Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumAh geez, not this shit again...
http://bostonglobe.com/podiumIt is clear that the NRA has a stranglehold on Washington and true reform will have to come from the states.
In Massachusetts, the solutions are right at our fingertips.
Just as your fingerprint can be used to unlock your iPhone, fingerprint technology can be used to operate firearms.
Doing so would ensure that a firearm could be operated only by its rightful owner or designees.
Unless and until the gun was hacked of course...
The state's consumer protection statute allows the attorney general to regulate firearms and further protect the citizens of
the Commonwealth from undue harm. It's time we use the power of this law to protect the health and safety of our citizens...
What if the citizen decides to protect their health and safety by bypassing the
fingerprint lock to ensure the firearm works when they need it to?
That exists only in spy movies
WARREN TOLMAN
Candidate for attorney general
Mr. Tolman, please leave scientific and technological ignorance to Republicans-
got "Strategic Defense Initiative", anyone?
As an aside: I do really like being a resident of the Bay State, but certain types are just a little
too smug about residing here...
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And I mention this because I was just reading their "about" page yesterday, shaking my head. Yes, they want to dismantle gun rights at the local level, it's no surprise, see point #6, below.
Of course, if gun rights activists try to do that, they call it an "assault".
Point #4 is where this new "child safe gun technology" would the cost of a firearm out of reach of anyone but the wealthy and criminals.
And, read the underlined part, the biggest lie in their whole presentation:
Moms Demand Action envisions a country where all children and families are safe from gun violence. Our nonpartisan grassroots movement is made up of more than 100,000 members and a chapter in every state across the country. We are educating, motivating, and mobilizing moms and families to take action that will result in stronger laws and policies to save lives. We support these solutions to help address gun violence in the United States:
1 Require background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases;
2 Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds;
3 Track the sale of large quantities of ammunition, and ban online sales;
4 Establish product safety oversight of guns and ammunition, and require child-safe gun technology;
5 Support policies at companies and public institutions that promote gun safety;
6 Counter the gun industrys efforts to weaken gun laws at the state level.
We are facing a public health crisis: Nearly eight American children are shot and killed every day. Anything else responsible for this many deaths would be immediately investigated and regulated. Not a single federal law has been passed in decades to prevent gun violence not after Columbine and not after Newtown.
I can agree with Point #1 and Point #3 and Point #5, conditionally.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Someone else here pointed out they made it official just before they would
have been compelled to file a Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service.
spin
(17,493 posts)1)I lived in Massachusetts for a couple of years and I remember the cold winters when I wore gloves. Fingerprint technology does not work if you are wearing a full glove on your shooting hand.
2) Fingerprint technology would require the use of a battery. If the battery loses its change it would be useless as a home defense weapon. Many people store their weapons properly in a safe and rarely handle them. It would be all too easy to forget to charge your self defense weapon or to change the batteries on a regular basis and that could lead to a tragedy. Assume you are an armed homeowner and you find yourself facing an intruder who intends to harm you or your family and is armed. You point your firearm at him and pull the trigger and nothing happens.
Beretta Announces Position Concerning "Smart Gun" Technology
***snip***
We also know that people rely upon firearms to protect their lives. The Fall 1995 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology reports that firearms are used defensively 2.3 million times per year. (A subsequent National Institute of Justice study places the number of defensive uses at 3 million per year and a Los Angeles Times survey placed the number at 2.5 million defensive uses per year.) Many of these defensive uses involved warding off danger by simply displaying the gun, but in 15.6% of the defensive uses, the person using the gun stated that they "almost certainly" saved their life by doing so.
This means, for every life lost in a firearm-related accident in that same year, 255 lives may have been saved through defensive gun use. (It should also be noted that most firearm accidents are hunting accidents or involve the owner of the firearm shooting themselves or another person, none of which would be prevented by "smart gun" technology or, for that matter, any lock.) For every accidental death, suicide or homicide involving firearms in 1994, 10 lives may have been saved through defensive gun use.
Most importantly, these studies document the importance of firearm use in saving lives. A device that prevents or seriously impedes such use -- such as current "smart gun" concepts -- would cost more lives than it might save.
***snip***
The idea of a "smart gun" has appeal to the unwary and has been promoted by gun control advocates who have no technical understanding of firearms design nor, apparently, of the risks inherent in their proposals. Beretta trusts that politicians and voters who consider this issue carefully and objectively will agree that such devices should not be required in handguns.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=905
ileus
(15,396 posts)Of course those that write these laws want you dead, that's helps bolster their support. "Oh look he was killed trying to swipe his finger print....oops."
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)only after the police adopt it since a firearm must operate 100% of the time and this just will cause that to drop.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...if Tolman attempts to have his way.
In practice, simple technological solutions to complex problems tend to be
neither 'simple' nor actual 'solutions'.
I would point out as an example firing pins that imprint upon bullet casings.
Turns out, this much-touted method for tracking guns that are used in crimes
can be defeated by a) simple wear and tear, b) replacement of the firing pin
c) the use of a brass catcher, d) use of a two dollar nail file, or e) use of a revolver.
I give those that shill such things the same respect due the folks who sell
$39.95 add-ons for your car that will give you 100 MPG...
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)See how easy that is?
....that's the road they're taking...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)That will also be filed under"growing pains".
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Worrying about shit like this is more likely to cost you your life. Try to think positively and think how many lives can be saved by implementing such safety features.
Bazinga
(331 posts)where is the evidence to support such a claim? Can it really be shown that those who legally carry weapons are more likely than their peers to be victims of any crime, much less murder?
sir pball
(4,759 posts)It's a recognized issue, officers having their firearms taken used against them. Surely you support their mandatory use of this technology as well?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)In fact, I am opposed to the routine carrying of firearms by anyone, especially the police.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)were unarmed, which direction do you believe the crime rate would go?
If you lived in the U.S. For 35 years, either you are quite old or you were a bobby in Manchester for a very brief period. Which is it?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And I am quite old. I thought that was obvious.
The problem with routinely armed cops is that it creates an us versus them mentality and an inherent mistrust. This is less prevalent in small town America and also in some inner city neighborhoods, but overall, the citizenry in the US does not trust cops and a big reason for that is because they are armed to the teeth and are generally not friendly.
This does not help with cooperation or the flow of information between potential witnesses and LE.
This is also one of the reasons why the citizens want the right to be armed and I don't blame them. Cops are not routinely armed in the UK, because the people would not stand for it and the cops don't want to be, because they want to be considered part of the citizenry rather than a paramilitary organization.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)distrust of authority in general. Has nothing to do with the cops being armed, has everything to do with the country's founding being based on the writings of Enlightenment era classical liberals.
Cops in the UK never carried guns because the citizens would view the MPD as the British Army, who was known for a lot of things, but respect for individual rights wasn't one of them.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)I grew up in a small town where there was no distrust of local law enforcement, well except for the small numbers that went afoul of the law. I have lived in suburbia for a little more than 20 years and I see no distrust of law enforcement. I do know of urban areas in the Twin Cities where there is a lot of distrust of law enforecement, coincidently, that is where the most gun crime occurs. If those cops were routinely unarmed those areas would turn into Manhatten from Escape to New York and it would take Snake Plissken to get the law abiding citizens to safety.
(I had thought you were in your early 60s.)
As you may remember I have two brothers who are cops. One in a small department adjacent to Minneapolis (1st ring old suburb) and another in a city of 40,000 but the metro area has a population of 220,000. Neither of said they would go anywhere on duty without their sidearm. They also wear bullet resistent vests while on duty every single shift. Neither has ever discharged their gun in a combined 58 years of experience. I also have two cousins in small towns in Wisconsin, one a chief of police, the other a chief deputy. The deputy has had two shoot his weapon on two different occasions, neither perp was killed, they did both shoot at my cousin first however, one was with a .30-06, it's a good thing he missed.
None of these guys are trigger happy. They would not do their jobs if they were required to be disarmed.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I said that I am opposed to the routine carrying of weapons in public. Big difference. There are times when it makes a lot of sense to be well armed, but those occasions are few and far between, as your brothers and cousins can testify to. Having a weapon or two available in a patrol car, or station house, makes a lot of sense. Wearing one while directing traffic or writing a parking ticket or canvassing potential witnesses doesn't.
Unfortunately, though, I can sympathize with your brothers. I wouldn't wear a uniform on the street in the US without a gun either. It will take a huge social shift to change the gun mentality in the US. The horse is out of the barn and at full gallop. Good luck trying to get it back in the barn.
I think 2A seemed like a good idea at the time, but sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)If the cop does not have his duty weapon in a holster on his person, then he is disarmed.
You are correct, the horse is out of the barn.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Unarmed is not the same as disarmed. Just as I support the right to own firearms, and even carry them when necessary, I do not condone the practice of carrying them routinely, by anyone. The circumstances necessary for carrying should be extreme and the decision to carry or not should be well considered. It should not be as automatic as putting on shoes and socks.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)with frequency. If that duty gun is not on their person, they are both disarmed and unarmed.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Disarmed does not mean leaving your gun in your car. It means being forced to leave it. I recommend being unarmed, not disarmed.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)to your poont of view, then he officers would be disarmed. I don't know why your are arguing semantics, the result is the same, a cop without his duty gun on his person at most times.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Disarmed does not mean leaving your gun in your car. It means being forced to leave it. I recommend being unarmed, not disarmed.
Sometimes the rational choice is to be armed. Sorry.
Perhaps we should extend this "rational choice" policy to the UK. Let patrol officers carry firearms if they wish. Let's see how many would. I think the result might surprise you.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Yes. Officers should consult an oracle daily before commencing patrol. They know that they will always need their shoes and socks, but they will rely on the oracle to tell them when they will need a firearm.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Really.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Gangs are all about territory and the armed LE gang is no different. Drawing boundaries, a sense of belonging, good guys and bad guys, kinda like Iraq and Afghanistan. Same shit.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Gangs fighting over drug money and territory have all the motivation they need to kill each other.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)That was true in the 1950s-late 1960s when gangs had rumbles with tire chains, ice picks, knives, baseball bats after school. That is no longer the case in the US, now it is about sales territories and employee theft.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)" now it is about sales territories and employee theft"
I give up
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)two different concepts. Before it was territory for the sake of territory, and no monetary motive. Now its the drug business, and the money. FWIW, they began using guns after passage of the Gun Control Act and Nixon started his war on drugs. While the first is coincidence and a simple correlation, I think the second is causation.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Ah yes, the "us versus them" mentality, so unlike the state of affairs in the UK, where everything is skittles-and-beer between the populace and the police ...
http://www.marxist.com/riots-london-britain.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14439970
You've been away for a long time, my friend.
sir pball
(4,759 posts)For being reasonable and consistent
bossy22
(3,547 posts)Do you feel fine with putting untested safety technology in all cars? Airplanes?
The general life cycle of technology is that first you work out the bugs, then you incorporate into everyday life. Not the opposite way around. It would be like if the government mandated that all new cars have airbags in 1975, just a few short years after major car companies started playing around with them in concepts.
On a personal note, I can't stand this argument for fingerprint locks on gun for the life of me. It is deceptive in its very nature. It makes the reader believe that firearms are inherently dangerous based on design/engineering- irregardless of how the user decides to "use" it. I ask you, how many guns blow up in their users hands each year? How many just fire on their own without any human intervention?
Gun accidents don't usually happen due to design failure, they happen due to human stupidity, which is extremely hard to regulate if you intend to still treat adults like adults. If you want to treat everyone as just a grown up child that's a different story....
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The problem is not the guns, but the users. Accidents are a small aspect of the issue. Whether the user is a child or a mugger, the gun is not going to work - that's what is important. Think about it.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)make their own submachine guns.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)To protect themselves against warring Australian biker gangs.
You are a hoot GE.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)My point has more to do with, at the risk of being a technocrat, people have no business regulating things they know nothing about. The typical gun control advocate, in my experience, is ignorant of (or dishonest about)
the technology, current gun laws, and basic facts of criminology. I always question the intellect of politicians who get their ideas from watching B grade movies and spy thrillers.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And politicians should only regulate politics? Hmmm?!?!?
I thought your issue was with the technical unfeasibility, not the regulation. Or is it both? And what does public and personal safety have to do with gun control advocacy?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Couldn't have anything to do with their efficacy, by any chance? Hence the overall murder and suicide rates are much higher than they would be in a less gun infested society. Now, that being the case, what the heck is wrong with trying to reduce those numbers without taking away the rights of individuals to own guns?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)bossy22
(3,547 posts)The U.S. sits in the middle of the pack when it comes to suicide rate. Japan has a significantly higher rate of suicide despite being a "gun free" nation
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Are you saying that guns are not the weapon of choice for either murder or suicide in the US?
I think you will find they are.
I said nothing about suicide rates, just the weapon/method of choice.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)It's not exactly relevant to the discussion, is it? Should I choose to take MY life, MY gun would respond to MY fingerprint and allow ME to blow MY brains out. This technology would have little or no effect on suicide rates.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You see, it's not all about you, my friend.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... were such a person to exist, would have no access to my firearms to begin with. He or she, poor hypothetical soul, would have to find another means of leaving this world.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)With that attitude you make quite a poster boy for the gun culture.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Which part? The part about not having children, or the part about practicing safe storage of my firearms?
I'm sorry. Was I cavalier in my attitude toward the emotional problems of the child that I don't have?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Straw Man
(6,625 posts)My only point was that the smart gun won't effectively deter suicide because people tend to do that with THEIR OWN guns, which are already coded to THEIR OWN fingerprints, allowing THEM to blow THEIR OWN brains out.
See? It works just as well in the third person.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)like their angst ridden teenagers or depressed spouse or their curious toddler. Do you get it now? It's not all about you.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)like their angst ridden teenagers or depressed spouse or their curious toddler. Do you get it now? It's not all about you.
And my point, which you seem to have missed again, was that locking up one's guns precludes that eventuality without an expensive and unproven technology, a technology which would do nothing to prevent the gun owner's suicide. Apparently it is fine with you if gun owners commit suicide. I suggest to you that this demonstrates a callous indifference to human life.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)We're talking here about guns that are NOT locked up. Why would we care about locked up guns, unless they were stolen? We're talking about guns that people carry around in public, guns that can easily be stolen by a determined thief. We're talking about guns that are carelessly left lying around.
Why would we use an unproven technology? Did I suggest that? What I do suggest is developing a solid technology, which despite you and the other naysayers, is possible. Sorry if it's expensive, but lives are expensive too.
Callous is not giving a shit about shooting victims. Callous is about shooting down every positive suggestion for safety, especially if it is going to cost you a few extra bucks. Callous is caring more about yourself and your wallet than the lives of others.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... that we were talking about suicide. Remember? So a determined thief will use his x-ray vision to see that someone is carrying a concealed gun and then will mug that person for his gun in order to commit suicide with it? Is that what you're suggesting?
My solution to that is to not carelessly leave guns lying around.
The editorial cited in the OP calls for legislation mandating use of the existing technology. Anything is possible, but what is being proposed is foolish. Am I a naysayer? Sorry, but sometimes "nay" is the correct answer. There is absolutely no evidence that this technology would save any lives. But what the hell, let's try it as long as it's not your money that's being spent.
Nowhere did I say that I don't care about shooting victims. That particular calumny originated with you, who, on the other hand, invited gun owners to go ahead and off themselves. Sounds pretty callous to me.
hack89
(39,171 posts)So how do you intend to reduce suicides with that in mind? It is impossible to determine who will commit suicide.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)how would you feel if a family member used your gun to end it? A gun can be a very "handy" problem solver for those in pain. How would you feel if junior decided to point it at his sister and pull the trigger during one of those "fraternal moments"?
We're never going to eliminate idiots, suicides, accidents or homicides, but if we make an effort to reduce them by common sense safety technology, that is pretty much idiot and theft proof, then we might put a big dent in the numbers.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Who's the poster boy for the anti-gun culture?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I have nothing against guns, just the assholes who think it's cool to carry them around and don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)So you don't care if such people die. Check.
And I have nothing against gun controllers, just the hypocrites who try to mask their hatred, prejudice, and authoritarianism in verbal gymnastics and contorted logic.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I advocate for common sense and fair legislation addressed at public safety that respects individual rights. I advocate for self control and safety, not gun control. Find me one quote that makes me an authoritarian, a hater or prejudiced against group of people.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)I advocate for common sense and fair legislation addressed at public safety that respects individual rights.
Of course you do, dear. Of course you do. No one could possibly be against something that's "common sense" and "fair," especially if it "respects individual rights." The problem is that the legislation you're advocating for meets none of those criteria.
The irony is rich. You're arguing for a gun control measure as we speak. You told gun owners to go ahead and eat their guns if they wished. No, you're not a controller or a hater. Not a bit.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I think gun manufacturers could make their devices safer by implementing new technology. You can try to paint me as a controller all day long. Doesn't make me one. But I do hate assholes, you're right about that.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... we can agree that this technology should not be mandated in Massachusetts? That's the matter under discussion, no matter how much you would like to pretend that it's all about you and your opinions.
You do realize, of course, that legislation is the only way that this technology would be adopted, since it's something that the market certainly doesn't demand. Nobody says to him/herself, "Gee, I'm an irresponsible gun owner, so I think I'd better get one of these fingerprint-recognition guns so that I can just leave my guns lying around."
Your stance is untenable: "I think we should have it, but I don't want to mandate it. I'd rather just wait for human nature to change, and then when it doesn't, I can carp about irresponsible assholes and thereby assert my moral superiority."
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)rather too obviously a euphemism for 'gun prohibitionism'.
As evidence, I give you the gun prohibitionist in this thread that claims to be
a safety advocate...
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)"...assholes who think it's cool to carry them around and don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves."
Did you already forget posting this?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:27 PM - Edit history (1)
What's your point? Do you think it's cool to carry guns around? Really? Because there is nothing cool about it.
I understand some carry because they live in fear, or it is their job, but those who carry because they think it's cool are complete assholes.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)What group are you referring to? Oh right, I said "I have nothing against guns, just the assholes who think it is cool to carry guns around and don't give a fuck about anyone else. "
Now how does that make me an authoritarian, hater or prejudiced against a group of people. I'm against assholes, that's all.
But feel free to keep digging. Meanwhile I'm off for a swim.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)prejudiced against those who conceal carry. That is obvious from nearly all of your posts.
I'd like to go for a swim, but the beach where we swim at is covered with ice and snow and it's -5° today.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)which we all suffer from at times. Concealed carry is sometimes justified and a smart thing to do. Routine carry is foolish and only serves to encourage the peddlers of fear and disharmony. I wish you and yours a peaceful and healthy new year.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that could be viewed as "prejudiced against a group of people", I would simply describe it as judgmental. Comparing the State/Crown as a "parent" certainly smacks of authoritarianism.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you think carrying a gun in public is cool? If so, please explain what you find cool about it.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it isn't about "coolness". That went out in Jr. High. You are projecting your outlook onto others, and judging them based on that.
It is simply exercising their right no more, no less.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Has nothing to do with exercising a right. We all have the right to behave like idiots, but most of us choose not to and a few think it's cool.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)people stop doing things "to be cool" in Jr. High. Yes, it has everything to do with exercising a right.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)My point is, that it's about personal choices, not rights. We all have the right to act foolishly, but most of us choose not to. Many people perceive guns as being "cool", whether you and I do or not. Many think carrying a gun is a "cool" thing to do. You may think the word disappeared when you were in junior high, but it didn't. "groovy" may hav faded away, but "cool" has stuck around, like it or not.
But feel free to use others descriptors, makes no difference. All you need to do is visit a gun show or a Cabelas and you will hear the oohs and aahs about the coolness of the latest gun gear, from the latest holsters to the pink pistols. Fear is what is being sold, but "Cool" is what is marketed and "cool" is what is bought into.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)they also have the right not to.
Been to plenty of gun shows and gun shops in my life. I didn't find any Ohhs and ahhs. Now finding something rare like a Mauser Luger in .45 ACP was cool. The price tag vs my budget wasn't.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Yet you choose not to. What's with that?
I agree that certain guns are cool. Carrying them thoughtlessly, just because it is legal, is not cool. Sorry. Just because something is a right doesn't make it cool. That is my point.
I guess you don't go to Cabelas much. On my few visits I have witnessed many such reactions by those smitten with the fashionista coolness of gun toting. But YMMV
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I respect the right to choose, but not the choice. Just as I respect and support a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion, but I do not respect those who choose abortion as a primary method of birth control.
Just as I respect a voter's right to choose, but I don't necessarily respect their choices.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)My thinking is a lot more nuanced than that. Respect is different than agree with. In the case of the voter, not agreeing with the choice is not the same not respecting the reason for the choice.
Agreeing with and respecting, or not, are two different concepts. You can disagree with someones choice but respect their reasoning for it. Conversely, you can agree with someones choice but not respect their reason for doing so.
When it comes to natural rights/individual rights, my approval means not much.
If I were to write the educational standards in the US, I would make Enlightenment writers like Locke (and the writings of founders like Thomas Paine's books and the Federalist/Anti Federalist papers) mandatory starting in Jr. High if not grade school.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You respect the choice to carry indiscriminately because it is a right. Does that also mean you agree with that choice?
I think where we differ is, that I respect one's right to choose, but I definitely do not respect the choice, whether I agree with it or disagree with it. I respect your right to decide anything, but not the decision itself. Agreeing or disagreeing with something has nothing to do with respect.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I can agree with a choice but not the respect the reason.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You say you agree with the choice, either way. Do you mean you agree with the right to choose, or the actual choice?
Then you say you agree with the choice to indiscriminately carry most of the time, depending on the reason. Indiscriminately means there is no specific reason besides the possibility of needing it. So do you repect that reason, or lack thereof?
I can think of lots of good reasons for carrying a gun, but the remote possibility of it coming in handy, is not one of them, nor is the notion that it is a cool thing to do, nor is the notion that I should do it because it's my right and rights need to be exercised in a particular way. So, those who say they carry because it is their right are full of shit. That is not the reason they carry, it's merely an attempt to justify their behavior.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The laws, rights etc. are pretty irrelevant. Anyone who really wants to carry is going to carry, regardless. My issue is with the mentality that thinks it is in some way positive or progressive or cool.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)negative (not based on any empirical evidence. It is actually neutral), progressive is a relative term. In NY and much of the south, it was progressive. Have to understand the history of gun control in the US in its entirety. When California introduced a law that would require all gun and ammo sales be registered, I'm guessing you would think of it as progressive since it was introduced by progressives. A similar law was introduced in Mississippi in 1954, was it progressive then even though laws supporters were not?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'm NOT talking about gun control, or the legality of carrying a gun around, or the history of Mississippi or Japan's suicide rate or fucking Wyoming. I'm talking about the practice of carrying guns, which contributes to tens of thousands of deaths and injuries every year. That is empirical evidence, all the rest is smoke and mirrors and total bullshit.
Dead is dead. It makes no difference if the killer is a good guy or a bad guy. Can't you see that? People are carrying guns every day, for the express purpose of killing other humans, should the "necessity" arise. This is a society that is seriously diseased, especially when folk think that it is OK to behave in such a way.
There is nothing NEUTRAL about it. You need to get off that fence and take a stand, instead of waffling on about history and Japan and Wyoming. Just sayin'!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Self defense is a fundamental human and natural right. If you want an example of a diseased society, see Kitty Genovese.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...with a soupçon of culture war thrown in, as evinced by your remarks about
gun owner suicides. Mandating that imperfect and easily hacked technology
be included in firearms requires technological ignorance and a profound disregard for
human nature.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)"...with a soupçon of culture war thrown in, as evinced by your remarks about
gun owner suicides." Nice try.
Where do I suggest MANDATING an imperfect technology. In fact, I suggest perfecting a technology that both manufacturers and gun owners and the general public will all be happy with. I believe we have the wherewithal to accomplish that. Now all we need is the will.
Of course, it will not stop all killings, be they accidental or intentional. It definitely won't stop suicides by owner, but neither does the status quo. But it could save countless other lives.
You naysayers remind me of the Flat Earth Society.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Here's the rub: I will never be happy with adding a technology that
(a) makes it impossible for me to allow anyone else to fire my gun;
(b) requires the gun to be reprogrammed in order to sell it;
(c) adds complex circuitry to a simple mechanical device that I am otherwise capable of repairing myself.
Why would I want such a thing? To protect the public from my own potential irresponsibility? I behave responsibly, and I resent the suggestion that I do not. Nope, owners will never be happy with it.
Manufacturers won't care either way. If it's mandated, they will make it, and the customer will bear the cost.
The general public will be split. Most won't care in the slightest. Anyone who knows anything about guns will have contempt for it. The controllers will pat themselves on the back that "something has been done" and will shift their focus to newer and better ways to infringe rights.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'm done discussing this with you.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)I'm done discussing this with you.
No. I only refer to myself as representative of gun owners. You will never convince them that they need or should want this technology. Mandating it would be the only way to bring it to market, and I oppose that, as, supposedly, do you.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Problem is, that is exactly what Tolman proposes to do. Hence, my dismay.
Unless there is some technological advance that you have not shared with us, it would
seem the wherewithal is absent.
hack89
(39,171 posts)You are being silly.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)but at this point it hasn't been tested enough to mandate it on all new guns. I'm not against the idea of a personalized gun, I just think that are the current level of technology it just isn't reliable enough. As for actually preventing a mugger from using it- well I don't think this technology is really going to stop that- they will simply just disable it. A gun is a strictly mechanical piece of equipment- you can't permanently integrate an electronic lock into it and expect it to be tamper proof- or even hard to tamper with for that fact. This is not like electronic ignition lock in a car (which works by disabling the necessarily electrical parts that are needed to start the engine), there are no electric parts in a gun. The only way this technology could seriously work would be if you replaced the current mechanical firing mechanism with an electrical one- and that isn't easy. You would essentially have to completely redesign all modern firearms- and even then the the electronic parts might not be able to handle the forces that are created when the powder in the ammunition ignites.
The key thing to this whole debate is- if it is so necessary, so reliable, and can save so many lives by preventing unauthorized use- why aren't police mandated to use it? Many police officers have been killed by their own firearm. It would make sense to require them to use the technology if what you say is all true (Ill give the author of the article credit- he did mention police should use it). If not, then the intentions of the law aren't to prevent accident and injuries
ileus
(15,396 posts)In a perfect world your finger print unlocks your phone. Most times it's 3 or 4 attempts then you disable the junky software...after a bunch of failures.
Just what you need on a lifesaving device, something that keeps it disabled to help assure it's operator dies trying.
Typical laws written by fools that only know "guns kill people"
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Wouldn't want your life taking device to malfunction.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Positive that he doesn't want his life endangered by someone with little knowledge of how firearms work and the ideas they tend to favor.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It's about how to prevent them from working when in the wrong hands. I'm sure that nobody wants to be shot by their own gun, or have one of their kids blow them away.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)because you have to design and build it as intended. Under German law, smart technology must be put on newly manufactured guns once the technology exists and actually works. Either Walther, Sauer, HK, and Mauser Jagdwaffen are violating German law, or the technology is still movie fiction like undetectable guns.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It's like watching NatGeo with you. OK, let them work on it, but first of all, let's motivate them by telling them they have to make it work. Kinda like that MPG thing Detroit couldn't get it's head around.
Are you honestly suggesting that nobody can come up with the technology to fix this issue as we go into 2014?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)They have been working on it for forty years. Most innovations in firearms comes from Europe. That has been the case for quite some time. Granted Colt made some of John Brownings designs, but most of them were purchased by the Belgian company FNH, the current owner of Winchester. If it happens, it will either be FNH or Walther.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It might take them a year. It's all about motivation.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)would do a better job. At least then there is a chance it won't be a collaboration between a Chinese sweatshop and Norinco.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)BTW, Apple is UNIX based and a lot of Linux programmers/developers have day jobs at Apple and Microsoft
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)point is Apple tends to put form before function, and is over priced.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)and that was free. Have a dual boot linux/windows7 on the laptop and a Galaxy 10.1 tab
ileus
(15,396 posts)Straw Man
(6,625 posts)It might take them a year. It's all about motivation.
C'est a rire. Or any other high-tech firm, for that matter. The computer industry is notorious for rushing buggy products to market and letting the "early adopters" discover the "issues." Why take a simple and useful mechanical device and fuck it up with dodgy technology just so that some hack politicians can pretend that they have done something to promote public safety?
Let the police and the military use it first. If they're satisfied with it, then go ahead and foist it on the rest of us.
Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...accept these guns as duty weapons.
when they gain widespread acceptance among big city police forces, including their SWAT teams, I'll be interested.
bossy22
(3,547 posts)until the proponents of these laws actually apply them to police, then their true intentions are not safety.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)When they trust the technology, you have my attention.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Perhaps something similar to a hand-held rail gun. At least the SD unit's personalization function would be as reliable as the entire unit, like my Samsuck.
By then we will have slogged through what a firearm is and all those attendant issues.