Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

United States Gun Control Megathread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 985
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

When students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas return to class after spring break next week, they'll be required to carry clear backpacks. The move is meant to ramp up security measures after last mon

We may (very soon) get Constitutional carry in Kentucky. Keeping my fingers crossed.   ETA- IT PASSED.  Kentucky has Constitutional carry.   60 "yes" , while 37 found freedom "scar

Pictured, the Union being awesome:

Powder residue, gun oil perhaps.....I reckon you could probably train a Spaniel to sniff out firearms. 

 

EDIT - Apparently you can and it's being done with increasing frequency:

 

Quote

When it comes to pet dogs, it’s unlikely that they will be able to sense a firearm that is in a home. However, as there are dogs that can sniff out things such as drugs, bodies, and bombs, a dog can be trained to sniff out firearms.  Dogs that can sniff out firearms are becoming more and more popular to help police officers keep places such as airports safe. These dogs are trained in a specific way, so that they can sniff out and sense firearms and then alert their handlers to the location or the person who has them.

 

 

https://wagwalking.com/sense/can-dogs-smell-firearms

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Powder residue, gun oil perhaps.....I reckon you could probably train a Spaniel to sniff out firearms. 

 

EDIT - Apparently you can and it's being done with increasing frequency:

 

 

https://wagwalking.com/sense/can-dogs-smell-firearms

And I'll trust that about as much as I trust the "drug dog". Too much chance of them being influenced by handler's behavior, and too much potential for false positives/evidence chicanery.

 

"Warrant on a leash"

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Normal drug sniffing dogs have been doing this for ages. I got pulled out of class because I had a jacket in the back of my truck with powder burns on it. Dog sniffed it out in the parking lot. I had to be present to open up my truck.

 

Though technically, I could have just refused and there wouldn't have been much they could have done legally. But hey that's not a fight I felt like fighting as a 16 year old. 

 

However, when do kids store guns at school? Usually the shooter walks in and starts blasting. Meaning what? The dog is barking "He has a gun!" as he's shooting up a classroom?

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

Normal drug sniffing dogs have been doing this for ages. I got pulled out of class because I had a jacket in the back of my truck with powder burns on it. Dog sniffed it out in the parking lot. I had to be present to open up my truck.

 

Though technically, I could have just refused and there wouldn't have been much they could have done legally. But hey that's not a fight I felt like fighting as a 16 year old. 

 

However, when do kids store guns at school? Usually the shooter walks in and starts blasting. Meaning what? The dog is barking "He has a gun!" as he's shooting up a classroom?

The whole concept is absurd, and is just another example of the slow erosion of rights in the name of "safety". 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You don't trust dogs to detect cancer then I guess.....Presumably the clinicians must somehow be signalling that cancer cells are present in the patient (even thought they wouldn't know).  :rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

Apples and oranges, but in the same basket. 

One is part of a methodical system of investigation and detection, and the other is an easy way to circumvent that pesky fourth amendment. 

You'll note that the dog is not the sole method of detection in the case of "cancer sniffing". it is still very much experimental, and likely will never be the sole detector. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

You don't trust dogs to detect cancer then I guess.....Presumably the clinicians must somehow be signalling that cancer cells are present in the patient (even thought they wouldn't know).  :rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

There are enough random variables in cancer treatment and detection as it is. Adding another layer is silly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH, the obvious problem for 'Gun Sniffer Dogs' in an armed society will probably be sensory overload.....The dog is playing 'find the smell, get the ball', but it can't easily** distinguish between the 'friendly firearms' of law enforcement etc. and those of an intruder.

 

** I reckon this could be done, but the work would be massive and the dogs would need to be very special indeed.....Concealed carry permit holders would still have a few issues though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

TBH, the obvious problem for 'Gun Sniffer Dogs' in an armed society will probably be sensory overload.....The dog is playing 'find the smell, get the ball', but it can't easily** distinguish between the 'friendly firearms' of law enforcement etc. and those of an intruder.

 

** I reckon this could be done, but the work would be massive and the dogs would need to be very special indeed.....Concealed carry permit holders would still have a few issues though.

And I could completely fuck with them by merely fertilizing my veggy garden, and forgetting to wash my hands.

 

2 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Um... How did they manage to make the closure of the machine gun registry sound like deregulation of firearms?

Reasons.  

Getting most people to really understand how thouroughly illegal the Hughes amendment was would take an act of God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Meplat said:

And I could completely fuck with them by merely fertilizing my veggy garden, and forgetting to wash my hands.

 

Given the typical reactions of your police in situations of perceived threat, I'm not sure that triggering false positives with gun sniffer dogs would be an entirely wise policy.  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

Given the typical reactions of your police in situations of perceived threat, I'm not sure that triggering false positives with gun sniffer dogs would be an entirely wise policy.  ;)

 

I reckon Meplat has dealt with American police, oh, infinitely more than you have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sturgeon said:

 

It certainly didn't follow the intended path for passing a law, no.

Hahah! IT WAS ILLEGAL!

I watched the fuckbags shove it through.  I wish I still had the tape of it.

 

1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

Given the typical reactions of your police in situations of perceived threat, I'm not sure that triggering false positives with gun sniffer dogs would be an entirely wise policy.  ;)

it is when I am wearing nothing but a pair of briefs and bunny slippers, with a semi-inflated condom pulled over my head... At that point it becomes high comedy.

 

1 minute ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I reckon Meplat has dealt with American police, oh, infinitely more than you have.

I'm even related to far too many.  That aside, "yes". Hence my utter loathing for federal  "officers" and law enforcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...