DC Tom Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Getting pulled over by chance is different than my idea. If it prevents one shooting it's worth doing. "But think of the children!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 We may not have the technology to place gps type trackers in guns just yet, but eventually we will. We already have the technology to put GPS trackers in just about anything you would want. The problem is it is trivial to defeat the tracking. You need to take a basic physics course then understand how GPS works. After that you will understand that a metal box or some aluminum foil will totally defeat any GPS tracker. And as Tom has pointed out, you have to have a way of transmitting the GPS data to someone who cares. The transmit also could be easily defeated by the same techniques mentioned above. Technology only appears to be magic by those who don't understand it. Those same people also don't understand the limitations dictated by the basic laws of physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 We already have the technology to put GPS trackers in just about anything you would want. The problem is it is trivial to defeat the tracking. You need to take a basic physics course then understand how GPS works. After that you will understand that a metal box or some aluminum foil will totally defeat any GPS tracker. And as Tom has pointed out, you have to have a way of transmitting the GPS data to someone who cares. The transmit also could be easily defeated by the same techniques mentioned above. Technology only appears to be magic by those who don't understand it. Those same people also don't understand the limitations dictated by the basic laws of physics. Gotcha. Bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Getting pulled over by chance is different than my idea. If it prevents one shooting it's worth doing. You have a better idea? What makes you think I lean left? Leftists tend to make statements like the first bolded one. If everyone never leaves the house, we would stop car accidents. If we can prevent just one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I don't want to beat a dead horse but how does that technology work that keeps people on house arrest and why can't people disable it? Leftists tend to make statements like the first bolded one. If everyone never leaves the house, we would stop car accidents. If we can prevent just one... I can go either direction depending on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I don't want to beat a dead horse but how does that technology work that keeps people on house arrest and why can't people disable it? It works by supervising the signal from the bracelet. The bracelet periodically checks in with the receiver to confirm the person is within range. If bracelet fails to check in after a predetermined period of time an alarm is generated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 It works by supervising the signal from the bracelet. The bracelet periodically checks in with the receiver to confirm the person is within range. If bracelet fails to check in after a predetermined period of time an alarm is generated. But it's not a tracking device though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Getting pulled over by chance is different than my idea. If it prevents one shooting it's worth doing. You not only don't understand basic physics, you don't understand basic economics. Please acquaint yourself with 'opportunity costs'. 'Opportunity costs' basically says if you spend money on one thing you give up being able to spend it on another. So for the sake of argument lets say you can equip every gun with a GPS device for $1. A hundred million guns would cost $100,000,000. At the same time you determine that spending that same $100,000,000 on highways would reduce traffic fatalities by 50 per year. IOW, spending the money to get the most bang for the buck is the rational choice. Spending it to prevent "one shooting" is emotional foolery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 You not only don't understand basic physics, you don't understand basic economics. Please acquaint yourself with 'opportunity costs'. 'Opportunity costs' basically says if you spend money on one thing you give up being able to spend it on another. So for the sake of argument lets say you can equip every gun with a GPS device for $1. A hundred million guns would cost $100,000,000. At the same time you determine that spending that same $100,000,000 on highways would reduce traffic fatalities by 50 per year. IOW, spending the money to get the most bang for the buck is the rational choice. Spending it to prevent "one shooting" is emotional foolery. I never said add trackers to already existing guns. I said from here on out. How often do you see a gun from 100 years ago? Eventually all guns will be equipped with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I never said add trackers to already existing guns. Which makes existing guns into an incredibly lucrative black market How often do you see a gun from 100 years ago? Eventually all guns will be equipped with it. Ever been to a Gun Show or a Pawn Shop? Hell, I bought a 60 year old rifle a couple years ago (see my sig block) and would love to pick up an M1903. Also came close to buying Mausers, Mosins, and Lee Enfields but I don't know enough to date them / rate quality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 But it's not a tracking device though? It can be if it is coupled with a cell phone that acts as a receiver for the bracelet. The bracelet periodically checks in with the cell phone and the cell phone periodically checks in with the monitoring station. The limitation is you have to have cell service. Putting the person with a bracelet in a metal box (like a walk in cooler) would set off the alarm. If you live in a city you are not going to understand why this system would not work in a lot of places people might tend to take guns due to poor to nonexistent cell service. Furthermore, putting a gun in a gun safe, or the trunk of your car would make that type of system unworkable. I never said add trackers to already existing guns. I said from here on out. How often do you see a gun from 100 years ago? Eventually all guns will be equipped with it. Go take a basic physics course. High school level would be good enough. Then you will understand why it is not even theoretically possible. Technology isn't magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 It can be if it is coupled with a cell phone that acts as a receiver for the bracelet. The bracelet periodically checks in with the cell phone and the cell phone periodically checks in with the monitoring station. The limitation is you have to have cell service. Putting the person with a bracelet in a metal box (like a walk in cooler) would set off the alarm. If you live in a city you are not going to understand why this system would not work in a lot of places people might tend to take guns due to poor to nonexistent cell service. Furthermore, putting a gun in a gun safe, or the trunk of your car would make that type of system unworkable. Go take a basic physics course. High school level would be good enough. Then you will understand why it is not even theoretically possible. Technology isn't magic. No thanks. I started that idea by asking those that know more if it's even possible, but if you want to keep reminding me how much I don't know go right ahead if it makes you feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 (edited) If it prevents one shooting it's worth doing. Yeah, like we didn't see that rationale coming. I seem to remember everyone promising Obamacare was going to lower premiums, get everyone covered, let you keep your insurance plan AND your doctor, and not allow illegals to participate...and as it started to fall apart for the predictable abortion that it is, the one thing all the leftists had to say was "If it helps just one person get insurance..." The world doesn't operate in the vacuum of "Everybody sacrifice in hopes of saving just one." It just doesn't. It's feel-good nonsense that literally saves no one. You want to cut down on mass shootings? Allow people to openly carry everywhere. A much better idea than "We're going to monitor your every move and jump in if you look like a nut." And I know you're a leftist because only a leftist would suggest we monitor every move of every person who holds a gun. Edited June 18, 2016 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 Yeah, like we didn't see that rationale coming. I seem to remember everyone promising Obamacare was going to lower premiums, get everyone covered, let you keep your insurance plan AND your doctor, and not allow illegals to participate...and as it started to fall apart for the predictable abortion that it is, the one thing all the leftists had to say was "If it helps just one person get insurance..." The world doesn't operate in the vacuum of "Everybody sacrifice in hopes of saving just one." It just doesn't. It's feel-good nonsense that literally saves no one. You want to cut down on mass shootings? Allow people to openly carry everywhere. A much better idea than "We're going to monitor your every move and jump in if you look like a nut." And I know you're a leftist because only a leftist would suggest we monitor every move of every person who holds a gun. Once again. I'm not a leftist. I want to monitor guns. Not the person. Btw. Your idea sucks ass. More guns? Lmao. See Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 Once again. I'm not a leftist. I want to monitor guns. Not the person. Btw. Your idea sucks ass. More guns? Lmao. See Australia. A quality rebuttal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 No thanks. I started that idea by asking those that know more if it's even possible, but if you want to keep reminding me how much I don't know go right ahead if it makes you feel better. I already told you it wasn't possible but you persist in believing otherwise while admitting ignorance on the subject. You compound that by refusing to educate yourself, choosing to remain ignorant. Repeating "eventually all guns will be equipped with it" will not change the laws of physics, which you have now declared you are not interested in understanding. It doesn't make me feel good, it makes me sad that people like you prefer willful ignorance to truth. I sense your accusation of making me feel better is just projection. This belief you have in a solution makes you feel better. You don't want to know why it won't work because it makes you feel better thinking it will. Essentially the truth is not important to you. Good to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 We already have the technology to put GPS trackers in just about anything you would want. The problem is it is trivial to defeat the tracking. True, but most people don't even know how to turn the GPS off on their phone or apply privacy settings to their SpaceBook account. And most criminals don't know their travels can be tracked by their cell phone when committing crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 I already told you it wasn't possible but you persist in believing otherwise while admitting ignorance on the subject. You compound that by refusing to educate yourself, choosing to remain ignorant. Repeating "eventually all guns will be equipped with it" will not change the laws of physics, which you have now declared you are not interested in understanding. It doesn't make me feel good, it makes me sad that people like you prefer willful ignorance to truth. I sense your accusation of making me feel better is just projection. This belief you have in a solution makes you feel better. You don't want to know why it won't work because it makes you feel better thinking it will. Essentially the truth is not important to you. Good to know. I admitted it was a bad idea but you kept badgering me on it. I asked about house arrest monitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandemonium Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 Once again. I'm not a leftist. I want to monitor guns. Not the person. Btw. Your idea sucks ass. More guns? Lmao. See Australia. No, you want to monitor the person who is in possssion of the gun, unless you believe that the gun is going to let itself out of the house and go for a stroll on its own without calling to check in on your 1-800-GO-HUNTN hotline first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted June 18, 2016 Share Posted June 18, 2016 I admitted it was a bad idea but you kept badgering me on it. I asked about house arrest monitors. At 06:43 PM you said: Gotcha. Bad idea. At 07:47 PM you repeat the "bad idea". Eventually all guns will be equipped with it. So apparently it was only a bad idea for about an hour. Truth once again doesn't appear to be very important to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts