Go Down

Topic: Keep weapons off Arduino forum and website (Read 12 times) previous topic - next topic

Peter_I

A billion is a huge number, but on the other side, there are 316,024,000 Americans according to wikipedia.



........ security does not make me feel safe.





Jokes aside. Modern gunnery training takes an awful lot of ammo.  As far as I remember, I've heard something like 8,000 rounds per soldier mentioned if you want to have CB proficiency.
Bob Pease: "My favorite programming language is ... solder."

AlxDroidDev


Jokes aside. Modern gunnery training takes an awful lot of ammo.  As far as I remember, I've heard something like 8,000 rounds per soldier mentioned if you want to have CB proficiency.


That is true, and the 8K rounds to become a good shooter is still a very conservative and optimistic estimate.

Remember that automatic guns go through a full 30-round magazine in a matter of seconds.

When I was an active IPSC shooter (IPSC is a shooting sport), on the 2 weeks before any major championship, I'd shoot 2K rounds per weekend, and that's just for practice. In the 2004 Brazilian National IPSC Championship, I finished in 3rd place in my class, and practice + competition consumed about 5,000 rounds. A master IPSC shooter can go through 10K~12K rounds a month EASILY.

10K rounds for one that practices shooting as a sport is not really that much. For taking one man without any  shooting experience and make that man combat-ready and a "good enough" shooter, I'd say 10K rnds is not that much.

Learn to live: Live to learn.
Showing off my work: http://arduino.cc/forum/index.php/topic,126197.0.html

Coding Badly

I read that the Department of Homeland Security in the USA is ordering 1 billion rounds of ammunition:


The Denver Post (apparently the originator of the news) put the number at 1.6 billion.

Quote
Just curious, what would you use a billion rounds on?


They don't.  At the current consumption rate they are purchasing a 106 year supply of ammunition.  If our war activities are included (Department of Defense; which, for legal reasons, cannot all be included) they are purchasing a 20 year supply.

Quote
Are they anticipating the Apocalypse?


The phrase "spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave" comes to mind.

JB_AU

The question still stands. Should their be a legimate regime of ethics towards projects of a hostile intent?

Yes, if a project merits & can be proved unequivocally to be for a hostile nature.

No, if there is no substantial evidence to adjudicate other than the science of its merit.

It seems very simple to me.

AWOL

Quote
Yes, if a project merits & can be proved unequivocally to be for a hostile nature.
I think this thread was provoked by another thread about a ballistic chronograph.

Oddly enough, there are uses of such devices in the interests of safety, by ensuring that pain(t)-balling weapons do not pack too much punch.
"Pete, it's a fool looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart." Ulysses Everett McGill.
Do not send technical questions via personal messaging - they will be ignored.

JB_AU

It's a matter of interpretation in the context of what is deemed as hostile .

JB_AU

Oxford & myself agree the term hostile, to be a measurable amount to inflict harm.

You can not be hostile to an inanimate target, but you can to organic lifeforms.

pYro_65

I think the conversation is moot, there is enough educated people here to decide what is beneficial and what is not. Simply if you don't like it don't post.

Refusing to input or create censorship of weapons systems and related technology is a hindrance on our society, open source communities, and our future development. For sure people will use things for the bad, doesn't mean 'you' have to.

Intellectual Ventures have created a weapons system based on Lowell Wood's design that uses lasers to detect, track and kill mosquito's. There is nothing but good intentions in its design. Preventing malaria in third world countries would be an immense step towards preservation of life. Something not foreseeable without a weapon weather it be lasers or noxious poisons. People arguing the morality of such a thing should step back into reality.

On the flip side, would world peace ever be something that would last?... No. Over population would infect us with greed and we would end up back where we started. Just accept you are human and choose not to do bad yourself, there is really nothing else you can do without taking away someone else's rights.


GoForSmoke


I don't think guns (or other weapons) are things that can be dealt with as though there were no moral implications.


And then one set of implications becomes valid: yours.

Quote
I don't wish to suggest a list but I imagine there are many things that would not be considered suitable on this forum. I just want a reasonable discussion about the desirability of excluding Arduino projects associated with weapons.

The only rationale for any weapon is to be able to force someone else do something s/he would not otherwise choose to do.


Well that was quick.

Quote
It may be useful to think of the issue in terms of the following questions:

(a) Would you like your children to have access to a website where they can learn about and become "acclimatized" to guns and other weapons and how to make them or their users more effective?

(b) If you favour allowing the the discussion of projects concerning weapons would you be happy to put them all under a heading clearly labeled "Weapons"?

...R


And there's the one-sided rhetoric. Guns are only for hurting people even when they aren't. And that includes toy guns that shoot plastic bullets under the 'acclimatized' clause.

Funny. I learned gun responsibility by having a rifle. Many of my peers did not. The things they would do with toy or real guns because being so 'protected' they had no real idea of what they are made me sick. To them they are toys or sex symbols or the thing they can protect themselves with except they would do a poor job at best and get shot with their own gun at worst though I am guessing that Robin would laugh about that in private.
Most of them were also irresponsible with cars and other sources of potential danger. They were NANNIED out of growing up responsible simply by being protected from knowing better.

Here's a suggestion for the forum, not for close-minded ideologues.

How about we take such discussions CASE BY CASE? I'm not ready to give up my ability to know right from wrong and doubly so to discuss such issues.

I find it harder to express logic in English than in Code.
Sometimes an example says more than many times as many words.

GoForSmoke


Again I don't take a strong stand on the gun control issue, I see that there are valid points on different sides of the issue. I don't personal own a gun. but would like to retain/reserve the right to own one if I ever felt the need.

But let me propose a specific example question someone might post for help on. Does anyone feel that it would be wrong for someone to post a question on how to make their arduino be able to measure the bullet velocity of their gun in a controlled environment (say a 'test range'), assuming it's legal to own such a gun by the OP?

Lefty


That's a poor use of an Arduino. It won't be as accurate as the centuries old ballistic pendulum which is also good material for learning aspects of Newtonian physics.

But of course there is one political group that is opposed to Newtonian physics on grounds so absurd they make Flat-Earth Theory look reasonable.
I find it harder to express logic in English than in Code.
Sometimes an example says more than many times as many words.

GoForSmoke


Quote
but using overall a gross statistic like this and trying to gain insight can be misleading

Yes lefty it is, which is exactly what you did. So forget suicide, remove it from the statistics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Says:-

Quote
The incidence of homicides committed with a firearm in the US is much greater than some other advanced countries. In the United States in 2009 United Nations statistics record 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with where handguns are prohibited was 0.07 per 100,000, about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2.[51] Gun Homicides in Switzerland however are similarly low, at 0.52 in 2010[52] even though they rank third in the world for highest number of guns per citizen.[52]

The Swiss example is misleading because there law requires people to have a gun and they have to practice using it


And that has nothing to do with the outcome??

Citizens properly trained in the use and ownership of their own defense being far less to shoot each other than citizens in other countries that do not is misleading?

Mike, I see that as a significant positive for the Swiss. But hey, maybe they were born responsible or got responsibility for Christmas or a Birthday present and didn't have to learn it at all. 
I find it harder to express logic in English than in Code.
Sometimes an example says more than many times as many words.

GoForSmoke


Guns have only been developed to make it easier to kill people with a lower risk of injury to yourself (compared to hand-to-hand combat, for example).


Wrong. Wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong. And wrong some more. Your blinders do show.

I spent 1968-1972 shooting paper and the occasional soda can. Not killing people or animals. Not even close. Not even imagining to do so as the thought is abhorrent. Simply spending time on breath and body control to see how many times out of 100 I could make a hole in a black dot at 50 feet. It's very relaxing and it rounds out one eye (the one you look through the sights with) really well. I still have the rifle I bought in 1969 and as yet haven't shot anyone with it, or near anyone, or any animals or property of value.

But in your view it is evil just because oh... a kid might see it and want one? Quick! Keep that kid ignorant! And BTW, how did that kid get in my home and find the not-on-display rifle? Ooooh, will the kid find the separately stored bolt and separately stored ammo? Crap, I fear the kid that could. There's butcher knives in the kitchen drawer, common cleaning chemicals under the sink that can make poison gas, matches and flammables not far away.

But that rifle is the real menace, uh huh, because just the IDEA of a gun is dangerous. Especially a limited idea based on willful ignorance.

There's also hunting weapons not developed to kill PEOPLE, and there are legitimate reasons to hunt despite those who just can't stand it. Speaking of those I want to congratulate the whole bunch for introducing Coyotes to New York State as a way to end deer hunting. GOOD JOB @$$&%$#'s! The deer population clear up through Maine is all but WIPED OUT thanks to that bit of eco-terrorism. It's so much more humane for deer to die dragged down by a pack of wild canines and started being eaten before they're dead than killed by a bullet. It's so much better that deer get totally depopulated  by an imported species they have little defense against rather than have limited numbers removed so that the rest don't die of starvation from overgrazing during winter.

But hey, the idealists that don't bother with such details can feel good about stopping the cruel hunters. Somehow inflicting a form of impersonal genocide is noble because it doesn't involve guns. How noble! That's what fixating on single-issue dogma can achieve.
I find it harder to express logic in English than in Code.
Sometimes an example says more than many times as many words.

Osgeld

thats a nice rant, but historically yes guns were developed as a military weapon, what you do hundreds of years after the fact is irrelevant
http://arduino.cc/forum/index.php?action=unread;boards=2,3,4,5,67,6,7,8,9,10,11,66,12,13,15,14,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,86,87,89,1;ALL

GoForSmoke


I read that the Department of Homeland Security in the USA is ordering 1 billion rounds of ammunition:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-08/gun-ammo-running-out-in-australia-as-us-citizens-buy-big/4742048

Just curious, what would you use a billion rounds on? Are they anticipating the Apocalypse?


Well first they will "lose" a few hundred million rounds, second they need lots of shots for the practice range, and third automatic weapons eat ammo extremely fast. A 30 round clip can empty in a bit over two seconds. That does tend to keep heads and return fire down.
I find it harder to express logic in English than in Code.
Sometimes an example says more than many times as many words.

GoForSmoke


thats a nice rant, but historically yes guns were developed as a military weapon, what you do hundreds of years after the fact is irrelevant


Change the point then.

Quote
Guns have only been developed to make it easier to kill people with a lower risk of injury to yourself (compared to hand-to-hand combat, for example).


Guns are still being developed and have been all along. Matchlocks and flintlocks both smoothbore and rifled were used for hunting more than 300 years ago. Those were developed into caplocks and then cartridge weapons and yet still farther. Target rifles too heavy for combat or hunting have been around for AGES.

And BTW, early gonnes were easily as much a danger to the shooter as to the target. Making them safer to use was part of the -development- of them.

I find it harder to express logic in English than in Code.
Sometimes an example says more than many times as many words.

Go Up