Weakest Compromises Possible - Guns

[Michael McMahon]

A gun lock is easily breakable with welding equipment much like how bike thieves break the security chains. Nonetheless a gun lock can significantly delay a criminal intent on using a gun to commit a crime of opportunity. Gun locks could be used to enforce gun safety in city centres. The police could be equipped with keys to unlock anyone's gun in the event of a criminal shooting. The police could frisk search people to ensure the gun locks haven't been tampered with. The police could also check passersby for welding equipment. However a limitation is that gun locks might not be enforceable in rural areas where breaking tools abound. Gun locks aren't a preferable form of gun control seeing as the police can't regulate welding equipment at garages and manufacturing industries. Nonetheless gun locks might add some level of street gun control to highly conservative states like Texas. Secondly a way to enhance the security of no-gun zones is to have highly armed police. Instead of handguns there could be SWAT pairs with submachine guns on standby. They'd be able to apply covering fire against a greater number of criminals until police back-up arrives. For example American cities could copy the heavily armed police in British airports that monitor unarmed passengers.

 

[AGENT J]

A gun lock is easily breakable with welding equipment much like how bike thieves break the security chains. Nonetheless a gun lock can significantly delay a criminal intent on using a gun to commit a crime of opportunity. Gun locks could be used to enforce gun safety in city centres. The police could be equipped with keys to unlock anyone's gun in the event of a criminal shooting. The police could frisk search people to ensure the gun locks haven't been tampered with. The police could also check passersby for welding equipment. However a limitation is that gun locks might not be enforceable in rural areas where breaking tools abound. Gun locks aren't a preferable form of gun control seeing as the police can't regulate welding equipment at garages and manufacturing industries. Nonetheless gun locks might add some level of street gun control to highly conservative states like Texas. Secondly a way to enhance the security of no-gun zones is to have highly armed police. Instead of handguns there could be SWAT pairs with submachine guns on standby. They'd be able to apply covering fire against a greater number of criminals until police back-up arrives. For example American cities could copy the heavily armed police in British airports that monitor unarmed passengers.

what?

"Nonetheless a gun lock can significantly delay a criminal intent on using a gun to commit a crime of opportunity."

what are you talking about, are you suggesting?

 

[Michael McMahon]

what are you talking about, are you suggesting?

The police could open the padlocks using a secret dial number, an electronic tag or a unique key. Although the police might need to routinely change their physical keys to prevent criminals copying the keys.

 

[VanceMack]

If y'all want to do that stupid shit in Ireland...have a ball.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

The police could be equipped with keys to unlock anyone's gun in the event of a criminal shooting. The police could frisk search people to ensure the gun locks haven't been tampered with. The police could also check passersby for welding equipment.

Nice, lets just give the police the power to randomly unlock private safes and frisk people. Stop and frisk you might even call it. That's never gone badly before.

 

[AGENT J]

The police could open the padlocks using a secret dial number, an electronic tag or a unique key. Although the police might need to routinely change their physical keys to prevent criminals copying the keys.

View attachment 67430516

oh ok so this is a joke post LMAO
sorry i thought somebody was trying to be serious

 

[TheGoverness]

A gun lock is easily breakable with welding equipment much like how bike thieves break the security chains. Nonetheless a gun lock can significantly delay a criminal intent on using a gun to commit a crime of opportunity. Gun locks could be used to enforce gun safety in city centres. The police could be equipped with keys to unlock anyone's gun in the event of a criminal shooting. The police could frisk search people to ensure the gun locks haven't been tampered with. The police could also check passersby for welding equipment. However a limitation is that gun locks might not be enforceable in rural areas where breaking tools abound. Gun locks aren't a preferable form of gun control seeing as the police can't regulate welding equipment at garages and manufacturing industries. Nonetheless gun locks might add some level of street gun control to highly conservative states like Texas. Secondly a way to enhance the security of no-gun zones is to have highly armed police. Instead of handguns there could be SWAT pairs with submachine guns on standby. They'd be able to apply covering fire against a greater number of criminals until police back-up arrives. For example American cities could copy the heavily armed police in British airports that monitor unarmed passengers.

Is this a joke? This is a horrible idea.

You are advocating for the police to have wanton authority through heavy weaponry. That is stupid as hell. And police frisking without even resonable suspicion or probable cause? You've gotta be joking.

 

[natman]

A gun lock is easily breakable with welding equipment much like how bike thieves break the security chains. Nonetheless a gun lock can significantly delay a criminal intent on using a gun to commit a crime of opportunity. Gun locks could be used to enforce gun safety in city centres. The police could be equipped with keys to unlock anyone's gun in the event of a criminal shooting. The police could frisk search people to ensure the gun locks haven't been tampered with. The police could also check passersby for welding equipment. However a limitation is that gun locks might not be enforceable in rural areas where breaking tools abound. Gun locks aren't a preferable form of gun control seeing as the police can't regulate welding equipment at garages and manufacturing industries. Nonetheless gun locks might add some level of street gun control to highly conservative states like Texas. Secondly a way to enhance the security of no-gun zones is to have highly armed police. Instead of handguns there could be SWAT pairs with submachine guns on standby. They'd be able to apply covering fire against a greater number of criminals until police back-up arrives. For example American cities could copy the heavily armed police in British airports that monitor unarmed passengers.

The issue of mandatory gun locks was addressed by the Supreme Court of the US in 2008 in the case DC v Heller.
".... the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

Not to mention the unconstitutionality of frisking people without probable cause.

 

[Michael McMahon]

The issue of mandatory gun locks was addressed by the Supreme Court of the US in 2008 in the case DC v Heller.
".... the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

Not to mention the unconstitutionality of frisking people without probable cause.

Most inner city apartments don't have gardens or sheds with metal work tools. As such enforcing gun locks would be easier in city centres compared to suburbs.

If y'all want to do that stupid shit in Ireland...have a ball.

Manhattan has so many police officers that a citizen can approach the police for opening the lock rather than wait for the police to come to them.

 

[Glitch]

The issue of mandatory gun locks was addressed by the Supreme Court of the US in 2008 in the case DC v Heller.
".... the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

Not to mention the unconstitutionality of frisking people without probable cause.

The first point you made about gun locks was a legitimate concern that the court decided. However, your second point about frisking people without probable cause is not correct. The Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) held that law enforcement may frisk someone without probable cause and without violating their Fourth Amendment rights. Providing the officer who is conducting the stop is performing the frisk for safety concerns. No probable cause is required. This has since become known as a "Terry Stop." Some States also have a "stop and identify" statute that requires an individual to legally identify themselves to law enforcement when asked. So it is important to know which States those might be.

Furthermore, if a firearm or other weapon is found on that individual by the officer during his frisk, the officer may retain the weapon in their possession until the encounter ends. At which time the officer must return the weapon that they took. This also does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

 

[Glitch]

Most inner city apartments don't have gardens or sheds with metal work tools. As such enforcing gun locks would be easier in city centres compared to suburbs.




Manhattan has so many police officers that a citizen can approach the police for opening the lock rather than wait for the police to come to them.

Placing any restrictions on firearms is an infringement, and not allowed. What part of "shall not be infringed" continually escapes your grasp? It doesn't matter what nonsense you dream up, if government limits or restricts firearms in any way, then it is an infringement and not allowed. Get a clue.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Placing any restrictions on firearms is an infringement, and not allowed. What part of "shall not be infringed" continually escapes your grasp? It doesn't matter what nonsense you dream up, if government limits or restricts firearms in any way, then it is an infringement and not allowed. Get a clue.

I think too many Americans are existential about guns. They'd be more than willing to sacrifice their lives for the American ideal of absolute freedom. But what about a more mundane and exhausting sacrifice like being shot in the leg? The annoying pain of a gun wound might lead to apathy around the symbolism of guns. By contrast the fear of death caused by the threat of fatal gun wounds evokes religion and the afterlife. This inadvertently leads to guns being viewed as holy objects in America. You don't have to plan for a difficult life after being shot if you get killed.

 

[Glitch]

I think too many Americans are existential about guns. They'd be more than willing to sacrifice their lives for the American ideal of absolute freedom. But what about a more mundane sacrifice like being shot in the leg? The annoying pain of a gun wound might lead to apathy around the symbolism of guns. By contrast to fear of death caused by the threat of fatal gun wounds evokes religion and the afterlife. This inadvertently leads to guns being viewed as holy objects in America.

I do not compromise my inherent rights. Asking me to compromise on my individual right to keep and bear arms would be equivalent to asking you to use only certain words when communicating, or dictating which religion you can believe, or telling you which people you may associate with. It is not in any way acceptable to ask anyone to compromise on any of their individual rights. Only those who do not believe in individual rights at all have the audacity to ask for a compromise. Which includes the vast majority of the left.

 

[Michael McMahon]

Only those who do not believe in individual rights at all have the audacity to ask for a compromise. Which includes the vast majority of the left.

America is militarily far stronger than Europe. Yet Europe has more than 750 million people compared to the 330 million population in America. Both Europe and America are on a capitalist spectrum. Yet most people in the free world of the West simply don't live in gun zones even if America is the capital of the West. The religious persecution in Europe during the time the US constitution was written is no longer relevant.

 

[Glitch]

America is militarily far stronger than Europe. Yet Europe has more than a billion people compared to the almost 400 million population in America. Both Europe and America are on a capitalist spectrum. Yet most people in the free world of the West simply don't live in gun zones even if America is the capital of the West. The religious persecution in Europe during the time the US constitution was written is no longer relevant.

The US has the biggest military on the planet because, other than Hawaii, the US was untouched by both WW I and WW II, which decimated Europe. The US war-time economy continued to produce into the 1950s, giving the US an opportunity to spread its hegemony across the planet. So the US now has 120 military bases in Japan, 119 military bases in Germany, 73 military bases in South Korea, with a grand total of 750 military bases in 80 countries across the planet.

The US hegemony peaked under Reagan, and has been waning ever since. The 19th century was the British century, the 20th century was the American century, but now it looks as if the 21st century may be the Chinese century.

The US' recent attempts to start a war with Russia is just an indication of how desperate the US has become to retain its hegemony.

 

[CLAX1911]

Nice, lets just give the police the power to randomly unlock private safes and frisk people. Stop and frisk you might even call it. That's never gone badly before.

It's amazing to me that some people believe that both the police are overzealous and that they should have infinitely more power.

 

[CLAX1911]

Most inner city apartments don't have gardens or sheds with metal work tools. As such enforcing gun locks would be easier in city centres compared to suburbs.




Manhattan has so many police officers that a citizen can approach the police for opening the lock rather than wait for the police to come to them.

What do you think is the purpose for these locks what kind of problem are you trying to solve here?

 

[The flaming lib]

. The police could be equipped with keys to unlock anyone's gun in the event of a criminal shooting. The police could frisk search people to ensure the gun locks haven't been tampered with. The police could also check passersby for welding equipment. However a limitation is that gun locks might not be enforceable in rural areas where breaking tools abound. Gun locks aren't a preferable form of gun control seeing as the police can't regulate welding equipment at garages and manufacturing industries. Nonetheless gun locks might add some level of street gun control to highly conservative states like Texas. Secondly a way to enhance the security of no-gun zones is to have highly armed police. Instead of handguns there could be SWAT pairs with submachine guns on standby. They'd be able to apply covering fire against a greater number of criminals until police back-up arrives. For example American cities could copy the heavily armed police in British airports that monitor unarmed passengers.

Wow. That police state shit dosent go over big in this free country. That damn constitution thingy.

 

[braindrain]

The US has the biggest military on the planet because, other than Hawaii, the US was untouched by both WW I and WW II, which decimated Europe. The US war-time economy continued to produce into the 1950s, giving the US an opportunity to spread its hegemony across the planet. So the US now has 120 military bases in Japan, 119 military bases in Germany, 73 military bases in South Korea, with a grand total of 750 military bases in 80 countries across the planet.

The US hegemony peaked under Reagan, and has been waning ever since. The 19th century was the British century, the 20th century was the American century, but now it looks as if the 21st century may be the Chinese century.

The US' recent attempts to start a war with Russia is just an indication of how desperate the US has become to retain its hegemony.

The US has not recently attempted to start a war with Russia.
No one forced Russia to try and take over a sovereign country. They did that all on their own.

 

[Common Sense 1]

 

[CLAX1911]

Wow. That police state shit dosent go over big in this free country. That damn constitution thingy.

I'm starting to wonder the title of the threat is weakest compromise so is this trying to find the dumbest law you can and point out how stupid it is?

 

[Michael McMahon]

Wow. That police state shit dosent go over big in this free country. That damn constitution thingy.

School principals and highly vetted corporate staff could also be entrusted to unlock the guns of others in an emergency.

 

[Moon]

A gun lock is easily breakable with welding equipment much like how bike thieves break the security chains. Nonetheless a gun lock can significantly delay a criminal intent on using a gun to commit a crime of opportunity. Gun locks could be used to enforce gun safety in city centres. The police could be equipped with keys to unlock anyone's gun in the event of a criminal shooting. The police could frisk search people to ensure the gun locks haven't been tampered with. The police could also check passersby for welding equipment. However a limitation is that gun locks might not be enforceable in rural areas where breaking tools abound. Gun locks aren't a preferable form of gun control seeing as the police can't regulate welding equipment at garages and manufacturing industries. Nonetheless gun locks might add some level of street gun control to highly conservative states like Texas. Secondly a way to enhance the security of no-gun zones is to have highly armed police. Instead of handguns there could be SWAT pairs with submachine guns on standby. They'd be able to apply covering fire against a greater number of criminals until police back-up arrives. For example American cities could copy the heavily armed police in British airports that monitor unarmed passengers.

Hard pass.

 

[CLAX1911]

School principals and highly vetted corporate staff could also be entrusted to unlock the guns of others in an emergency.

Are you trying to find the absolute dumbest law you can? is that the point of this thread?

 

[noonereal]

a way to enhance the security of no-gun zones is to have highly armed police. Instead of handguns there could be SWAT pairs with submachine guns on standby. They'd be able to apply covering fire against a greater number of criminals until police back-up arrives. For example American cities could copy the heavily armed police in British airports that monitor unarmed passengers.

This would be just lovely!