...
Now, I’m going to say it one more time, so it is crystal clear, the end product of the system is a GPS based coordinate Joe Enforcer can find, rather than 3.2us from tower1, 2.2us from tower 2, etc… You give him a coordinate that he can map on his fancy GPS receiver in his patrol car and track you down.
You continue to misrepresent position information (MAP coordinates - and there is more than one coordinate system for mapping geographic location) as GPS coordinates. The Global Positioning Satellite system is a series of satellites that transmit information to receivers, that allows the receivers to determine geographic position at the receiver. That position is then translated into the chosen map coordinate system the user prefers. Users must be consistent with the coordinate system in order to share position information and locate the same geographical place. The same geographical place can have more than one GPS coordinate; a GPS coordinate may map to more than one geographical place; this depends on the mapping coordinates selected by the user of the GPS receiver/mapper.
...
Once again, you are trying to derail the idea by using your personal prejudice against it instead of logical reasoning. “Well, you would have to cordon off vast areas to find that gun and people wouldn’t allow that!” You’d be surprised at what people will do for some perceived safety. Don’t believe me? Then you weren’t watching TV after 9/11. I’ll digress on that one and provide you a technological fix instead.
A simple solution is to arm the police with a scanner that can detect the transmission. Now you just get in the general area and bingo, you can home in down to the inch. You are going to say, “But the scanner costs money, it is a whole new system to implement.” Sorry pal, the technology needed to implement a hand held scanner is both readily available and cheap, just like our transmitter parts. Mass produced, you are talking nothing compared to saving the life of one innocent child. Once again, “Mr. and Mrs. America, we need this money to keep your children safe…” The dollars would roll in. “If it only saves one!” Police see their budgets rise, always a good thing to them, and now they can disarm people at will. Now, I’ve addressed both the social and technological parts of this issue and have shown it is STILL practical to do this despite your objections.
You seem to keep adding to the system; you started out with a GPS receiver, then cellular tower triangulation systems, then requiring more cellular towers, now hand held scanner systems in the hands of the police. The detection system keeps getting bigger and bigger in both monetary cost and civil liberties, as you counter my "personal prejudices".
...
Come on, certainly you realize the futility of what you are saying in the face of modern computing power and technology. Coding a unique ID for every gun isn’t even a necessity for this system to work (We can discuss the statistics of a repeat code based on active regional ID distribution schemes if you want but I think it is unnecessary since you should know exactly what my point will be given your expertise) but if you wanted it, you could easily do it. Triangulation algorithms are fast and fiber has lots of bandwidth. I know you want it really bad, but you cannot dismiss this as fancy. This is NOT a challenging technological device or location scheme to implement. The components are available, the infrastructure exists, and there are people who would love to build it. You are grasping at the proverbial straws on that one.
We do not share a common education or work experience, therefore our "expertise" is different, as should be obvious due to our differing point of view relating to both the technical feasibility and the social feasibility.
You seem to think the reusing ID codes is OK if you can spread them over a large geographical area; unless you can guarantee that guns will always be confined to those seperate areas, the system fails when two or more guns with the same ID show up in the same geographic area.
I’ve covered this before. You want so badly to feel that this is an impossible task but the truth is that it isn’t. All of my statements have been geared towards the implementation of a system, which was the challenge. In addition, I have, since you keep bringing it up, shown that the social implications are easily dealt with as well. You don’t like my system and you don’t have to like what it means for you as a gun owner but it doesn’t mean that the system isn’t practical and that people wouldn’t support it. Furthermore, if you would take the time to read my posts and digest them rather than banging off shallow parries, you would understand the GPS portion of the system, as I have been extremely clear since my 2nd post.
Amazing. It seems that you have developed the ability to read minds at a distance over the internet; you attribute my rebuttals to "prejudice"; you say I am not reading your posts, and that my rebuttals are shallow (in addition to saying I know what your points are due to my expertise - I quess this means in your mind I am a liar).
You keep saying the cost to society (monetary and cilvil liberties) would be gladly accepted by the populace; the price you demand that society accept to implement your solution is the creation of a police state, where no one has any liberty at all - I am not ready to accept that citizens of the United States will willingly submit to slavery.
...
Wrong and you know it. I have defined my system as the device on the gun and left everything else out of the picture because I can disregard it based on my system capabilities. It is just like canceling out second order effects. Based on my definitions, everything between the gun and the cell tower is the channel. It is black and white. My system extends to the end of the transmitting antenna and the channel starts after that. I’ve proven the channel is of no consequence to the operation of my device, therefore I can exclude it from my system.
You are self contradictory here. You say the system is only the part on the gun, and everything else is the channel. Yet you require modifications to the channel equipment (hardware and software) as well as additional equipment (handheld scanners in police hands). Using only your "system" the guns could not be located. MY defintion of a system includes ALL of the subsystems and components necessary to acomplish the desired goal. I treat the gun mounted portion as a subsystem; The "channel" - the cellular system that performs the triangulation and discrimination of unique gun IDs is a subsystem; The processing computers are a susbsystem; any scanners the police might require for improving resolution are a susbsystem.
The also treat the Constitution and our civil liberties as a subsystem as far as the overall implementation of the stated objective of tracking the location of each and every gun in the hands of the civilian population.
You want to change my definitions to make your arguments look stronger and use that deception to diminish my qualifications and thus ability to counter your points. It won’t work, because you have to play by my definitions to critique my proposal. I defined what is first and second order here, so you can either approach it that way and provide solid counters or continue to play the word game. It doesn’t improve your position one bit.
Sorry, but your idea of a system doesn't seem to meet the standard use of the term. I have not attempted to decieve anyone, despite your attempts to lable me as a liar. You are starting to sound like the little child who invites others to his house to play a game, and then changes the rules when he discovers he is losing.
Personal prejudice, yet again. Just because you are unwilling to pay the price for this system, doesn’t mean a majority of Americans are. I’m not even going to waste the space positing the numerous times Americans have traded freedom for security, there is no need to do that on this board. If you need proof that people will find this practical and cost effective, let’s go post our ideas over on DU or any anti-gun website. You’ll see very quickly that your opinion is not shared by everyone. Canada spent a billion on a gun registry and despite some belly-aching, it isn’t going anywhere. Your opinion, while important to you, is of absolutely no consequence in this debate. Then why are you taking the time to debate me? Your opinion will not sway Schumer, Kennedy, or anyone else that wants to see this implemented anymore than it did during the AWB bill. If you truly believe your voice counts when it comes to anti-gun legislators, then I’ve got news for you… You are living in a fantasy world.
I suppose that YOUR personal prejudice in favor of the "system" you propose has nothing to do with the supposed feasibility and practicality either?
There is nothing quite like appealing to an 'impartial arbitrator' to settle a dispute, is there? Naturally the ultra left wing liberals will embrace any sort of program that gives them more money and control of society. Why didn't you propose submitting your concept to an ultra right conservative group? The answer, of course, is that given a choice of judge or arbitor, people will select one that agrees with them - but that is not the way our social system is designed to work.
I see the forest and I see the trees. Step back, calm down, realize I don’t like the system anymore that you, do some critical thinking, maybe a bit of research, and you will see that my system, while repulsive to gun owners, is feasible and meets the requirements set forth.
I have been critical of your system, and not based on hysterics or fuming rage. Your system has elements that are reprehensible to anyone who truly loves personal freedom and responsibility, and respects the Constitution which quides and directs this nation. I am not ready to destroy this nation just so a bunch of politicians can gather more money and power to themselves, and I suspect that a majority of citizens feel the same way I do.
I also believe that the technology necessary is not as well developed as you claim. Perhaps with your expertise you could create a prototype system and sell it to the police state as a way to monitor the perverts that commit sexual attacks on women and children. That should be sufficent proof that the technology is capable of meeting your design objective.
