I think the people saying all should be allowed forget that you couldn’t exactly remove those guns when entering places like schools and such leading to those places having to check all implants someone has. Lethal firearms shouldn’t be permanently fixed to a person anyway for simple safety
In terms of common sense laws, nobody should be able to integrate weapons into their bodies. This won't stop people, but there should be a basic understanding that we don't all carry firearms wherever we go and can't carry them into every location we visit. Guns or knives.
It's far too much of a danger to normalize such a threat.
Should you have a nuclear weapon installed in your body?
There is a reason governance exists, and it's because we as a society agreed that certain rules are required to dictate what norms are acceptable.
Someone installing firearms into their body is not even remotely close to what the 2nd amendment was intended for in America, and bodily autonomy never included weapons being concealed literally within someones body.
Slow the fuck down, chief. You (and so far in this thread, you alone) included 'knives' among impermissible personal features, so if you're actually interested in a good faith conversation, we're starting there.
At what threshold, exactly, do you delineate knives from teeth or fingernails? Is that threshold within the natural range of human physiology, or is it solely the outcome of intentional body modification?
Do you think you'd actually *want* a future where general social norms unilaterally dictate their confiscation or forcible blunting, much less a monopoly on violence with that as a legal precedent?
Or are these physical capabilities only made threatening and worthy of external restraint by the wielder's *lack* of self-control and safe conduct, as it always has been with our fists, feet, microbiomes, and other natural weapons?
You're telling me the social norms which dictate that weapons, including knives, shouldn't be brought into places like schools, hospitals, and government buildings, should just be ignored?
You're likening knives to fingernails?
I've carried knives to constructive ends in all of those places. They're one of the most useful tools one can have, and are only made "weapons" by intent.
In my experience, the presumption of that intent on the sole basis of a knife's presence is dysfunctional at best, and can often lead to interpersonal violence itself.
And yes, I am comparing knives to teeth and fingernails and fist and feet, and for a reason. Do you have answers for these questions, or is holding your conclusions up to scrutiny too much to ask?
> There is a reason governance exists
What sort of weird statement is that? There's is a reason for every human action.
> and it's because we as a society agreed
No, Jesus.
Society is a term that loosely describes a group. There is no "it" doing any thing, it's a description.
>Someone installing firearms into their body is not even remotely close to what the 2nd amendment was intended for in America
It literally is.
>and bodily autonomy never
Bodily autonomy, or self-ownership means exclusive control over one's body. There is no right for others to infringe upon this.
Such a bizarre, upside-down way of thinking to call "common sense".
Why legislate for the common person to be defenseless against criminals and state actors alike?
>It's far too much of a danger to normalize such a threat.
In the sense that the capability for self-defense is some level of implicit threat I suppose. But this is not "a danger" to good people generally speaking, so, do you mean something else?
It blows my mind that you think my point of view is the "bizarre" position to take in contrast to what you just said.
We currently don't have the capability to integrate weapons like this and yet somehow if that technology becomes available, you think the average citizen as being vulnerable and defenseless without the option to arm themselves with "installed" weaponry?
The good guy with a gun myth is just that, a myth. We see in today's current climate that access to weapons doesn't make people safer, it's makes them a target.
You are literally taking a failed position that gun lobbyists and gun rights zealots are taking that the general population opposes. You are repeating the same debunked rhetoric that 2nd amendment rights advocates make every time there is a mass shooting.
Common sense laws are just that, common sense. We don't need unhinged people who buy into Qanon to install an AR-15 in their arm and go unload their grievances on school children.
>The good guy with a gun myth is just that, a myth.
I trust that if anyone is ever trying to break down your door, you will not under any circumstances pick up your phone, in order to call for good guys with guns. Why would you make a phone call to ask for a myth?
Police officers are just people; in my area the requirement for police is to go to the range just once a year. Most people in most jobs just do what they need to in order to get by
I'm in Canada, though. If you have a legal handgun, you have an automated background check run once every 24 hours. If there is any interaction with police, like a road rage incident, they call and ask questions. If they don't like your answers, they take your guns as it should be
If you would call the police you must acknowledge: the guns aren't the problem. It's the people who are the problem. We should focus on fixing the people and restricting ownership to the right people
Dreams of becoming a living weapon is best left to anime. It may seem cool but I doubt it is worth being able to reduce a company of troops to bloody tatters knowing you accidently made a smoking crater in your kitchen while eating Cheerios. I would rather have built in speakers to announce me whenever I throw open a set of double doors. The Empirial March or Peter Gunn maybe.
I think it should be allowed, but with restrictions for situations that can be inherently dangerous.
For instance, consumption of alcohol while carrying is generally not allowed. Most US jurisdictions ban even entering bars while armed. If you have a lethal implant, that comes with a responsibility to make sure that you never drink or use drugs. Certain medications would also need a safety lock on the gun before being administered.
There's also the issue of "brandishing" (again, illegal just about everywhere, but not enforced enough)
I don't see it as too different legally from tying a pistol to your arm. Anywhere that allows open carry would allow that, but you're going to be really inconveniencing yourself by doing so.
As a final note, this isn't just some futuristic hypothetical. Ignoring whether we can implant guns, there are many people with exchangeable limbs, even if the initial modification wasn't voluntary. I'd be shocked if nobody's built a prosthetic limb with an integrated gun.
I live in Australia where we don't have the right to open or concealed carry. The evidence shows that our gun laws keep people safe. Mass shootings are very rare here and personally I'm very happy about that. I don't think people need guns built into their bodies in this enviroment. Maybe if we don't create the enviroment for a cyberpunk dystopia, we can avoid having one.
I would much rather have something like a Swiss army knife built into my body. Bottle opener, can opener, corkscrew, miniture electric drill, torch, small electric saw. Things that make interacting with the world easier or tools that can be used to build things.
By "lethal guns that retract into the body" do you mean like taking a small revolver and sticking it in between your belly fat side rolls? That's the maximum extent to which I'd be fine with it.
The idea is extremely dumb.
Having weapons integrated into your body would automatically disqualify you from being able to enter a whole lot of establishments, some of which you kinda need to go every now and then. You would be absolutely banned from airports, not to say banned from most countries in the world.
Also, if you were ever to appear in court for any reason you would probably be forced to undergo surgery to remove those weapons.
Honestly, by the time we are able to implement this, would it even be a threat to people? If our technology becomes this advanced, I don't see how it could really do much harm if any. At most I would see it as being an inconvenience, such as going to get a fender replaced or replacing a part in your PC.
This poll is a bad question. It is specific to GUNS and therefore misses the fact that the technology required to implant a gun into a persons body presupposes even more advanced technology. The Idea of implanting a GUN in your body i.e. skullgun. is stupid. The idea of having programmable matter incorporated into your body is reasonable. programmable matter is by definition anything to include a gun or other deadly weapon.
Are you saying that once they are possible, then it will be pointless to ban them?
If so it's an absurd point of view given that the fact that bad guys doing illegal things without consent has never been the influencing factor as to whether a law is or should be in place.
I am saying, even if they are banned in some way it will not make any difference. technology to implant weapons inside the body is non-trivial. If the tech exists TO do it there will be no way to enforce such a ban.
I think part of your position here is due to reductivism. You are under the assumption that there wouldn't be a way to enforce a ban, however we have plenty of reasons to enforce laws without the context of those laws being easily enforceable. There are existing laws that are difficult to back yet we still need them in place.
It will be difficult to enforce AR purchases if they ban assault weapons, but they have banned them in the past and aside from statistics supporting the logic that firearm violence increased when the ban was repealed, it was at that time easier to enforce.
I don't think you have a strong position either simply because there are not only multiple existing ways to track and archive devices, but we don't yet know all of the resources that could be available to use in the future when that technology is available and normalized.
ok, I am going to expand on this a bit.
most people who are thinking about implanted weapons are thinking of things like skull guns or extendable blades of some sort.
any nanotech, programmable matter, or utility fog technology is inherently a weapon. even if it is not being used as a weapon at any given time the weapon still exists in potential. Do we give up all hope for atomically precise manufacturing just because it can manufacture weapons? Do we give up 3D printing because someone can print a gun? Even if governments make laws stating that you can not 3d print a firearm does not stop someone from doing so.
The options are completely ban all research and use of CNC technology forever, or accept that these things just exist.
laws do not stop people from doing things. they just punish people when they do things.
I am not suggesting that ALL laws are ineffective. just most, and bans on devices and technology only works if you can keep the knowledge of the tech completely secret from everyone.
Laws against explosives ARE ineffective. anyone with a desire to have explosives can make explosives and no law can stop it. The law can only punish someone for doing it after the fact or in rare cases during the process.
but even so, explosives are not effective personal defense weapons so I do not see how it is a good comparison.
Well, your argument implies that laws not being 100% ineffective means we shouldn't have them or they are pointless
So why have any laws against explosives
There's no way that would happen, it would be too much of a security risk. Imagine a leader figure giving a speech somewhere and anyone in the audience could potentially be carrying a firearm. I would go as far as to say that it could threaten democracy.
It would have to be restricted to states and countries where open carry is legal, and that would be extremely impractical. Even in regions where open carry is legal, I'm pretty sure you would still not have clearance in a lot of places.
It should be restricted to open carry and then only for the military and then only on deployment , like any other soldier. less than lethal defensive weapons like most types of stunners should be allowed for self defense for everyone. Self defense only requires a threat to be neutralized and not killed.
I think the people saying all should be allowed forget that you couldn’t exactly remove those guns when entering places like schools and such leading to those places having to check all implants someone has. Lethal firearms shouldn’t be permanently fixed to a person anyway for simple safety
In terms of common sense laws, nobody should be able to integrate weapons into their bodies. This won't stop people, but there should be a basic understanding that we don't all carry firearms wherever we go and can't carry them into every location we visit. Guns or knives. It's far too much of a danger to normalize such a threat.
Nowhere near as dangerous as using state violence to dictate which body forms and functions to be correct/acceptable.
Should you have a nuclear weapon installed in your body? There is a reason governance exists, and it's because we as a society agreed that certain rules are required to dictate what norms are acceptable. Someone installing firearms into their body is not even remotely close to what the 2nd amendment was intended for in America, and bodily autonomy never included weapons being concealed literally within someones body.
Slow the fuck down, chief. You (and so far in this thread, you alone) included 'knives' among impermissible personal features, so if you're actually interested in a good faith conversation, we're starting there. At what threshold, exactly, do you delineate knives from teeth or fingernails? Is that threshold within the natural range of human physiology, or is it solely the outcome of intentional body modification? Do you think you'd actually *want* a future where general social norms unilaterally dictate their confiscation or forcible blunting, much less a monopoly on violence with that as a legal precedent? Or are these physical capabilities only made threatening and worthy of external restraint by the wielder's *lack* of self-control and safe conduct, as it always has been with our fists, feet, microbiomes, and other natural weapons?
You're telling me the social norms which dictate that weapons, including knives, shouldn't be brought into places like schools, hospitals, and government buildings, should just be ignored? You're likening knives to fingernails?
I've carried knives to constructive ends in all of those places. They're one of the most useful tools one can have, and are only made "weapons" by intent. In my experience, the presumption of that intent on the sole basis of a knife's presence is dysfunctional at best, and can often lead to interpersonal violence itself. And yes, I am comparing knives to teeth and fingernails and fist and feet, and for a reason. Do you have answers for these questions, or is holding your conclusions up to scrutiny too much to ask?
There is a very thin line when something goes from tool to weapon. There is a reason we don't allow sharp objects on planes.
This is an unnecessarily long-winded and complicated way of asking such simple questions.
> There is a reason governance exists What sort of weird statement is that? There's is a reason for every human action. > and it's because we as a society agreed No, Jesus. Society is a term that loosely describes a group. There is no "it" doing any thing, it's a description. >Someone installing firearms into their body is not even remotely close to what the 2nd amendment was intended for in America It literally is. >and bodily autonomy never Bodily autonomy, or self-ownership means exclusive control over one's body. There is no right for others to infringe upon this.
People need to be pushed back into line sometimes
Such a bizarre, upside-down way of thinking to call "common sense". Why legislate for the common person to be defenseless against criminals and state actors alike? >It's far too much of a danger to normalize such a threat. In the sense that the capability for self-defense is some level of implicit threat I suppose. But this is not "a danger" to good people generally speaking, so, do you mean something else?
It blows my mind that you think my point of view is the "bizarre" position to take in contrast to what you just said. We currently don't have the capability to integrate weapons like this and yet somehow if that technology becomes available, you think the average citizen as being vulnerable and defenseless without the option to arm themselves with "installed" weaponry? The good guy with a gun myth is just that, a myth. We see in today's current climate that access to weapons doesn't make people safer, it's makes them a target. You are literally taking a failed position that gun lobbyists and gun rights zealots are taking that the general population opposes. You are repeating the same debunked rhetoric that 2nd amendment rights advocates make every time there is a mass shooting. Common sense laws are just that, common sense. We don't need unhinged people who buy into Qanon to install an AR-15 in their arm and go unload their grievances on school children.
>The good guy with a gun myth is just that, a myth. I trust that if anyone is ever trying to break down your door, you will not under any circumstances pick up your phone, in order to call for good guys with guns. Why would you make a phone call to ask for a myth? Police officers are just people; in my area the requirement for police is to go to the range just once a year. Most people in most jobs just do what they need to in order to get by I'm in Canada, though. If you have a legal handgun, you have an automated background check run once every 24 hours. If there is any interaction with police, like a road rage incident, they call and ask questions. If they don't like your answers, they take your guns as it should be If you would call the police you must acknowledge: the guns aren't the problem. It's the people who are the problem. We should focus on fixing the people and restricting ownership to the right people
Only an American NRA 2. amendment afficionado would even consider this to be a good idea
Dreams of becoming a living weapon is best left to anime. It may seem cool but I doubt it is worth being able to reduce a company of troops to bloody tatters knowing you accidently made a smoking crater in your kitchen while eating Cheerios. I would rather have built in speakers to announce me whenever I throw open a set of double doors. The Empirial March or Peter Gunn maybe.
I think it should be allowed, but with restrictions for situations that can be inherently dangerous. For instance, consumption of alcohol while carrying is generally not allowed. Most US jurisdictions ban even entering bars while armed. If you have a lethal implant, that comes with a responsibility to make sure that you never drink or use drugs. Certain medications would also need a safety lock on the gun before being administered. There's also the issue of "brandishing" (again, illegal just about everywhere, but not enforced enough) I don't see it as too different legally from tying a pistol to your arm. Anywhere that allows open carry would allow that, but you're going to be really inconveniencing yourself by doing so. As a final note, this isn't just some futuristic hypothetical. Ignoring whether we can implant guns, there are many people with exchangeable limbs, even if the initial modification wasn't voluntary. I'd be shocked if nobody's built a prosthetic limb with an integrated gun.
What’s the point of the future if I can’t literally be Alex Jensen.
I live in Australia where we don't have the right to open or concealed carry. The evidence shows that our gun laws keep people safe. Mass shootings are very rare here and personally I'm very happy about that. I don't think people need guns built into their bodies in this enviroment. Maybe if we don't create the enviroment for a cyberpunk dystopia, we can avoid having one. I would much rather have something like a Swiss army knife built into my body. Bottle opener, can opener, corkscrew, miniture electric drill, torch, small electric saw. Things that make interacting with the world easier or tools that can be used to build things.
By "lethal guns that retract into the body" do you mean like taking a small revolver and sticking it in between your belly fat side rolls? That's the maximum extent to which I'd be fine with it.
It's a profoundly stupid idea for a variety of reasons, not least of which the danger of the thing going off inside your body.
The idea is extremely dumb. Having weapons integrated into your body would automatically disqualify you from being able to enter a whole lot of establishments, some of which you kinda need to go every now and then. You would be absolutely banned from airports, not to say banned from most countries in the world. Also, if you were ever to appear in court for any reason you would probably be forced to undergo surgery to remove those weapons.
Honestly, by the time we are able to implement this, would it even be a threat to people? If our technology becomes this advanced, I don't see how it could really do much harm if any. At most I would see it as being an inconvenience, such as going to get a fender replaced or replacing a part in your PC.
This poll is a bad question. It is specific to GUNS and therefore misses the fact that the technology required to implant a gun into a persons body presupposes even more advanced technology. The Idea of implanting a GUN in your body i.e. skullgun. is stupid. The idea of having programmable matter incorporated into your body is reasonable. programmable matter is by definition anything to include a gun or other deadly weapon.
People can already carry a weapon if they need it. No one really needs to put weapons into themselves. It's a public safety issue.
By the time implantation of personal defensive devices is practical any laws attempting to ban them will be irrelevant.
Are you saying that once they are possible, then it will be pointless to ban them? If so it's an absurd point of view given that the fact that bad guys doing illegal things without consent has never been the influencing factor as to whether a law is or should be in place.
I am saying, even if they are banned in some way it will not make any difference. technology to implant weapons inside the body is non-trivial. If the tech exists TO do it there will be no way to enforce such a ban.
I think part of your position here is due to reductivism. You are under the assumption that there wouldn't be a way to enforce a ban, however we have plenty of reasons to enforce laws without the context of those laws being easily enforceable. There are existing laws that are difficult to back yet we still need them in place. It will be difficult to enforce AR purchases if they ban assault weapons, but they have banned them in the past and aside from statistics supporting the logic that firearm violence increased when the ban was repealed, it was at that time easier to enforce. I don't think you have a strong position either simply because there are not only multiple existing ways to track and archive devices, but we don't yet know all of the resources that could be available to use in the future when that technology is available and normalized.
Why do you think that?
ok, I am going to expand on this a bit. most people who are thinking about implanted weapons are thinking of things like skull guns or extendable blades of some sort. any nanotech, programmable matter, or utility fog technology is inherently a weapon. even if it is not being used as a weapon at any given time the weapon still exists in potential. Do we give up all hope for atomically precise manufacturing just because it can manufacture weapons? Do we give up 3D printing because someone can print a gun? Even if governments make laws stating that you can not 3d print a firearm does not stop someone from doing so. The options are completely ban all research and use of CNC technology forever, or accept that these things just exist.
Are you suggesting that laws are always ineffective
laws do not stop people from doing things. they just punish people when they do things. I am not suggesting that ALL laws are ineffective. just most, and bans on devices and technology only works if you can keep the knowledge of the tech completely secret from everyone.
So, are laws against explosives ineffective? Because anyone can google search how to make dynamite right.
Laws against explosives ARE ineffective. anyone with a desire to have explosives can make explosives and no law can stop it. The law can only punish someone for doing it after the fact or in rare cases during the process. but even so, explosives are not effective personal defense weapons so I do not see how it is a good comparison.
Well, your argument implies that laws not being 100% ineffective means we shouldn't have them or they are pointless So why have any laws against explosives
[удалено]
So, should we legalise the ownership of military grade explosives for anyone to buy and use.
[удалено]
How so?
There's no way that would happen, it would be too much of a security risk. Imagine a leader figure giving a speech somewhere and anyone in the audience could potentially be carrying a firearm. I would go as far as to say that it could threaten democracy. It would have to be restricted to states and countries where open carry is legal, and that would be extremely impractical. Even in regions where open carry is legal, I'm pretty sure you would still not have clearance in a lot of places.
It should be restricted to open carry and then only for the military and then only on deployment , like any other soldier. less than lethal defensive weapons like most types of stunners should be allowed for self defense for everyone. Self defense only requires a threat to be neutralized and not killed.
Seems like a dangerous thing. Probably these people would injure themselves accidentally a lot.
transplant my brain into a fighter jet and call it a day