Gun that killed 3-year-old... (1 Viewer)

[Apes with Guns]

I am so tired of hearing about this delusional fantasy.

which one?

 

[Chaka]

I've always wondered whether or not enough familiarity with a gun- handling it so frequently on a day to day basis- helps serve to break down the respect/fear you might start out with when dealing with a gun. Much like how we can come to take driving around a few thousand pounds of steel for granted.

At least we require licensing of drivers and registration for cars.

There is no defensible argument (not a single one) for not having those same simple measures for all gun owners in the U.S.

 

[Spanky267]

Florida has a law requiring gun owners to keep their weapons in a locked box. This guy had no criminal history. This happened in his home. What exactly are people hoping for?

He was not following the law, which tends to happen in most killings. His gun didn't have a safety, but that's not illegal. Should it be? If Florida wants to make it so, good for them, I guess. But the idea that we should have a federal law that says someone with no criminal history is not allowed to <em>own</em> a gun that does not have a safety seems pretty overreaching. Aren't there better uses of Congress' time? Why in the world would this be a federal issue and not a state issue?

Are you allowed to drive a car without doors, breaks, and seat belts?

How is mandating the most elementary safety standard on a gun overreaching? Why are guns the only dangerous thing that seem to auto-immune from any attempt to make the things themselves safer? Why is this so readily dismissed?

I am allowed to drive a car without doors, they are called Jeeps. I am also allowed to drive a car without seatbelts. Many older/classic cars do not have them. A manual safety on a gun doesnt make it safer simply because it has the safety. That safety has to be used. My guess is that in this case it wouldnt have been used. In the case a months ago where the little boy shot his sister with a loaded rifle proped up in a corner that rifle had a safety and it either wasnt engaged or was switced off by the child.

 

[LinusMarr]

I've always wondered whether or not enough familiarity with a gun- handling it so frequently on a day to day basis- helps serve to break down the respect/fear you might start out with when dealing with a gun. Much like how we can come to take driving around a few thousand pounds of steel for granted.

At least we require licensing of drivers and registration for cars.

Yes and suprisingly dont need any form of ID to vote lol

 

[Apes with Guns]

Florida has a law requiring gun owners to keep their weapons in a locked box. This guy had no criminal history. This happened in his home. What exactly are people hoping for?

He was not following the law, which tends to happen in most killings. His gun didn't have a safety, but that's not illegal. Should it be? If Florida wants to make it so, good for them, I guess. But the idea that we should have a federal law that says someone with no criminal history is not allowed to <em>own</em> a gun that does not have a safety seems pretty overreaching. Aren't there better uses of Congress' time? Why in the world would this be a federal issue and not a state issue?

Obviously this makes a lot of sense.

The answer to your question, though, is that people are frustrated by these stories. They want to do something. The maddening thing about guns is that there is very few practical things that can be done. And the few reasonable proposals that exist are treated by NRA types as the beginning of a slippery slope that will result in a dictatorship. This is one of those issues where there doesn't seem to be too much common sense on either side.

I agree with you here. The reason gun ownership is an important right in America is to make sure that the government knows that if tyranny is taken too far, the people still have some means to change it.

I realize that might not be a popular opinion, but it is one that was recently reinforced to me after a discussion with a friend, and something I'd completely overlooked before.

Define tyranny in the 18th century and today. TIA

Oppressive rule of government. I don't think the definition has changed. YWIA.

Do you consider spying oppressive? Or is it more physical oppression? Or denial of Habeas Corpus?

Me? I don't personally feel that my government is ruled by tyrants.

But the spirit of my point isn't about what I feel. It's about what we feel. If we feel like the government is tyrannical, we can demand change. If they refuse, we will have some power to do something about it. At the very least, we won't have to beg the French for help, so there is that.

Even with the amount of guns in the US a citizens uprising would have to overcome tall odds if the military did not pick their side...

Frankly, I think this line of thinking is delusional and in the way of making progress on gun issues in general.

of course it would be tall odds, but if it ever got to this point, there wouldn't be an alternative. if it was enough to get me to pick up a gun and shoot someone to death, it wouldn't be a world I would want to live in, anyway.

I'm sorry you think it's delusional, but I believe that's what the 2nd amendment is about. The government should know that it's serving at the pleasure of the people. And if the government thinks it is above the people, i think it's great that our system is set up to protect the rights of the people to keep this from happening.

I don't understand any government official anywhere in the world who thinks he is above any of his people. The state is the people. Without the people, it's just space.

 

[Apes with Guns]

I've always wondered whether or not enough familiarity with a gun- handling it so frequently on a day to day basis- helps serve to break down the respect/fear you might start out with when dealing with a gun. Much like how we can come to take driving around a few thousand pounds of steel for granted.

At least we require licensing of drivers and registration for cars.

Yes and suprisingly dont need any form of ID to vote lol

because that should have already been taken care of during voter registration.

 

[Chaka]

I've always wondered whether or not enough familiarity with a gun- handling it so frequently on a day to day basis- helps serve to break down the respect/fear you might start out with when dealing with a gun. Much like how we can come to take driving around a few thousand pounds of steel for granted.

At least we require licensing of drivers and registration for cars.

Yes and suprisingly dont need any form of ID to vote lol

How many people have died from accidental voting?

 

[LinusMarr]

I've always wondered whether or not enough familiarity with a gun- handling it so frequently on a day to day basis- helps serve to break down the respect/fear you might start out with when dealing with a gun. Much like how we can come to take driving around a few thousand pounds of steel for granted.

At least we require licensing of drivers and registration for cars.

Yes and suprisingly dont need any form of ID to vote lol

How many people have died from accidental voting?

Relax there Chaka Kahn, i feel for you-feel for you.....

 

[Chaka]

I've always wondered whether or not enough familiarity with a gun- handling it so frequently on a day to day basis- helps serve to break down the respect/fear you might start out with when dealing with a gun. Much like how we can come to take driving around a few thousand pounds of steel for granted.

At least we require licensing of drivers and registration for cars.

Yes and suprisingly dont need any form of ID to vote lol

How many people have died from accidental voting?

Relax there Chaka Kahn, i feel for you-feel for you.....

So that would be zero, right?

 

[LinusMarr]

I've always wondered whether or not enough familiarity with a gun- handling it so frequently on a day to day basis- helps serve to break down the respect/fear you might start out with when dealing with a gun. Much like how we can come to take driving around a few thousand pounds of steel for granted.

At least we require licensing of drivers and registration for cars.

Yes and suprisingly dont need any form of ID to vote lol

How many people have died from accidental voting?

Relax there Chaka Kahn, i feel for you-feel for you.....

So that would be zero, right?

I guess i could always google it, but im feeling a tad lazy today....

 

[Clifford]

Florida has a law requiring gun owners to keep their weapons in a locked box. This guy had no criminal history. This happened in his home. What exactly are people hoping for?

He was not following the law, which tends to happen in most killings. His gun didn't have a safety, but that's not illegal. Should it be? If Florida wants to make it so, good for them, I guess. But the idea that we should have a federal law that says someone with no criminal history is not allowed to <em>own</em> a gun that does not have a safety seems pretty overreaching. Aren't there better uses of Congress' time? Why in the world would this be a federal issue and not a state issue?

Are you allowed to drive a car without doors, breaks, and seat belts?

How is mandating the most elementary safety standard on a gun overreaching? Why are guns the only dangerous thing that seem to auto-immune from any attempt to make the things themselves safer? Why is this so readily dismissed?

I am allowed to drive a car without doors, they are called Jeeps. I am also allowed to drive a car without seatbelts. Many older/classic cars do not have them. A manual safety on a gun doesnt make it safer simply because it has the safety. That safety has to be used. My guess is that in this case it wouldnt have been used. In the case a months ago where the little boy shot his sister with a loaded rifle proped up in a corner that rifle had a safety and it either wasnt engaged or was switced off by the child.

Just because you can't solve for 100% of a problem doesn't mean you refuse to try and solve it.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Florida has a law requiring gun owners to keep their weapons in a locked box. This guy had no criminal history. This happened in his home. What exactly are people hoping for?

He was not following the law, which tends to happen in most killings. His gun didn't have a safety, but that's not illegal. Should it be? If Florida wants to make it so, good for them, I guess. But the idea that we should have a federal law that says someone with no criminal history is not allowed to <em>own</em> a gun that does not have a safety seems pretty overreaching. Aren't there better uses of Congress' time? Why in the world would this be a federal issue and not a state issue?

Are you allowed to drive a car without doors, breaks, and seat belts?

How is mandating the most elementary safety standard on a gun overreaching? Why are guns the only dangerous thing that seem to auto-immune from any attempt to make the things themselves safer? Why is this so readily dismissed?

I am allowed to drive a car without doors, they are called Jeeps. I am also allowed to drive a car without seatbelts. Many older/classic cars do not have them. A manual safety on a gun doesnt make it safer simply because it has the safety. That safety has to be used. My guess is that in this case it wouldnt have been used. In the case a months ago where the little boy shot his sister with a loaded rifle proped up in a corner that rifle had a safety and it either wasnt engaged or was switced off by the child.

Just because you can't solve for 100% of a problem doesn't mean you refuse to try and solve it.

Uhm...yeah. But there's no problem to solve so why are you trying to fix it?

 

[Clifford]

Florida has a law requiring gun owners to keep their weapons in a locked box. This guy had no criminal history. This happened in his home. What exactly are people hoping for?

He was not following the law, which tends to happen in most killings. His gun didn't have a safety, but that's not illegal. Should it be? If Florida wants to make it so, good for them, I guess. But the idea that we should have a federal law that says someone with no criminal history is not allowed to <em>own</em> a gun that does not have a safety seems pretty overreaching. Aren't there better uses of Congress' time? Why in the world would this be a federal issue and not a state issue?

Are you allowed to drive a car without doors, breaks, and seat belts?

How is mandating the most elementary safety standard on a gun overreaching? Why are guns the only dangerous thing that seem to auto-immune from any attempt to make the things themselves safer? Why is this so readily dismissed?

I am allowed to drive a car without doors, they are called Jeeps. I am also allowed to drive a car without seatbelts. Many older/classic cars do not have them. A manual safety on a gun doesnt make it safer simply because it has the safety. That safety has to be used. My guess is that in this case it wouldnt have been used. In the case a months ago where the little boy shot his sister with a loaded rifle proped up in a corner that rifle had a safety and it either wasnt engaged or was switced off by the child.

Just because you can't solve for 100% of a problem doesn't mean you refuse to try and solve it.

Uhm...yeah. But there's no problem to solve so why are you trying to fix it?

You are here posting in a thread about a 3 year old that shot herself and you don't think there's a problem to solve? Thousands of children killed accidentally by firearms every year is not a problem in your mind? WTF?

 

[MaxThreshold]

Florida has a law requiring gun owners to keep their weapons in a locked box. This guy had no criminal history. This happened in his home. What exactly are people hoping for?

He was not following the law, which tends to happen in most killings. His gun didn't have a safety, but that's not illegal. Should it be? If Florida wants to make it so, good for them, I guess. But the idea that we should have a federal law that says someone with no criminal history is not allowed to <em>own</em> a gun that does not have a safety seems pretty overreaching. Aren't there better uses of Congress' time? Why in the world would this be a federal issue and not a state issue?

Are you allowed to drive a car without doors, breaks, and seat belts?

How is mandating the most elementary safety standard on a gun overreaching? Why are guns the only dangerous thing that seem to auto-immune from any attempt to make the things themselves safer? Why is this so readily dismissed?

I am allowed to drive a car without doors, they are called Jeeps. I am also allowed to drive a car without seatbelts. Many older/classic cars do not have them. A manual safety on a gun doesnt make it safer simply because it has the safety. That safety has to be used. My guess is that in this case it wouldnt have been used. In the case a months ago where the little boy shot his sister with a loaded rifle proped up in a corner that rifle had a safety and it either wasnt engaged or was switced off by the child.

Just because you can't solve for 100% of a problem doesn't mean you refuse to try and solve it.

Uhm...yeah. But there's no problem to solve so why are you trying to fix it?

You are here posting in a thread about a 3 year old that shot herself and you don't think there's a problem to solve? Thousands of children killed accidentally by firearms every year is not a problem in your mind? WTF?

My mistake. The problem is with the parent, not the gun.

 

[StrikeS2k]

You are here posting in a thread about a 3 year old that shot herself and you don't think there's a problem to solve? Thousands of children killed accidentally by firearms every year is not a problem in your mind? WTF?

Link?

 

[Clifford]

And since you can't place federally mandated safety standards on people, wouldn't it make more sense to put them on guns?

What floors me, again and again in this discussion we have had a billion times, is the absolute refusal from some to even consider any effort at all to make the guns themselves safer. Even my brother in law, who owns tons of guns, and is very responsible in using, caring for, and storing them, wants to see guns themselves made safer, specifically for this type of scenario.

For Chase to suggest that even having safeties be standard equipment on guns is an overreach, yet there is a slew of products far less deadly than guns that have far more of both user-behavior and in-product safety measures, to me highlights a complete failure of logic when guns are concerned.

I used the car analogy but just about anything would work: imagine someone stating that our government mandating that cleaning chemicals have to have child-proof caps being a massive overreach of federal power, and that it should be a states right issue at best. It would be laughed off the page as ludicrous. Yet you say guns shouldn't be forced to have safeties, and suggesting otherwise is what is viewed as ludicrous, because we expect people to be completely, 100% responsible.

Furthermore, there are a slew of people who will reference one or two incidents where a child got past the child-proof cap, and instead of suggesting that the child-proofing be improved, they suggest that child-proofing is a pointless exercise.

 

[Clifford]

You are here posting in a thread about a 3 year old that shot herself and you don't think there's a problem to solve? Thousands of children killed accidentally by firearms every year is not a problem in your mind? WTF?

Link?

Go back and find it. Page 1.

 

[timschochet]

Clifford I agree with you that if we can do something that makes sense, then we should. I also agree 100% that this tyranny talk is nonsensical and it makes the pro-gun types sound much more crazy than they actually are.

But I just think that most of your proposals are not only impractical, they won't achieve the goal you desire, which is less accidental gun deaths. We can't force people to use the weapons safely. Some people are always going to be stupid.

 

[Clifford]

Clifford I agree with you that if we can do something that makes sense, then we should. I also agree 100% that this tyranny talk is nonsensical and it makes the pro-gun types sound much more crazy than they actually are.

But I just think that most of your proposals are not only impractical, they won't achieve the goal you desire, which is less accidental gun deaths. We can't force people to use the weapons safely. Some people are always going to be stupid.

I am not suggesting we can change behavior. Or that current attempts to change behavior are even successful.

We can try to do two things, neither of which are ever even considered

1. Pursue technological advancement in guns that make it much more difficult for anyone other than the purchaser of the gun able to fire it, or

2. Pursue strategies to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people

With practically limitless technological advancement happening all around us, in every other conceivable industry, why would you think anything is impractical? Seems like the human race has a pretty good track record of achieving the impractical, even the impossible, when like-minded smart people set their will to doing something.

Yet this is the only industry where we throw up our hands and say nothing will ever work, let's not even bother. It's not only depressing, it's a massive abdication of responsibility.

 

[StrikeS2k]

You are here posting in a thread about a 3 year old that shot herself and you don't think there's a problem to solve? Thousands of children killed accidentally by firearms every year is not a problem in your mind? WTF?

Link?

Link?

 

[Clifford]

Here is an article on the exact kind of safety feature I am proposing. It is already being used by campus police in at the New Jersey Institute of Technology.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9234905/Could_smart_gun_technology_make_us_safer_

Excerpt

NJIT is a leading, and early, developer of smart gun technology. For more than a dozen years, it has been testing a Dynamic Grip Recognition technology that Sebastian claims is 99% effective in preventing unauthorized use of a gun.

another

Development has been slow, however, because funding has lagged, with little interest so far from venture capitalists. In fact, current prototypes are based on 10-year-old microprocessors because of a lack of funds, Sebastian said.

Imagine what could be achieved with proper funding and new processors.

So Tim, Drifter, others, how impractical is this idea now?

 

[msommer]

Here is an article on the exact kind of safety feature I am proposing. It is already being used by campus police in at the New Jersey Institute of Technology.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9234905/Could_smart_gun_technology_make_us_safer_

Excerpt

NJIT is a leading, and early, developer of smart gun technology. For more than a dozen years, it has been testing a Dynamic Grip Recognition technology that Sebastian claims is 99% effective in preventing unauthorized use of a gun.

another

Development has been slow, however, because funding has lagged, with little interest so far from venture capitalists. In fact, current prototypes are based on 10-year-old microprocessors because of a lack of funds, Sebastian said.

Imagine what could be achieved with proper funding and new processors.

So Tim, Drifter, others, how impractical is this idea now?

Kickstarter?

 

[Clifford]

from page 2

"We have found no interest on the part of gun manufacturers in commercializing any aspect of user-authenticating weapons," Sebastian said.

Gee, what on earth could make gun manufacturers interested???

Page 3

RFID technologyThe Georgia Institute of Technology has developed RFID smart gun technology for a company called TriggerSmart, an Irish firm that has been granted patents for its weapons' safety devices in the U.S. and 47 other countries. The technology, developed at the school's County Westmeath, Ireland campus, has yet to be integrated by any gun manufacturers.

"They've done a lot of work in the U.S. with trying to get gun manufacturers [interested], but to be honest there's quite a bit of resistance from the gun industry in the U.S. to the technology," said Joe Dowling, general manager at Georgia Tech Ireland.

"They see it as another level of control that they don't want to implement," he continued. "TriggerSmart has been saying, 'Hey, it's not that we don't want you to have a gun, it's just another optional safety feature you may want.' "

Computerworld attempted to contact gun makers Smith & Wesson and Mossberg & Sons, both of which have had smart gun development efforts in the past. Smith & Wesson officials did not return requests for comment. Mossberg declined to comment on the issue.

Final Paragraph

"I want to keep emphasizing that this is about gun safety and not about gun control," he said. "When you change the climate of discussion from gun control, you have people who might be more willing to talk about novel approaches to improving and increasing the safety without it becoming poisoned as a stealthy approach to gun control, and therefore, throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

 

[Carolina Hustler]

These types of shootings shouldn't be called "accidental".

And they should be called?

Criminally negligent.

this

 

[Clifford]

Maybe things are looking up for the NJIT group:

The 100% electronic O'Dwyer VLe "Smart Gun" is to incorporate biometric authorising technology that should enable it to meet new US requirements for "personalised" handguns according to a joint release from Metal Storm and the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT). Legislation passed last year in the State of New Jersey requires that "three years after it is determined that personalized handguns are available for retail purposes, it will be illegal-. for any dealer or manufacturer to sell, assign or transfer any handgun unless that handgun is a personalized handgun". The States of New York, Ohio and Tennessee as well as the US Congress, are understood to be preparing similar legislation.

http://www.gizmag.com/personalised-electronic-handgun-headed-for-commercialisation/2376/

Not sure of this source's credibility, last part seems too good to be true.

ETA: Review of multiple technologies from NIJ

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/242500.pdf

 

[Chase Stuart]

And since you can't place federally mandated safety standards on people, wouldn't it make more sense to put them on guns?

What floors me, again and again in this discussion we have had a billion times, is the absolute refusal from some to even consider any effort at all to make the guns themselves safer. Even my brother in law, who owns tons of guns, and is very responsible in using, caring for, and storing them, wants to see guns themselves made safer, specifically for this type of scenario.

For Chase to suggest that even having safeties be standard equipment on guns is an overreach, yet there is a slew of products far less deadly than guns that have far more of both user-behavior and in-product safety measures, to me highlights a complete failure of logic when guns are concerned.

I used the car analogy but just about anything would work: imagine someone stating that our government mandating that cleaning chemicals have to have child-proof caps being a massive overreach of federal power, and that it should be a states right issue at best. It would be laughed off the page as ludicrous. Yet you say guns shouldn't be forced to have safeties, and suggesting otherwise is what is viewed as ludicrous, because we expect people to be completely, 100% responsible.

Furthermore, there are a slew of people who will reference one or two incidents where a child got past the child-proof cap, and instead of suggesting that the child-proofing be improved, they suggest that child-proofing is a pointless exercise.

I would not purchase a gun that didn't have a safety on it. I think the vast majority of folks who buy guns should buy guns with safeties on it. But I don't think it should be a federal crime for someone to own a gun without a safety on it. There's an enormous amount of things that I wouldn't do, and that I would advise someone not to do, that shouldn't be a federal crime.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Clifford I agree with you that if we can do something that makes sense, then we should. I also agree 100% that this tyranny talk is nonsensical and it makes the pro-gun types sound much more crazy than they actually are.

But I just think that most of your proposals are not only impractical, they won't achieve the goal you desire, which is less accidental gun deaths. We can't force people to use the weapons safely. Some people are always going to be stupid.

I am not suggesting we can change behavior. Or that current attempts to change behavior are even successful.

We can try to do two things, neither of which are ever even considered

1. Pursue technological advancement in guns that make it much more difficult for anyone other than the purchaser of the gun able to fire it, or

2. Pursue strategies to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people

Would you be in favor of raising taxes so that the cost of personalized handguns are not passed on to the consumer?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

And since you can't place federally mandated safety standards on people, wouldn't it make more sense to put them on guns?

What floors me, again and again in this discussion we have had a billion times, is the absolute refusal from some to even consider any effort at all to make the guns themselves safer. Even my brother in law, who owns tons of guns, and is very responsible in using, caring for, and storing them, wants to see guns themselves made safer, specifically for this type of scenario.

For Chase to suggest that even having safeties be standard equipment on guns is an overreach, yet there is a slew of products far less deadly than guns that have far more of both user-behavior and in-product safety measures, to me highlights a complete failure of logic when guns are concerned.

I used the car analogy but just about anything would work: imagine someone stating that our government mandating that cleaning chemicals have to have child-proof caps being a massive overreach of federal power, and that it should be a states right issue at best. It would be laughed off the page as ludicrous. Yet you say guns shouldn't be forced to have safeties, and suggesting otherwise is what is viewed as ludicrous, because we expect people to be completely, 100% responsible.

Furthermore, there are a slew of people who will reference one or two incidents where a child got past the child-proof cap, and instead of suggesting that the child-proofing be improved, they suggest that child-proofing is a pointless exercise.

I would not purchase a gun that didn't have a safety on it. I think the vast majority of folks who buy guns should buy guns with safeties on it. But I don't think it should be a federal crime for someone to own a gun without a safety on it. There's an enormous amount of things that I wouldn't do, and that I would advise someone not to do, that shouldn't be a federal crime.

safeties should be mandatory for gun manufacturers. It's not an expensive feature..

 

[BigSteelThrill]

And since you can't place federally mandated safety standards on people, wouldn't it make more sense to put them on guns?

What floors me, again and again in this discussion we have had a billion times, is the absolute refusal from some to even consider any effort at all to make the guns themselves safer. Even my brother in law, who owns tons of guns, and is very responsible in using, caring for, and storing them, wants to see guns themselves made safer, specifically for this type of scenario.

For Chase to suggest that even having safeties be standard equipment on guns is an overreach, yet there is a slew of products far less deadly than guns that have far more of both user-behavior and in-product safety measures, to me highlights a complete failure of logic when guns are concerned.

I used the car analogy but just about anything would work: imagine someone stating that our government mandating that cleaning chemicals have to have child-proof caps being a massive overreach of federal power, and that it should be a states right issue at best. It would be laughed off the page as ludicrous. Yet you say guns shouldn't be forced to have safeties, and suggesting otherwise is what is viewed as ludicrous, because we expect people to be completely, 100% responsible.

Furthermore, there are a slew of people who will reference one or two incidents where a child got past the child-proof cap, and instead of suggesting that the child-proofing be improved, they suggest that child-proofing is a pointless exercise.

I would not purchase a gun that didn't have a safety on it. I think the vast majority of folks who buy guns should buy guns with safeties on it. But I don't think it should be a federal crime for someone to own a gun without a safety on it. There's an enormous amount of things that I wouldn't do, and that I would advise someone not to do, that shouldn't be a federal crime.

safeties should be mandatory for gun manufacturers. It's not an expensive feature..

But that's gun control!

/sarcasm

 

[Chase Stuart]

safeties should be mandatory for gun manufacturers. It's not an expensive feature..

What about guns already manufactured?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

safeties should be mandatory for gun manufacturers. It's not an expensive feature..

What about guns already manufactured?

Why in the hell would "expensive feature" be allowed to have any bearing on device made to kill?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

safeties should be mandatory for gun manufacturers. It's not an expensive feature..

What about guns already manufactured?

Why in the hell would "expensive feature" be allowed to have any bearing on device made to kill?

Civil Rights down?

Why even argue the point? safeties aren't expensive.. "what if they were expensive".. Well, they aren't, don't try to make an argument where we don't need one, we have plenty to argue about..

 

[FBG26]

it's not 5 deaths per year...there are over 30,000 handgun deaths per year..that's not insignificant and not an anecdote. but lets keep doing what we're doing, it's working great.

Just b/c people were complaining that there was no link. All links are to the CDC.In 2010, there were 31,672 firearm deaths.

11,078 of those were homicides (of 16,259 total homicides).

The other 19,392 firearms deaths were suicides (of 38,364 total suicides).

 

[Carolina Hustler]

safeties should be mandatory for gun manufacturers. It's not an expensive feature..

What about guns already manufactured?

Maybe buy backs, non-manditory, government funded..

 

[Chase Stuart]

safeties should be mandatory for gun manufacturers. It's not an expensive feature..

What about guns already manufactured?

Maybe buy backs, non-manditory, government funded..

That seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

safeties should be mandatory for gun manufacturers. It's not an expensive feature..

What about guns already manufactured?

Why in the hell would "expensive feature" be allowed to have any bearing on device made to kill?

Civil Rights down?

Why even argue the point? safeties aren't expensive.. "what if they were expensive".. Well, they aren't, don't try to make an argument where we don't need one, we have plenty to argue about..

You can still own it. You are not guaranteed cheap goods or anything.

 

[Otis]

it's not 5 deaths per year...there are over 30,000 handgun deaths per year..that's not insignificant and not an anecdote. but lets keep doing what we're doing, it's working great.

Just b/c people were complaining that there was no link. All links are to the CDC.In 2010, there were 31,672 firearm deaths.

11,078 of those were homicides (of 16,259 total homicides).

The other 19,392 firearms deaths were suicides (of 38,364 total suicides).

Pesky facts!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Look, we live in a society where people are free to own cars in their driveways, for better or worse. That means that these sort of car accidents are inevitable. If they were especially common, they wouldn't be news items. And there are no reasonable steps that we can take, IMO, to prevent them from happening.

The same logic would have prevented every advance in auto-safety because we can't stop accidents from happening.It's a silly and frankly irresponsible pov. The fact that we are so permissive when it comes to gun ownership means we have a responsibility to try anything and everything we can to limit the collateral damage of that stance.

As I wrote earlier, I believe and promote reasonable gun control laws. In fact, some of the gun defenders in this forum seem to regard me, incorrectly, as the poster child for anti-gun around here. But I fail to see how any of this applies to this situation.

So you believe in something you don't believe exists? Or are you saying gun control laws are incapable of preventing accidents with guns?

I believe very strongly that universal background checks, and possibly universal registration, will reduce gun violence. As far as preventing accidents like this one, I don't see how to reasonably accomplish that.

I believe it will not

 

[Pots]

And since you can't place federally mandated safety standards on people, wouldn't it make more sense to put them on guns?

What floors me, again and again in this discussion we have had a billion times, is the absolute refusal from some to even consider any effort at all to make the guns themselves safer. Even my brother in law, who owns tons of guns, and is very responsible in using, caring for, and storing them, wants to see guns themselves made safer, specifically for this type of scenario.

For Chase to suggest that even having safeties be standard equipment on guns is an overreach, yet there is a slew of products far less deadly than guns that have far more of both user-behavior and in-product safety measures, to me highlights a complete failure of logic when guns are concerned.

I used the car analogy but just about anything would work: imagine someone stating that our government mandating that cleaning chemicals have to have child-proof caps being a massive overreach of federal power, and that it should be a states right issue at best. It would be laughed off the page as ludicrous. Yet you say guns shouldn't be forced to have safeties, and suggesting otherwise is what is viewed as ludicrous, because we expect people to be completely, 100% responsible.

Furthermore, there are a slew of people who will reference one or two incidents where a child got past the child-proof cap, and instead of suggesting that the child-proofing be improved, they suggest that child-proofing is a pointless exercise.

You have to understand that guns are already very safe, and it's the owners's inability to practice safe techniques that leads to these unfortunate accidents. If this story was exactly the same, except the 3-year old fell on a knife left in the child's reach, it would be just as tragic. But most people keep knives out of the reach of children, and in a safe place. Should we make knives safer? Or should people just be more aware not to leave dangerous things where kids can easily get a hold of them?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

And since you can't place federally mandated safety standards on people, wouldn't it make more sense to put them on guns?

What floors me, again and again in this discussion we have had a billion times, is the absolute refusal from some to even consider any effort at all to make the guns themselves safer. Even my brother in law, who owns tons of guns, and is very responsible in using, caring for, and storing them, wants to see guns themselves made safer, specifically for this type of scenario.

For Chase to suggest that even having safeties be standard equipment on guns is an overreach, yet there is a slew of products far less deadly than guns that have far more of both user-behavior and in-product safety measures, to me highlights a complete failure of logic when guns are concerned.

I used the car analogy but just about anything would work: imagine someone stating that our government mandating that cleaning chemicals have to have child-proof caps being a massive overreach of federal power, and that it should be a states right issue at best. It would be laughed off the page as ludicrous. Yet you say guns shouldn't be forced to have safeties, and suggesting otherwise is what is viewed as ludicrous, because we expect people to be completely, 100% responsible.

Furthermore, there are a slew of people who will reference one or two incidents where a child got past the child-proof cap, and instead of suggesting that the child-proofing be improved, they suggest that child-proofing is a pointless exercise.

You have to understand that guns are already very safe, and it's the owners's inability to practice safe techniques that leads to these unfortunate accidents. If this story was exactly the same, except the 3-year old fell on a knife left in the child's reach, it would be just as tragic. But most people keep knives out of the reach of children, and in a safe place. Should we make knives safer? Or should people just be more aware not to leave dangerous things where kids can easily get a hold of them?

In the UK, there are specific knife laws.. They cracked down on guns and knives.. At one point they were even toying with the idea of limiting the size of kitchen knives.

 

[Sinrman]

This proves he isn't a "responsible gun owner."

 

[Clifford]

And since you can't place federally mandated safety standards on people, wouldn't it make more sense to put them on guns?

What floors me, again and again in this discussion we have had a billion times, is the absolute refusal from some to even consider any effort at all to make the guns themselves safer. Even my brother in law, who owns tons of guns, and is very responsible in using, caring for, and storing them, wants to see guns themselves made safer, specifically for this type of scenario.

For Chase to suggest that even having safeties be standard equipment on guns is an overreach, yet there is a slew of products far less deadly than guns that have far more of both user-behavior and in-product safety measures, to me highlights a complete failure of logic when guns are concerned.

I used the car analogy but just about anything would work: imagine someone stating that our government mandating that cleaning chemicals have to have child-proof caps being a massive overreach of federal power, and that it should be a states right issue at best. It would be laughed off the page as ludicrous. Yet you say guns shouldn't be forced to have safeties, and suggesting otherwise is what is viewed as ludicrous, because we expect people to be completely, 100% responsible.

Furthermore, there are a slew of people who will reference one or two incidents where a child got past the child-proof cap, and instead of suggesting that the child-proofing be improved, they suggest that child-proofing is a pointless exercise.

I would not purchase a gun that didn't have a safety on it. I think the vast majority of folks who buy guns should buy guns with safeties on it. But I don't think it should be a federal crime for someone to own a gun without a safety on it. There's an enormous amount of things that I wouldn't do, and that I would advise someone not to do, that shouldn't be a federal crime.

If you don't have a problem with federally mandated safety standards such as childproof caps but do have a problem with federally mandated safety standards on guns to keep them from being fired by children, then I think you have a logical fallacy you need to examine and think about.

 

[Clifford]

Clifford I agree with you that if we can do something that makes sense, then we should. I also agree 100% that this tyranny talk is nonsensical and it makes the pro-gun types sound much more crazy than they actually are.

But I just think that most of your proposals are not only impractical, they won't achieve the goal you desire, which is less accidental gun deaths. We can't force people to use the weapons safely. Some people are always going to be stupid.

I am not suggesting we can change behavior. Or that current attempts to change behavior are even successful.

We can try to do two things, neither of which are ever even considered

1. Pursue technological advancement in guns that make it much more difficult for anyone other than the purchaser of the gun able to fire it, or

2. Pursue strategies to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people

Would you be in favor of raising taxes so that the cost of personalized handguns are not passed on to the consumer?

Hell no. Why should I be? Purchasers of the product can bear the cost for the safety feature, same as every other product on the market.

 

[Clifford]

And since you can't place federally mandated safety standards on people, wouldn't it make more sense to put them on guns?

What floors me, again and again in this discussion we have had a billion times, is the absolute refusal from some to even consider any effort at all to make the guns themselves safer. Even my brother in law, who owns tons of guns, and is very responsible in using, caring for, and storing them, wants to see guns themselves made safer, specifically for this type of scenario.

For Chase to suggest that even having safeties be standard equipment on guns is an overreach, yet there is a slew of products far less deadly than guns that have far more of both user-behavior and in-product safety measures, to me highlights a complete failure of logic when guns are concerned.

I used the car analogy but just about anything would work: imagine someone stating that our government mandating that cleaning chemicals have to have child-proof caps being a massive overreach of federal power, and that it should be a states right issue at best. It would be laughed off the page as ludicrous. Yet you say guns shouldn't be forced to have safeties, and suggesting otherwise is what is viewed as ludicrous, because we expect people to be completely, 100% responsible.

Furthermore, there are a slew of people who will reference one or two incidents where a child got past the child-proof cap, and instead of suggesting that the child-proofing be improved, they suggest that child-proofing is a pointless exercise.

You have to understand that guns are already very safe, and it's the owners's inability to practice safe techniques that leads to these unfortunate accidents. If this story was exactly the same, except the 3-year old fell on a knife left in the child's reach, it would be just as tragic. But most people keep knives out of the reach of children, and in a safe place. Should we make knives safer? Or should people just be more aware not to leave dangerous things where kids can easily get a hold of them?

How many children die each year because of falling on knives or similar knife accidents? What reasonable safety standard could be implemented on a knife that would make them safer?

Poor analogy and a losing argument. Fact is there is something we can do to make guns safer, the technology is already available. What I am proposing is that our government place the same safety standards on guns that we already do with similarly dangerous products. What I am proposing would not limit anyone's access to guns but would make them safer. Read some of the links I have posted and educated yourself.

ETA: What you need to understand is they aren't nearly as safe as they could be. You can divine the reasons for yourself. But guns are not even close to safe. That statement is simply ridiculous.

 

[Chase Stuart]

And since you can't place federally mandated safety standards on people, wouldn't it make more sense to put them on guns?

What floors me, again and again in this discussion we have had a billion times, is the absolute refusal from some to even consider any effort at all to make the guns themselves safer. Even my brother in law, who owns tons of guns, and is very responsible in using, caring for, and storing them, wants to see guns themselves made safer, specifically for this type of scenario.

For Chase to suggest that even having safeties be standard equipment on guns is an overreach, yet there is a slew of products far less deadly than guns that have far more of both user-behavior and in-product safety measures, to me highlights a complete failure of logic when guns are concerned.

I used the car analogy but just about anything would work: imagine someone stating that our government mandating that cleaning chemicals have to have child-proof caps being a massive overreach of federal power, and that it should be a states right issue at best. It would be laughed off the page as ludicrous. Yet you say guns shouldn't be forced to have safeties, and suggesting otherwise is what is viewed as ludicrous, because we expect people to be completely, 100% responsible.

Furthermore, there are a slew of people who will reference one or two incidents where a child got past the child-proof cap, and instead of suggesting that the child-proofing be improved, they suggest that child-proofing is a pointless exercise.

I would not purchase a gun that didn't have a safety on it. I think the vast majority of folks who buy guns should buy guns with safeties on it. But I don't think it should be a federal crime for someone to own a gun without a safety on it. There's an enormous amount of things that I wouldn't do, and that I would advise someone not to do, that shouldn't be a federal crime.

If you don't have a problem with federally mandated safety standards such as childproof caps but do have a problem with federally mandated safety standards on guns to keep them from being fired by children, then I think you have a logical fallacy you need to examine and think about.

As far as I know, the FDA doesn't regulate guns.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Clifford I agree with you that if we can do something that makes sense, then we should. I also agree 100% that this tyranny talk is nonsensical and it makes the pro-gun types sound much more crazy than they actually are.

But I just think that most of your proposals are not only impractical, they won't achieve the goal you desire, which is less accidental gun deaths. We can't force people to use the weapons safely. Some people are always going to be stupid.

I am not suggesting we can change behavior. Or that current attempts to change behavior are even successful.

We can try to do two things, neither of which are ever even considered

1. Pursue technological advancement in guns that make it much more difficult for anyone other than the purchaser of the gun able to fire it, or

2. Pursue strategies to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people

Would you be in favor of raising taxes so that the cost of personalized handguns are not passed on to the consumer?

Hell no. Why should I be? Purchasers of the product can bear the cost for the safety feature, same as every other product on the market.

Because in my scenario, the options are "no change in the law" or "require personalized handguns but taxes must be raised to cover the full cost." If you believe "something must be done to stop this" then I would assume you would have picked the latter, but that's why I asked the question.

 

[Clifford]

And since you can't place federally mandated safety standards on people, wouldn't it make more sense to put them on guns?

What floors me, again and again in this discussion we have had a billion times, is the absolute refusal from some to even consider any effort at all to make the guns themselves safer. Even my brother in law, who owns tons of guns, and is very responsible in using, caring for, and storing them, wants to see guns themselves made safer, specifically for this type of scenario.

For Chase to suggest that even having safeties be standard equipment on guns is an overreach, yet there is a slew of products far less deadly than guns that have far more of both user-behavior and in-product safety measures, to me highlights a complete failure of logic when guns are concerned.

I used the car analogy but just about anything would work: imagine someone stating that our government mandating that cleaning chemicals have to have child-proof caps being a massive overreach of federal power, and that it should be a states right issue at best. It would be laughed off the page as ludicrous. Yet you say guns shouldn't be forced to have safeties, and suggesting otherwise is what is viewed as ludicrous, because we expect people to be completely, 100% responsible.

Furthermore, there are a slew of people who will reference one or two incidents where a child got past the child-proof cap, and instead of suggesting that the child-proofing be improved, they suggest that child-proofing is a pointless exercise.

I would not purchase a gun that didn't have a safety on it. I think the vast majority of folks who buy guns should buy guns with safeties on it. But I don't think it should be a federal crime for someone to own a gun without a safety on it. There's an enormous amount of things that I wouldn't do, and that I would advise someone not to do, that shouldn't be a federal crime.

If you don't have a problem with federally mandated safety standards such as childproof caps but do have a problem with federally mandated safety standards on guns to keep them from being fired by children, then I think you have a logical fallacy you need to examine and think about.

As far as I know, the FDA doesn't regulate guns.

Bull#### sidestep.

 

[Clifford]

Clifford I agree with you that if we can do something that makes sense, then we should. I also agree 100% that this tyranny talk is nonsensical and it makes the pro-gun types sound much more crazy than they actually are.

But I just think that most of your proposals are not only impractical, they won't achieve the goal you desire, which is less accidental gun deaths. We can't force people to use the weapons safely. Some people are always going to be stupid.

I am not suggesting we can change behavior. Or that current attempts to change behavior are even successful.

We can try to do two things, neither of which are ever even considered

1. Pursue technological advancement in guns that make it much more difficult for anyone other than the purchaser of the gun able to fire it, or

2. Pursue strategies to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people

Would you be in favor of raising taxes so that the cost of personalized handguns are not passed on to the consumer?

Hell no. Why should I be? Purchasers of the product can bear the cost for the safety feature, same as every other product on the market.

Because in my scenario, the options are "no change in the law" or "require personalized handguns but taxes must be raised to cover the full cost." If you believe "something must be done to stop this" then I would assume you would have picked the latter, but that's why I asked the question.

Do you think we should all be paying taxes for airbags and crash tests? If you don't you're being intellectually dishonest here. Your scenario is bs.

ETA: Is it really helpful to come up with distractions in order to try and avoid examining something that actually makes sense? Especially when lives are at stake? I don't expect Tim or Drifter to own up to being dilettantes on the tech, but this is actually worse. You're scraping now to create completely illogical false choices out of thin air. Safety measures on dangerous products are passed on to the consumer that buy the dangerous products. Cars, pills, chemicals, etc. And here you are creating some bs scenario where guns have to be treated differently from every other product on the market.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Clifford I agree with you that if we can do something that makes sense, then we should. I also agree 100% that this tyranny talk is nonsensical and it makes the pro-gun types sound much more crazy than they actually are.

But I just think that most of your proposals are not only impractical, they won't achieve the goal you desire, which is less accidental gun deaths. We can't force people to use the weapons safely. Some people are always going to be stupid.

I am not suggesting we can change behavior. Or that current attempts to change behavior are even successful.

We can try to do two things, neither of which are ever even considered

1. Pursue technological advancement in guns that make it much more difficult for anyone other than the purchaser of the gun able to fire it, or

2. Pursue strategies to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people

Would you be in favor of raising taxes so that the cost of personalized handguns are not passed on to the consumer?

Hell no. Why should I be? Purchasers of the product can bear the cost for the safety feature, same as every other product on the market.

Because in my scenario, the options are "no change in the law" or "require personalized handguns but taxes must be raised to cover the full cost." If you believe "something must be done to stop this" then I would assume you would have picked the latter, but that's why I asked the question.

Do you think we should all be paying taxes for airbags and crash tests? If you don't you're being intellectually dishonest here. Your scenario is bs.

 

[strumnov]

And since you can't place federally mandated safety standards on people, wouldn't it make more sense to put them on guns?

What floors me, again and again in this discussion we have had a billion times, is the absolute refusal from some to even consider any effort at all to make the guns themselves safer. Even my brother in law, who owns tons of guns, and is very responsible in using, caring for, and storing them, wants to see guns themselves made safer, specifically for this type of scenario.

For Chase to suggest that even having safeties be standard equipment on guns is an overreach, yet there is a slew of products far less deadly than guns that have far more of both user-behavior and in-product safety measures, to me highlights a complete failure of logic when guns are concerned.

I used the car analogy but just about anything would work: imagine someone stating that our government mandating that cleaning chemicals have to have child-proof caps being a massive overreach of federal power, and that it should be a states right issue at best. It would be laughed off the page as ludicrous. Yet you say guns shouldn't be forced to have safeties, and suggesting otherwise is what is viewed as ludicrous, because we expect people to be completely, 100% responsible.

Furthermore, there are a slew of people who will reference one or two incidents where a child got past the child-proof cap, and instead of suggesting that the child-proofing be improved, they suggest that child-proofing is a pointless exercise.

I would not purchase a gun that didn't have a safety on it. I think the vast majority of folks who buy guns should buy guns with safeties on it. But I don't think it should be a federal crime for someone to own a gun without a safety on it. There's an enormous amount of things that I wouldn't do, and that I would advise someone not to do, that shouldn't be a federal crime.

Probably 85% of the handguns in America don't have safeties that need to be disengaged to fire. They are virtually unheard of on revolvers, which are commonly recommended to new shooters. Many law enforcement agencies deliberately avoid them, with some of the larger ones being able to get manufactures to change designs to remove them.