered at home. A gun in the home is a particularly strong risk factor for female homicide victimization. Women in the United States are at far greater risk of homicide victimization than women in other developed countries, 4,68 and the greatest danger for women in homicides that occur in the home comes from their intimate partners—especially partners with guns. A subgroup analysis of female homicide victimization from a large case-control study of homicide in the home in 3 metropolitan counties found that having a gun in the home was a large and significant risk factor for homicide. 69 Most of the women were murdered by a spouse, a lover, or a close relative, and the increased risk for homicide from having a gun in the home was attributable to these homicides.

Another case-control study of women murdered by intimate partners, compared with a control group of battered women, found that a gun in the home was an important risk factor for femicide. There was easy access to a firearm (eg, a gun in the house) for 65% of case perpetrators versus 24% of perpetrators of nonfatal abuse. Access to a firearm by the battered woman had no protective effect. 70

Overall, domestic disputes are likely to be affected by the presence of a firearm. 71 Although many spousal homicides occur following a long history of violence in the home, spousal abusers are often impulsive and volatile. 72 The availability of a firearm increases the likelihood that an attack will prove fatal. A review of intimate partner homicides in Chicago over a 29-year period concluded that “an effective prevention strategy for intimate homicide of women . . . would be to reduce the availability of
firearms in the home.” 73

http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks+and+Benefits+of+a+Gun+in+the+Home+2011.pdf

[Nuclear Unicorn]

163. How does any of your cited article conflict with anything I posted?

Short answer: it doesn't.

However, as I noted earlier (and you chose to ignore) is that alcohol will be a far greater contributing factor to domestic violence than the presence or absence of a firearm. Yet, those who would prohibit guns thinking the absence of a particular thing will quell murderous rage seem unwilling to ban the thing that fuels DV. Why is that?

However, it is the women who escape and choose to defend themselves that the controllers are harassing and disarming.

[DanTex]

166. Wow, you read the article pretty quickly! LOL.

Actually, no you didn't. Because if you did, you would notice that it specifically addressed the issue of inflated statistics about defensive gun use that you posted, and also it pointed out that the net effect of firearms availability is greater, not less risk to women, as you were claiming.

As for alcohol, are you suggesting making alcohol illegal? I'm opposed to that.

So now back to guns. As the evidence clearly demonstrates, easy access to guns puts women at greater risk. Once we get past the gun hero fantasies and the "but freedom!" nonsense, the fact of the matter is that easy access to guns results in more people being killed, and particularly more women being killed by domestic abusers.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

167. "Wow, you read the article pretty quickly! LOL."

Actually, no you didn't. Because if you did, you would notice that it specifically addressed the issue of inflated statistics about defensive gun use that you posted, and also it pointed out that the net effect of firearms availability is greater, not less risk to women, as you were claiming.

Perhaps, then, you can reach into your "study" and produce a more faithful estimated number of defensive gun uses (DGU).

As for alcohol, are you suggesting making alcohol illegal? I'm opposed to that.

Why? It is, by orders of magnitude, more of a contributing factor to DV than firearms.

I'll hazard a guess: it proves the futility of prohibitions.

Once we get past the gun hero fantasies and the "but freedom!" nonsense, the fact of the matter is that easy access to guns results in more people being killed, and particularly more women being killed by domestic abusers.

How many DGU instances are there annually?

Why does Switzerland, with its easier access to guns have a much lower crime rate?

Ditto states in the US such as VT?

Why are places like Mexico, with a near prohibition, have nearly 3 times the homicide rate?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

97. Assault with a deadly weapon is nothing to you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

110. You mean like when the BLM goons were pointing sniper rifles at people?

Screw the goons.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

175. LOL!!! Thry THAT one before the judge!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

176. You mean the people who are part of the system defend the system? GOLLY!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

177. That's what you are doing, in case you hadn't noticed.

[Skittles]

170. take things literally, do ya?

I'll CLARIFY: ALL TERRORISTS ARE COWARDS but COWARDS are not necessarily TERRORISTS

[Nuclear Unicorn]

171. Why not go to those making the posts calling for drines strikes, etc. and ask them?

They certainly seem to enjoy the sound of their own keyboards typing; I'm sure they'll be glad to tell you.

[Skittles]

173. I'll have to look into DRINES

yes INDEED

[Iggo]

15. Of course they are.

That's why they need guns in the first place.

They're afraid if their own fucking shadows.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. YOu do realize this woman is selling guns, right?

By your logic she's part of the problem.

[Iggo]

32. "These 'enthusiasts'..."; "They are COWARDS..."; "Of course they are..."

Now you're all caught up.

[Skittles]

165. you're failing to distinguish between gun owners and gun humpers

oddly enough, the main problem with both the NRA AND the "gun grabbers"

[Skidmore]

5. I imagine some of them traffic guns.

There's no profit in a weapon that must be absolutely tied to one individual who can be held accountable for its use.

[malaise]

12. Ding ding we have a winner

and corporations don't like sharing turf with new manufacturers either.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

53. Yeah but what about the so-called "free market"

that they worship? Guess they're afraid of a little competition? Yeah, it may not catch on and people may not buy one but that's how our system is supposed to work, of course............

[malaise]

70. What free market

Best joke ever

[Proud Liberal Dem]

132. Exactly

n/t

[GoneFishin]

94. You are both right. The NRA doesn't really care about gun owners, they care about gun manufacturers,

the ones that pay them, that is.

And guns that get accidentally diverted, to Mexico for example, probably account for a lot of gun sales. The more sophisticated this smart gun technology gets, the harder it will be for guns to "accidentally" get sold to the wrong people.

[Bazinga]

24. Like Leland Yee?

Sorry, but it had to be said.

[Skidmore]

25. If the holster fits...

I have no sympathies for those who traffic death.

[Bazinga]

26. And I little sympathy for patent hypocrisy.

[Skidmore]

27. Meaning what?

Don't own and never allowed guns in my home. If I had my way and it were possible, every single one of them would be destroyed and not a single one would be manufactured ever again.

[Bazinga]

30. Not you, Leland Yee.

I didn't mean to imply you were being hypocritical, I have no doubt of your consistency.

I was referring to a law-maker who was instrumental in writing and passing some of the strictest firearms laws in the nation who was then found to be trafficking illegal Class III firearms to criminals.

That kind of hypocrisy deserves no sympathy.

[Skidmore]

31. No problem.

Yee really deserves punishment. Unfortunately so do thousands of others who run weapons.

[DanTex]

46. Really? You sure you want to play the "bedfellows" card?

It's hilarious, the gun nuts cozying up to Ted Nugent and Sarah Palin, and the finally when a Democrat does something wrong (I don't even know who that guy is...), they cry foul.

[Bazinga]

67. I'll consider that if you can show me "Cozying up" to anybody, much less Ted Nugent or Sarah Palin.

I've have never presented an opinion here that wasn't my own, and hypocrisy and corruption should be condemned no matter what letter is next to their name.

[DanTex]

72. Supporting the NRA means supporting the Ted Nugents and Sarah Palins.

They are certainly much more relevant to the gun debate than Leland Yee, whoever that is.

[Bazinga]

84. Perhaps you have the receipt for my NRA dues on file.

Oh wait, I have never been a member, nor will I ever be a member.

Leland Yee is worth a Google search. You'll see why his raging hypocrisy is every bit as relevant, if not more so, to a sub-thread about arms trafficking than whatever vitriol Ted Nugent is trying to sell. Here's a hint, Ted Nugent was never in a state legislature trying to pass himself of as a gun-control advocate while selling machine guns on the black market.

[DanTex]

86. OK, googled. An obscure state senator is the best you've got? Really?

Because, without exception that I can think of, every prominent pro-gun politician or lobbyist is a right-wing sociopath.

Yeah, a few elected Democrats are criminals. Shocker.

[Bazinga]

148. Again, hypocrisy should be condemned, no matter what letter is next to the name.

[DanTex]

150. Sure, but you're highlighting the hypocrisy of some state senator that nobody cares about.

Also, from what it sounds like, this is more about corruption and outright crime than hypocrisy. But, really, who cares about this guy?

[Eleanors38]

123. A gun-controller doesn't know about Yee?

You've probably found out by now how the 1% views gun-control.

[DanTex]

124. I don't think many people outside the NRA bubble know who that guy is.

The rest of us don't pay much attention to obscure state senators.

[Eleanors38]

130. Yee's fellow CA controllers knew him quite well.

[DanTex]

134. Not sure about that. Only the gun fanatics seem to know him.

He's basically become his very own NRA talking point. Which i totally understand -- after all the worshipping of Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent, y'all seem pretty excited to finally find a Democrat who did something wrong, even though he is only an obscure state senator that nobody cares about.

[Eleanors38]

155. Ha! Such a "movement." We keep up with your guys better than y'all do.

[DanTex]

156. True, right-wingers often obsess over obscure Democrats much more than Democrats do.

I remember Glenn Beck going on about all the "czars" of the Obama administration, many of whom I had never heard of, kind of like this Leland Yee guy. I guess you all get your marching orders from the same few talk radio hosts, so everyone ends up getting obsessed and hateful about the same handful of random Democrats that nobody outside the bubble cares about.

[Turbineguy]

3. Really not much point

in owning a gun if somebody can't take it away and shoot you with it.

[DetlefK]

7. They are coming for our lightbulbs/gas-guzzlers !!!

Introducing energy-efficient light-bulbs means that the US-government will outlaw lightbulbs.
Introducing energy-efficient cars means that the US-government will outlaw cars.
Introducing safer guns means that the US-government will outlaw guns.

See? It's all the same!

[clffrdjk]

18. Already the case in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey

They are just waiting for the tech to be developed.

http://smartgunlaws.org/personalized-owner-authorized-firearms-policy-summary/#state

[99Forever]

8. Sounds like typical 2A pushing, "responsible, law-abiding"...

... gun owners to me. It's what they do for their master.

[Lizzie Poppet]

28. Actually, it sound like the polar opposite of that.

But far be it fro m me to try and derail the hate train...

[KG]

9. the true face of american gun culture...

[Brickbat]

10. Half of her problem is she's a woman.

[KamaAina]

172. The other half is that she's Latina.

[davidpdx]

11. I agree they are cowards

They hide behind their keyboards, their phones, and their guns and use threats to intimidate people.

[Codeine]

13. I support firearms ownership

and I think this technology is fantastic ad should be adopted industry-wide. I'm mystified by the notion that somebody would be against something so logical.

[clffrdjk]

14. I own firearms and have no intention of purchasing a gun with this tech.

Until it is proven to be just as reliable as the current tech. Also I have longevity concerns, I have shotguns and rifles over 100 years old that still work perfectly, how long will that things battery last?

The threatening her is absolutely wrong and needs to be prosecuted.

[Mr_Rogers]

23. Mechanical wins every time for durability...

[Paladin]

17. Despite their claims to the contrary, the pro-gun movement isn't particularly logical.

To the contrary, that movement is fueled by a great deal of illogical, paranoia-driven emotion. Exhibit A: LaPierre's latest spittle-flecked "speech" to the NRA faithful. Exhibit B: DU's very own Gun Control & RKBA group. Plenty of dark entertainment coming up, with Gun Enthusiasts wanting firearms with all the latest scary-looking features, while opposing technological advances designed to make shooting safer and more responsible. Lay in a good supply of popcorn for this one......

[Skittles]

169. there's no mystery

it's the difference between being a gun owner and a gun humper

[NutmegYankee]

178. What do you consider someone who just likes to collect old technology.

I occasionally shoot a flintlock Kentucky rifle for fun. Along with some firearms, I also have vacuum tube radios, and other old electrical appliances.

I may have a gaming computer, tablet, and smart phone, but those are just tools. I don't "collect" them.

[Lizzie Poppet]

29. Absolutely unacceptable.

This is a promising technology, and there is no reason to fear it. The people harassing Ms. Padilla are cretins, and I'm embarrassed to be even tenuously associated with them (I own firearms and have enjoyed shooting for decades).

[Eleanors38]

34. Dupe. Topic covered heavily in 2 other gun groups.

[otohara]

36. The More The Merrier

Again E38 - it's imperative that people know just how dangerous and threatening many gun owners are.

[Eleanors38]

37. Again. A gross violation of TOS in GD...

I note your "merry" disposition. It seems like we have an indication of just why this post is really here: DU-sanctioned animosity in clear violation of TOS. Over & over.

All clear, now?

[Lizzie Poppet]

42. That rule has clearly been suspended.

Not officially, of course...but no one pays the slightest attention to it any more. There are multiple gun threads (that are in no way "big news&quot running in GD right now. The rule has become a complete joke, unevenly enforced and meaningless.

[Eleanors38]

66. Elites scoring high on the CompassionIndex get special dispensation?

Do tell. In any event, this situation mirrors the gun-control outlook outside GD: MSM with its declining influence nevertheless drones on with its prohibitionist outlook, even as it routinely faces Mecca & mumbles something about open discussion, fairness, and stuff.

Looking at the dynamic further, a certain controller posting reams of distracting, pre-aggregated "anti-" posts in RKBA, while others run "anti-" posts (often the same material) in GD has its purposes. One is to promote an "anti-" hegemony front-and-center in DU's main & most-public forum, a roundabout way of creating a spindly reality that DU is almost all anti-gun, even as Bansalot (with its rigid too-down control) languishes (they're all over here!). The other, of course, is to continue a campaign of stigmata and animosity against gun-owning Democrats. More the merrier.

But DU is in reality Not anti- .

[DanTex]

48. Whining about DU is against the TOS. Doesn't seem to bother you that much.

I must have missed the part of the TOS that forbids animosity against gun nuts threatening a law abiding citizen for developing a new and potentially life saving technology.

[Eleanors38]

74. Gosh, if my "wine" was so full-bodied, I'd be hidden.

But perhaps a clear, clean analysis of how gun topics are handled in GD is not the same has Boone's Farm. Maybe that's my special dispensation.

[DanTex]

77. Likewise, if this OP violated the TOS, it wouldn't be hidden also.

You kinda walked into that one.

[Eleanors38]

99. See #78. Want you join me in my request? Nt

[DanTex]

101. I'd have no problem changing the TOS.

I think gun violence is an important topic, and I also think that it would be good for the NRA trolls to be out in the open rather than hiding in the FreeRepublic offshoot that is the gungeon.

[Eleanors38]

116. I hope your sense of statistics isn't derived from your calculations of history...

"Hiding," my friend? Bansalot was created by controllers, the rules and special dispensation re guns in GD were created by controllers. Controllers don't want (and censor) "positive" OPs about guns in GD -- and you say we are hiding.

Goodness, Dan.

Nevertheless, we agree on something. If you want, I'll co-sign a letter to ATA at your convenience.

[DanTex]

117. Yes, hiding. It's not much of a secret that the "DU is for Democrats" rule is lifted in the gungeon.

You get a bunch of right-wingers that only talk about guns and nothing else. As it is, it usually takes a few months for them to get banned and come back under new usernames.

Why don't you think they come out to GD very often -- particularly not until they get their post count up on "home turf"? I think if they posted in GD, the cycle would be a lot shorter.

[Eleanors38]

126. Got that letter/post to ATA ready?

[DanTex]

127. Here's mine. Where's yours?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12594422

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. I just joined you

posted this on ATA


We just had another shooting today

active shooter in Georgia, at a FedEx processing plant. I will see us narrowly discussing this issue for a couple days, and then guns as a whole have to go back to where they are never seen.

It is time to treat guns as the full political issue that they are. There is a reason why the NRA has a full on prescence on K street. As former Congresswoman Giffords organizes this, as well as the Brady Campaign, we need to be able to not only talk the politics of guns but do it in the open. There is a reason why Gungeon fanatics want to keep it only there.

Nadin

[Eleanors38]

151. Mine is in ATA now. A correction is in order:

Pro-2A Democrats Will Go to wherever the debate is. We just don't like 2nd class status where OPs are concerned.

Respectfully, you guys don't have a movement here or in society at-large. You got two (2) groups and a slanted forum, and it's still not enough. Either a fair GD, an old RKBA forum, or the two-headed dog we have now -- fine with me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. A correction, my impression is you guys really do not want debate

period.

Have a good day.

[Eleanors38]

154. Anywhere you want it, but no tied hands. Have a good day as well.

[Eleanors38]

147. It's posted in ATA now.

My hand-held doesn't reliably post links.

[otohara]

54. Speaking of Gross

Not wanting news stories of shootings of involving children in GD is pretty effing gross.

I know you want to clean up the gun culture's reputation by scrubbing our daily gun killings out of GD knowing many of us don't frequent the gun forums on a daily basis. I on the other hand want to make sure everyone knows about our sick gun culture so us non-gun folks can make even more informed decisions.

Knowing what I know now about the gun culture I would have asked each and every parent if guns were in their homes before letting my kid spend the night When my kid was little he would spend the night at a friends house and he would call me at 2AM ish wanting to come home because he couldn't sleep I would tell him to go back to the bedroom and wait for the sound of my car then run. Terrified they would think there was an intruder in the home and shoot him.

When you decide to clean up other duplicate stories besides those involving death-by-gun, I might take you seriously about "the rules"

[Eleanors38]

78. Then join me in dropping the TOS, okay? I'll wait. Nt

[CreekDog]

174. Why are you trying to trick people about what's TOS and what's SOP?

trying to scare them that they are violating the TOS?

Star Member Eleanors38 (7,741 posts)
2. Has the TOS in GD changed?


Star Member Eleanors38 (7,741 posts)
4. Oh, sorry. Ahem. SOP. What's so curious about following the, uh, SOP?

Is it obvious, Creek? Why isn't it obvious to you?

You don't think pro-2A DUers don't have a lot to post in GD? Sorry to tell you, but they have the courtesy to follow rules -- uh, SOP -- when posting threads.

Now, why do you want to violate the rules? I'm curious, too. It's okay to be obvious, though for me it is unnecessary.

Eleanor is great! Wouldn't you love to sit down with her and discuss the Constitution? I would.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024334280#post2


you know better, but you think you can intimidate people into listening to you if you say "TOS" instead of SOP. you are always quoting the SOP and when you do so, you quote those letters "SOP" not TOS.

pretty dishonest game you're playing here.

and how is Eleanor's 38? which is better, her political legacy or her gun (38)?

[lame54]

59. first i'm seeing it...

the dupe rule is short-sighted

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. First time I cone across this IMPORTANT story

[Eleanors38]

100. See #78 and let's open up IMPORTANT gun posts. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. So you think making guns safer is not a political act?

M'kay

Given how much money the NRA spends in making sure this does not happen through K street...

[Eleanors38]

118. Agree, disagree. I'm talking OPs in GD...

Do you think an OP showing the faults of a gun-related technology would survive GD, or be relegated to one of the two (2) gun groups?

Let's get rid of the TOS re guns, & there won't be those piteous whines from me about DU, okay?

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. So you are telling me it is not a political act

therefore it does not belong on DU. I see.

I guess your definition of politics and mine are different, That's cool.

And let's not even go into threats to a woman...

Oh sacred gun, we will protect you from people who try to make it safer...

All I can offer you at this point is an implied facepalm

Will not even bother with the graphic.

[Eleanors38]

128. So you agree that OPs about any gun news are Okay?

Let's do it! Drop the TOS about guns-in-GD. Dantex wants to as well.

[Throd]

35. Why the uproar? If you don't want a gun with such a feature, don't buy one.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. Some have proposed that such unproven and opaque technology be mandatory. nt

[jeff47]

40. Those "Some" being the ones who don't want it manditory

It's being used as a boogeyman. "The government is gonna come and force you to attach this to your gun!!! Donate to the NRA today!!"

[hack89]

43. Not familiar with Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Senate Bill S.2068?

Last edited Tue Apr 29, 2014, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)

S.2068 calls for grant money, up to $2 million, for companies, individuals, and states, to research technology that would lead to the personalization of firearms. A personalized handgun, according to the bill, is a firearm which: enables only an authorized user of the handgun to fire the handgun; was manufactured in such a manner that the firing restriction described is incorporated into the design of the handgun; is not sold as an accessory; and cannot be readily removed or deactivated.

According to the bill, “Beginning on the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, no person may manufacture in the United States a handgun that is not a personalized handgun.”

It says later that, “Beginning on the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, no person may distribute in commerce any handgun that is not a personalized handgun or a retrofitted personalized handgun.”

The law would essentially make it illegal to make or sell a gun that is not personalized, new or old.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s2068

[PeaceNikki]

103. lol, nice link

BLOGROLL

Allen West Republic
Capitalism Blog Spot
Hail Mary Food of Grace
Joe for America
Lucianne
Tea Party Nation
Textarudo – Don't Text and Drive
The Conservative Guy
The Magellan Travel Club
The Rush Limbaugh Show
The Tygrrrr Express
The Voice of Liberty
Thoughts on Liberty
Web Exordium

[hack89]

107. Now that I have changed the link, care to actually comment on it?

or are vomiting smilies the extent of your contribution to this conversation?

[PeaceNikki]

112. I trust DUers to not post links to bullshit sites.

I wasn't commenting on the content, but the source.

I do the same whenever I see bullshit sites, regardless of my opinion on the topic at hand.

Thanks for updating, though!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. You're saying no one would seriously propose such a requirement?

[DanTex]

45. Unproven and opaque? Umm... what? It's really not that complicated.

Using radio waves as signals has been around for a while, in case you hadn't noticed.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. 1. Electronic devices fail all the time -- in case you hadn't noticed.

2. It's opaque because the end-user has no transparency, access or control over the technology.

If they're so awesomely awesome make the cops use them.

[DanTex]

50. Short-distance radio-wave devices fail all the time? Really?

We're not talking about an operating system here. It's pretty basic technology.

And BTW, guns already jam all the time. The radio lock isn't going to be the problem.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. So have your armed goons use them.

[DanTex]

57. Umm... I don't have any armed goons. That would be your hero Cliven Bundy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. Your armed goons, the cops. Those hyper-competent, selfless public servants you intend to

send after anyone who doesn't bow down.

[DanTex]

64. Of course! I never realized that the cops belonged to me personally. Awesome.

I guess out in the fringes of NRA land, people like you really crave an anarchist society where in the place of police officers we have warlords and vigilantes. Somalia: NRA heaven.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. "I never realized that the cops belonged to me personally."

It's amazing how many ran around claiming desert scrub land was theirs and that Bundy had stolen from them personally as if any of them would be caught dead within a thousand miles of the place.

people like you really crave an anarchist society where in the place of police officers we have warlords and vigilantes.

Your goons are killing innocent people in the middle of the night because they're out playing soldier, serving no-knock warrants on the wrong residence. Families are being terrorized and the people have no recourse. Protesters are being pepper-sprayed for sitting on public ground.

Lawlessness? We already got that.

[DanTex]

80. Like I said, I don't think you've thought through the consequences of not having a police force

and letting the guys with the most guns do whatever they want.

Personally, I'm glad that we're not like Somalia. You can keep your George Zimmermans and Cliven Bundys.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

89. And you keep your

pepper spray, snipers, fire hoses, police dogs, no-knock warrants, police armored vehicles, shot-up civilians, gunned-down children, SWAT raids, tasers, roadside beatings, high speed chases through neighborhoods full of children, throw-down guns, code of silence, planted evidence and all the rest. And with it you can keep the racist, misogynist, homophobic laws they use to justify all that power and violence.

Sounds like Heaven on Earth but I guess I'm just not good enough for Heaven.

[DanTex]

95. Racists, misogynists, and homophobes? You mean like Cliven Bundy?

I'm not sure you've noticed this, but the most racist and bigoted people also tend to be the biggest supporters of the "guns for everyone" mentality. From the top all the way down to the grass roots. Why do you think that might be?

I'll say it again. You haven't really thought through your anarchist utopia very well.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

105. No. That's just the false association game the intellectually fragile need to play.

In CT it is estimated that nearly 100,000 gun owners have refused to register their weapons according to new requirements of the law. I strongly doubt CT is a hotbed of racism. Likewise, similar provisions in the NY SAFE Act likewise being disobeyed by as many as 90% of those subject to those provisions. Again, I don't think NY is a racist haven.

You haven't really thought through your anarchist utopia very well.

And yet I reject your version of Heaven.

I live nearly an hour from the nearest police patrol zone. Out where I live everyone is armed. It's common knowledge. Yet, we have no range wars or warlords. Crime consists of a few bales of hay being stolen once a few years ago or someone hunting on private property which is usually turned away with a, "Go up to the ranch and ask him to let you hunt turkeys there. He'll let you."

That's about all the thinking through I need.

[DanTex]

113. False association? What? You compared Bundy to Rosa Parks!!!

Hmm, so not only are you pro-Cliven-Bundy, you are also in favor of people violating local gun ordinances. So much for the myth of the "law abiding gun owner".

As for the rest, I don't doubt that you and your neighbors get along fine. The problem is, without laws and law enforcement, that situation wouldn't last. I live in NYC, and I get along great with my neighbors as well. I've never called the police either. But I'm quite sure that if there were no police to call, things would be a lot worse.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

141. I'll worry about "law-abiding gun owners" when you can show me

a Constitution-abiding gun prohibitionist. Unjust laws were meant to be disobeyed. Just like when Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus.

[DanTex]

144. LOL. Of course! Gun criminals aren't really criminals. That makes things so simple!

Cliven Bundy, gun criminals, it's like a big Rosa Parks party! Anyone else you want to invite?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

160. So you think only people who meet your moral approval have rights?

The ACLU would disagree with you. This is why the goon squad and their cheerleaders are not to be trusted -- no principles. The law is only a thing they champion so long as it serves their selfish interests. Once the law becomes inconvenient they will cast it aside and leap straight for brute force.

That's why Occupy protesters get pepper sprayed while corrupt bankers get bonuses.

[DanTex]

162. Quite the opposite. You are the one excusing the crimes of some simply because they share your

right-wing ideology.

In my mind, Cliven Bundy is a criminal -- a thief/tax evader. Pretty simple. He used land that didn't belong to him, and refused to pay the fee like everyone else. And I imagine that if he didn't share your larger worldview, and instead of stealing from the federal government he stole from a private corporation, you'd also think of him as a criminal. But, according to you, stealing is OK as long as you are a folksy conservative white guy who doesn't believe the government exists.

[Mr_Rogers]

81. Double points when the jammer is developed...

Officially for legal authorities to disable any weapons.

Unofficially for anyone who feels like it.

[clffrdjk]

58. If you like it so much go buy it and support them.

To me it is unproven so I won't buy it.

[DanTex]

60. I don't want a gun.

I'm just pointing out that guns jam much more frequently than simple electronic devices like this one fail.

[clffrdjk]

65. So you have no intention of buying it, or using it.

Why exactly should I give your opinion that I should buy it, any weight?

Well if your assertion is true it should be very easy to prove.

I am the consumer, you need to sell me this product not try brow beat me into it.

[DanTex]

83. Umm, I'm not selling anything to anyone. You're not my consumer.

According to the story in the OP, though, some gun nuts are upset about even having the choice of a safer personalized gun. So upset that they are sending death threats to the creator.

[clffrdjk]

88. Yea the threats are horrible and need to be delt with.

But don't sit there and pretend that you don't have posts up thread advocating for this tech.
Actually there you go again "safer personalized gun" you don't have any proof of this, explain to me the fire control so that we know it is safer? You want this tech but will do nothing to support it besides try and brow beat me into buying it.

[DanTex]

104. I've never tested this technology, but in the age if iPhones, it's hard to imagine that

this is a particularly difficult thing to build. But again, I'm not trying to brow beat you into buying anything.

Why is it safer? Because if someone steals a gun (criminal, or even just a kid), they can't use it.

[clffrdjk]

115. So you don't know, and you have no way of proving anything.

But anyone who questions this tech is wrong. Saying this is easy or simple or will work does not make it true. I need proof before I buy it. Finally if you are not supporting or brow beating why have you responded to every post questioning this tech with basically "you're wrong"

[DanTex]

122. That's correct. But I can reason based on other technologies that exist,

that this isn't exactly some technological miracle.

And I can also reason, based on the extremism and paranoia that is so common in pro-gun circles, that pro-gun people will be opposed to this no matter how slight the inconvenience or how great the benefits in terms of safety and saved lives. And guess what, I was right!

[clffrdjk]

129. Your reasoning is faulty

For examples you listed iPhones (small, no moving parts, fragile)
Aircraft (large, many moving parts, durable)
When a gun is small (like you could not fit an iPhone battery let alone some new mechanism and transmitter small) has moving parts, and endures pressures/forces that would destroy most aircraft electronics. How do you mesh that all together and get something with a reasonable price?
And you called it easy.

I noticed you didn't bother to explain how you came up with the idea that it will be safer.

I find it funny that questioning you baseless assumptions is extremism and paranoia. Keep up the good work the funding for this tech will soon start pouring in.

[DanTex]

133. Yes, obviously, it's not exactly like an iPhone or an aircraft...

Just that it's a much simpler technology. I'm not suggesting that you actually attach an airplane wing to a gun.

And, yes, I did explain how it is safer.

Why is it safer? Because if someone steals a gun (criminal, or even just a kid), they can't use it.

[clffrdjk]

135. The software my be simpler but the hardware will be basically the same.

You reason that it will be safer, because it will be safer. That is a bit circular. You need a how in there.

[DanTex]

136. The safety argument isn't that complicated.

If only the owner can use a gun, then nobody else can use it. You really don't get it?

[clffrdjk]

138. How?

How?
How?
How many times do I have to ask, how?
How will the gun be altered to accomplish that goal?

[DanTex]

142. How is it safer if only the owner can use the gun? You really need me to explain that?

Umm, because if someone steals the gun, or if a teenager in the house gets hold of the gun, they can't shoot anyone with it. That's how.

And no, I don't know the details of the technology, but I know enough about how the world works to understand that a gun that requires an electronic signal from a bracelet in order to be shootable (i.e. what is described in the OP) is not some far out science fiction fantasy.

[clffrdjk]

145. Again that is not how that is a goal.

Currently someone made a claim of reaching that goal, you have no interest in the how so you are willing to accept that claim without question. It is coming, but I want to know the how before I will accept that it is here.

[hack89]

79. It is the interface with the gun's mechanical inner workings that I would worry about

guns are very simple instruments mechanically. Added complexity, especially with a new technology, usually means less reliability.

I would consider using such a gun once it can be shown to be as reliable as my existing guns. To me, the best indicator that we have reached that point is when cops start using them.

[DanTex]

91. I think part of the reason the gun nuts in the OP are reacting with death threats is that they

realize that technologically this is pretty simple and very feasible. They simply don't want safe personalized guns to exist.

[hack89]

96. How do you design an interface that can be backfitted to every existing gun

that can be guaranteed to work as reliably as the gun did before backfitting? That is why companies will not embrace this technology - the cost of designing and testing hundreds of different designs would be cost prohibitive. People are not going to want to spend a lot of money to get their guns backfitted. And what company would be willing to assume the liability of their device failing and someone getting killed.

[DanTex]

106. I don't know, I'm not a mechanical engineer or gunsmith.

How do you design an iPhone? A pacemaker? An airplane? Personalized guns don't really seem that big of a technological leap.

[hack89]

109. Let see how the free market handles it

if they are reliable and cheap then people will use them. If not, then it will fall to the wayside.

[Blue_Tires]

41. shameful...

[Blue Owl]

52. The NRA: Safety Last

n/t

[JoePhilly]

69. Then, give people a break on home owner's insurance if they use it.

And charge gun owners a higher premium if they don't purchase it.

[hack89]

73. Insurance is a pittance right now

the insurance companies work on facts not emotions. They understand the real dangers and charge accordingly.

[liberal N proud]

82. The gun nuts will stop at nothing to protect their right to stop at nothing

[Eleanors38]

102. Sounds like you agree with post #78. Join me!

[Vashta Nerada]

125. Call them what they are: asshole bullies.

[NickB79]

164. I'd love to purchase such a firearm!

As soon as they're proven reliable and effective enough to be adopted by our nation's law enforcement organizations.

If the police feel the technology is good enough to use, then I'd own firearms with such tech onboard. I already use trigger locks, locked ammo boxes, and locked gun safes to prevent my 4-yr old daughter and her friends from accidentally handling my firearms and ammo; this would add another layer of safety to that.

[MohRokTah]

168. It's domestic terrorism.

We need to stop dancing about the reality in the gun debate. Terrorists have seized the day and are enforcing their will through threats of violence.

Treat them like the terrorists they are.

[Demo_Chris]

179. I'd like to defend myself, but first let me put on this special wrist watch...

Oh shoot, this wrist band is for a different weapon, hold on...

Yeah this sounds perfectly spiffy.

[Purveyor]

180. Locking.

General Discussion hosts consensus is that this thread belongs in a gun group.

GD SoP clearly states "No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news.

Please do repost in the appropriate forum and sorry for the lock.