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

[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.

Like Health Care?

If you are more interested in creating strawmen than examining solutions to a problem that kills thousands of children every year, you are a sad and pathetic individual. That goes for everyone.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So nobody else has an actual counter (that works) to Cliffords point?

 

[Clifford]

Other than "theytookourguns!!!!" ?

Wow...

 

[Spanky267]

Other than "theytookourguns!!!!" ?

Wow...

Clifford

I just read the USA Today article that you linked in your post on page one where you point out that 15000 kids are injured each year by guns. The source data is from the Children's Defense Fund an organization not to be confused with the NRA. They gathered their data from the CDC an organization that is certainly not the NRA. Reading through their report. http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2013.pdf on page 23 they discuss child deaths. The lastest CDC data they have is from 2010. The CDC tracks gun deaths for children and teens. That includes adults aged 18 and 19 years old. The total number of deaths of children and teens was 2694. That includes murders, suicides, accidents and deaths where the intent was unknown. They break down like this.

1773 murders

749 suicides

134 accidents

38 unknown

2694 total

All categories except accidents were in a downward trend for 2010. What you can see from this organizations compilation of data is that gun deaths are in an overall downward trend. The statistics in this report go back to 1963. While the organization likes to point out that today's rates are still multiple times higher than those of 1963 there is a steady downward trend that began after the peak of gun deaths in 1993. For 30 years from 1963 to 1993 gun deaths of all kinds among children were on the rise, dramatically. Since 1993 gun deaths among children and the general population have been in decline. Even as the gun restrictions of the 1990s expired in the early 2000's the trend has continued almost unabated. The total death rate of children by guns is eight tenths of a point higher in 2010 than it was in 1963. It is 4.5 points lower than the peak of 1993.

The CDC lists 134 accidental deaths of children in the US to guns in 2010. While all 134 deaths are tragic is it truly a large enough number to force legislation on all Americans? If you were to remove 18 and 19 year olds from all of these statistics I am sure the number would be much lower. I assure you that the United States department of defense does not consider the 18 and 19 year olds in its service, children. Why should the CDC include what are essentially adults in these statistics.

 

[Chaka]

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

I believe that it causes zero harm to anyone to try it out and see if it helps.

 

[Spanky267]

Clifford

You also threw out the number of 15000 injuries among children from guns. That number is an estimate extrapolated from a survey done by the Childrens Defense Fund of emergency rooms. Keep in mind that this data is skewed because it also includes 18 and 19 year olds and uses the children and teens metric. 89% of those injuries were in teens aged 15 to 19. Of course the Childrens Defense fund isnt interested in finding out what percentage of that number is represented by 18 and 19 year olds. I would venture to guess that the number is north of 50%. Also keep in mind that buy surveying emergency rooms for "gun injuries" these injuries could have occured in the commission of a crime. The trends are different here and the CDF research only goes back 10 years to 2001. But the accidental injury rate has been cut almost in half in those ten years and sits at 3.6 per 100,000 childrent.

Pretty interesting report and obviously assembled to create as much shock value as possible by comparing injury and death rates among children to soldiers.

 

[Clifford]

Other than "theytookourguns!!!!" ?

Wow...

Clifford

I just read the USA Today article that you linked in your post on page one where you point out that 15000 kids are injured each year by guns. The source data is from the Children's Defense Fund an organization not to be confused with the NRA. They gathered their data from the CDC an organization that is certainly not the NRA. Reading through their report. http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2013.pdf on page 23 they discuss child deaths. The lastest CDC data they have is from 2010. The CDC tracks gun deaths for children and teens. That includes adults aged 18 and 19 years old. The total number of deaths of children and teens was 2694. That includes murders, suicides, accidents and deaths where the intent was unknown. They break down like this.

1773 murders

749 suicides

134 accidents

38 unknown

2694 total

All categories except accidents were in a downward trend for 2010. What you can see from this organizations compilation of data is that gun deaths are in an overall downward trend. The statistics in this report go back to 1963. While the organization likes to point out that today's rates are still multiple times higher than those of 1963 there is a steady downward trend that began after the peak of gun deaths in 1993. For 30 years from 1963 to 1993 gun deaths of all kinds among children were on the rise, dramatically. Since 1993 gun deaths among children and the general population have been in decline. Even as the gun restrictions of the 1990s expired in the early 2000's the trend has continued almost unabated. The total death rate of children by guns is eight tenths of a point higher in 2010 than it was in 1963. It is 4.5 points lower than the peak of 1993.

The CDC lists 134 accidental deaths of children in the US to guns in 2010. While all 134 deaths are tragic is it truly a large enough number to force legislation on all Americans? If you were to remove 18 and 19 year olds from all of these statistics I am sure the number would be much lower. I assure you that the United States department of defense does not consider the 18 and 19 year olds in its service, children. Why should the CDC include what are essentially adults in these statistics.

First of all, you aren't forcing legislation on all Americans. So you've created a false choice here and conflated product safety with gun control. Not sure if this was intentional or not but I'll assume unintentional.

In case anyone is unclear, what I have proposed are federally-mandated safety standards on guns, just like we have for every other dangerous product on the market, from cars to cleaning supplies. So the legislation would be aimed at gun manufacturers, not individual Americans, and certainly not all Americas. So I would like to put that to bed as a line of thinking and counter argument. If you are opposed to mandating safety standards for goods to be sold in the U.S. state it as such.

Second, thanks for the data. I think the CDC is about as reliable a source as one could ask for. But I think by singling out one scenario (child accidentally shoots self or others with gun) you are obscuring the potential impact of biometric authentication (or RFID if the tech is found to be more reliable). You would likely affect multiple scenarios with undesirable outcomes, such as murders, suicides, and other ways in which guns harm children when the shooter is not the owner of the gun. So when you ask if 134 deaths is reason enough for a federally-mandated safety standard, you are ignoring the impact of the tech in other areas. Furthermore, and I know this was in spirit of staying on topic, you are limiting your data set to children. The tech would be applicable to adults as well, and would help scenarios involving adults being victimized by guns that are not fired by the owner. This would include, in a future state, scenarios where an owners gun is taken from them and used against them, which I think would have a tremendous impact in many crime scenarios and of course would make the gun owner much safer. In the computerworld article I linked they said that 40% of policemen who are shot are shot with their own gun. I did not investigate the source as this is not a full-time job.

So, since this is not legislation on all Americans, and since the deaths (not to mention injuries) that could be prevented by my proposal far exceeds the 134 you listed, yes, I think the safety standard should be put in place at the earliest opportunity. That will facilitate the interest on the part of the gun manufacturers and drive the technology to the next level of safety and reliability.

 

[Spanky267]

Other than "theytookourguns!!!!" ?

Wow...

Clifford

I just read the USA Today article that you linked in your post on page one where you point out that 15000 kids are injured each year by guns. The source data is from the Children's Defense Fund an organization not to be confused with the NRA. They gathered their data from the CDC an organization that is certainly not the NRA. Reading through their report. http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2013.pdf on page 23 they discuss child deaths. The lastest CDC data they have is from 2010. The CDC tracks gun deaths for children and teens. That includes adults aged 18 and 19 years old. The total number of deaths of children and teens was 2694. That includes murders, suicides, accidents and deaths where the intent was unknown. They break down like this.

1773 murders

749 suicides

134 accidents

38 unknown

2694 total

All categories except accidents were in a downward trend for 2010. What you can see from this organizations compilation of data is that gun deaths are in an overall downward trend. The statistics in this report go back to 1963. While the organization likes to point out that today's rates are still multiple times higher than those of 1963 there is a steady downward trend that began after the peak of gun deaths in 1993. For 30 years from 1963 to 1993 gun deaths of all kinds among children were on the rise, dramatically. Since 1993 gun deaths among children and the general population have been in decline. Even as the gun restrictions of the 1990s expired in the early 2000's the trend has continued almost unabated. The total death rate of children by guns is eight tenths of a point higher in 2010 than it was in 1963. It is 4.5 points lower than the peak of 1993.

The CDC lists 134 accidental deaths of children in the US to guns in 2010. While all 134 deaths are tragic is it truly a large enough number to force legislation on all Americans? If you were to remove 18 and 19 year olds from all of these statistics I am sure the number would be much lower. I assure you that the United States department of defense does not consider the 18 and 19 year olds in its service, children. Why should the CDC include what are essentially adults in these statistics.

First of all, you aren't forcing legislation on all Americans. So you've created a false choice here and conflated product safety with gun control. Not sure if this was intentional or not but I'll assume unintentional.

In case anyone is unclear, what I have proposed are federally-mandated safety standards on guns, just like we have for every other dangerous product on the market, from cars to cleaning supplies. So the legislation would be aimed at gun manufacturers, not individual Americans, and certainly not all Americas. So I would like to put that to bed as a line of thinking and counter argument. If you are opposed to mandating safety standards for goods to be sold in the U.S. state it as such.

Second, thanks for the data. I think the CDC is about as reliable a source as one could ask for. But I think by singling out one scenario (child accidentally shoots self or others with gun) you are obscuring the potential impact of biometric authentication (or RFID if the tech is found to be more reliable). You would likely affect multiple scenarios with undesirable outcomes, such as murders, suicides, and other ways in which guns harm children when the shooter is not the owner of the gun. So when you ask if 134 deaths is reason enough for a federally-mandated safety standard, you are ignoring the impact of the tech in other areas. Furthermore, and I know this was in spirit of staying on topic, you are limiting your data set to children. The tech would be applicable to adults as well, and would help scenarios involving adults being victimized by guns that are not fired by the owner. This would include, in a future state, scenarios where an owners gun is taken from them and used against them, which I think would have a tremendous impact in many crime scenarios and of course would make the gun owner much safer. In the computerworld article I linked they said that 40% of policemen who are shot are shot with their own gun. I did not investigate the source as this is not a full-time job.

So, since this is not legislation on all Americans, and since the deaths (not to mention injuries) that could be prevented by my proposal far exceeds the 134 you listed, yes, I think the safety standard should be put in place at the earliest opportunity. That will facilitate the interest on the part of the gun manufacturers and drive the technology to the next level of safety and reliability.

Point taken on the fact that smart gun technology could dramatically reduce all of these statistics. My emphasis is on could. Banning cigarettes could reduce lung cancer and other smoking related illnesses and yet congress has not taken such action on such a grave public health issue. Even though smoking is not a constitutionally protected right. Think of the savings in lives and health care costs if we simply banned cigarettes. While you arent proposing a ban you are saying we should take dramatic steps to reduce injury and death rates according to the CDC 443000 people die prematurely due to smoking related illnesses and 8.6 million live with a serious illness due to smoking. Those numbers dwarf the gun deaths and injuries combined.

I realize that my comparison is over the top but its done to prove that if we want an over reaching government that protects us from our own societal stupidity then we should ban cigarettes, fast food, sugary drinks, coffee, alcohol and a ton of other things because they all pose health hazards if abused. But by and large we dont do that and yet we are surpirsed when implements that are designed to kill do exactly that even when they are used improperly. Trigger locks are mandated in Florida. In this case it wasnt used. I doubt that had the gun been equipped with a manual safety it would have been used either.

Getting back to the smart gun issues. Think about the implementation here. We are going to pack a gun with digital bits and baubles and a power supply that will tell the gun whether to fire or not. I cant see anything going wrong with that system. You also open these devices to hacking in the case of RFID and some of the other technologies. You now also introduce batteries into the equation. Joe homeowner now has to keep fresh batteries in his home defense weapon as I am sure it will be locked out from firing if the batteries are dead. There is also the possibility of the system being stripped from the weapon. Guns are disassembled for cleaning. Either the owner or a theif could disassemble the gun and remove the "smart" system which is most likely either a trigger lock or firing pin blocker. Sure it might be far fetched but its only as far fetched at the BATFE claiming that airsoft guns could be converted into fully automatic killing machines.

Even if you implement the smart gun technology and mandate it on all new guns what becomes of the 310 million or so guns already in circulation? Are they then illegal? Simply making and selling only smart guns doesnt solve the problem and most likely has little to no effect on the statistics you wish to influence unless you demand that American gun owners turn in the guns they already have or you force them to cobble this smart tech onto the guns they have some how. I am sure the government will subsidize this in the same way that they subsidized the switch to HD television.

 

[Clifford]

I've provided the links to check out your scenarios. You are free to read them.

Your argument is not only a flawed analogy but a slippery slope one. We aren't talking about banning anything and there are already tons of federally and state mandated safety requirements for tons of products.

As for the other stuff, frankly it seems you are grasping for straws. Batteries? Disassembling the gun and removing the lock? These are the concerns you are willing to throw lives away for?

 

[LinusMarr]

We still #####ing about guns in here?

 

[Spanky267]

I've provided the links to check out your scenarios. You are free to read them.

Your argument is not only a flawed analogy but a slippery slope one. We aren't talking about banning anything and there are already tons of federally and state mandated safety requirements for tons of products.

As for the other stuff, frankly it seems you are grasping for straws. Batteries? Disassembling the gun and removing the lock? These are the concerns you are willing to throw lives away for?

I never said they were equal. But if you are concerned with saving the most lives then banning cigarettes would be a logical course to take.It would save hundreds of thousands of lives every year and save us billions in healthcare costs. Dont you want to do everything you can to prevent senseless deaths? Do you smoke? If you want to make an impact its the next logical step to take. We've made it hard for kids to get cigarettes and yet they still get them. We've labelled the packages to warn of the dangers and yet people still do it. Perhaps we ought to deny smokers access to healthcare related to their smoking since they have decided to ignore all of our warnings. Is this all ludicrous? Yes it is. So is your argument.

We already have laws that say criminals cant have guns and yet they do. We already have laws that say you must use a trigger lock when you arent using or in possession of your gun. Yet people ignore it. We already have gun storage laws. People ignore those. We can implement smart technology but people will find ways to circumvent it and it will fail some people when they need it. Plus you never addressed the guns currently in circulation. What do we do about them? Smart gun retrofit kits? It is can be bolted on then a criminal can unbolt it. Thus it isnt the pancea you claim it is.

Face it there is alot of stupid in this world. Some of it is obvious, some of it is hidden until stupid choices manifest themselves in a tragedy like the one that is the cause of this thread. How to we keep stupid people from doing stupid things. Simple answer, we cant. Stupid always finds a way.

 

[Clifford]

I've provided the links to check out your scenarios. You are free to read them.

Your argument is not only a flawed analogy but a slippery slope one. We aren't talking about banning anything and there are already tons of federally and state mandated safety requirements for tons of products.

As for the other stuff, frankly it seems you are grasping for straws. Batteries? Disassembling the gun and removing the lock? These are the concerns you are willing to throw lives away for?

I never said they were equal. But if you are concerned with saving the most lives then banning cigarettes would be a logical course to take.It would save hundreds of thousands of lives every year and save us billions in healthcare costs. Dont you want to do everything you can to prevent senseless deaths? Do you smoke? If you want to make an impact its the next logical step to take. We've made it hard for kids to get cigarettes and yet they still get them. We've labelled the packages to warn of the dangers and yet people still do it. Perhaps we ought to deny smokers access to healthcare related to their smoking since they have decided to ignore all of our warnings. Is this all ludicrous? Yes it is. So is your argument.

We already have laws that say criminals cant have guns and yet they do. We already have laws that say you must use a trigger lock when you arent using or in possession of your gun. Yet people ignore it. We already have gun storage laws. People ignore those. We can implement smart technology but people will find ways to circumvent it and it will fail some people when they need it. Plus you never addressed the guns currently in circulation. What do we do about them? Smart gun retrofit kits? It is can be bolted on then a criminal can unbolt it. Thus it isnt the pancea you claim it is.

Face it there is alot of stupid in this world. Some of it is obvious, some of it is hidden until stupid choices manifest themselves in a tragedy like the one that is the cause of this thread. How to we keep stupid people from doing stupid things. Simple answer, we cant. Stupid always finds a way.

Would banning cigarettes keep people from smoking? Has banning weed or any other drug worked? How did prohibition go?

How is pursuing a strategy you know will fail logical?

Are you against child-proof caps on dangerous drugs and chemicals? Are those ludicrous?

I'm sorry but all you are doing is conflating two things that have nothing in common. Banning drugs and mandating safety standards are two completely different things.

As to existing guns, you institute a government subsidized trade-in where people can swap out old guns for new ones. You will not get every gun swapped out. But you will get more than you would by doing nothing. Simple stuff.

I'll take the rest line by line

We already have laws that say criminals cant have guns and yet they do.

I am not proposing legislating behavior. How is this relevant?

We already have laws that say you must use a trigger lock when you arent using or in possession of your gun. Yet people ignore it.

Old tech that is obviously ineffective. I am proposing new technology that is effective.

We already have gun storage laws. People ignore those.

I am not proposing legislating behavior. How is this relevant?

We can implement smart technology but people will find ways to circumvent it and it will fail some people when they need it.

Back to edge cases. Because it won't work 100% of the time, we will ignore the lives it could save because it couldn't save all of them. This makes as much sense as taking an axe to an eight person lifeboat because you have ten people on a sinking ship.

But hey, props to you for sticking around and actually considering a different POV. I still feel you are opposed to gun control and are confusing the issues in your head. All this would do is make guns safer, for the people that buy them, for the kids in their homes, for police and for soldiers. The tech is already there and has been proven effective. And it's not just my argument. As my sources stated there are already several states considering legislation mandating that all guns sold in their state have such protection 3 years after it is available in retail.

However the pace of technological development of even better technology is being slowed by lack of funding. A nationwide mandate would speed that up.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Of course it's a tragedy, and of course he's a moron.

But, on average, if you both own a gun and have a swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/27/levittpoolsvsguns/

And cars kill even more kids, so what are we gonna do, outlaw cars now??!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!

?!

Yes. Everyone should live in NyC and take public transportation or walk!

 

[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

I believe that it causes zero harm to anyone to try it out and see if it helps.

I believe it infringes on our civil rights to do so. Are we going to continue to infringe on civil rights, because we just want to try it and see if it helps? I don't think it works that way...

 

[Chaka]

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

I believe that it causes zero harm to anyone to try it out and see if it helps.

I believe it infringes on our civil rights to do so. Are we going to continue to infringe on civil rights, because we just want to try it and see if it helps? I don't think it works that way...

That's a load of rich creamery butter.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

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

I believe that it causes zero harm to anyone to try it out and see if it helps.

I believe it infringes on our civil rights to do so. Are we going to continue to infringe on civil rights, because we just want to try it and see if it helps? I don't think it works that way...

It does not. You can still own all you want.

 

[Otis]

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.

Seems reasonable.

 

[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

I believe that it causes zero harm to anyone to try it out and see if it helps.

I believe it infringes on our civil rights to do so. Are we going to continue to infringe on civil rights, because we just want to try it and see if it helps? I don't think it works that way...

It does not. You can still own all you want.

What is the intent behind registering guns, to keep unregistered guns out of the hands of criminals? It's illegal to enforce such a registration due to ones civil rights.

If your proposed law is to work against criminals, but instead, criminals are exempt, the law becomes obsolete..

Law abiding gun owners are then saddled with legislation intended for the ones who are exempt..

 

[Chaka]

 

[timschochet]

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

I believe that it causes zero harm to anyone to try it out and see if it helps.

I believe it infringes on our civil rights to do so. Are we going to continue to infringe on civil rights, because we just want to try it and see if it helps? I don't think it works that way...

It does not. You can still own all you want.

What is the intent behind registering guns, to keep unregistered guns out of the hands of criminals? It's illegal to enforce such a registration due to ones civil rights.

If your proposed law is to work against criminals, but instead, criminals are exempt, the law becomes obsolete..

Law abiding gun owners are then saddled with legislation intended for the ones who are exempt..

I wasn't aware of this. Which civil right makes gun registration illegal?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I wasn't aware of this. Which civil right makes gun registration illegal?

Link below is just one of many instances.. I don't have time to do all of the research again, but it's unenforceable..

This 8-1 decision (with only Chief Justice Earl Warren dissenting) is, depending on your view of Fifth Amendment, either a courageous application of the intent of the self-incrimination clause, or evidence that the Supreme Court had engaged in reductio ad absurdum of the Fifth Amendment. Under this ruling, a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, could not be punished for failing to register it.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Didn't we cover the unenforceable aspect of gun registration in a previous thread?

 

[Chaka]

Unenforceable doesn't mean don't try.

 

[Chaka]

One of the saddest part of the pro-gun sect (and I am not talking about any one specific gun owner, a group to which I belong) is the often selective nature in which they approach things like civil liberties. Not much outrage for licensing drivers or registering cars or regulating financial markets or air traffic but tons of opposition and outrage for things like same sex marriage and Janet Jackson's nipple.

Not calling you out specifically Carolina Hustler, or any individual gun owner for that matter. Just pointing out a general observation that gun ownership and general stances on other issues do not seem to align very well.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

One of the saddest part of the pro-gun sect (and I am not talking about any one specific gun owner, a group to which I belong) is the often selective nature in which they approach things like civil liberties. Not much outrage for licensing drivers or registering cars or regulating financial markets or air traffic but tons of opposition and outrage for things like same sex marriage and Janet Jackson's nipple.

Not calling you out specifically Carolina Hustler, or any individual gun owner for that matter. Just pointing out a general observation that gun ownership and general stances on other issues do not seem to align very well.

Or voting. Which doesnt kill anyone and we dont even have any actual problems with it, and they know it.

 

[timschochet]

I wasn't aware of this. Which civil right makes gun registration illegal?

Link below is just one of many instances.. I don't have time to do all of the research again, but it's unenforceable..

This 8-1 decision (with only Chief Justice Earl Warren dissenting) is, depending on your view of Fifth Amendment, either a courageous application of the intent of the self-incrimination clause, or evidence that the Supreme Court had engaged in reductio ad absurdum of the Fifth Amendment. Under this ruling, a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, could not be punished for failing to register it.

Well that's certainly an original argument. However, if we passed a law tommorow calling for universal gun registration, and it was challenged in the courts by someone with your POV, the law would be upheld. Sorry.

 

[Clifford]

So we're back to bickering over pointless crap instead of actually opening our eyes about available tech that could be saving lives today? Wonderful.

I am so glad there are people out there that aren't afraid of technology and are using it to try and save lives by making guns safer for their owners and children. I applaud the states that are going forward with mandates that the tech must be used when available if someone wants to sell guns. I think it's nothing short of horrific if you don't support the advancement and distribution of such technology as there is really no argument that it would not save lives and make guns safer for everyone.

The reactions I have seen here are basically this:

1. The technology will never work (disproven, easily)
2. The thousands of people killed by guns being fired by someone other than the owner aren't worth imposing safety standards on gun manufacturers (sick)
3. People could get around it (I would really like to see your average gun owner hack an RFID or somehow disable biometrics that are built in to a gun)
4. Imposing safety standards on a dangerous product is a massive overreach of federal power, but only for guns. It's fine for cars and everything else (intellectually dishonest and totally lacking of any coherent logic)
5. Suggesting that our government has the right and duty to impose safety standards on dangerous product is ludicrous (WTF)
6. We shouldn't force gun owners to have to worry about batteries (WTF pt 2)
7. There is no magic pill that will end all gun violence, therefore nothing should ever be attempted to curb gun violence (WTF pt 3)

What this all boils down to is confirmation bias. Gun folks have been taught to vehemently oppose anything related to the regulation of guns, and immediately go to a defensive posture that assumes that any regulation is meant to stop them from owning and using guns. The issue has been so heavily misrepresented and injected with propaganda that any real sensible reform will instantly be resisted, even when such reforms actually work in a gun owner's interests. The lobbies protecting the gun manufacturers are so strong and politically embedded our politicians are scared ####less to do anything.

I'm sorry but if you are more interested in your preconceived notions that actually examining the possibilities of how technology could help save lives needlessly lost every year, then you are indeed a sad and pathetic individual.

 

[The Commish]

So we're back to bickering over pointless crap instead of actually opening our eyes about available tech that could be saving lives today? Wonderful.

I am so glad there are people out there that aren't afraid of technology and are using it to try and save lives by making guns safer for their owners and children. I applaud the states that are going forward with mandates that the tech must be used when available if someone wants to sell guns. I think it's nothing short of horrific if you don't support the advancement and distribution of such technology as there is really no argument that it would not save lives and make guns safer for everyone.

The reactions I have seen here are basically this:

1. The technology will never work (disproven, easily)
2. The thousands of people killed by guns being fired by someone other than the owner aren't worth imposing safety standards on gun manufacturers (sick)
3. People could get around it (I would really like to see your average gun owner hack an RFID or somehow disable biometrics that are built in to a gun)
4. Imposing safety standards on a dangerous product is a massive overreach of federal power, but only for guns. It's fine for cars and everything else (intellectually dishonest and totally lacking of any coherent logic)
5. Suggesting that our government has the right and duty to impose safety standards on dangerous product is ludicrous (WTF)
6. We shouldn't force gun owners to have to worry about batteries (WTF pt 2)
7. There is no magic pill that will end all gun violence, therefore nothing should ever be attempted to curb gun violence (WTF pt 3)

What this all boils down to is confirmation bias. Gun folks have been taught to vehemently oppose anything related to the regulation of guns, and immediately go to a defensive posture that assumes that any regulation is meant to stop them from owning and using guns. The issue has been so heavily misrepresented and injected with propaganda that any real sensible reform will instantly be resisted, even when such reforms actually work in a gun owner's interests. The lobbies protecting the gun manufacturers are so strong and politically embedded our politicians are scared ####less to do anything.

I'm sorry but if you are more interested in your preconceived notions that actually examining the possibilities of how technology could help save lives needlessly lost every year, then you are indeed a sad and pathetic individual.

Fear is a strong motivator

 

[timschochet]

Clifford, I'm not opposed to trying. I think it's fine to make changes to new guns. I don't know what we do about the millions of guns already in existence, and that makes me think that this won't do a whole lot of good. I also still believe that if people decide to break this law, it would be largely unenforceable. But otherwise I reject most of the arguments being made against you by the pro-NRA types.

 

[Spanky267]

Clifford

The technology is unproven. Biometrics on your cell phone are one thing. Biometrics in essentially a laboratory setting, 6 campus police officers at one New Jersey college are another. The implementation of a workable and completely reliable biometric safety on every firearm in America is yet another. I doubt any of those campus police officers have ever had to use their weapon in a real world situation.

There also has to be a means within that biometric system to reset the device in the case that the gun is sold or gifted. That is one window for abuse. The system is also most likely not going to be embedded in the steel or polymer of the gun. So it can and will be stripped out by criminals. It wont be embedded in the steel or polymer because if it fails it wont be able to be replaced without discarding the gun.

These devices will need electrical power to operate, something currently not needed to make any gun operate. What happens to a law enforcement officer if his guns suffers an electrical failure due to dead batteries or an electrical fault. do you think there will be an outcry when a police officer is killed in the line of duty due to a failure of his weapon. That scenario doesnt exist today.

The RFID systems might not have the problems that the biometrics do but they are vulnerable to hacking and cloning. Also the tag would need to be worn by the gun owner or implanted subcutaneously. I am sure law enforcement and the general public will be all for that. You'd basically be carrying a radio tag in or on your body that broadcasts HEY!!! I'm a gun owner!!!

I'm not worried about the average gun owner hacking the RFID or Biometrics. What I am worried about are criminals hacking RFID or Biometrics.Because most of the stats surrounding death or injury by guns are criminal in nature. Criminals are going to look for ways to circumvent these safety features to either render a potential victims weapon inert or to steal said weapons and use them for criminal purposes.

Our government has the right to impose some safety standards where those standards do not impede the free exercise of our constitutionally protected rights. We both have the right to own a gun. You choose not to exercise that right and I choose to exercise it. My rights arent abridged by a safety cap on a bottle of aspirin. Because I dont have a constitutionally protected right to asprin or the bottles they come in. Your proposal would infringe upon my right to bear arms especially in times of personal defense or natonal strife.For example if I were a homeowner in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina whose home and and valuables were flooded. I could still defend myself, my family and my property with a conventional firearm that had gotten wet in the flood waters. Its just metal or polymer. Any electronics on the gun might have been damaged, like lights or aiming devices. But those are not integral to the operation of the gun and it would still be capable of being aimed and fired. Your smart gun might not fare so well under similar circumstances and essentially would become an expensive club.

Would it be overly intrusive if the federal government required breathalyzer devicesinstalled on ever car sold in the US? 10,322 poeple died in drunk driving crashes in 2012 according to MADD. If every car in america were equipped with a breathalyzer then we would end the scourge of drunk driving and the injuries and fatalities that go with it. We could have a trade in program. People would trade in their old cars and get new "safer" smart cars with built in breathalyzers. Driving isnt a right nor is it constitutionally protected so this should be easy to accomplish. If you are against a breathalyzer in every car you are a sad and pathetic individual.

 

[Clifford]

Clifford, I'm not opposed to trying. I think it's fine to make changes to new guns. I don't know what we do about the millions of guns already in existence, and that makes me think that this won't do a whole lot of good. I also still believe that if people decide to break this law, it would be largely unenforceable. But otherwise I reject most of the arguments being made against you by the pro-NRA types.

I have already addressed the existing gun scenario multiple times. Of course you won't get everyone trading their gun in, but they would be getting a brand new gun for an old one free of charge, so maybe more would do it than you think.

 

[Clifford]

Sorry but this is patently wrong and I have given you the links that prove it. I can't make you educate yourself but you need to. The NIJ published an exhaustive research paper and found not one but many techniques highly effective.

Pretty obvious that you simply don't want the tech to work since you keep ignoring evidence and advancing this claim. Furthermore, the tech that is working is working with minimal funding that forces the innovators in this field to work with outdated tech. There is no question that a federal mandate would cause gun manufacturers to pour money into R&D since not doing so would mean giving up the US audience. So not only does it work today, it would work even better tomorrow if certain people got out of the way.

Clifford

The technology is unproven.

 

[Spanky267]

Sorry but this is patently wrong and I have given you the links that prove it. I can't make you educate yourself but you need to. The NIJ published an exhaustive research paper and found not one but many techniques highly effective.

Pretty obvious that you simply don't want the tech to work since you keep ignoring evidence and advancing this claim. Furthermore, the tech that is working is working with minimal funding that forces the innovators in this field to work with outdated tech. There is no question that a federal mandate would cause gun manufacturers to pour money into R&D since not doing so would mean giving up the US audience. So not only does it work today, it would work even better tomorrow if certain people got out of the way.

Clifford

The technology is unproven.

Clifford

The tech is unproven in the sense that it has not seen widespread application on this product. Has it seen small scale testing? Yes. Has it been put through the rigors that a gun owned by a police officer would go through? Will the electronics hold up to thousands of rounds fired and little to no cleaning of the weapon? How will gun powder and other residues effect the performance of the safety system?

You know as well as I do that even if smart gun tech is mandated at any level the government isnt going to require that citizens turn in their old guns. Its not going to happen. You should read this paper from the Violence Policy Center that counters most of your arguments on the potential effectiveness of smart guns on gun violence.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/Smart%20Gun%202013.pdf

Your smart gun proposal only works at reducing gun deaths and injuries if the overwhelming majority of guns currently held by citizens are swapped for the new smart guns. The Violence Policy Center is not pro gun by any means but they seem more pragmatic on the subject of reducing gun violence. The solutions they propose are ones I could get behind.

 

[drummer]

Clifford

The technology is unproven. Biometrics on your cell phone are one thing. Biometrics in essentially a laboratory setting, 6 campus police officers at one New Jersey college are another. The implementation of a workable and completely reliable biometric safety on every firearm in America is yet another. I doubt any of those campus police officers have ever had to use their weapon in a real world situation.

There also has to be a means within that biometric system to reset the device in the case that the gun is sold or gifted. That is one window for abuse. The system is also most likely not going to be embedded in the steel or polymer of the gun. So it can and will be stripped out by criminals. It wont be embedded in the steel or polymer because if it fails it wont be able to be replaced without discarding the gun.

These devices will need electrical power to operate, something currently not needed to make any gun operate. What happens to a law enforcement officer if his guns suffers an electrical failure due to dead batteries or an electrical fault. do you think there will be an outcry when a police officer is killed in the line of duty due to a failure of his weapon. That scenario doesnt exist today.

The RFID systems might not have the problems that the biometrics do but they are vulnerable to hacking and cloning. Also the tag would need to be worn by the gun owner or implanted subcutaneously. I am sure law enforcement and the general public will be all for that. You'd basically be carrying a radio tag in or on your body that broadcasts HEY!!! I'm a gun owner!!!

I'm not worried about the average gun owner hacking the RFID or Biometrics. What I am worried about are criminals hacking RFID or Biometrics.Because most of the stats surrounding death or injury by guns are criminal in nature. Criminals are going to look for ways to circumvent these safety features to either render a potential victims weapon inert or to steal said weapons and use them for criminal purposes.

Our government has the right to impose some safety standards where those standards do not impede the free exercise of our constitutionally protected rights. We both have the right to own a gun. You choose not to exercise that right and I choose to exercise it. My rights arent abridged by a safety cap on a bottle of aspirin. Because I dont have a constitutionally protected right to asprin or the bottles they come in. Your proposal would infringe upon my right to bear arms especially in times of personal defense or natonal strife.For example if I were a homeowner in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina whose home and and valuables were flooded. I could still defend myself, my family and my property with a conventional firearm that had gotten wet in the flood waters. Its just metal or polymer. Any electronics on the gun might have been damaged, like lights or aiming devices. But those are not integral to the operation of the gun and it would still be capable of being aimed and fired. Your smart gun might not fare so well under similar circumstances and essentially would become an expensive club.

Would it be overly intrusive if the federal government required breathalyzer devicesinstalled on ever car sold in the US? 10,322 poeple died in drunk driving crashes in 2012 according to MADD. If every car in america were equipped with a breathalyzer then we would end the scourge of drunk driving and the injuries and fatalities that go with it. We could have a trade in program. People would trade in their old cars and get new "safer" smart cars with built in breathalyzers. Driving isnt a right nor is it constitutionally protected so this should be easy to accomplish. If you are against a breathalyzer in every car you are a sad and pathetic individual.

 

[Clifford]

Here is a breakdown of everything you are wrong about in your first two paragraphs because you haven't read up:

The technology is unproven.

wrong

Biometrics on your cell phone are one thing. Biometrics in essentially a laboratory setting, 6 campus police officers at one New Jersey college are another.

Biometrics have been tested in field tests outside of these officers. Furthermore Biometrics is only one method. There is an RFID shotgun being sold right now that the NIJ ranked more reliable than biometrics

The implementation of a workable and completely reliable biometric safety on every firearm in America is yet another. I doubt any of those campus police officers have ever had to use their weapon in a real world situation.

You have zero basis for saying this unless you can verify this with facts.

There also has to be a means within that biometric system to reset the device in the case that the gun is sold or gifted.

Or if the owner desires that it could be fired by someone else. Good thing it accommodates both scenarios.

That is one window for abuse.

Yes, and someone could use a seat belt to strangle someone. Point?

The system is also most likely not going to be embedded in the steel or polymer of the gun.

Well, it is, on the biometrics.

So it can and will be stripped out by criminals.

No, and doing so would make the gun worthless because it would no longer be able to fire.

It wont be embedded in the steel or polymer because if it fails it wont be able to be replaced without discarding the gun.

It actually is embedded, something you would be aware of already if you had read anything about the technology.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I wasn't aware of this. Which civil right makes gun registration illegal?

Link below is just one of many instances.. I don't have time to do all of the research again, but it's unenforceable..

This 8-1 decision (with only Chief Justice Earl Warren dissenting) is, depending on your view of Fifth Amendment, either a courageous application of the intent of the self-incrimination clause, or evidence that the Supreme Court had engaged in reductio ad absurdum of the Fifth Amendment. Under this ruling, a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, could not be punished for failing to register it.

Well that's certainly an original argument.However, if we passed a law tommorow calling for universal gun registration, and it was challenged in the courts by someone with your POV, the law would be upheld. Sorry.

Not sure what you mean by "original argument" This case is very old.. And it's not really an argument it was a finding in supreme court..

The law has already been upheld. The constitution/bill of rights, are laws...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Here is a breakdown of everything you are wrong about in your first two paragraphs because you haven't read up:

The technology is unproven.

wrong

Biometrics on your cell phone are one thing. Biometrics in essentially a laboratory setting, 6 campus police officers at one New Jersey college are another.

Biometrics have been tested in field tests outside of these officers. Furthermore Biometrics is only one method. There is an RFID shotgun being sold right now that the NIJ ranked more reliable than biometrics

The implementation of a workable and completely reliable biometric safety on every firearm in America is yet another. I doubt any of those campus police officers have ever had to use their weapon in a real world situation.

You have zero basis for saying this unless you can verify this with facts.

There also has to be a means within that biometric system to reset the device in the case that the gun is sold or gifted.

Or if the owner desires that it could be fired by someone else. Good thing it accommodates both scenarios.

That is one window for abuse.

Yes, and someone could use a seat belt to strangle someone. Point?

The system is also most likely not going to be embedded in the steel or polymer of the gun.

Well, it is, on the biometrics.

So it can and will be stripped out by criminals.

No, and doing so would make the gun worthless because it would no longer be able to fire.

It wont be embedded in the steel or polymer because if it fails it wont be able to be replaced without discarding the gun.

It actually is embedded, something you would be aware of already if you had read anything about the technology.

Do you own a firearm? Are you familiar with the working parts of a firearm? It doesn't seem like you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about..

A biometric or RFID would stop an accidental fire by someone who does not own the gun, but can both be bi-passed with a little gunsmith work.. Stolen guns would not be rendered interoperable for very long..

 

[msommer]

Would RFID/biometrics stop children from accidentally discharging their parents firearms?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Would RFID/biometrics stop children from accidentally discharging their parents firearms?

No, because there will always be guns without these safety features.. Some from before the technology, some where the tech has been disabled, etc.. I expect the amount of accidental fires by children would decrease.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Would RFID/biometrics stop children from accidentally discharging their parents firearms?

No, because there will always be guns without these safety features.. Some from before the technology, some where the tech has been disabled, etc.. I expect the amount of accidental fires by children would decrease.

Yes. On the guns with those safety measures.

 

[Clifford]

Would RFID/biometrics stop children from accidentally discharging their parents firearms?

Yes, but the pro gun folks are way more concerned with edge cases and huge concerns like having to keep up with batteries. More folks on the wrong side of reality. And who obviously don't really give a crap about any kind of solution. Pathetic and sad.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Would RFID/biometrics stop children from accidentally discharging their parents firearms?

Yes

no

 

[Clifford]

Would RFID/biometrics stop children from accidentally discharging their parents firearms?

Yes

no

I'm sorry what I meant was http://youtu.be/HvSjiq1pLVY

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Would RFID/biometrics stop children from accidentally discharging their parents firearms?

Yes

no

Yes they ####### would you psychotic moron.

So every person in the US, who has a weapon would be expected to have this safety feature? The billions of guns that are already owned...? And you can guarantee none of the ones that did have this feature could have the feature disabled?

Obviously you are the "moron", because you don't understand that safety features can be removed from a firearm.. Or that there will always be illegal weapons in the world that children can be killed with.

You are clueless...

 

[Clifford]

No you are simply not worth talking to. Your style is scoring points is on about a seventh grade level. It's like arguing with a child. Someone asks if this tech would prevent a child from firing their parents gun and you answer no because it wouldn't be on every gun and could be removed.

So to help you understand how stupid this is I'll take the word "gun" out so your brain won't turn off.

Do childproof caps prevent small children from opening pill bottles?

You: no because not all pill bottles have childproof caps and adults can remove them.

See how ####### stupid that is?

 

[msommer]

Would RFID/biometrics stop children from accidentally discharging their parents firearms?

Yes

no

Yes they ####### would you psychotic moron.

So every person in the US, who has a weapon would be expected to have this safety feature? The billions of guns that are already owned...? And you can guarantee none of the ones that did have this feature could have the feature disabled?

Obviously you are the "moron", because you don't understand that safety features can be removed from a firearm.. Or that there will always be illegal weapons in the world that children can be killed with.

You are clueless...

Americans on average own six guns? That's a lot...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

No you are simply not worth talking to. Your style is scoring points is on about a seventh grade level. It's like arguing with a child. Someone asks if this tech would prevent a child from firing their parents gun and you answer no because it wouldn't be on every gun and could be removed.

So to help you understand how stupid this is I'll take the word "gun" out so your brain won't turn off.

Do childproof caps prevent small children from opening pill bottles?

You: no because not all pill bottles have childproof caps and adults can remove them.

See how ####### stupid that is?

You said earlier in the thread that removing the safety feature would render the firearm a useless hunk of metal.. You are obviously ignorant when it comes to firearms.. You are here after banned from all firearms discussion..

Good bye forever..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Would RFID/biometrics stop children from accidentally discharging their parents firearms?

Yes

no

Yes they ####### would you psychotic moron.

So every person in the US, who has a weapon would be expected to have this safety feature? The billions of guns that are already owned...? And you can guarantee none of the ones that did have this feature could have the feature disabled?

Obviously you are the "moron", because you don't understand that safety features can be removed from a firearm.. Or that there will always be illegal weapons in the world that children can be killed with.

You are clueless...

Americans on average own six guns? That's a lot...

Only americans own guns? Wow, I did not know this..

 

[msommer]

Would RFID/biometrics stop children from accidentally discharging their parents firearms?

Yes

no

Yes they ####### would you psychotic moron.

So every person in the US, who has a weapon would be expected to have this safety feature? The billions of guns that are already owned...? And you can guarantee none of the ones that did have this feature could have the feature disabled?

Obviously you are the "moron", because you don't understand that safety features can be removed from a firearm.. Or that there will always be illegal weapons in the world that children can be killed with.

You are clueless...

Americans on average own six guns? That's a lot...

Only americans own guns? Wow, I did not know this..

So every person in the US, who has a weapon

Your own words...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Would RFID/biometrics stop children from accidentally discharging their parents firearms?

Yes

no

Yes they ####### would you psychotic moron.

So every person in the US, who has a weapon would be expected to have this safety feature? The billions of guns that are already owned...? And you can guarantee none of the ones that did have this feature could have the feature disabled?

Obviously you are the "moron", because you don't understand that safety features can be removed from a firearm.. Or that there will always be illegal weapons in the world that children can be killed with.

You are clueless...

Americans on average own six guns? That's a lot...

Only americans own guns? Wow, I did not know this..

So every person in the US, who has a weapon

Your own words...

an obvious exaggeration..

There are around 270 million firearms in the US (estimated)

Now back to the original point....