Or, and I need you to follow me on this, we get rid of the legal barriers preventing the CDC from doing these studies, and then have them actually study the issue.

But that would actually show how bad guns and people who own them actually are and we can't have that.

That's certainly a possibility, but we won't know for sure until we science the shit out of this, will we?

I was speaking with a bit of sarcasm, but the people barring the investigation only have this in mind

No. Forcing Americans to pay for studies intended to push for gun control is immoral and unneeded.

I've said the same thing for years: Black boxes tagging and/or trackers.
We have the technology to tag and track wildlife but when it comes to guns? It would drive the libertarian kooks wild as they call it the New World Order, but for 95% of reasonable average gun owners it would be a way to keep guns from getting stolen, create a trail when guns go off the grid, etc. Now the exact specifics and logistics are limited by technology and economic viability and would have to be hammered out, would it be mere data recording locally like black boxes, or chips with NFC tech, or 4G, or GPS? I'd like to imagine a world where police on a scene could instantly have a radar-style map of all nearby legal gun owners, where they could know anyone they stop with an untagged gun is carrying illegally, where they can know right away when guns are stolen or suspicious amounts of guns go off the grid in one area.
And if the anti-NWO nutters care so much, come the revolution they can just rip the chips off their guns all at once.

what's stopping people from frying the chip with DIY emp o even radiation? It's the only part of the gun that would be destroyed by this.

I got that. I just wanted to push back slightly because I don't want people on the other side to get the idea that it's not intended to be a legitimate, unbiased study. It's not a witchhunt; it's a search for the actual truth. If the data comes back and shows us that more gun control isn't going to be effective, then so be it. But as I've said, we can't know that either until we science the shit out of this.

The only reason anyone should be afraid of doing the study is if they already know what the answer is and don't want the truth exposed, and to those people I would say, go fuck yourselves. If you believe in freedom of speech and the open marketplace of ideas, then you shouldn't be afraid of the truth. Anyone who opposes the spread of ideas and factual information to protect their own political agenda is a duplicitous scumfuck in my eyes.



You don't actually know that the studies will necessarily tell us that more gun control will even be effective. That's presupposing a conclusion without having access to the data to support it.

This post was edited by Magicman657 on Oct 5 2017 10:13am

Nothing at all. The chips wouldn't be designed to be tamper proof, just tamper resilient at best. Ideally with a tracking system, if someone disables the chip, you can be (eventually) alerted to the chip going off the grid.
Such tracking would be far more useful at weeding out handguns off the street than a determined mass shooter

This post was edited by Goomshill on Oct 5 2017 10:11am

I love how people say getting rid of guns won't solve the problem as if keeping all the guns is a great solution.

I mean, this dude has a pretty good idea though? I guess? It's not gonna happen though because we'll get a typical "It costs too much" bullshit excuse or something to that effect. The people in government on every level just seems to have an aversion to doing work. How many police jurisdictions still are going without even body cams right now. This blatant laziness is what I'm truly disgusted by.