It’s mostly an illusion.
Here’s a more recent report card on airport security (just noticed my previous link is a bit dated): http://www.capapilots.org/aviation_security.asp
I still remember when I visited Washington DC when I was in AFJROTC, and I was walking around most days in my JROTC uniform, complete with silver belt buckle and coat buttons, brass-backed ribbons and ribbon rack, ground school wings, hat pin, etc. and every metal detector I went through made nary a peep (and there were an impressive number of them in Washington DC in the spring of the year 2001). I don’t know if the ones at airports are cranked up to a much higher sensitivity than the ones used in government buildings, but it doesn’t seem like these things would be set off by a bra (unless it’s the airport x-rays from the Airplane movies).
I think their sensitivity before raising an alarm can be adjusted. I certainly have known women whose underwire was enough (more than one woman has mentioned it to me…stripped of all metal they walked through the detector, set off the alarm and the “wand” detector beeped around their boobs). Anecdotal I suppose but the detector apparently can trigger on something like this.
You are absolutely correct. If there were no reason to commit gun crimes, we wouldn’t have to worry about them. If we would just eliminate poverty and social and economic injustice, and mental abberations and unhappiness and social alienation, we’d be fine and we could just forget about all the guns in all the houses and apartments in all the neighborhoods and areas of the country. I continue to work and vote for folks that want to move us in that direction, too. But in the absence of a great deal of progress in those directions, I would also like to see us limit access to guns, and to reduce the number of guns that are present in America.
I see that Groman suggests that reducing the number of guns doesn’t necessarily reduce the number of gun crimes. According to that logic, of course, if we got rid of all the guns but one, then that one gun would somehow have to commit all the crimes. No, I would be much happier if there were fewer guns available, and I’m happy to try to make efforts at that while at the same time making society a better place in which to live - less threatening, more fair, and less inclined to create folks who are inclined to solve their problems with guns.
Ahh, well in that case someone is setting up the metal detectors wrong, possibly intentionally thinking it will help them detect more weapons (for all they know, you could be planning to use that bra to garrote someone!)
:dubious: Which is exactly what I said, no?
It’s foolproof in what it does - spend money and create jobs. There is no implication it does anything else.
Well, there is a practical limit as to how many bullets a gun can shoot. However, using your impossible thought experiment, whoever had that one gun would determine the definition of ‘crime’, and I’m willing to bet it would be constantly used until failed but no crime would be committed.
It didn’t read that way, no. Sarcasm doesn’t generally parse well in print.
Wow. Post 50 before somebody raises this point?
The entry gate described in the OP would be quite expensive to construct. In the town I just moved from, there are two school buildings (high school and K-8). Each has a main entrance. The high school building also has a shop entrance (big door where you can bring in supplies) and a gym entrance. The K-8 building has a playground entrance, which is also the wheelchair entrance. That’s five of these entry gates to be constructed. I’d be amazed if they could be built for less than $20K each - probably a lot more.
So the school in a town of 200 people is supposed to raise over $100K for a new security system when the kids are using geography books that still have Czechoslovakia as a country? The school district is struggling to pass mill levies to pay to have the heating system fixed, the water leaks in the roof repaired, and the gymnasium made wheelchair accessible. Where would this money come from?
Dude, it’s coming back. Hang onto your old maps and don’t toss out that globe. The Late Cold War is going to be the next retro fashion phase. “We start bombing in five minutes.”
Besides, federal funds will pay for it, especially if the Congressional Rep can stand out front during the ribbon-cutting ceremony and give a long-winded speech about all that he’s doing to fight crime. And the stoner kids will all be around back toking up and giggling while the punks and stompers vandalize the cars in the visitors’ lot. Hey, like I said, the Eighties are coming back. We just need to elect a former actor-cum-California governor as President…
Stranger
Duh! Bake sale! 
Thank you so much for all of your responses. I have followed the discussion with much interest.
The idea appealed to me for several reasons but foremost because it did not involve actual gun control. Amerikans like their guns. I was trying to think of something that would serve only to stop guns appearing where we don’t want them, airports, churches, schools, etc.
While I’m sure it’s true you could manufacture a gun in a garage machine shop, making one that doesn’t blow up the user is probably a might more difficult, and beyond the skill set of Joe Criminal.
In my idea the ‘tell’ would be something that could be detected easily with far less expensive equipment than your average metal detector. No, I don’t know what this magic compound might be. But science is always making up cool new things, I bet if they applied themselves, they could find something.
And certainly there are 100 year old guns out there but I’d wager they are not being used to commit crimes largely. And you do have to start somewhere to secure public spaces, it’s not just here, it’s subways in England, markets in Tel Aviv. I guess I just believe it would have wide applications world wide if such a system were implemented.
Of course, it’s only a half baked idea, from a rank amateur but I sincerely thank you for your intelligent and lively consideration, you’ve given me much to think about.
You’re not a scientist or engineer, are you? Because I bet every scientist or engineer on this board felt a chill down their spine when they read that sentence. We’ve all heard variants of it way, way too many times from our non-technical bosses, or even worse, salesmen.
But yeah, your plan would be prohibitively expensive for the very minor return it would provide.
Tim Wilson: (paraphrased)
“So now they’re putting metal detectors in front of the schools. Great. Now the nuts will shoot the guy working the metal detector on their way in.”
I don’t doubt you. On the other hand, we also know how many processes, items, and concepts have been developed as the result of a request or desire - not simply from serendipitous fiddling on the part of a scientist or engineer. After all, many of them (you?) are employed and funded by folks who are looking for particular results. And those of us on the outside have seen enough of it to know that that process does have payoffs. So it’s not just pie in the sky babble to say, “Someday, if they tried, they could develop or invent XYZ.” The public has seen it happen too many times to ignore it.
But we already HAVE a foolproof method of detecting guns! It’s called a freaking metal detector.
You want to invent a system to detect one particular alloy out of all other alloys? I don’t know how you’d go about such a thing, but by defintion it’s going to be much more complicated and much more expensive and much more tempermental than a simple metal detector.
The idea that we need this system so we can get rid of metal detectors is ludicrious. How many schools in this country have metal detectors at the doors? A very very small number of inner city high schools. There are just about no schools with metal detectors at the door.
And you propose not to install metal detectors at every school, but your fancy magic gun detector that will only detect guns manufactured after a certain date. And this will work better than a metal detector because…? Because…?
Your magic firearm detector does absolutely nothing that a standard metal detector can’t do. And it will solve absolutely no problem that a standard metal detector can’t solve. If you think we need metal detectors at the door of every school, every church, every store, every house, every bank, every library, then say so. But how much good would that do? How many shootings would it prevent?
The fact is, most shootings are not done by random psychos who bring a gun to a public place and start executing people. Most shootings are done either by criminals who use a gun to get your money, or by people who know the victim.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, if it prevents only one shooting it’s worth it, no matter how much it costs. Except if you really want to make people safer you wouldn’t put metal detectors at every doorway, you’d mandate safer cars and lower speed limits on the highways. If even one life is saved by making the speed limit 40 mph, wouldn’t it be worth it? What are you, some kind of car nut?
I rather like Chris Rock’s (I think) idea on how to reduce the occurance of gun crimes:
Raise the cost of ammunition to $10,000 a bullet, everywhere.
Not only will people be less inclined to shoot someone, they’ll be a LOT more careful about who they shoot, so as not to waste ammo (reducing the loss of innocent bystanders). Not only that, but ERs can fund themselves by treating gunshot victims and keeping the bullets, assuming that the victims don’t have the bullets removed by the shooters themselves hoping to get their bullet back.
Also known as, “We should do ___. After all, how hard could it be?” Such scheme often involve the use of unobtainium alloys, infinite bandwidth data streams, and temporal redaction hardware.
And how exactly would you impose this requirement? If your intention is to ban firearms and ammuntion, just ban it. Don’t maintain some facile pretense (as is done in Chicago) that you can get a permit to purchase a handgun, but “Oops, sorry, we’re out of forms today. Come back next week.”
Stranger
Heh, take it easy there, Killer. You do realize that if I’m citing a stand-up comedian for an idea, I’m probably presenting the idea in jest? 