RE: The full court press for gun control in Texas has unintended consequences; and people there are safer, as a direct result!
I never said that. The ability to restrict other's movements is NOT freedom.
Isn't the ability to shoot someone dead, "the ability to restrict other's movements"?
If Police use them, I believe they should have to pay for the damage they cause.
I agree 100%. I've heard of many cases where police searched automobiles or homes and basically ripped them to shreds without finding any contraband, and the owner is expected to pay for any damages.
Conversely, no one has the right to do harm to others with their property, in this case their car.
In your wild-west-fantasy, how do you expect people to keep others from doing "harm to others with their property"?
Isn't the concept of "guns for everyone" (mutually assured destruction) precisely the same as giving everyone equal access to the hypothetical StopDead app?
Wouldn't "mutually assured destruction" also keep people from just killing other people's cars for fun or for spite?
This is entirely dependent on how the firearm is used. I have carried one (or more) for several decades, and I have not restricted anyone. Most firearms in good people's hands are defensive in nature too. ANY TOOL can be used improperly, but more firearms Historically reduces crime numbers.
This is not something I like, and I wish it was not needed! If used properly, for self defense, no one outside of those initiating harm, will suffer. A hundred firearms in my neighborhood would cause me no problems.
Conversely, ONE Offensive firearm could cause irreparable harm, in the absence of defensive firearms.
My firearm is a precision device, because I Practice, but your stop dead app would damage all cars in it's path. One bullet from my hunting rifle would permanently stop a car if I needed to do so. Besides the equipment required is significant, and can never be contained in a cell phone.
Guns for everyone is guaranteed in our founding documents, to avoid the real threat, democide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide THIS killed more people in the last century than all the wars did, so this is the real threat!
There is a real possibility that were this car killing ability become popular, there is a very good chance that the attacker would destroy his own car at the same time. I could modify my car to resist a specific Frequency, both on the transmit and receive ends. The rifle would be more positive , LOL!
Your video is interesting, I am currently preparing a home in the country I already bought, to be off grid and self contained. I will make my own power, vehicle fuel, and food....
:)>The StopDead app is hypothetical, but with more and more vehicles now being connected to the internets, it's not inconceivable.
The StopDead app would be able to target specific vehicles.
It would cost about $200 and charge an additional $5 per use.
The StopDead app would give you "the ability to restrict other's movements".
EXACTLY THE SAME AS A GUN DOES, BUT IT WOULD BE SAFER BECAUSE IT COULD ONLY BE USED TO KILL CARS AND TRUCKS.
I'm asking if you believe the "mutually assured destruction" principle would also apply to the StopDead app (to mitigate potential abuse)?
OR, do you believe the StopDead app should be made illegal or restricted to only people who meet certain licensing requirements?
Saying you could modify your car to protect you from the StopDead app is exactly the same as telling people to just buy bullet-proof clothing if they are worried about random wackos shooting up their neighborhood.
I am an Electrical Engineer, so my view of a car stopper is different than yours. My intent, if I decided to do it would be to permanently destroy the internal computer in the car I wanted to disable using microwaves. This is what the Police are doing, per the trade magazines.
This type of device can destroy both cars, unless the transmitting car has internal protection against the microwave signal. I would include that protection in my car, before using the transmitter.
Any app that can be bought, can be blocked by more money on the other end.
You would also have a hard time with both of my cars. One is a 1990 Range Rover, and I cut the antenna loose in my "Connected" car. I don't care for people spying on my movements, using my own hardware.
No, turning off an ignition is NOT the same and can be blocked on almost all cars. A rifle bullet will work 100% of the time, and can be used to gather food, and protect the home. Do that with an app....
I actually have several bullet RESISTANT vests (there is no such thing as a bullet Proof vests) which I wear when I do security at church, when I also carry firearms at their request.
Firearms are not dangerous by themselves, they are simply a tool that can be used improperly. You are mixing the offensive, and a defensive use of the same device. Two completely different things....
:)>While I greatly appreciate your expert opinion on the real-world feasibility of my proposal,
You seem to be dodging the PURELY HYPOTHETICAL nature of my question.
In your opinion, should this hypothetical app be restricted? (Y/N)
I have already told you that no one has the right to limit another citizen's movement against their will. This is legally kidnapping, so any sane person woyld oppose it's use. That said;
There is no reason to limit this "app", as it us not technically feasable. It can never work, that is why the Police do not use it. They use the microwave transmitter version, with Very limited results!
The worst you could do, with an offensive app; is it would be possible to shut down your opponent's cell phone. This has been shown in court to be assault, so it is illegal already. If, in the comic books, you could make this "app" function; it would also be considered assault.
Of the six vehicles at my house, None (even the on star equipped) of them could be affected by the Internet. Almost 100% of those so attacked, would not even notice, as no function would change.
Those hacking cars for fun, are currently most impressed by controlling wipers. He had a hard link into his own car, and had expended several weeks of coding; just to reach his own wipers!
Since interducting personal Communications is already illegal ( if you shut down a 911 call, etc.); shutting down their ability to leave, would also be illegal, in the same fashion.
Illegal to use.
Not illegal to own.
Like you've pointed out, a rifle can stop most cars.
But you're not against owning rifles.
Certainly it's illegal to shoot a hole in someone else's radiator.
But developing and selling the StopDead app would not cause any harm.
The app itself does nothing (just like a gun). It's only intended to protect people from getting hit by a dangerous vehicle.
It's not an "offensive" weapon.
Do you believe this app should be made illegal and or highly restricted?
As I told you, this app is IMPOSSIBLE! It can NEVER be functional, so why are you so fascinated by a fantasy? You would whip out your phone, open the app, send the signal, and be smashed flat....
Why bother making something that is a total fantasy, illegal? Should we make Kryptonite illegal, or just restrict it? They are equally possible....
I did not intend to shoot the radiator, IF I HAD to stop a vehicle, I would destroy the engine block, not the radiator. The stop is instant that way.
I still applaud Texas for loosening the restrictions of firearms. History has proven that this will reduce gun violence.
Have your app (or Kryptomite), with my blessings, just don't bet your life on it!
:)>It's a hypothetical thought experiment.
(IFF) such an app was developed (THEN) do you believe it should be illegal or highly restricted? (Y/N)
Democide
Democide is a term proposed by R. J. Rummel since at least 1994 who defined it as "the intentional killing of an unarmed or disarmed person by government agents acting in their authoritative capacity and pursuant to government policy or high command". According to him, this definition covers a wide range of deaths, including forced labor and concentration camp victims; killings by "unofficial" private groups; extrajudicial summary killings; and mass deaths due to the governmental acts of criminal omission and neglect, such as in deliberate famines, as well as killings by de facto governments, i.e. civil war killings. This definition covers any murder of any number of persons by any government.Rummel created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder not covered by the term genocide.