NSR, Dentist Kills Lion

[RENO]

Cost is never an issue as long as someone else is paying. How much would it cost to purchase new weapons for all law enforcement in the U.S.

Also, the lions brother has reportedly been shot by poachers. It's really a miracle there are any lions left. The good doctor had previously killed a leopard and an elephant was next on his list.

Such a shame. World is full of f'n idiots.

Even Spock thought so:
Spock: To hunt a species to extinction is not logical.
Dr. Gillian Taylor: Whoever said the human race was logical?

[Woodsrider]

If all guns were biometrically signed then criminals would not be able to use them. No? Am I wrong in my thinking? I'm sure there would be a black market developed for hacking them. But it would certainly be harder to use them and theoretically, authorities would be able to track criminals. I would think this would be a win win for the NRA.

It would help but it would cause new issues, such as teaching someone in the family to shoot but not buying a gun for that person until ready or a family with one gun for self-defense but the "owner", that person to whom the gun is coded, is not home when the gun is needed. I'd say that's a smaller problem relative to the larger one we have with criminals but, before we decide that's the way to go, we'd have to think about all the unintended consequences for the law abiding gun owners whose rights are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Good response. I whole heartedly agree. If we damn the technology before it is even released then it will never get developed.

[thedev]

If it was an honest mistake I believe it is forgivable. However, lions are usually not allowed to be hunted therefore I don't believe the former is true.

[Bubba]

If all guns were biometrically signed then criminals would not be able to use them. No? Am I wrong in my thinking? I'm sure there would be a black market developed for hacking them. But it would certainly be harder to use them and theoretically, authorities would be able to track criminals. I would think this would be a win win for the NRA.

It would help but it would cause new issues, such as teaching someone in the family to shoot but not buying a gun for that person until ready or a family with one gun for self-defense but the "owner", that person to whom the gun is coded, is not home when the gun is needed. I'd say that's a smaller problem relative to the larger one we have with criminals but, before we decide that's the way to go, we'd have to think about all the unintended consequences for the law abiding gun owners whose rights are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Good response. I whole heartedly agree. If we damn the technology before it is even released then it will never get developed.

Who damned it? I just said we need to think through the unintended consequences. Oh, and as Reno pointed out, what do you do about the hundreds of millions of "old" guns that are in circulation, here and around the world?

[Woodsrider]

If all guns were biometrically signed then criminals would not be able to use them. No? Am I wrong in my thinking? I'm sure there would be a black market developed for hacking them. But it would certainly be harder to use them and theoretically, authorities would be able to track criminals. I would think this would be a win win for the NRA.

It would help but it would cause new issues, such as teaching someone in the family to shoot but not buying a gun for that person until ready or a family with one gun for self-defense but the "owner", that person to whom the gun is coded, is not home when the gun is needed. I'd say that's a smaller problem relative to the larger one we have with criminals but, before we decide that's the way to go, we'd have to think about all the unintended consequences for the law abiding gun owners whose rights are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Good response. I whole heartedly agree. If we damn the technology before it is even released then it will never get developed.

Who damned it? I just said we need to think through the unintended consequences. Oh, and as Reno pointed out, what do you do about the hundreds of millions of "old" guns that are in circulation, here and around the world?

I wasn't suggesting you damned it. You posted an intelligent response. Others are damning it by making excuses already for why this will not work.
The millions and millions of old guns are what they are, a risk in the hands of the wrong people, or a safety in the hands of the right people. Not much you can do there near as I can tell without mandating that people trade them in for newer, safer weapons. But that would never happen.
Serious hypothetical question: if someone invented a fool proof way to secure any gun, new or old, so that it only operated in the hands of the right people (the owner and whoever the owner wants to give access to) and the wrong people (criminals, nut cases, etc.) could not get access to this technology, would the Right be on board?

What if someone invented a fool proof method of tracking guns so that if a legal gun got stolen, the authorities could track it down via GPS and arrest the criminal?

I know this is hypothetical but even if the technology was perfect my guess is the NRA would shoot it down anyway. Which means it is not worth even trying to make guns safer. Why waste the investment money?

[biged]

If all guns were biometrically signed then criminals would not be able to use them. No? Am I wrong in my thinking? I'm sure there would be a black market developed for hacking them. But it would certainly be harder to use them and theoretically, authorities would be able to track criminals. I would think this would be a win win for the NRA.

It would help but it would cause new issues, such as teaching someone in the family to shoot but not buying a gun for that person until ready or a family with one gun for self-defense but the "owner", that person to whom the gun is coded, is not home when the gun is needed. I'd say that's a smaller problem relative to the larger one we have with criminals but, before we decide that's the way to go, we'd have to think about all the unintended consequences for the law abiding gun owners whose rights are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Good response. I whole heartedly agree. If we damn the technology before it is even released then it will never get developed.

Who damned it? I just said we need to think through the unintended consequences. Oh, and as Reno pointed out, what do you do about the hundreds of millions of "old" guns that are in circulation, here and around the world?

I wasn't suggesting you damned it. You posted an intelligent response. Others are damning it by making excuses already for why this will not work.
The millions and millions of old guns are what they are, a risk in the hands of the wrong people, or a safety in the hands of the right people. Not much you can do there near as I can tell without mandating that people trade them in for newer, safer weapons. But that would never happen.
Serious hypothetical question: if someone invented a fool proof way to secure any gun, new or old, so that it only operated in the hands of the right people (the owner and whoever the owner wants to give access to) and the wrong people (criminals, nut cases, etc.) could not get access to this technology, would the Right be on board?

What if someone invented a fool proof method of tracking guns so that if a legal gun got stolen, the authorities could track it down via GPS and arrest the criminal?

I know this is hypothetical but even if the technology was perfect my guess is the NRA would shoot it down anyway. Which means it is not worth even trying to make guns safer. Why waste the investment money?

It is not a waste of investment money in my opinion. To some this is a good thing. If you have kids, then yes you may want a gun and have the technology that it only fires in your hands and not your childs. Most kids today have never fired a gun and only view what it does by video games and/or televisions.
In addition, some people learned to hit what they where shooting at, big difference between what is glorified on television. Also a lot of guns may supply supper for families.

[Mister Moose]

Serious hypothetical question: if someone invented a fool proof way to secure any gun, new or old, so that it only operated in the hands of the right people (the owner and whoever the owner wants to give access to) and the wrong people (criminals, nut cases, etc.) could not get access to this technology, would the Right be on board?

What if someone invented a fool proof method of tracking guns so that if a legal gun got stolen, the authorities could track it down via GPS and arrest the criminal?

I know this is hypothetical but even if the technology was perfect my guess is the NRA would shoot it down anyway. Which means it is not worth even trying to make guns safer. Why waste the investment money?

I'm not a member of the NRA, and I'm not sure I can speak for the "right", but you basiclally answer your own question, which is:

If you could create a perfect device, would the user lobby approve it?

Well, Duh, of course they would. It's a perfect device that improves safety. The problem is no device is ever perfect. Your question assumes an impossible condition.

And to your second question, how do you assure that GPS tracking is never used for nefarious purposes? Answer, you can't. See IRS, US Attorney General, Lobbyists, Congress, Bridgewater speed trap, etc.

[RENO]

If all guns were biometrically signed then criminals would not be able to use them. No? Am I wrong in my thinking? I'm sure there would be a black market developed for hacking them. But it would certainly be harder to use them and theoretically, authorities would be able to track criminals. I would think this would be a win win for the NRA.

It would help but it would cause new issues, such as teaching someone in the family to shoot but not buying a gun for that person until ready or a family with one gun for self-defense but the "owner", that person to whom the gun is coded, is not home when the gun is needed. I'd say that's a smaller problem relative to the larger one we have with criminals but, before we decide that's the way to go, we'd have to think about all the unintended consequences for the law abiding gun owners whose rights are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Good response. I whole heartedly agree. If we damn the technology before it is even released then it will never get developed.

Who damned it? I just said we need to think through the unintended consequences. Oh, and as Reno pointed out, what do you do about the hundreds of millions of "old" guns that are in circulation, here and around the world?

I wasn't suggesting you damned it. You posted an intelligent response. Others are damning it by making excuses already for why this will not work.
The millions and millions of old guns are what they are, a risk in the hands of the wrong people, or a safety in the hands of the right people. Not much you can do there near as I can tell without mandating that people trade them in for newer, safer weapons. But that would never happen.
Serious hypothetical question: if someone invented a fool proof way to secure any gun, new or old, so that it only operated in the hands of the right people (the owner and whoever the owner wants to give access to) and the wrong people (criminals, nut cases, etc.) could not get access to this technology, would the Right be on board?

What if someone invented a fool proof method of tracking guns so that if a legal gun got stolen, the authorities could track it down via GPS and arrest the criminal?

I know this is hypothetical but even if the technology was perfect my guess is the NRA would shoot it down anyway. Which means it is not worth even trying to make guns safer. Why waste the investment money?

Most of the massacres that have occurred in the last 20 years in this country have been done by people who legally purchased their weapons and had no criminal or mental background issues on record to prevent those purchases so having those weapons biometrically locked wouldn't have prevented those lunatics from purchasing and using those weapons. There just isn't any way to prevent these things. It's the human mind that's the problem, and there's just no way to tell when something snaps up there that will cause these killings.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

The whole conversation is misdirection from my perspective. We have developed this insane authoritarian philosophy as a nation. We have decided that the perfect combination of laws and technology will make us safe from ourselves. The very idea is nonsense.

Every law we pass seems to take away freedoms in the name of safety. I know SOME laws are required for public safety but IMO we have created far too many laws which restrict far too many of our freedoms already.

Seat belt laws are an insane and unjustifiable restriction of freedom...not wearing seat belts harms no one but the person that chooses to do so. Only in an authoritarian society are these types of laws accepted. That is where we have gotten to. People accept intrusive abridgements of their freedom simply because they accept the tyranny of the mob.

The logic of the argument that "we all have to pay" for the harm done to a person who made a "reckless" choice of not wearing a seat belt could be equally applied to the person that made the "reckless" choice of skiing in the woods. Both activities are NOT necessary and BOTH activities increase the chance of serious medical expenses. Just a selective application of logic only to the seat belt situation and not the skiing situation because the mob has been convinced in makes sense in one case but not the other.

So now we think that further restricting access to protective technologies (guns) because they can be used to harm others will somehow make us safer. I don't buy it. That data (such as it is) doesn't seem to support it.

Some of you think we can legislate our way to safety and it seems to be the first recourse for some in the wake of a tragedy. "We need more laws"

The philosophy of the founding fathers was that those that would trade liberty for safety deserve neither. I think they would be ashamed of us as a society. Criminals DO NOT OBEY LAWS by definition.

If you think you can invent perfect weapons which are some how miraculously safe (and still useful for protection) even when used by idiots...fine. Criminals will still get (from old stock or by modifying the new versions) weapons to use for their crimes. Lawful citizens will be further disadvantaged.

Laws will not make us perfectly safe or protect us from the evil in our midst. We must be forever vigilant. We are responsible for our own safety.

We need to change our culture rather than our laws. Most of the headline gun violence is all and only about morons and narcissists. Folks making stupid choices because they have not learned in their childhood (helicopter parents won't allow it) a strong sense of personal responsibility or full adult capabilities. Or folks so obsessed with their own personal perspectives that shooting a church full of other humans is NOT EVIL just them "expressing THEIR opinion."

Courage is in short supply in our culture. Real men seem to be an endangered species. Now it is all about laws and safety. Those still brave enough to be willing to consider protecting themselves will have their protection confiscated by those whose highest motivation is fear ( actually they won't confiscate the guns, they don;t have the courage , but they will vote to make some cops do it for them.)

Stop acting like girls.

Simply wishful thinking in my opinion.

[freeski]

Every law we pass seems to take away freedoms in the name of safety. I know SOME laws are required for public safety but IMO we have created far too many laws which restrict far too many of our freedoms already.

One of my fears of moving from Obama care to a single payer is imagine the arguments that will be made to restrict freedoms for the greater good. Everyone wear a helmet to ski, bike etc., etc....

Funny how threads take off when the subject is switched to something more controversial.

On lions, I guess us white guys killed off just about all the big cats over here, so we need to go take care of the ones in Africa. The Africans must feel kind of exploited.

[Woodsrider]

The whole conversation is misdirection from my perspective. We have developed this insane authoritarian philosophy as a nation. We have decided that the perfect combination of laws and technology will make us safe from ourselves. The very idea is nonsense.

Every law we pass seems to take away freedoms in the name of safety. I know SOME laws are required for public safety but IMO we have created far too many laws which restrict far too many of our freedoms already.

Seat belt laws are an insane and unjustifiable restriction of freedom...not wearing seat belts harms no one but the person that chooses to do so. Only in an authoritarian society are these types of laws accepted. That is where we have gotten to. People accept intrusive abridgements of their freedom simply because they accept the tyranny of the mob.

The logic of the argument that "we all have to pay" for the harm done to a person who made a "reckless" choice of not wearing a seat belt could be equally applied to the person that made the "reckless" choice of skiing in the woods. Both activities are NOT necessary and BOTH activities increase the chance of serious medical expenses. Just a selective application of logic only to the seat belt situation and not the skiing situation because the mob has been convinced in makes sense in one case but not the other.

So now we think that further restricting access to protective technologies (guns) because they can be used to harm others will somehow make us safer. I don't buy it. That data (such as it is) doesn't seem to support it.

Some of you think we can legislate our way to safety and it seems to be the first recourse for some in the wake of a tragedy. "We need more laws"

The philosophy of the founding fathers was that those that would trade liberty for safety deserve neither. I think they would be ashamed of us as a society. Criminals DO NOT OBEY LAWS by definition.

If you think you can invent perfect weapons which are some how miraculously safe (and still useful for protection) even when used by idiots...fine. Criminals will still get (from old stock or by modifying the new versions) weapons to use for their crimes. Lawful citizens will be further disadvantaged.

Laws will not make us perfectly safe or protect us from the evil in our midst. We must be forever vigilant. We are responsible for our own safety.

We need to change our culture rather than our laws. Most of the headline gun violence is all and only about morons and narcissists. Folks making stupid choices because they have not learned in their childhood (helicopter parents won't allow it) a strong sense of personal responsibility or full adult capabilities. Or folks so obsessed with their own personal perspectives that shooting a church full of other humans is NOT EVIL just them "expressing THEIR opinion."

Courage is in short supply in our culture. Real men seem to be an endangered species. Now it is all about laws and safety. Those still brave enough to be willing to consider protecting themselves will have their protection confiscated by those whose highest motivation is fear ( actually they won't confiscate the guns, they don;t have the courage , but they will vote to make some cops do it for them.)

Stop acting like girls.

Simply wishful thinking in my opinion.

Good post. Hard not to agree.

[Stache]

At the risk of bringing this thread back on topic.....

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

At the risk of bringing this thread back on topic.....

Reality confuses lots of folks.

[TheLurker]

So, what's this got to do with killington or skiing?

[SnoBrdr]

So, what's this got to do with killington or skiing?

Well if you bothered to read and possibly comprehend, it's titled NSR.