Apart from looking like trying to phase firearms out through high pricing, I fail to see how that GPS system, as you typed it, would prevent crime. Let's say that a person has a gun and they are sick and tired of their neighbour so they decide to kill them. How does a GPS device in their pistol stop them from walking next door and shooting Mr Rogers? It doesn't.0
Knowing that there would be close to a 100% chance that they would be caught and then found guilty would be a deterrent. The GPS system would streamline prosecution, leading to much higher conviction rates, etc....further deterring gun related crimes.
Here are a few, off the top of my head, pertinent questions:
What would be the requirements for maintaining the battery on the gun?
Again, the blunt of the responsibilty would be with the manufacturer. With technology the way it is now, they could go as much as 10 years or more before needing to be charged. As technology further develops, they can be solar powered, motion powered, etc...possibly never having to be replaced. etc. If for some reason the unit fails in anyway, it would send off a signal, and the gun owner would bring it in for servicing.
What would the punishment for false-positives be?
Depending on the situation, there could be something like a 3 strike rule, similar to the way home security systems work. The first few times you get a warning, then fines...if you keep "screwing up" then you've pretty much proven that you shouldn't own a gun and your privledges will be revoked.
How would the GPS system work for guns kept in steel safes?
GPS has evolved to the state that they can be tracked even in steel safes. And even if not, they send off a signal from the last place they are at without motion. Once the unit moves again, the signal comes back, etc.
How would a mandated 20 year sentence for having an illegal gun deter a person who is about to commit a felony murder which already carries a harsh penalty?
Again, the biggest deterrent will be knowing that there is a much, much higher chance of getting caught...along with conviction.
How would a manufacturer be responsible if their firearm is used in a crime? That is constitutionally unworkable.
Not if federal legislation is passed deeming them liable. For example, if a pharmaceutical company develops a drug to treat heart disease but the drug fails miserably and thousands of people lose their lives because of it, they tend to face huge class action lawsuits, fines, penalties, etc. Same would go with the gun manufacturers.
If firearms are to be priced so high, based on your numbers, does that mean that only the rich should be able to have them?
Not necessarily. Firearms such as traditional 3-5 shot shotguns, .22 caliber rifles used for hunting, etc, would be taxed less, making them some what more affordable for the "hunting" enthusiasts. And most "rich" people I know show little interest in firearms other then for collection purposes.
How would a GPS system deter a street criminal who can simply remove the GPS unit?
Like I said in my initial post, the GPS system would be a 2 part system. Once the outer part is removed, there still would be another part imbedded inside the gun (possibly within the metal itself) so that the gun itself would still be able to be tracked as a "hot" gun.
Answers in bold.
We already have extreme deterrents in place for a huge number of crime, and I can tell you, although you already know it, that they don't work. Let me tell you a personal story; a few years ago I witnessed a homicide in downtown New Haven, Connecticut. Two groups of men got into an argument over a woman that both were trying to chat up in an underground nightclub and they were ejected by security. One of the groups then went to their cars which were parked down the street, came back, and shot one of the other men multiple times in front of clubbers, CCTV cameras, security officers and the police. GPS in their guns would not have been a deterent and it wouldn't have even crossed their minds or slowed them down for a second because they were content to execute a man in front of dozens of witnesses, knowing that they had been seen arguing with the victim and that they had been thrown out by security. Moreover, with the constitutional presumption of innocence, even GPS does not provide enough evidence to support a case on its own - it would place the weapon at the scene, or general scene, of a crime, but that goes not 1% towards proving who was the shooter, and that is the part that matters.
You say that you are happy for the constitution to be amended - what part/s of it? You would have to alter the entirety of the 4th Amendment, for a start, but would you just have it amended in relations to firearms tracking, or would you be happy to waive your rights to unreasonable search and seizure? Would you be happy for the police to enter your home, gun owner or not, at any time for any reason and without a warrant? That is what the 4th Amendment protects. You see, laws are put in place to provide a societal benefit, not to curtail the freedoms of law abiding citizens, and mandatory GPS tracking is both unworkable and a violation of multiple constitutional rights.
How would a gun manufacturer be responsible if a gun owners used their GPS equipped pistol to commit a crime? Is Ford responsible if a person decides to drink and drive?
If certain guns were to be taxed less so as to be deemed affordable who decides what taxes to apply to which guns? Why should a lever action .30-30 be taxed less than a Saiga-12? Where would you place something like a Mosin Nagant rifle? High tax or low tax?
Pappy, when a very intelligent person such as yourself debates the issue that a GPS tracking unit on guns would not be a deterrent, it shows that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. A GPS unit installed in all guns is considered a "no brainer" in terms of deterring crime and people with IQ's much lower than yours can clearly see that.
Now if you want to argue that the cost, the system itself would be too hard to implement, etc, I can at least see logic and reason in that argument.
As for your questions regarding taxing, etc. there's a multitude of ways something like that could be handled. Standard shotguns used for hunting purposes would not be taxed, at least the first one or two in a home, etc. As the quantity of the firearms increases, so would the tax, etc. What logical reason does a person have to want or need dozens of guns? (other than collection purposes - and if they have the extra money to afford an enormous collection, surley they would be more than happy to pay the according taxes on such a luxury) As far as I am aware, most people are born with 2 arms and hands and even the best marksman would have trouble handling more than 2 guns at a time.
Like I previously stated, the GPS idea is just one way, just an idea. When you said that class II guns are seldom used in crimes because they are essentially slow and difficult to obtain, you basically stated what most gun control advocates are "wanting" for all guns...AND for that exact reason.
As for the legalities, YES, the constitution was designed to be ammended...that's why there are 27 of them already! As for your Ford Motor Company comparison, apples to oranges. Ford designs it's product to provide transportation - only if blatently misused, abused or in accidents does it cause the loss of life. Gun manufacturers design their product for ONE PURPOSE ONLY - TO CAUSE THE LOSS OF LIFE.
Edited by Kasanova King, 17 December 2012 - 01:48 PM.