Does the USA have a gun problem?

[Buki_Actual]

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Michael Noire

America has a culture problem with guns. This problem began shortly after the movie industry, although I'm not certain if it was after black and white switched to technicolor.

Traditional America has no gun problem, and to their credit, many modern movements in gun culture have started to restore the elements of what made American gun culture once a brilliant standard.

When Old Yeller is shot, the reverence for the target and the weapon are sound. When John Wayne depicts guns as weapons, you understand that they are life and death devices, that can be used in the same way as any deadly tool like a knife, sword, or bow.

The idea of trick shooting, target practice, and clear awareness of the dangers of firearms, and their shortcomings, that is good gun culture.

the idea that a gun makes a man a god, or suddenly makes someone more manly, or a criminal, or dark and mysterious, or is somehow a game changer, that's actually a really unrealistic view of guns. If someone pulls out a gun, most guns are not so terrible that they surpass the killing capacity of many other more easily acquired tools you could name. As to range, bows can do that too. If anything, the mystique of "all guns" really needs to be specialized to certain types of guns deserving of that mystique.

A sniper system is definitely outside the ballpark of swords and bows. No bow goes out for over a mile that I know of. A sword is pretty deadly, and some swords are super deadly, and over a 10 minute combat period, the body count could be enormous... but miniguns and similar 100+ round capacity automatic weapons ARE in another category to themselves, which even AK-47s and Uzis or M16s will never match. a Tommy Gun is about half way to this "i have stupid amounts of bullets and can kill an entire crowded mall" game changing killing capacity.

But let's be real, outside of hollywood, real guns almost never fit into these three categories.

category 1: obscenely powerful - can cause bodies to fly back or explode. Can kill dinosaurs and put holes in tanks
category 2: miles and miles range - can kill people from so far away you can't even see the shooter in broad day light with no cover
category 3. infinite rate of fire with nigh endless ammo - can fire more bullets or other projectiles than you will ever need to wipe out the neighborhood in such a high speed that other people with swords or bows or guns are basically crimson confetti before they can get one shot.

Hollywood has tried to make all guns and thus all gun culture fit into these three categories. That's bullshit. Most guns are no more deadly than a steak knife. Most shootings happen at the same range a thrown cast iron skillet or brick can be 100% lethal. The actual lethality and threat of most guns is equal to or inferior to medieval fantasy weapons of Europe and Asia.

Most guns are no more deadly than a steak knife.------- You

See, this is where the gun crowd goes wacko and is partially why I think the US has a gun problem at all. They start off just fine when, like this poster, they recognize that guns have power, and the many take that idea and put it into practice by getting themselves trained, training their families, etc.

Then the logic train takes a hard right to Crazy Town when they say that most guns are "no more deadly than a steak knife." I mean, let's cut the s**t and just be honest; a gun is a dangerous tool. Its main purpose is to hit and ideally kill whatever it hits. While people could throw skillets or bricks, they don't generally do that. They take out a gun and shoot the person. And if I pulled a gun on them, I can be fairly sure they are going to do their best statue impersonation.

A gun is a weapon.

The sad thing in the US is that statement, that guns are dangerous weapons, should not be controversial because its not and has no policy implications in and of itself. Yet here in the US, we treat guns like how we treat sex; we tell you what's dangerous about it with one side of the mouth while encouraging you to do it as soon as possible to be a wo/man with the other.

I have a sword, three knives, two rifles, and two handguns all within arms reach. Aside from one of the rifles which was my grandpa's deer rifle, I have never killed anything with any of them. A weapon is no more deadly than its user.

Again, that's just a bullshit position to take. I don't need to have killed anyone with my car to say that my car, or any car really, is dangerous. I mean for ******** sake, its an iron box on wheels which can travel 85 miles an hour (my car is old). That's ******** dangerous.

That shouldn't be controversial to note, yet you denying this weakens your credibility.

Not really. Anything controlled by a human is really no more dangerous than the human is, be them responsible, irresponsible, careless, murderous, or just plain inept.

Yes, both guns and cars have the capability to be extremely dangerous, but they're not autonomous.

Like I said, that's bullshit.

I have never called them autonomous. I said that guns are dangerous, just by their sheer character and design. Its simply the result of making a device which is designed to fire small pieces of hot metal at high rates of speed with the ideal being that it kills or seriously hurts whatever it hits, generally speaking.

The longer you adhere to the view, the weaker the position, because its so obvious. And to top it all off, its not even relevant to the pro-gun position, or to addressing the US's gun problem. We have plenty of things which are fairly dangerous that manage to be decently regulate (ex. explosives, certain chemicals, cars, etc.) and are highly dangerous. That a gun is dangerous therefore does not, and should not, mean any and all guns are, say, banned.

Yet its like trying to fix an old junker car with three issues; needs a new battery, needs a new cylinder head, and a new fan. With a situation like that, the new battery is the least of the issues, and in the grand scheme of things incredibly minor. Yet if you never recognize that is the battery needs to be replaced, then the car is never going to work, even if you fix the cylinder head and get a new fan.

In the same way, fixing the US gun problem can't really begin til everyone arrives at what ought to be commonsense: guns are dangerous.

I'm not adhering to anything, I'm just disagreeing with you. I fully understand the dangers of both cars and guns; I've had to pull shrapnel out of myself from a bad ricochet, and my car IS an old junker that I fixed up. Firearms and cars both require human interaction to function, just sitting on their own, a gun cannot shoot and a car cannot run anything over.

Wait, are you one of those people that thinks the gun industry is completely unregulated? Because that's extremely wrong.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Riviera de la Mancha

Suicidesoldier#1

Riviera de la Mancha

Suicidesoldier#1

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Not really. Anything controlled by a human is really no more dangerous than the human is, be them responsible, irresponsible, careless, murderous, or just plain inept.

Yes, both guns and cars have the capability to be extremely dangerous, but they're not autonomous.

Like I said, that's bullshit.

I have never called them autonomous. I said that guns are dangerous, just by their sheer character and design. Its simply the result of making a device which is designed to fire small pieces of hot metal at high rates of speed with the ideal being that it kills or seriously hurts whatever it hits, generally speaking.

The longer you adhere to the view, the weaker the position, because its so obvious. And to top it all off, its not even relevant to the pro-gun position, or to addressing the US's gun problem. We have plenty of things which are fairly dangerous that manage to be decently regulate (ex. explosives, certain chemicals, cars, etc.) and are highly dangerous. That a gun is dangerous therefore does not, and should not, mean any and all guns are, say, banned.

Yet its like trying to fix an old junker car with three issues; needs a new battery, needs a new cylinder head, and a new fan. With a situation like that, the new battery is the least of the issues, and in the grand scheme of things incredibly minor. Yet if you never recognize that is the battery needs to be replaced, then the car is never going to work, even if you fix the cylinder head and get a new fan.

In the same way, fixing the US gun problem can't really begin til everyone arrives at what ought to be commonsense: guns are dangerous.

Cars are dangerous, and kill more people than guns every year.

...?

Exactly - cars are dangerous. That's an obvious statement, and not controversial. We as a society just recognize it and regulate them appropriately. No one freaks out around a car generally. We all pretty much have one and take it around town, with no one really freaking out.

Yet you try to get the pro-gun ground to admit this basic truth, and you get waffling like a early bird special at I-Hop. It makes no sense and only weakens the pro-gun crowd. They just can't recognize that the car needs a new battery.

Even a teddy bear or soda can is and can be dangerous.

The argument is about the level of danger.

Also I don't think batteries make cars more dangerous...

*Sigh* And now we are back on the crazy-train...

If you seriously are equally as afraid as when I take a teddy-bear to your head as when I take a loaded gun, then I got a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.

I never said they were equally dangerous, I said you have to have a relative level of danger in comparison. No-one is saying guns aren't dangerous, it's about the level of danger. xp

[Michael Noire]

ballistics gel is good for comparing two rounds to each other, and the differences of cavitation and penetration will generally reflect on a living target, however, they are not linear conversions and largely missing factors like bones and tendons. The elasticity of gelatin is not the same as human tissues, so the expansion cavity of gel, when it tears the gel during the ballooning can't tell you in a linear sense how many additional arteries or veins will be ruptured, or whether an organ will suffer. Actually the harmonics of the shock wave changing suddenly from muscle tissue to lung tissue typifies enormous damage potential where the same wound in the leg would be far less impressive.

I think the best example of why ballistic gel tests are not entirely analogous is the .380 Xtreme Copper by Lehigh, which upon examination of their gel tests would have you believe this .380 bullet (one of the weakest bullets on earth) is somehow now capable of generating similar permanent wounds to a .44 magnum. This is an excellent example of a bullet engineered to perform well in ballistic gel, without regard for how well it actually performs in living tissue.

Obersturmbannfuehrer Chii

Suicidesoldier#1

The ballistics gel doesn't really show what muscle, organs, bones and the like would do, it's really designed to be a consistent medium to represent very similar wound mechanics than anything. The FBI designs it just to make sure their rounds do not overpenetrate, but a lot of what you're seeing is the temporary cavity, which would be akin to say, slapping someone and having their face jiggle around (adam savage has a good video of this in mythbusters). Unfortunately, that quickly condenses again, since tissue is elastic, and what you're really left looking at is the permanent cavity to see the kind of damage it can do. Fragmentation and expansion are typically the best wound mechanics, since it causes multiple area to bleed from, reduces over penetration, and as well creates the biggest wound cavity. The frozen meat and such aren't the entire size of the human body, meaning that it has less to hold it in, so it will likely experience more displacement. You're right though, it that it would still cause A LOT of damage that you wouldn't want.

I'm much more fair to ballistics gel. As a person who is interested in science and exploring things in a scientific manner, it's the best option you've got for exploring wounding effects of projectiles. It simply isn't really ethical to shoot living things just to explore terminal gunshot wounds.

As such, as a scientist, you're forced to make due with what you got. With gel, you can at the least extrapolate what your bullets could do and the kind of damage you can do.

You're absolutely right. Gel isn't a proper substitute for the real deal...however, it's the best we've got short of rounding up people to shoot them for the sake of science.

Quote:

suppose the best way to show this is work by Martin Fackler. He was "a retired Colonel in the US Army's Medical Corps, a battlefield surgeon, and the head of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory for the US Army’s Medical Training Center, Letterman Institute.
He is credited with a number of contributions to the field of terminal ballistics including: Developing and testing improved media in which the effects of bullet wounds could be simulated. This led to the widespread acceptance of 10% ballistic gelatin for evaluating penetration and expansion of projectiles." What he found was, primarily that "the "permanent wound cavity" or actual damage caused by a projectile is the primary "stopping power" mechanism and that the "temporary wound cavity" or shock wave produced by the projectile is at best a secondary mechanism, if not irrelevant."

I'm familiar with him. I just want to say that what I've read of terminal ballistics indicates that as far as the discussion of temporary vs. permanent cavities...the jury really is out. Again, referring to the above, there simply isn't a lot of research out there. It just isn't ethical nor moral to round up people, shoot and kill them, then do science on the remains.

I'm not trying to discredit Mr. Fackler, hardly, as I am someone who admires his work. However, solid science is done from more than just a handful of people and some papers. It requires dedicated years of rigorous, constant work and testing...and it seems that GSWs just aren't something that is easily experiment-able.

Quote:

While all the reasons you listed for carrying a gun are good ones, such as concealment, light weight, easy to use, not a whole lot of strength is needed, decent if you have the right shot placement I.E. marksmanship, all of that isn't really power. It's not the most damaging weapon around, but that's not why people carry it. That was really all my point was. xp

Thinking about it over the day...I can agree. The average pistol isn't going to be as physically damaging, but I think everything else going for a gun is advantage in and of itself. I'm an advocate of the triple tap, and if I get better than where I am now I'll start working a Mozambique Drill into my defensive routine. What one bullet can't do, 3-4 bullets certainly will do it's job. That's why I go for guns.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

I have a sword, three knives, two rifles, and two handguns all within arms reach. Aside from one of the rifles which was my grandpa's deer rifle, I have never killed anything with any of them. A weapon is no more deadly than its user.

Again, that's just a bullshit position to take. I don't need to have killed anyone with my car to say that my car, or any car really, is dangerous. I mean for ******** sake, its an iron box on wheels which can travel 85 miles an hour (my car is old). That's ******** dangerous.

That shouldn't be controversial to note, yet you denying this weakens your credibility.

Not really. Anything controlled by a human is really no more dangerous than the human is, be them responsible, irresponsible, careless, murderous, or just plain inept.

Yes, both guns and cars have the capability to be extremely dangerous, but they're not autonomous.

Like I said, that's bullshit.

I have never called them autonomous. I said that guns are dangerous, just by their sheer character and design. Its simply the result of making a device which is designed to fire small pieces of hot metal at high rates of speed with the ideal being that it kills or seriously hurts whatever it hits, generally speaking.

The longer you adhere to the view, the weaker the position, because its so obvious. And to top it all off, its not even relevant to the pro-gun position, or to addressing the US's gun problem. We have plenty of things which are fairly dangerous that manage to be decently regulate (ex. explosives, certain chemicals, cars, etc.) and are highly dangerous. That a gun is dangerous therefore does not, and should not, mean any and all guns are, say, banned.

Yet its like trying to fix an old junker car with three issues; needs a new battery, needs a new cylinder head, and a new fan. With a situation like that, the new battery is the least of the issues, and in the grand scheme of things incredibly minor. Yet if you never recognize that is the battery needs to be replaced, then the car is never going to work, even if you fix the cylinder head and get a new fan.

In the same way, fixing the US gun problem can't really begin til everyone arrives at what ought to be commonsense: guns are dangerous.

I'm not adhering to anything, I'm just disagreeing with you. I fully understand the dangers of both cars and guns; I've had to pull shrapnel out of myself from a bad ricochet, and my car IS an old junker that I fixed up. Firearms and cars both require human interaction to function, just sitting on their own, a gun cannot shoot and a car cannot run anything over.

Wait, are you one of those people that thinks the gun industry is completely unregulated? Because that's extremely wrong.

Unregulated, no. Poorly regulated, yes. Add to that certain state rules that make it way easy to get a gun and very difficult to lose your right to own one, and you get a dangerous mix.

And like I said, ignoring the innate risk of an object which it gets by virtue of its design is simply moronic. Not that you are a moron, but the position is one a moron takes.

[Buki_Actual]

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

I have a sword, three knives, two rifles, and two handguns all within arms reach. Aside from one of the rifles which was my grandpa's deer rifle, I have never killed anything with any of them. A weapon is no more deadly than its user.

Again, that's just a bullshit position to take. I don't need to have killed anyone with my car to say that my car, or any car really, is dangerous. I mean for ******** sake, its an iron box on wheels which can travel 85 miles an hour (my car is old). That's ******** dangerous.

That shouldn't be controversial to note, yet you denying this weakens your credibility.

Not really. Anything controlled by a human is really no more dangerous than the human is, be them responsible, irresponsible, careless, murderous, or just plain inept.

Yes, both guns and cars have the capability to be extremely dangerous, but they're not autonomous.

Like I said, that's bullshit.

I have never called them autonomous. I said that guns are dangerous, just by their sheer character and design. Its simply the result of making a device which is designed to fire small pieces of hot metal at high rates of speed with the ideal being that it kills or seriously hurts whatever it hits, generally speaking.

The longer you adhere to the view, the weaker the position, because its so obvious. And to top it all off, its not even relevant to the pro-gun position, or to addressing the US's gun problem. We have plenty of things which are fairly dangerous that manage to be decently regulate (ex. explosives, certain chemicals, cars, etc.) and are highly dangerous. That a gun is dangerous therefore does not, and should not, mean any and all guns are, say, banned.

Yet its like trying to fix an old junker car with three issues; needs a new battery, needs a new cylinder head, and a new fan. With a situation like that, the new battery is the least of the issues, and in the grand scheme of things incredibly minor. Yet if you never recognize that is the battery needs to be replaced, then the car is never going to work, even if you fix the cylinder head and get a new fan.

In the same way, fixing the US gun problem can't really begin til everyone arrives at what ought to be commonsense: guns are dangerous.

I'm not adhering to anything, I'm just disagreeing with you. I fully understand the dangers of both cars and guns; I've had to pull shrapnel out of myself from a bad ricochet, and my car IS an old junker that I fixed up. Firearms and cars both require human interaction to function, just sitting on their own, a gun cannot shoot and a car cannot run anything over.

Wait, are you one of those people that thinks the gun industry is completely unregulated? Because that's extremely wrong.

Unregulated, no. Poorly regulated, yes. Add to that certain state rules that make it way easy to get a gun and very difficult to lose your right to own one, and you get a dangerous mix.

And like I said, ignoring the innate risk of an object which it gets by virtue of its design is simply moronic. Not that you are a moron, but the position is one a moron takes.

You realize the US has a federal law enforcement agency dedicated to firearms, right? Not to mention a couple books worth of federal regulations and a library worth of state laws, right?

And who said anything about ignoring? Every time I step out on the range or strap into my car, I know and accept that I might not make it home. Its not the car's fault if I crash or someone hits me, and its not the gun's fault if I get tagged by a ricochet or shot by the person next to me, be it intentionally or unintentionally.

[black_wing_angel]

Divine_Malevolence

Gah this is going to be confusing to navigate.

black_wing_angel

When you put everything together, it will simply never work. Not even worth pursuing. Just look at the gun they have out, that will never fire, unless it's extremely close to a special watch. Nobody's buying it.

....And?
There are two possibilities with the system when put in place regarding people and the guns.
Either they buy 'em or they don't.
If they do, they give adequate forewarning before shooting up any places that want a forewarning.
If not, they don't have a gun.
Either way...

And good luck with the borderline civil war that you'll have on your hands.

You know why the Feds have not outright banned guns like other nations have? Because they can't afford the risk. As was specifically intended by our own Founding Fathers.

They won't, because they can't.

Hell, it's a miracle that they got away with the Assault Weapons ban.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

That might work for the White House, but the average school? No. It's not going to be nearly that overly dramatic. And if it was...well there's a wonderful waste of tax dollars...

"Tax dollars" he says.
Hah.

Where do you think schools get their funding? As well as police officers?

Quote:

black_wing_angel

No, they hunker down with the students, and if the shooter enters the room, the fight's on. Other staff, such as the principal, very well may come running, though.

Then the shooter enters the room, quickly ascertains where the most valid target is, and caps 'em instantly.

If it were only quite that easy.

Somehow, as I read your words, it becomes increasingly apparent that you've no idea how any of this actually works.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

1 gun is better than zero.

I don't think you thought that through.
One gun implies that there's only a gun in the hand of the guy shooting things up.

Um...No it doesn't.

Quote:

Zero implies that there are no guns. Which is easily the best situation, because even if everyone in the school has no idea what they're doing, the sheer numbers advantage says that the assailant's probably not going to do anything.
And two guns is basically a toss up.
So 0>2>1, you'd say. I say that 0>>>2==1

It's ALWAYS a toss-up. But at least if you have a gun on your side, you have a chance, which you don't have, if you don't. It's not about having some magical tome that will protect you from any and all threats, and make you invincible. It's about not being a sitting duck. It's about if you gotta go down, you go down fighting, not begging.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Nope. It's specifically because it's suicidal. Trust me, "I already have enough of those" is not something you'll commonly hear a criminal say.

Because they wouldn't even think of it.
Seriously. When's the last time a guy was ever like, "Hey, we've already got these boomsticks to do whatever nefarious things we're going to do with it. Lets waste our time getting more by stealing them!"

Well, I don't have a list, specifically, but I'd estimate somewhere between the time I started typing this, and the time I hit "submit".

It helps if you know what a "black market" is.

Quote:

It's completely ******** stupid.

Having something to sell for premium profit, because someone else is more than happy to buy it under the table, is not actually "stupid". Illegal, and not worth the risk, sure. But far from "stupid".

Quote:

If they tried, and I highly doubt they'd have much difficulty succeeding, it would inform the cops and the sheer nature of the events would put so much heat on their asses that anything they actually wanted to do with the guns wouldn't be something they could do.
It's a stupid target if you don't have guns and it's a useless target if you already do.
Unless you're the terminator and the cops can't touch you.

....You live in a fantasy world, don't you?

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Actually...they still are. Gun free zones always make the exception for authorized individuals. Typically police. Anyone on security at a military base, would have the same status as a cop. However, anyone else, is strictly forbidden from being armed. Which I do find entirely ironic...

Which means the "There won't be any guns there" line is completely flawed.

You're getting confused.

Cops are exempt from firearms prohibited zones. But....they have to be there, to matter. Most places don't have armed security. Military bases are an exception to this. And a stark minority one.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

ALL gun laws are ineffective, because they only really affect those who willfully choose to be bound by them. Chicago, IL has only recently lifted the ban on firearms in the city. Despite that, for many years over, it's been one of,....if not THE crime capital of the US. After the ban was lifted? Crime rates went down. Because the criminals are no longer the only ones packing heat.

Tell that to China.
Wanna know why city based gun laws don't work?
Because cities don't have the tools to do anything about it.
Countries do.

Unless they're the US. Then even the country doesn't. Because our Founding Fathers weren't stupid.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

That's honestly not as cut and dry as you think it is. Those countries have lower crime rates, not because they have more strict laws. They have lower rates, because they have better cultures and economies.

Somewhat idealistic there, don't you think?

You're one to judge?

Quote:

No, it's also because whenever someone in those countries tries something stupid like a mass murder with the tools they have available....
Like a knife....
They fail miserably.

Jack the Ripper.

They never caught him. They still don't know who he was, all these years later.

You were saying?

Quote:

It's why I find it particularly humorous whenever someone says something stupid like a steak knife is as dangerous as a gun.
So where're the mass steak knifings?

In England, ironically enough.

Quote:

The answer is in places where you can't get a gun.

Well...yeah. A gun is preferable to a knife, for a multitude of reasons. That's why our military men don't run into battle with claymores.

However, at the end of the day, if I want you dead, I don't need a gun. YOU do.

Quote:

And they're less mass steak knifings and more attempted mass steak knifings. On account of the necessity to spend a lot more time on any given target chasing them down, getting past the arms, not getting the crap beaten out of you by the now desperate whoever, what have you.

If you have a knife, I seriously doubt you have a problem with getting the crap beaten out of you, unless you're attacking a prize fighter...

You see, when sharp metal meets soft flesh, the metal wins. Always. So if they're flailing wildly at you, the odds are that they're just going to get themselves cut into ribbons, in the process. Very few people have the ability to disarm a knifeman with their bare hands. That's part of why cops have guns.

Quote:

When a country is able to actually control arms, it doesn't matter how insane the people get, the whole murder thing just doesn't work so well.

Like they already control illicit drugs? Because that's worked so ******** well, hasn't it? Hell, prohibition of alcohol was a joke. And something brewers and distillers still laugh about.

Quote:

The factors in a murder are motive and method.

Typically? Yes.

Necessarily? No.

Quote:

Take away either and everyone's going to be dying because of old age'n s**t.
Motives are usually things like poverty and mental problems. If we adopted the Nordic style of governing the economy we'd probably get rid of most of 'em right quick.

So you admit the problem isn't the guns.

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.

Quote:

But the second is still the method. And by far the easiest, most successful method is a high velocity piece of lead.

Which is EXACTLY why it's good to have them on BOTH sides of the fence. Because it's EQUALLY easy to use them in defense. Again, this is exactly why cops have them. But they don't have them to defend YOU with. They have them to defend THEMSELVES with. As ruled by the good ol' Supreme Court.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Not necessarily. Everyone has their own ideas. Timothy McVeigh used a vehicle, and was the single most successful domestic terrorist in our country's history, to boot. But he didn't run people under the tires. He blew them to Hell.

He didn't use the vehicle, he used a ton of explosives.

By packing them into the vehicle. The vehicle was central to the plan.

Quote:

And it isn't the explosives that killed most of the people. It was the shoddy architecture.

Which was rendered unstable by....*drum roll* A huge ******** explosion!

Yeah, you know that 9/11 thing? More people died AFTER the crashes. But the planes still set the chain in motion.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

They commit suicide to avoid being taken into custody. It's sort of an escape from consequence, more than anything else.

Which means that they don't give a ******** about making it through the event and really wouldn't care about getting shot.

So then why shouldn't we do so?

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Actually, it's not guns. It's people.

Not people with knives.
Not people with their bare hands.
Not people with blocks of concrete.
Not people with grenades.
People with guns.

Actually...people kill people all the time, with knives, bare hands, and all sorts of improvised weaponry.

Taking guns away, won't save most people. And making guns ungodly expensive, by trying to force people into 3 feet of foam padding level security, far less.

Odds are that more people will be SAVED by guns next year, than killed by them. Whether directly, or indirectly.

Quote:

Take either half out and you don't have the full equation, sure, but considering that we really only care about it in regards to people that's always going to be there, and the only factor that matters ends up being the guns.

No. It really isn't. The only factor that matters is the PEOPLE. Because without the bad people, the guns are harmless. They need someone to aim the barrel, and pull the trigger.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

But using that same logic, shouldn't we be doing something about the SECOND most leading cause of death? Car accidents? Why are we so keen on "WE GOTZ TA DU SUMTING ABOWT DA GUNZEZ!!", but just stand by and let people die in car accidents in higher numbers?

Oh. I know why. Because people LIKE their cars. So those accidents are just the price we're willing to pay, to stay comfortable with 8 cylinders, 6 CDs and iPod, power windows, and a needle that can hit 130.

People say "You don't need more than 10 rounds, or a telescoping stock, or laser sight!" Well yeah....but you don't need more than 2 cylinders, music player, or A/C. But it's nice to know you can, if you want, isn't it?

******** Tesla. If I can't hear the engine running, I am only to assume it's broken.

Bitches love Mustangs, more.

People laugh at Teslas, worse than they laugh at Priuses.

*Snicker*
It's okay. You will soon all bow before the ridiculously safe, aerodynamic, BA Tesla overlords.

No. I'll laugh as I drive past one that's sitting for 5 hours at a truck stop, recharging, because the owner decided to drive more than 2 hours at a time.

I can get from Iowa to Arkansas on a single, 10 minute stop. Tesla wouldn't make it from Keokuk, Iowa, to St. Louis. Hell, I doubt it would even make it to Troy.

Also...people already hate the ever loving piss out of their cell phones, for having shitty battery life. People buy all sorts of extra chargers, and even airports have USB plug ins, because god knows you'll need frequent recharges....

...And people are going to let this same technology power their CARS? Bullshit.

When your Tesla can stack up against my Mustang, then we'll talk. Until then, the only reason I'll bow to a Tesla, is out of respect for the dead (battery).

Quote:

black_wing_angel

I seriously doubt that. It would much more likely cost about as much as 90" TV.

Depends on how much they want to overprice it.
The market value's really based more on what people will pay than it is on how much you need to put into anything.
Hell, if they were interested in keeping customers from the sound of it they'd be able to get by not hiking the cost at all.

People still won't buy it, as long as there are better options. Like non nanny-state bullshit options.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Depends on the model. Mine cost me $100. iPhone 5C. 5S for $200.

Yeah, but we're going baseline

Even going by baseline, you're full of s**t.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

This magical technology is going to cost more than 5% of the cost of the weapon. And for absolutely nothing necessary.

Barring what could otherwise save countless lives.
No, nothing necessary.

Wearing full body armor can save countless lives, too. So you want us to start doing that?

Quote:

black_wing_angel

That's not an acceptable answer.

When your point is that the aggressor always has advantage, yes, it's a damn good point.

No it's not.
Aggressor still has the advantage when they're dumb and the person they're trying to kill is a lot better than them.

Um...if I can hit them in 1 shot, and they can't hit me in 5, who's got the advantage, here? His only advantage is having the first shot. Which, unless he can actually hit me, just amounts to an alarm.

Accuracy always has the advantage.

Quote:

Get into a crowd, put it to their back, can't really ******** it up.

Well if you were going to do that, why would you shoot them? A knife would be a lot quieter. And being in a "crowd", I think you want to keep it as quiet as possible.

Also, never underestimate the sheer power of stupidity. People can and do miss at point blank range.

Quote:

They can blow the advantage, sure, but if they actually want the dude dead and aren't particularly interested in doing anything pointless they'll win it.

No...not on determination alone, they won't...You have to have skill to back it.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

"Gang members" are not professional firearms users. They're typically THE most amateur shooters out there. My 6 year old cousin is a better shot than Thugnificent. And he shoots a BB gun...

Bonus points for thinking being a better shot than some guy who's actually weird enough to name himself "Thugnificent" means anything.

That name was taken from a show, actually.

Quote:

black_wing_angel

Lucky us, that the guys who choose to use guns for dasterdly deeds, are almost never "on the level" with a carrying civilian, huh? Because as it turns out, criminals don't typically have the respect for firearms that those who choose to carry for good reasons typically do. Because we actually care about what we're doing, the implications, and safety protocols. And we typically clock more range time.

Yeah, they're not going to be as good at hitting a small target a distance away.
Still got a 9-1 advantage if they want you dead.

Explain your math, here. Because 9 to 1 seems awfully specific, for a purely chaotic scenario.

Quote:

And the only people they're at a disadvantage against is the enthusiasts.
Your whole idea of 'more guns' would just put them in the hands of people who don't really want or need them.

No it won't. People like myself don't ever advocate for the MANDATORY carry of firearms. So how exactly are we putting guns in the hands of people who don't want them?

Quote:

Put a gun in the hands of every teacher and principal in the country? Most of them won't be able to use the things worth s**t.

We don't advocate such. We advocate the ABILITY for a teacher or staff member to arm themselves. Nothing mandatory.

Believe it or not, there is absolutely no shortage of teachers and school staff, that would willingly shoulder the burden, if only for the safety of their students.

Quote:

All for something that wouldn't work.

Your idea wouldn't work, either. You're putting a lot of faith in technology that can and does fail.

And for one thing, I'm always against reliance on technology. If only for that very reason. Nothing irritates me more than seeing people who claim they "know how to drive", but REQUIRE the car be automatic, and these days, have a rear view camera. Where are these people going to be, when the camera goes out?

Me? I don't even actually need the side mirrors, let alone some fruity camera. And if it has wheels, I can make it move. Whether it was made this year, or 1885. 2 wheels, 4 wheels, or even 18 or more. I can drive.

[Dyshidrosis]

Michael Noire

ballistics gel is good for comparing two rounds to each other, and the differences of cavitation and penetration will generally reflect on a living target, however, they are not linear conversions and largely missing factors like bones and tendons. The elasticity of gelatin is not the same as human tissues, so the expansion cavity of gel, when it tears the gel during the ballooning can't tell you in a linear sense how many additional arteries or veins will be ruptured, or whether an organ will suffer. Actually the harmonics of the shock wave changing suddenly from muscle tissue to lung tissue typifies enormous damage potential where the same wound in the leg would be far less impressive.

I think the best example of why ballistic gel tests are not entirely analogous is the .380 Xtreme Copper by Lehigh, which upon examination of their gel tests would have you believe this .380 bullet (one of the weakest bullets on earth) is somehow now capable of generating similar permanent wounds to a .44 magnum. This is an excellent example of a bullet engineered to perform well in ballistic gel, without regard for how well it actually performs in living tissue.

Yeah I know. As I said, gel is the best compromise we got without going into the realm of unethical experimentation by rounding people up and shooting them to study the effect. Gel isn't perfect and it won't properly simulate flesh, but it's a compromise that can be used to extrapolate results off of.

[Divine_Malevolence]

black_wing_angel

We don't advocate such. We advocate the ABILITY for a teacher or staff member to arm themselves. Nothing mandatory.

Believe it or not, there is absolutely no shortage of teachers and school staff, that would willingly shoulder the burden, if only for the safety of their students.



Your idea wouldn't work, either. You're putting a lot of faith in technology that can and does fail.

Which would leave most in the exact situation that they're in now, making a net change of zero.

Which means that there's ******** no way for your little ploy to work.


And you still haven't given an actual reason as to why my plan wouldn't work.
....
Hell, it'd be quite astounding if you could 'cause I'm quite certain you don't know what most of it is. And you know the fun thing about technology failure is?
You know when it's failing, and can utilize caution in that window to prevent the failure from causing problems.
You're vastly underestimating technology and human ingenuity. Also, mind, that this isn't even the best plan.

The easiest way to drop the murder rate's to outlaw guns entirely. Manufacturers stop producing, people literally can no longer buy regardless of if they care about the law or not, and unlike with drugs, you can't just grow guns.
My idea? A compromise that's superior to the absolutely stupid "Give everyone a gun" idea and less irritating than the "Get rid of them all" which really only doesn't sit well with idiots.

Funny how people will be against a 10-5% increase in their gun's base cost if it'd allow for far better responses against gun violence. Because, really, why do anything?
Who gives a ******** about gun violence, I want a piece to protect me against a danger that literally wouldn't exist if the enemy couldn't also get one.

It's really stupid to a point where I can't understand why. There's literally only one situation wherein you could actually need a gun.
And that's if the other person has a gun.
Yet people actually want to make it easier for assholes to get one.
There's no logic in that.

[black_wing_angel]

Divine_Malevolence

black_wing_angel

We don't advocate such. We advocate the ABILITY for a teacher or staff member to arm themselves. Nothing mandatory.

Believe it or not, there is absolutely no shortage of teachers and school staff, that would willingly shoulder the burden, if only for the safety of their students.



Your idea wouldn't work, either. You're putting a lot of faith in technology that can and does fail.

Which would leave most in the exact situation that they're in now, making a net change of zero.

Which means that there's ******** no way for your little ploy to work.

How do you figure that? The only reason most teachers don't carry to school now, is because it's illegal to. Lift that ban, and the schools will have much better security, because many of the teachers will, willingly, carry. Meaning that when and if a shooter were to try their hand, they'll be met with resistance. Something that has never happened at a school massacre, yet. It's almost always continued until the shooters themselves have decided to stop. That's entirely unacceptable. "Win or lose", they must at least be opposed.

Quote:

And you still haven't given an actual reason as to why my plan wouldn't work.

No support. Way too expensive. It puts reliance on technology that we should never rely ourselves on. It's liable to fault out, which risks putting innocent people in hot water, unfairly. It's overly complicated. We already have rules and regulations that essentially reach for the same end, much more cost efficiently. It gives the government that much more control over the people, in a way that our Founding Fathers specifically forbade, and for goddamn good reason. It's literally just putting a band-aid on a severed limb. A band-aid that's soaked in biohazardous chemicals, at that...

Good enough?

Quote:

....
Hell, it'd be quite astounding if you could 'cause I'm quite certain you don't know what most of it is. And you know the fun thing about technology failure is?
You know when it's failing, and can utilize caution in that window to prevent the failure from causing problems.

No. You really can't stop such failures, before they happen. You can learn from them, but that puts an unnecessary risk on innocent people. And I will not stand for innocent people being persecuted over technical failures.

For example: Some years ago, Toyota released vehicles that were pretty much 100% computerized. Everything from acceleration to braking, right down to the transmission and ignition. Well....guess what ended up happening. There was a glitch. And because of this glitch, some of the cars accelerated out of control, at random. And because the transmission was also computerized, and subject to the same glitch...there was literally nothing the occupants could do, because they couldn't throw it in neutral, because the computer failed to recognize the transition. And braking was minimally effective, because the energy output of the acceleration pretty much cancelled out any attempt to brake. So you have a car that can't be stopped, accelerating out of control. And there's nothing the people inside can do about it, except hope and pray.

...People died. Needlessly. All because someone got the brilliant idea to force reliance on computer technology.

Why do you expect any different from the same technology being applied to firearms? Hell, even fire alarms give false positives, sometimes. It's just accepted that computer technology is going to be subject to these sorts of glitches and failures. So when human lives and freedom stand at the mercy of technology, I, nor anyone with a remote understanding of this truth, will stand for it.

Quote:

You're vastly underestimating technology and human ingenuity. Also, mind, that this isn't even the best plan.

You're damn right it isn't.

Quote:

The easiest way to drop the murder rate's to outlaw guns entirely.

Sure has done wonders for marijuana, methamphetamine, heroine, and cocaine, hasn't it? With the exception of marijuana, each are federally banned. Yet you're harder pressed to find someone who's never touched them, than someone who has.

In the US, bans don't work. Ever. There has never been a successful ban, in US history. Because the only people who are affected by them, are the people who CHOOSE to be.

Quote:

Manufacturers stop producing,

Good luck with that. Especially since a lot of them aren't in this country, and thus, not subject to your nanny-state bullshit.

Quote:

people literally can no longer buy regardless of if they care about the law or not, and unlike with drugs, you can't just grow guns.

Nope. But you can MAKE them. It's not nearly as difficult as you might think. All you need, are proper tools, materials, and some specs. Guess which one of these are actually difficult to come by:

A: the tools
B: The materials
C: The specs
D: All of the above
E: None of the above

Quote:

My idea? A compromise that's superior to the absolutely stupid "Give everyone a gun" idea and less irritating than the "Get rid of them all" which really only doesn't sit well with idiots.

Funny how people will be against a 10-5% increase in their gun's base cost if it'd allow for far better responses against gun violence. Because, really, why do anything?

Sorry, but the technology is just not sound enough to support. Do people die? Yes. But that's life. People die in car accidents, and you don't see people doing a whole lot about that, do you? And even with all the safety features they tack onto cars these days, that are supposed to make them safety bubbles of uncompromising safety....they fail. Airbags that fail to deploy. Seatbelts that rip. Traction control that simply can not encompass all possibilities.

The solution is not in making the tools more safe for the people. It's in making the people more educated with the tools.

Quote:

Who gives a ******** about gun violence, I want a piece to protect me against a danger that literally wouldn't exist if the enemy couldn't also get one.

The problem is in making them unable to get one. It's not as easy as "ban it". Again, the drugs prove that. Most of these crack-heads aren't growing their own coca.

Quote:

It's really stupid to a point where I can't understand why. There's literally only one situation wherein you could actually need a gun.

Really?

Are you sure about that?

Quote:

And that's if the other person has a gun.[/img]

So this guy just needs me to tell him to go away?

Quote:

Yet people actually want to make it easier for assholes to get one.
There's no logic in that.

The logic is as follows:

If we let the government regulate our weapons "for our safety" (rather than regulating people for their own safety), then what's to keep them in check? The only reason we haven't gone full-on 3rd Reich, is because the people are armed, and the government has to watch its every step. This was a fail safe put in place by people much smarter than the average dipshit, today.



Adding any do-hickies or gizmos that give the government more control over your weapons, is a direct violation of our rights. And a dangerous step toward tyranny that we can not afford to take.

Will innocent people die? Probably. But innocent people die for human rights, everyday. I'd much rather die free, than live a slave to a tyrant.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Not really. Anything controlled by a human is really no more dangerous than the human is, be them responsible, irresponsible, careless, murderous, or just plain inept.

Yes, both guns and cars have the capability to be extremely dangerous, but they're not autonomous.

Like I said, that's bullshit.

I have never called them autonomous. I said that guns are dangerous, just by their sheer character and design. Its simply the result of making a device which is designed to fire small pieces of hot metal at high rates of speed with the ideal being that it kills or seriously hurts whatever it hits, generally speaking.

The longer you adhere to the view, the weaker the position, because its so obvious. And to top it all off, its not even relevant to the pro-gun position, or to addressing the US's gun problem. We have plenty of things which are fairly dangerous that manage to be decently regulate (ex. explosives, certain chemicals, cars, etc.) and are highly dangerous. That a gun is dangerous therefore does not, and should not, mean any and all guns are, say, banned.

Yet its like trying to fix an old junker car with three issues; needs a new battery, needs a new cylinder head, and a new fan. With a situation like that, the new battery is the least of the issues, and in the grand scheme of things incredibly minor. Yet if you never recognize that is the battery needs to be replaced, then the car is never going to work, even if you fix the cylinder head and get a new fan.

In the same way, fixing the US gun problem can't really begin til everyone arrives at what ought to be commonsense: guns are dangerous.

I'm not adhering to anything, I'm just disagreeing with you. I fully understand the dangers of both cars and guns; I've had to pull shrapnel out of myself from a bad ricochet, and my car IS an old junker that I fixed up. Firearms and cars both require human interaction to function, just sitting on their own, a gun cannot shoot and a car cannot run anything over.

Wait, are you one of those people that thinks the gun industry is completely unregulated? Because that's extremely wrong.

Unregulated, no. Poorly regulated, yes. Add to that certain state rules that make it way easy to get a gun and very difficult to lose your right to own one, and you get a dangerous mix.

And like I said, ignoring the innate risk of an object which it gets by virtue of its design is simply moronic. Not that you are a moron, but the position is one a moron takes.

You realize the US has a federal law enforcement agency dedicated to firearms, right? Not to mention a couple books worth of federal regulations and a library worth of state laws, right?

And who said anything about ignoring? Every time I step out on the range or strap into my car, I know and accept that I might not make it home. Its not the car's fault if I crash or someone hits me, and its not the gun's fault if I get tagged by a ricochet or shot by the person next to me, be it intentionally or unintentionally.

Are you referring to the ATF? That agency which administered Fast and Furious? And has only this past year finally gotten an official head, which it has not had since 2006? That is currently facing legislation which would eliminate it? The agency with only a little over 600 agents policing over 120,000 registered arms dealers across the US? Is that the agency you refer to?

And what state laws are you referring to? As I said, state laws vary wildly in their stringency and in their enforcement. This was part of why I was saying to the OP that a major part of America's gun problem is states which allow basically any slack-jawed mouth-breather to own a tool which is designed chiefly to kill or seriously injure things.

And you are ignoring it because you have repeated time and again that to you "A weapon is no more deadly than its user." Which is, like I said, bullshit. Things are made with a particular function and a design which is meant to optimize its function. A gun's primary function is to kill or seriously hurt things, and a good gun is a gun which can do that very well. That is dangerous, no matter who is behind it by sheer virtue of its design. Its why you need a license to own one generally. Its why you need a permit usually to carry it in public. Its why only idiot parents leave a gun with their child, even if they know for sure its not loaded.

[Exoth XIII]

Vladolf Putler

Well?

I don't think guns are America's problem.

[black_wing_angel]

Vladolf Putler

Divine_Malevolence

black_wing_angel

We don't advocate such. We advocate the ABILITY for a teacher or staff member to arm themselves. Nothing mandatory.

Believe it or not, there is absolutely no shortage of teachers and school staff, that would willingly shoulder the burden, if only for the safety of their students.



Your idea wouldn't work, either. You're putting a lot of faith in technology that can and does fail.

Which would leave most in the exact situation that they're in now, making a net change of zero.

Which means that there's ******** no way for your little ploy to work.


And you still haven't given an actual reason as to why my plan wouldn't work.
....
Hell, it'd be quite astounding if you could 'cause I'm quite certain you don't know what most of it is. And you know the fun thing about technology failure is?
You know when it's failing, and can utilize caution in that window to prevent the failure from causing problems.
You're vastly underestimating technology and human ingenuity. Also, mind, that this isn't even the best plan.

The easiest way to drop the murder rate's to outlaw guns entirely. Manufacturers stop producing, people literally can no longer buy regardless of if they care about the law or not, and unlike with drugs, you can't just grow guns.
My idea? A compromise that's superior to the absolutely stupid "Give everyone a gun" idea and less irritating than the "Get rid of them all" which really only doesn't sit well with idiots.

Funny how people will be against a 10-5% increase in their gun's base cost if it'd allow for far better responses against gun violence. Because, really, why do anything?
Who gives a ******** about gun violence, I want a piece to protect me against a danger that literally wouldn't exist if the enemy couldn't also get one.

It's really stupid to a point where I can't understand why. There's literally only one situation wherein you could actually need a gun.
And that's if the other person has a gun.
Yet people actually want to make it easier for assholes to get one.
There's no logic in that.

There is no evidence of any gun restriction on law abiding citizens working
I have you a couple reasons earlier why your plan would have complications.

1. Cost.

But don't you know? It only cost 5% more! Like how an iPhone only costs $50!

2. You would have to force people to put this technology in their existing guns.

Which, given the nature of pre-existing guns....would be basically impossible.

3. Number 2 is near impossible because not every state had a gun registry and even still not all gun owners will comply with that law.

Not to mention the fact that states like Missouri, among others, have enacted legislation that literally states that they will not comply with such regulations, even if federally mandated. Pretty much "******** off, Feds". So you already have a handful of states that will not force the implementation, and will not recognize any law requiring it.

Which pretty much kills it, by itself.

Quote:

4. You would need the resources and technology available to make this work efficiently.

Right. Despite what this modern, cyber age has us believing, technology is not magic. You can't just make it happen, because you want it to...

Quote:

5. People can still buy illegal guns in foreign countries and smuggle them in, steal them and take this technology off of it to make it untraceable, and zip guns can be made in your garage using the materials available at hardware stores.

Oh, but don't you understand? Guns are one of those things that nobody can make without special, magical tools that only the big firearm manufacturers have! If you mandate these companies to shut their doors, nobody will ever have a gun, again!

Quote:

The burden of proof is on you for all your claims. Everything else is just a proposal. I cant say "deregulate all guns I don't need proof Im right and you need to prove me wrong".

If you're going to keep being intellectually dishonest and bullying people then you will be blocked.

I make it a point not to block people for simply not agreeing with them. I find that sort of dishonest. Especially being a front-runner for free speech rights. But you do as you feel you must. 3nodding

[Buki_Actual]

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Riviera de la Mancha

Capt Buckner CTO

Not really. Anything controlled by a human is really no more dangerous than the human is, be them responsible, irresponsible, careless, murderous, or just plain inept.

Yes, both guns and cars have the capability to be extremely dangerous, but they're not autonomous.

Like I said, that's bullshit.

I have never called them autonomous. I said that guns are dangerous, just by their sheer character and design. Its simply the result of making a device which is designed to fire small pieces of hot metal at high rates of speed with the ideal being that it kills or seriously hurts whatever it hits, generally speaking.

The longer you adhere to the view, the weaker the position, because its so obvious. And to top it all off, its not even relevant to the pro-gun position, or to addressing the US's gun problem. We have plenty of things which are fairly dangerous that manage to be decently regulate (ex. explosives, certain chemicals, cars, etc.) and are highly dangerous. That a gun is dangerous therefore does not, and should not, mean any and all guns are, say, banned.

Yet its like trying to fix an old junker car with three issues; needs a new battery, needs a new cylinder head, and a new fan. With a situation like that, the new battery is the least of the issues, and in the grand scheme of things incredibly minor. Yet if you never recognize that is the battery needs to be replaced, then the car is never going to work, even if you fix the cylinder head and get a new fan.

In the same way, fixing the US gun problem can't really begin til everyone arrives at what ought to be commonsense: guns are dangerous.

I'm not adhering to anything, I'm just disagreeing with you. I fully understand the dangers of both cars and guns; I've had to pull shrapnel out of myself from a bad ricochet, and my car IS an old junker that I fixed up. Firearms and cars both require human interaction to function, just sitting on their own, a gun cannot shoot and a car cannot run anything over.

Wait, are you one of those people that thinks the gun industry is completely unregulated? Because that's extremely wrong.

Unregulated, no. Poorly regulated, yes. Add to that certain state rules that make it way easy to get a gun and very difficult to lose your right to own one, and you get a dangerous mix.

And like I said, ignoring the innate risk of an object which it gets by virtue of its design is simply moronic. Not that you are a moron, but the position is one a moron takes.

You realize the US has a federal law enforcement agency dedicated to firearms, right? Not to mention a couple books worth of federal regulations and a library worth of state laws, right?

And who said anything about ignoring? Every time I step out on the range or strap into my car, I know and accept that I might not make it home. Its not the car's fault if I crash or someone hits me, and its not the gun's fault if I get tagged by a ricochet or shot by the person next to me, be it intentionally or unintentionally.

And you are ignoring it because you have repeated time and again that to you "A weapon is no more deadly than its user." Which is, like I said, bullshit. Things are made with a particular function and a design which is meant to optimize its function. A gun's primary function is to kill or seriously hurt things, and a good gun is a gun which can do that very well. That is dangerous, no matter who is behind it by sheer virtue of its design. Its why you need a license to own one generally. Its why you need a permit usually to carry it in public. Its why only idiot parents leave a gun with their child, even if they know for sure its not loaded.

I just said I'm not ignoring it. I simply don't care and accept it. I get it, by design, guns are weapons. I'm not arguing that. My car is optimized in the process of being optimized to go as fast as possible, doesn't matter one bit if there's nobody inside it. Just a pretty chunk of steel and rubber. That's my point right there. Without human interaction, the dangerous item is no more dangerous than a statue.