Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How evil can be stopped!

  1. Apr 30, 2003 #1
    I was thinking that if we found a way that was simple in design,but quite effective in its ability to detour violent crimes,murders could be reduced dramatically.what if you put tansmitters in bullet heads.they would be pressure sensitive.when they come off they transmit a signal,that has a code on it that is received by the already existing system.using cell sights modified to receive low level RF signals could be modified to receive signals from any bullet that is fired or tampered with.you could'nt take the head off to put a new one on or fire it,or it will send a signal that the cell sight would receive and transit it to the police.you could triangulate the possible place the bullet went off by the cell sight that received it is,plus the code tells who the bullets where sold to.how you could do this is,since lead conducts electricity.you use a highy positively charged ion material placed in line with the transmitters positive side.then you insulate the negative lead of the transmitter from grounding out to the lead.since the barrel is metal and you are on the ground,you would give a good ground to the gun to let electricity flow when the bullet head comes off the casing and is fired.instantly inducing a current to the positive ions materail in the head,thus transmitting a signal to the cell sites.if this could happen millions of lives could be saved.
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 30, 2003 #2
    I dont know if it violates the constitution.but one would think that if the argument went to the supreme court.you would have to prove that under the interpretaion of the right to bare arms admendment.when you argue.the phrase"the right to bare arms"can arms be defined as a bullet.I think not.a arm would be described as,any object self contained,as a object within itself, cause someone to die.can a bullet be looked as a physical object that can kill someone by itself."no"you need the gun.maybe if you used a sling shot,and use it a a projectile.but you can't throw it at someone.its not a knife or a sword,or a baseball bat.its a hunk of metal.so if they try to ban this idea.you have to prove in court that a bullet is a arm by itself.they would'nt let you put transmitters on their guns,that could'nt happen.but its just a bullet tracking system,that you buy.your guns are yours.but you need bullets.there not weapons,so you can't keep it from happening.so you could put them on the market.every gun would send a signal,when it fires a bullet.so it does'nt have to be a new type of gun.you need something they can't stop,that works with every gun already.so this could work.if need be you can just put every registered fire in a data base.and need a court order or warrent,because of privacy act to access the information.in cases where someone was murdered.and under no other circumstances can you know what bullets were fired by a cell sight that picked up mthe signal and recorded it.
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2003
  4. Apr 30, 2003 #3
    Sounds like Big Brother man! But who's going to protect us from Big Brother?
  5. Apr 30, 2003 #4
    This would deter some crimes, but premeditated crimes would still be easily done, you could either 1) make your own bullets 2) steal bullets 3) hack the bullets (somehow, shielded or something) 4) insulate your basement so that no sound or waves can penetrate the walls or 5) take the person far into the woods where the signal would not carry to the police and maybe even 6) kill another way.

    I do like the idea though, hunters would find this a nuisance, as the bullets would be more expensive and a waste of time for them.
  6. Apr 30, 2003 #5
    How would any of this have helped Nicole Simpson, or the people who strangled to death, etc.?
    If the purpose of this thread is to stop evil then how can such a one-dimensional approach possibly achieve this goal?
  7. Apr 30, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Right. And then there is the problem of identifying who is evil. For example back in the 1980s Iran was regarded in the US as evil because of the hostage crisis. So we gave weapons to Iran's enemy, Iraq (they fought a big war back then). Later we decided Iraq was evil and that the weapons were a big threat to our safety. So...
  8. Apr 30, 2003 #7
    Indeed, as if the 'gun control' measures being contemplated here were not one-dimensional enough to be ineffectual for stopping evil (despite the good intentions), the subjective nature of what is or isn't evil is the crowning glory...
  9. Apr 30, 2003 #8
    Well I know it's not a perfect solution,stopping everyone from killing someone.but the point is to the police what you so is.make people give there name when they buy the bullets.then since each bullet is tagged by lot numbers.each transmitter is registered to the owner who bought the bullets.then you watch the lead and the gun power sales.if you try to open the casing to use the bullet again,it goes off.you would'nt be stupid to take the head off.what would happen,is people would turn to other alternatives to killing poeple.that are less effective.this would detour poeple from doing it.crime would go down,sure you can't stop everyone but it could'nt hurt.not to mention,the benifit would be,if you are shot by someone,would'nt you like to know than the police know a shot was fired,and a ambulance or police are coming,by triangulating were the shot was by cell site receivers,not to mention,the killer would'nt get far,its like a early warning system to someone may have been shot,would'nt you like to know your life might be saved,under normal circumstances you would've have been dead.it would make you feel safer know to police are going to find you,hopefully before its to late.
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2003
  10. Apr 30, 2003 #9
    Does crushing a persons head with a rock kill him any better than shooting them?:smile:
  11. Apr 30, 2003 #10
    well ya know.Its not going to happen.I thought it was a cool idea,ya know"what if"the world would be a better place.I did'nt say it would work.but anyway,you think I'm trying to preach "change" or something.but for that matter at least I'm trying.instead of procrastinating about it.
  12. Apr 30, 2003 #11
    I, for one, think this is a good idea, it would deter a lot of petty crime, such as armed robbery, or heat-of-the-moment murder, etc. At the very least this would create another alternative to DNA testing, because most of the time DNA isn't present, very useful in court, you should put your plan in motion if you are truely trying to change things.
  13. May 1, 2003 #12
    I have no power in the world,but I told you,thats a start!
  14. May 2, 2003 #13
    don't let Carlston Heston (spelling is off I'm sure) hear about this idea...
  15. May 2, 2003 #14
    First off, I don't believe in evil, but that's besides the point.

    Second, have you honestly never heard of a saturday night special? Current serious attempts at gun control in the US don't even pretend for a moment that it will stop "evil" or serious criminals. Instead the hope is it will help to prevent children killing each other and themselves and other extremely preventable trajadies.

    Third, England has already gene typed just about every living soul in the country. They are solving crimes that date back thirty years. The state I live in, Virginia, is currently gene typing every felony case and the trend is obvious.

    In his science fiction book, "Earth", physicist David Brin speculated that in the near future crimes in public would vanish to practically zero. This, he assumed, would occur because the availability of cheap cameras built into glasses and even the buttons on your shirt would make getting away with such crimes virtually impossible.

    These cameras would send the video to a privately owned and operated company computer locked inside a vault somewhere. These computers would scan the video for possible illegal activity, store it for a period of time, and if anything untoward was discovered it would notify the police and send them the video.

    Combined with dna evidence, such a system would be virtually unbeatable.
  16. May 2, 2003 #15
    There is a far more straight way to "solve" this, and that is restrict the selling of arms and ammunition, and restrict the use of carrying weapons to only police officers.

    Most civilised countries do not allow citizins to arm themselves.

    The need to carry a gun is always linked to the ability of others to carry a gun too. So everbodies safety would improve from restricting weapons use.
  17. Dec 9, 2003 #16
    Electronically tagged bullets...
    CCD camera buttons...
    Gene mapped citizens...
    Facial recognition camers on all street corners...

    Yes, just what we need.

    While we are at it, why not just install subdermal GPS transmitters and larynx microphones that transmit our identification, whereabouts and conversations to a centeral mainframe system so all our movements and actions can be tracked, recorded and cross referenced?
    Oh, and we can install cerebral implants in all newborns that cause an uncomfortable stinging sensation and a temporary decrease in Dopamine production when an increase in Adrenalin production is detected.
    I read that there is a correlation between children with low blood pressure & heart rates and tendencies to commit violent crimes in young adulthood due to adrenalin addiction. Maybe we should keep all kids that have low blood pressure & heart rate on barbituates between the ages of 10 and 16.

    Who cares about civil liberty and silly old privacy?
    Why bother focuing on what causes trends of violent crimes when we can just nip at the symptoms and remove all civil liberties from everyone (criminal or not) in the process?

    When you have any problem (including social problems such as violent crime), it is ineffective to focus on the symptoms.
    Social problems have a cause (or causes).
    The cause is not the ability to get away with it.
    If the problem is on the rise, the only effective way to deal with the problem is to treat the cause(s).
    Let's say child abuse is on the rise.
    There are two ways to approach it.
    1.) Address the sypmtoms
    Greater penalties for child abusers (which won't do sh1t since it is a crime of passion and there are already stiff penalties).
    Hire more police (a lot of good that'll do you).
    Mandatroy visits to homes of all children by social workers (which is not only a logistical nightmare, but would cost a fortune, and do little to no good because the signs aren't always obvious and there wouldn't be enough time for the social workers to spend at each house)
    After all these measures, whatever is causing the increase in child abuse is still there.
    2.) Address the causes
    Attempt to determine what is causing the rise in child abuse by looking at the individual cases and finding correlations between the situations (is dad an achoholic? is mom clinically depressed? is the marriage on the rocks? were the parents abused as children? etc).
    Address those causes (mandate a psychological assesment for new parents-to-be and free family counseling when so prescribed, perhaps).

    Regardless of the ineffectual means fo treating the symptoms rather than the disease, greater governmental control is NEVER a good thing.
    Why would anyone want that, other than the government, that is?

    For everyone that just read this and thinks I am over-reacting and blowing things out of proportion, 20 years ago the concept of governmentally run imaging cameras on street lamps would have been unthinkable in a "free" society, now they are ion several communities and gaining support.
    Freedom doesn't get ripped out from under you like a rug, it slips away slowly enough for you to barely take notice.
    Each little step is no big deal, then you trun around to find yourself looking down a helluva staircase.
  18. Jan 1, 2004 #17
    It would seem; Its better to have a firearm and not need to use it.
    over needing a firearm and not having one.
  19. Jan 1, 2004 #18


    User Avatar

    But these are not the choices.

    The argument from gun-control supporters is that the possession of the weapon - with a certain frame of mind that usually goes with it - itself helps create the need, or desire to use it.

    Meanwhile, removing the need to use the firearms only comes with acceptance that society benefits without the gun.
  20. Mar 19, 2004 #19
    Give bullets license plates?

    Why not?

    Take pictures of the buyers and connect them to the digits.
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2004
  21. Apr 24, 2004 #20
    A theory on How to stop Evil with the ultimate evil words!

    Claim#666: evil is destruction that is aimed at you by someone else, when you're aiming it at them it is often called "all good"; also known as hate, stupidity, and "love". The primary cause of criminal evil is hate results from excessive childhood emotional stimulation of aggression in just the right way, it's when a mother or father tells their child to do whatever they say knowing full well that the child will not do that without question and will rebel, in so rebelling the child must be negatively punished and in being punished the behavior pattern of rebellion is rewarded with stimulation, negative stimulation but stimulation just the same is effective to a child with very little perception of negative consequences and a great deal of perception of any possible rewards. Worse still is that both the child and the adult become addicted to a hate cycling of stimulation, the result is a very stubborn and strong willed child that can't easily be told what to do and is constantly searching for the adrenalline rush of intense visceral stimulation good or bad- although a problem child can make a good leader. In today's modern world this behavior type usually goes to jail at least once and if this type of child never learns to deal well with their aggression through military or other training it can lead to being a generator of hate or evil the cause of this behavior type is mostly a reflection of the parents emotions and ways of using them.
    Behind all of this there may be another reason why raising a hateful child is a good thing, in a world where everyone is out to take as much as they can or at least take as much as they can in order not to lose everything they've got, raising a deciever and hateful child that can't be told what to do and is skeptical of everything and distrusts everyone is more likely to climb to the top of this mountain of greed. A docile and fearful child is far less likely, most likely they will be used by everyone else as were their parents and there lies the motive, you wouldn't want your child to go through the same things you went through so get them angry and mean now and ready for a harsh world of lies and evil to defend themselves right? So that is what you're up against, to stop evil everyone would have to realize that we are all evil and seek to understand their own poor and selfish understandings. But then a nobody can't tell somebody what to do, we all have to learn.
    Most likely it's like the Buddha said, it comes down to lack of understanding leads to evil, lack of questioning oneself leads to continued blindness to do evil, lack of honesty leads to blindness to justify evil, and lack of reasoning leads to a life governed by animal instincts and base emotions which easily misinterprets the world as evil and so sends it back according to very simple functions like the feeling of relativity that if they have more than I then they must have taken it from me, but if I have more then of course it was well deserved, an average person today would have been a king or queen in ancient times but still a hard worker ant the difference is mostly relative control over others.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook