Guns should have electronic chip, which would allow their use only when majority of people around approve it. Think IGun. Now if a terrorist kills a guard and gets his gun then he wont be able to use it on hostages, unless they themselves allow his gun-use by pressing "confirm" on their smartphone.
That way lone gunman and a-few-terrorists scenarios will get eliminated, but when a large group of people comes out to protest, totalitarian government wont be able to stop them from exercising their democratic rights.
Same way people would be able to hire a sheriff and give him right to police some locality, without fearing he will use the gun against to subvert democratic procedures.
What do you think?
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-19 5:40
Also, gun use could be limited to some locale. I.e. if you want to protect your house and family, then your gun use can be limited only to your house, and only when your neighbors approve that.
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-19 11:21
>>1,2 Penises would be equipped with iPenisController to prevent non-crowd approved rape. Pitbulls would wear iBiteGuard for everyone to confirm they want to maul that kid. Vaginas will be controled with iAbortGuard that alerts police in case of unscantioned abortion attempts. Brains will be equipped with iThoughtCorrect chip that alerts police if subject is having criminal intents. Its gonna be an utopia.
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-19 11:24
iPenisController will require a reproductive license to use and mastrurbation will have to be socially approved too.
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-19 12:04
>>3 Think about: guns are far more dangerous than drugs. Drugs can only be used to kill you yourself, but guns can be used to kill other people. Yet you control drugs, but don't control guns. Moreover, chemicals which can be used to kill other people or make explosives are not really as controlled as recreational drugs. That makes no sense, unless government is itself corrupt and gets a share of illegal drugs trade!
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-19 14:39
I have a lathe, mill, and other assorted tools; you can.do whatever you want to your own guns.
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-19 16:00
Guns are not programming, take your weapon safety garbage to /lounge
>>7 Frankly he should take it to reddit and/or /k/.
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-20 5:23
>>7 That why we need to bring programming to guns. Gun use should be automated and regulated by software. You don't want to leave any margin for human errors with such dangerous devices. That would also be a middle ground solution, between outright banning guns and allowing a Wild West scenario of total anarchy.
Reddit perma-banned me after Russians reported me for anti-Russian messages. Any account I create under "NikitaSadkov" name gets immediately locked now, and I dont want to use a nickname. Maybe when I change my name, I would try creating a new account.
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-20 6:42
>>1 You're clearly a weeb who doesn't understand women. Woman would rather the criminals killing everyone get away with then allow an incel like you to be able to fire gun.
cool idea, but only because murder-hackers would make smartphone botnets to auto-approve their gun use. this might sound bad, but the murder-hacker timeline sounds better than code of conduct timeline
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-20 7:26
>>13 Had that been true, Bitcoin would have not been possible. Yet Bitcoin works. So what stops applying the same blockchain algorithm to firearms use? As soon as such technology gets implemented on wider scale, there will be no gun accidents. Just as with self driving cars, which will eventually eliminate all road accidents.
This textboard really needs self deletions. I don't mind the topic, but in /lounge tl;dr Hideo Kojima already talked about the bullshit: https://invidiou.sh/watch?v=BUf_8jyxbiM
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-20 7:45
>>14 web of trust won't solve car accidents as it's not really a trust problem, but that's not relevant here. the problem with OP-defined web of trust for guns is that it is a proximity-based web of trust. webs of trust are vulnerable by design tu 50%+1 attacks, which means that the bigger they are, the harder they are to hax. bitcoin network is big. proximity-based network of 5 anuses who happen to be standing on the street is small.
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-20 9:48
>>16 Yes. But for an Elliot Roger or a terrorist cell hacking exactly five local private keys would be near impossible. Intelligence agencies can do that, but still in very limited way and will have to explain to everyone what has happened.
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-20 10:01
>>16 Car accidents are solved by autopilot and auto-diagnostics. 99% car accidents are due to humans being retards.
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-20 10:51
>>17 a terrorist cell can just bring in six terrorists
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-20 12:11
>>19 These six terrorists can at max kill only six people. No way they will be able to take whole building hostage. Therefore not very efficient. Also, building owner would likely limit gun use only to building guards.
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-20 12:12
>>20 this is assuming that each of those six terrorists has only one phone. and that none of them thinks of buying/making an old-style non-restricted gun, or cracking a restricted one. this whole idea has more holes than you would have if those terrorists decided to shoot you
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-20 13:04
shoot my dubs
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-20 14:44
>>21 The system would depend on single identity per person, not per phone. You can have several phones, but there should be no way to have more than one identity. Older guns would be slowly eliminated, as their production get banned. Restricted guns should have anti-tampering mechanism, preventing them from being hacked. In addition guns could have beacons on them, that would allow tracking their serial. There should also be no way to convert them into normal guns - everything should go through the software. Ammo itslef could also have chips, and wont shot if your gun is blacklisted.
TLDR: in the end it would be more trouble for a terrorist to tamper with such iGun than cooking the usual explosive device. And given that cars get autopilot, there will be no way to use cars too murder pedestrians.
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-20 17:51
>>23 That's very idealistic thinking, far too many ways to exploit it to be practical.
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-21 2:15
>>24 Typical terrorist won't be able to exploit it, so it would eliminate 99% cases of weapons used improperly. It would also eliminate the cases when police kills or hurts suspects, being afraid they are armed.
Gun manufacturers would also love that idea, since the new law would allow them to sell all guns once again to people who already have guns. But this time with bells and whistles, like flashlight and mp3 player.
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-21 9:51
>>25 Do you even own a gun? I ask because you sound pretty clueless about them.
Name:
Anonymous2020-01-21 10:02
>>26 Guns are banned in Russia and Ukraine, because local dictatorships are afraid of them being used by citizens to overthrow regime.
These control-the-guns schemes has one fatal flaw: you can actually make your own guns without smart-tech. All you need is getting metal pipes of sufficient durability and size. You can even build your own tank - a tank is an armored car essentially(that what US troops were doing with their military vehicles in Iraq, welding plates and stuff).
These control-the-guns schemes has one fatal flaw: you can actually make your own guns without smart-tech. All you need is getting metal pipes of sufficient durability and size.
You also need skills, some hideout, equipment, time and a lot of dedication for that. Then you will need ammunition for that gun too. Now what if ammos are smart too, like printer ink cartridges, and wont shot without a key?