4 ms·

Easier said than done. Such a system would take at least a decade to be rolled out to every LEO in major cities, much less the whole country. On top of that th

by ihsw 11y ago

Easier said than done. Such a system would take at least a decade to be rolled out to every LEO in major cities, much less the whole country. On top of that there is the issue of costs, of which there are many. Ranging from procurement and training to insurance and maintenance, no city councilor will want to take this one. And I haven't even touched on the political implications, namely that no politician wants to appear to be scrutinizing police officers too much. The number one question on many officer's minds is the general populace aren't subject to the same restrictions. There's also the issue of where the data (and related systems) is maintained and stored, with many preferring data remain under state control rather than federal.

hga 11y ago
We gun owners would also fight it very hard, since we'd see it as a prelude to rolling this out for us. Especially in the face of that, it would severely narrow the gun designs police would be able to carry, and since not everyone is alike, e.g. I hate the grip angle of the Glock, that wouldn't be good. Pure GPS + time reporting strikes me as useless, unless people think police are killing people "off the books" a lot more than I think they are. Adding video isn't likely to tell you much, since the predicates to drawing your gun are crucial and frequently wouldn't be visible from the gun. I also shudder from an engineering viewpoint at trying to get all this to work. Service handgun are big enough as they are, and they add serious shocks, solvents, and primer and smokeless debris to the bundle of environmental stresses we demand of things like cameras on cops and their cars.
- superuser2 11y ago
  >We gun owners would also fight it very hard, since we'd see it as a prelude to rolling this out for us. Arguments for the legitimacy of gun ownership tend to focus on deterrence and self-defense. This makes no difference at all in the deterrence scenario, and legitimate self-defense has no reason to be secret or anonymous. When the gun community argues for a Constitutional right to commit murder and get away with it, then maybe we can finally stop taking it seriously.
  - hga 11y ago
    This makes no difference at all in the deterrence scenario Yeah, right, we're going to trust these "phone home" devices that much? In fact, how do you know they're working, for police or civilians, unless they phone home every month or so, or at least when taken out of their metal safes. In the current climate of bad faith, where our adversaries latest campaign for "gun safety" does nothing of the sort (and claims we don't care about it during a period where both the population and guns owned increased by roughly 50% and the absolute number of accidental gun deaths dropped by 25%; it is we gun owners who achieved that, not the gun grabbers)? There's also the mass and volume problems. Not everyone can get away with carrying a near full sized M1911 like I can (originally a military service pistol, my carry model sacrifices some life with an alloy frame and some power with a 4 inch barrel). Require these and you will preclude a whole lot of concealed carry, and I for one would not like the extra mass, let alone having to replace some perfectly fine firearms.
  - drdeca 11y ago
    I think I misunderstood some comment here. Not sure if it was yours or one you responded to. By "commit murder" are you using hyperbole? I think it is useful to distinguish between murder and killing in self defense from a real threat to life. I don't know if you were counting them as different.
    - superuser2 11y ago
      Parent opposes a device that would record the timestamp, location, and owner of a gun when fired. This information should definitely not be secret in a self-defense or other justified killing. Why demand privacy with regard to who you kill, unless you would be punished for it (i.e. it's murder?)
      - hga 11y ago
        Parent opposes a device that would record the timestamp, location, and owner of a gun when fired. This information should definitely not be secret in a self-defense or other justified killing. Parent, that is, myself, does not oppose on those grounds, as I explained in reply to you. I don't think it's constructive to imply that in a reply to another without replying to me. And come to think of it, I don't want to have to explain to the state every time I fire one of my firearms. Especially seeing as how I've done that over ten thousand times without, you know, actually shooting anybody. I would hope you could see the potential for abuse, for a chilling effect on good things like practicing with your firearms for proficiency.

by ihsw 11y ago

hga 11y ago

We gun owners would also fight it very hard, since we'd see it as a prelude to rolling this out for us. Especially in the face of that, it would severely narrow the gun designs police would be able to carry, and since not everyone is alike, e.g. I hate the grip angle of the Glock, that wouldn't be good. Pure GPS + time reporting strikes me as useless, unless people think police are killing people "off the books" a lot more than I think they are. Adding video isn't likely to tell you much, since the predicates to drawing your gun are crucial and frequently wouldn't be visible from the gun. I also shudder from an engineering viewpoint at trying to get all this to work. Service handgun are big enough as they are, and they add serious shocks, solvents, and primer and smokeless debris to the bundle of environmental stresses we demand of things like cameras on cops and their cars.

superuser2 11y ago
>We gun owners would also fight it very hard, since we'd see it as a prelude to rolling this out for us. Arguments for the legitimacy of gun ownership tend to focus on deterrence and self-defense. This makes no difference at all in the deterrence scenario, and legitimate self-defense has no reason to be secret or anonymous. When the gun community argues for a Constitutional right to commit murder and get away with it, then maybe we can finally stop taking it seriously.
- hga 11y ago
  This makes no difference at all in the deterrence scenario Yeah, right, we're going to trust these "phone home" devices that much? In fact, how do you know they're working, for police or civilians, unless they phone home every month or so, or at least when taken out of their metal safes. In the current climate of bad faith, where our adversaries latest campaign for "gun safety" does nothing of the sort (and claims we don't care about it during a period where both the population and guns owned increased by roughly 50% and the absolute number of accidental gun deaths dropped by 25%; it is we gun owners who achieved that, not the gun grabbers)? There's also the mass and volume problems. Not everyone can get away with carrying a near full sized M1911 like I can (originally a military service pistol, my carry model sacrifices some life with an alloy frame and some power with a 4 inch barrel). Require these and you will preclude a whole lot of concealed carry, and I for one would not like the extra mass, let alone having to replace some perfectly fine firearms.
- drdeca 11y ago
  I think I misunderstood some comment here. Not sure if it was yours or one you responded to. By "commit murder" are you using hyperbole? I think it is useful to distinguish between murder and killing in self defense from a real threat to life. I don't know if you were counting them as different.
  - superuser2 11y ago
    Parent opposes a device that would record the timestamp, location, and owner of a gun when fired. This information should definitely not be secret in a self-defense or other justified killing. Why demand privacy with regard to who you kill, unless you would be punished for it (i.e. it's murder?)
    - hga 11y ago
      Parent opposes a device that would record the timestamp, location, and owner of a gun when fired. This information should definitely not be secret in a self-defense or other justified killing. Parent, that is, myself, does not oppose on those grounds, as I explained in reply to you. I don't think it's constructive to imply that in a reply to another without replying to me. And come to think of it, I don't want to have to explain to the state every time I fire one of my firearms. Especially seeing as how I've done that over ten thousand times without, you know, actually shooting anybody. I would hope you could see the potential for abuse, for a chilling effect on good things like practicing with your firearms for proficiency.