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

[Carolina Hustler]

Spanky and Carolina Hustler- I was under the impression that you guys DO support the government mandating safety applications to new guns. That was the reason for my earlier post. Now Clifford writes that you do not support a mandate. I am confused- please clarify your position, thanks.

Clifford is on a mission, he can't be bothered with reading those posts.. He can read our minds...

 

[Spanky267]

I agree that we should do everything we can to limit accidental deaths among children due to firearms. The statistics on this category of gun violence show that we are doing a pretty decent job as is. I just dont know if its logical to assume we can reduce the number farther or to zero.

http://www.childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm

The link above shows child death rates by category. In the accidental death category, death by firearm is 6th on the list and is about 4 times less likely than the 5th place Fire/Burn and about 8 times less likely than the 4th place Poison.

138 accidental deaths attributable to firearms in 2007. What Clifford is proposing may prevent 138 deaths a year. I say may because he cant realistically explain how once the smart gun goes into mass production how the government will be able to systematically eliminate the 300 millions dumb guns currently owned in the US.

As Carolina said education is our best resource in preventing these deaths. The trigger lock and storage laws only come in to play after a tragedy. By then the damage is done.

I am not trying to lessen the tragedy. 100+ kids die every year because adults fail to properly store and secure their firearms. 7000 kids die every year due to traffic accidents and drownings combined. We can save more kids by tackling those two areas. But we do it largely through education. Reminding parents to make sure that their kids wear seat belts and to practice appropriate pool and water safety. Why shouldnt we do the same here?

I am not saying that smart guns arent part of the equation. They should be added to the mix. But they alone wont solve the problem. We'll still have 200+ million other guns out there too. We need to educate people that you dont allow your kids to play with your lawnmower, circular saw or other potentially dangerous tools. You shouldnt leave your firearm in a place or in a state where kids can play with it and potentially injure or kill themselves or others.

Did you not read my post the first time you tossed this out? This would affect much more than accidental child deaths. You're either very forgetful or being disingenuous. Other scenarios include:

• Gun being used against the owner in a break in
• Gun being wrested away from the owner in a confrontation
• Gun being used against police officer
• Gun being stolen and used in a crime

Why are you bringing up the 138 deaths again. I thought it was quite clear that while it does affect accidental child deaths, it affects many other areas.

And how many of those situations do we actually have. Of the first 3 no more than the 138 children accidentally killed, most likely.

I want to know what this means. This sentence does not make sense as is. Are you saying there are no incidences of the first 3 bullets? As in none? Do you have anything to back this up?

What I am saying and I apologize for not being clear enough for you is this.

There are very few incidents of a victims gun being used against them in a break in. So few in fact that I cant find any statistics on them.

I dont know how many times a gun owner has their gun taken from them in a struggle. Again no stats to back this up.

There are statistics on how many officers were killed with their own gun. According to the FBI. Of the 72 officers killed in the line of duty in 2011, 3 were killed with their own weapon. Of the 48 officers killed in the line of duty in 2012 only 1 was killed with his own weapon.

Guns being stolen and used in a crime wont be stopped by RFID chips and Biometrics. As I pointed out earlier. Anyone with knowledge of a handgun will be able to strip these features out. The NJIT system is built into the grips of the gun. Remove those grips and youve defeated the system.

So youve pointed to scenarios that cant be proved or occur so infrequently that there are no statistics for them. You also pointed to the police where only a tiny fraction of those officers killed in the line of duty were killed with their own gun. According to those same FBI statistics 1295 officers were killed in the line of duty from 1991 to 2012. Of those 85 officers over that same span were killed with their own gun.

With the exception of anecdotal evidence the first three scenarios you mentioned have only 85 deaths attributable to them. The fourth scenario wont be stopped or dramatically decreased with RFID or Biometrics. We'd be better off mandating that every gun owner have a safe to store his/her guns in.

 

[Spanky267]

Spanky and Carolina Hustler- I was under the impression that you guys DO support the government mandating safety applications to new guns. That was the reason for my earlier post. Now Clifford writes that you do not support a mandate. I am confused- please clarify your position, thanks.

Tim

I would prefer that the government not mandate such things. But I believe that companies should feel free to pursue these technologies and devices and market the crap out of them. If the government wants to provide R&D grants to help develop the tech then that would be okay with me also. I'm not even opposed to states like New Jersey passing smart gun legislation as they did in 2002. I think its stupid but its the states right.

I firmly believe that proper education on the safe handling and storage of firearms is important. I think this is where we can make the most gains. We should also go after straw purchases and unscrupulous dealers. We have the means to do those things now.

I own exaclty one gun. I keep it unloaded in my home. I keep the magazines loaded but out of the gun. It is kept in a secure case and away from my children. I have taught my children from the time they got their first nerf gun that real guns are serious and dangerous and should not be played with. Just as I tell them now to play with the knives that we keep in a butcher block on the kitchen counter or the power tools that I keep in the garage. The minute you treat a gun, loaded or not, like anything less than the deadly instrument it is that is when bad things happen. I have never fired my gun at anything but paper targets. I hope I never have to use it against anything other than paper targets. I dont know if I could actually fire it in a life or death situation. I hope to never have to find out. But if I have to I dont want to have to remember to be wearing a certain watch or ring and I dont want to wait on biometrics to determine that I am allowed to fire the gun.

 

[Clifford]

My friend that owns guns wants it.

Well that settles it then

Do you think the people in this thread are stupid enough to fall for you taking stuff completely out of context like this? You're like the FoxNews of the FFA.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

My friend that owns guns wants it.

Well that settles it then

Do you think the people in this thread are stupid enough to fall for you taking stuff completely out of context like this? You're like the FoxNews of the FFA.

You have a friend who owns a gun and he says he would like RFID tech on his gun... That proves nothing.. Everyone thinks it's cool and would like a gun with that technology.. But if it proves 3 times as expensive, and ultimately less reliable, I'm sure your friend would prefer a gun without it. In which case, he should be educated on how to keep guns out of the hands of children..

I keep pressing you and you keep evading it.. There are 270million guns in America already.. How do you resolve that with your RFID mandate?

 

[Spanky267]

My friend that owns guns wants it.

Well that settles it then

Do you think the people in this thread are stupid enough to fall for you taking stuff completely out of context like this? You're like the FoxNews of the FFA.

You have a friend who owns a gun and he says he would like RFID tech on his gun... That proves nothing.. Everyone thinks it's cool and would like a gun with that technology.. But if it proves 3 times as expensive, and ultimately less reliable, I'm sure your friend would prefer a gun without it. In which case, he should be educated on how to keep guns out of the hands of children..

I keep pressing you and you keep evading it.. There are 270million guns in America already.. How do you resolve that with your RFID mandate?

Well its quite easy really. More government intervention. Either a mandatory buyback program or a mandatory surrender program. Clifford has eluded to this in several of his posts. He wants the government to basically trade smart guns for the 270 million firearms already in the US. Even if it were a $100 voucher program for every gun turned in it would only cost the Government $27B to accomplish if every gun were turned in. But is someone going to turn in their $3000 Browning Over Under shotgun for a $100 voucher towards a "smart" shotgun? Probably not. What you will see is alot of people turning in their High Points and Keltecs for these vouchers. Cheap $200 and $300 guns. No one is going to turn in a Glock, Beretta or Browning to get one of these smart guns. The criminals will not be lining up for these vouchers or any buyback program for that matter. They'll keep their "dumb" guns.

The next option is aftermarket add on RFID or Biometric security. Which as we've already pointed out if it can be bolted on it can also be unbolted and removed.

Clifford's proposal wont reduce suicides because people who shoot themselves with guns do it with their own guns almost exclusively.

I think the technology is novel and worth further development. If and when companies can make it 100% reliable they should market it. People will buy it, but no one should be forced to.

 

[Clifford]

My friend that owns guns wants it.

Well that settles it then

Do you think the people in this thread are stupid enough to fall for you taking stuff completely out of context like this? You're like the FoxNews of the FFA.

You have a friend who owns a gun and he says he would like RFID tech on his gun... That proves nothing.. Everyone thinks it's cool and would like a gun with that technology.. But if it proves 3 times as expensive, and ultimately less reliable, I'm sure your friend would prefer a gun without it. In which case, he should be educated on how to keep guns out of the hands of children..

I keep pressing you and you keep evading it.. There are 270million guns in America already.. How do you resolve that with your RFID mandate?

Good God dude. You took it out of context and then you ##### about being confused. It's not my fault you don't read more than three words before responding.

Spanky made a statement saying that consumer demand does not exist for these features. You agree. Two saying no demand exist.

I know two people that want it.

I used this an example to show that saying no consumer demand exists because two people on this board don't want it is AS STUPID as saying that it does exist because I know two people that want it.

Do you get it now? Why do you need things this obvious and simple explained to you?

First of all, it's not an RFID mandate. It's a federal safety standard. I and no one else is proposing this as a 100% solution that would never be jailbroken and would magically appear on all guns. I've repeated that as many times as I can but you refuse to hear it and keep asking this stupid question. I don't know why you can't get this either. It's as simple as it gets. Between here and there is better than neither here nor there. A solution that eradicates 50% of gun violence is better than one that eliminates zero percent.

All you are proposing is more of the same and we can expect the same results. All of your objections to this safety standard are based on the thoughts out of your own head rather than the available data, and you refuse to examine the data.

IOW, this is your argument to everything:

http://youtu.be/Cg_8knBHEyw

 

[Chaka]

Why do the good gun owners, and all of them say that they are good gun owners, forget that it is not just their own personal gun that may be causing problems for society.

Thanks for keeping your specific guns safe now can we address the millions of bad gun owners out there?

Perhaps going after the unscrupulous FFL holders who let guns get on the streets completely unregulated; and maybe doing something so that when bad gun owners let their guns get stolen they cannot be used by the thieves?

People love to point out that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Fat lot of good that does when the bad guy stole the gun from the house of the one who thought he was a good gun owner.

 

[Spanky267]

My friend that owns guns wants it.

Well that settles it then

Do you think the people in this thread are stupid enough to fall for you taking stuff completely out of context like this? You're like the FoxNews of the FFA.

You have a friend who owns a gun and he says he would like RFID tech on his gun... That proves nothing.. Everyone thinks it's cool and would like a gun with that technology.. But if it proves 3 times as expensive, and ultimately less reliable, I'm sure your friend would prefer a gun without it. In which case, he should be educated on how to keep guns out of the hands of children..

I keep pressing you and you keep evading it.. There are 270million guns in America already.. How do you resolve that with your RFID mandate?

Good God dude. You took it out of context and then you ##### about being confused. It's not my fault you don't read more than three words before responding.

Spanky made a statement saying that consumer demand does not exist for these features. You agree. Two saying no demand exist.

I know two people that want it.

I used this an example to show that saying no consumer demand exists because two people on this board don't want it is AS STUPID as saying that it does exist because I know two people that want it.

Do you get it now? Why do you need things this obvious and simple explained to you?

First of all, it's not an RFID mandate. It's a federal safety standard. I and no one else is proposing this as a 100% solution that would never be jailbroken and would magically appear on all guns. I've repeated that as many times as I can but you refuse to hear it and keep asking this stupid question. I don't know why you can't get this either. It's as simple as it gets. Between here and there is better than neither here nor there. A solution that eradicates 50% of gun violence is better than one that eliminates zero percent.

All you are proposing is more of the same and we can expect the same results. All of your objections to this safety standard are based on the thoughts out of your own head rather than the available data, and you refuse to examine the data.

IOW, this is your argument to everything:

http://youtu.be/Cg_8knBHEyw

I said that there isnt ENOUGH consumer demand for smart guns, or else gun manufacturers would be developing them. Remember that these are the evil gun manufacturers who just want to push guns out on the street. If there were demand for these guns then why wouldnt the gun manufacturers make them?

If its not RFID or Biometrics then what will this Federal Safety Standard be? Will it grandfather all guns made prior to a certain date? Will it allow for the resale of grandfathered guns? Will it exempt law enforcement? Between here and there is not necessarily better. For example NSA wiretapping could be justified as a means to increase the safety of all Americans. But because of the potential 4th and 5th amendment implications the program is under fire. We arent talking about cars, pill bottles or cleaning chemicals here. We are talking about a constitutionally protected right. In my opinion we should seriously contemplate any measure that could curtail the free exercise or enjoyment of our constitutional rights.

If your safety standard doesnt address the guns already out there then the proposal will only nibble at the edges of the problem. In that scenario children will still die due to the carelessness of their parents, criminals will still kill people and suicides will still occur.

We need to change the culture. I grant you that. Safe and responsible gun ownership can be quite enjoyable. Careless and irresponsible gun ownership can be injurious, tragic and deadly. We need to educate everyone that guns are dangerous if handled carelessly. We dont put our fingers in the electrical socket not because we have first hand experience of what will happen but because we know the dangers of electricity if improperly dealt with. We should have the same concern regarding guns. Its education that will change things that will lower the rates of murder, suicide and accidental deaths.

Can new technologies play a role? Certainly. But they wont be the major reason why the numbers decline. The major reason will be that the culture changes. The numbers are largely declining and think they will continue to decline.

 

[Clifford]

We arent talking about cars, pill bottles or cleaning chemicals here. We are talking about a constitutionally protected right.

And now we finally get to the real reason for opposition. Any sane measures to decrease violence = gun control.

Look, all the 2nd amendment guarantees you is the right to bear arms (For the purpose of maintaing a militia).

It does not, in any way, specify what type of gun or what type of technology the gun could have. And how could it, back then we were talking muskets. Nothing about a safety standard would in any way curtail your right to bear arms. Nothing.

As for going back to education, who doesn't know this: We need to educate everyone that guns are dangerous if handled carelessly.

Seriously?

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/toddler-dies-after-accidentally-shooting-himself/article_bb4785fe-e45e-52e4-9c3e-b0e428ca2d0f.html

Really a 2 year old less than 5 miles from my home. Someone needs to held accountable for neglect at least...right?

 

[The Commish]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/toddler-dies-after-accidentally-shooting-himself/article_bb4785fe-e45e-52e4-9c3e-b0e428ca2d0f.html

Really a 2 year old less than 5 miles from my home. Someone needs to held accountable for neglect at least...right?

This is the most honest approach to gun ownership IMO. The severity of accountability needs to match the severity of ownership. It's not close today.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/toddler-dies-after-accidentally-shooting-himself/article_bb4785fe-e45e-52e4-9c3e-b0e428ca2d0f.html

Really a 2 year old less than 5 miles from my home. Someone needs to held accountable for neglect at least...right?

This is the most honest approach to gun ownership IMO. The severity of accountability needs to match the severity of ownership. It's not close today.

How would you go about changing it?

 

[Clifford]

So very few, if any favor the development of preventative technology that could have saved this child's life, unless it is completely driven by free market demand and no federal standards are imposed on gun manufacturers, but I bet tons of people are for dramatically increasing the penalties associated with neglect that leads to an accidental child shooting like the two posted in this thread.

Do I have that right?

 

[timschochet]

So very few, if any favor the development of preventative technology that could have saved this child's life, unless it is completely driven by free market demand and no federal standards are imposed on gun manufacturers, but I bet tons of people are for dramatically increasing the penalties associated with neglect that leads to an accidental child shooting like the two posted in this thread.

Do I have that right?

I'm in favor of both.

 

[Spanky267]

We arent talking about cars, pill bottles or cleaning chemicals here. We are talking about a constitutionally protected right.

And now we finally get to the real reason for opposition. Any sane measures to decrease violence = gun control.

Look, all the 2nd amendment guarantees you is the right to bear arms (For the purpose of maintaing a militia).

It does not, in any way, specify what type of gun or what type of technology the gun could have. And how could it, back then we were talking muskets. Nothing about a safety standard would in any way curtail your right to bear arms. Nothing.

As for going back to education, who doesn't know this: We need to educate everyone that guns are dangerous if handled carelessly.

Seriously?

You confuse my concern for a technology that isnt 100% reliable in non life and death situations to outright refusal to accept the technology. Would I want it on a firearm that I own? No. Would I want to deny others from having it if they want it? No. Would I want the government to force me to have this tech on the guns I own? No.

You mention a safety standard again. But fail to flesh out what you mean? It could be conceived as an infringement of my rights if that safety standard brings with it a potential for failure that endangers my life or those of my loved ones.

You scoff at my suggestion that we need to step up our efforts to educate the public in general and gun owners specifically that what they own could be a danger to themselves or others if they handle or store it improperly. But we need to do it. Apparently not all gun owners are getting the message.Millions of American gun owners never have an incident with their firearms. But others do.

 

[Spanky267]

So very few, if any favor the development of preventative technology that could have saved this child's life, unless it is completely driven by free market demand and no federal standards are imposed on gun manufacturers, but I bet tons of people are for dramatically increasing the penalties associated with neglect that leads to an accidental child shooting like the two posted in this thread.

Do I have that right?

You do. The penalty for the owners of these guns should be a negligent homicide charge. Make examples of these folks and highly publicize the punishment placed on these individuals to make an example of them. While hopefully discouraging others from making the same mistakes. Unfortunately while these tragedies make the national news when they happen there is never any follow up reporting, save the local level, on the prosecution or conviction of these negligent gun owners.

 

[The Commish]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/toddler-dies-after-accidentally-shooting-himself/article_bb4785fe-e45e-52e4-9c3e-b0e428ca2d0f.html

Really a 2 year old less than 5 miles from my home. Someone needs to held accountable for neglect at least...right?

This is the most honest approach to gun ownership IMO. The severity of accountability needs to match the severity of ownership. It's not close today.

How would you go about changing it?

Changing what? Levels of accountability? Pretty simple....give people less wiggle room when it comes to their accountability for owning a gun. That so many "accidents" go unpunished is appalling to me. If a kid shoots himself with his dad's gun because it wasn't secured, lock the father up for a very long time. If a kid shoots some other kid because it wasn't secured, lock the owner up...heck, let him face murder charges for all I care. People in this country have a glaring disrespect for firearms. That needs to change. They want the "right" without the responsibility.

 

[Chaka]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/toddler-dies-after-accidentally-shooting-himself/article_bb4785fe-e45e-52e4-9c3e-b0e428ca2d0f.html

Really a 2 year old less than 5 miles from my home. Someone needs to held accountable for neglect at least...right?

This is the most honest approach to gun ownership IMO. The severity of accountability needs to match the severity of ownership. It's not close today.

How would you go about changing it?

Changing what? Levels of accountability? Pretty simple....give people less wiggle room when it comes to their accountability for owning a gun. That so many "accidents" go unpunished is appalling to me. If a kid shoots himself with his dad's gun because it wasn't secured, lock the father up for a very long time. If a kid shoots some other kid because it wasn't secured, lock the owner up...heck, let him face murder charges for all I care. People in this country have a glaring disrespect for firearms. That needs to change. They want the "right" without the responsibility.

Agreed. If you allow your gun to be stolen you should be accountable for the downstream impact.

 

[Spanky267]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/toddler-dies-after-accidentally-shooting-himself/article_bb4785fe-e45e-52e4-9c3e-b0e428ca2d0f.html

Really a 2 year old less than 5 miles from my home. Someone needs to held accountable for neglect at least...right?

This is the most honest approach to gun ownership IMO. The severity of accountability needs to match the severity of ownership. It's not close today.

How would you go about changing it?

Changing what? Levels of accountability? Pretty simple....give people less wiggle room when it comes to their accountability for owning a gun. That so many "accidents" go unpunished is appalling to me. If a kid shoots himself with his dad's gun because it wasn't secured, lock the father up for a very long time. If a kid shoots some other kid because it wasn't secured, lock the owner up...heck, let him face murder charges for all I care. People in this country have a glaring disrespect for firearms. That needs to change. They want the "right" without the responsibility.

Agreed. If you allow your gun to be stolen you should be accountable for the downstream impact.

Would this apply to any item that you own? Lets say your car is stolen and used in a burglary or a homicide? Should you be charged? Agree with Commish that the penalties should be severe. But you may have gone a step too far.

 

[[icon]]

So we're having this discussion again?

:clocksin:

 

[[icon]]

Look, all the 2nd amendment guarantees you is the right to bear arms (For the purpose of maintaing a militia).

"District of Columbia v. Heller" says hi.

Spoiler

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

© The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

 

[Clifford]

We arent talking about cars, pill bottles or cleaning chemicals here. We are talking about a constitutionally protected right.

And now we finally get to the real reason for opposition. Any sane measures to decrease violence = gun control.

Look, all the 2nd amendment guarantees you is the right to bear arms (For the purpose of maintaing a militia).

It does not, in any way, specify what type of gun or what type of technology the gun could have. And how could it, back then we were talking muskets. Nothing about a safety standard would in any way curtail your right to bear arms. Nothing.

As for going back to education, who doesn't know this: We need to educate everyone that guns are dangerous if handled carelessly.

Seriously?

You confuse my concern for a technology that isnt 100% reliable in non life and death situations to outright refusal to accept the technology. Would I want it on a firearm that I own? No. Would I want to deny others from having it if they want it? No. Would I want the government to force me to have this tech on the guns I own? No.

You mention a safety standard again. But fail to flesh out what you mean? It could be conceived as an infringement of my rights if that safety standard brings with it a potential for failure that endangers my life or those of my loved ones.

You scoff at my suggestion that we need to step up our efforts to educate the public in general and gun owners specifically that what they own could be a danger to themselves or others if they handle or store it improperly. But we need to do it. Apparently not all gun owners are getting the message.Millions of American gun owners never have an incident with their firearms. But others do.

Why are you so convinced the technology can't work. I want to understand that. Despite independent testing that shows not just one but several of these technologies are very effective and reliable, you seem to fear the chance of it breaking down more than you fear people being killed by a gun.

I really can't state more clearly that I think the government should never force a standard on guns that would cause them to fail to operate. This doesn't have to be done in a heavy-handed way, but that doesn't mean our government can't do things to spur investment in the technology either.

To you last point about education, see the last quote in my sig. By allowing everyone to own guns, we are by default saying that the percentage of the population we know to be hopelessly stupid and careless can own guns. Not every hopelessly stupid and careless person will have a record. So if you only rely on education, you are basically saying the collateral damage to the children and relatives of the hopelessly stupid and careless are acceptable collateral damage.

You and CH keep harping on this scenario where the government forces ineffective tech on gun manufacturers which makes guns less reliable. Why are you both so attached to this scenario which even today does not map to the facts of where the tech is?

 

[Clifford]

So very few, if any favor the development of preventative technology that could have saved this child's life, unless it is completely driven by free market demand and no federal standards are imposed on gun manufacturers, but I bet tons of people are for dramatically increasing the penalties associated with neglect that leads to an accidental child shooting like the two posted in this thread.

Do I have that right?

You do. The penalty for the owners of these guns should be a negligent homicide charge. Make examples of these folks and highly publicize the punishment placed on these individuals to make an example of them. While hopefully discouraging others from making the same mistakes. Unfortunately while these tragedies make the national news when they happen there is never any follow up reporting, save the local level, on the prosecution or conviction of these negligent gun owners.

To knowingly opt for punishing the parent instead of protecting the child is nothing short of horrible. We can save these kids lives. They are real kids who really die for no reason. To simply refuse to try and help them because not enough of them die is a monstrously callous and sociopathic response. To look at tech that is currently working and say it will never work, even with huge boosts in R&D capital is the worst kind of cynicism.

I'm sorry but this is simply shameful.

 

[Clifford]

Look, all the 2nd amendment guarantees you is the right to bear arms (For the purpose of maintaing a militia).

"District of Columbia v. Heller" says hi.

Spoiler

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

© The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

So you showed up to hijack?

 

[[icon]]

We arent talking about cars, pill bottles or cleaning chemicals here. We are talking about a constitutionally protected right.

And now we finally get to the real reason for opposition. Any sane measures to decrease violence = gun control.

Look, all the 2nd amendment guarantees you is the right to bear arms (For the purpose of maintaing a militia).

It does not, in any way, specify what type of gun or what type of technology the gun could have. And how could it, back then we were talking muskets. Nothing about a safety standard would in any way curtail your right to bear arms. Nothing.

As for going back to education, who doesn't know this: We need to educate everyone that guns are dangerous if handled carelessly.

Seriously?

You confuse my concern for a technology that isnt 100% reliable in non life and death situations to outright refusal to accept the technology. Would I want it on a firearm that I own? No. Would I want to deny others from having it if they want it? No. Would I want the government to force me to have this tech on the guns I own? No.

You mention a safety standard again. But fail to flesh out what you mean? It could be conceived as an infringement of my rights if that safety standard brings with it a potential for failure that endangers my life or those of my loved ones.

You scoff at my suggestion that we need to step up our efforts to educate the public in general and gun owners specifically that what they own could be a danger to themselves or others if they handle or store it improperly. But we need to do it. Apparently not all gun owners are getting the message.Millions of American gun owners never have an incident with their firearms. But others do.

Why are you so convinced the technology can't work. I want to understand that. Despite independent testing that shows not just one but several of these technologies are very effective and reliable, you seem to fear the chance of it breaking down more than you fear people being killed by a gun.

I really can't state more clearly that I think the government should never force a standard on guns that would cause them to fail to operate. This doesn't have to be done in a heavy-handed way, but that doesn't mean our government can't do things to spur investment in the technology either.

To you last point about education, see the last quote in my sig. By allowing everyone to own guns, we are by default saying that the percentage of the population we know to be hopelessly stupid and careless can own guns. Not every hopelessly stupid and careless person will have a record. So if you only rely on education, you are basically saying the collateral damage to the children and relatives of the hopelessly stupid and careless are acceptable collateral damage.

You and CH keep harping on this scenario where the government forces ineffective tech on gun manufacturers which makes guns less reliable. Why are you both so attached to this scenario which even today does not map to the facts of where the tech is?

I tend to agree with Clifford here that the technology should be explored, but candidly, unless the tech can be proven 100% fail safe, it cant and shouldn't be legally required. IMO, No tech of this type will ever be proven 100% fail safe.

Ergo... call me HIGHLY skeptical of its deployment, and vehemently opposed (as backed by legal precedent [DC v Heller*]) to its mandate.

* "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." [DC v Heller]

 

[Chaka]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/toddler-dies-after-accidentally-shooting-himself/article_bb4785fe-e45e-52e4-9c3e-b0e428ca2d0f.html

Really a 2 year old less than 5 miles from my home. Someone needs to held accountable for neglect at least...right?

This is the most honest approach to gun ownership IMO. The severity of accountability needs to match the severity of ownership. It's not close today.

How would you go about changing it?

Changing what? Levels of accountability? Pretty simple....give people less wiggle room when it comes to their accountability for owning a gun. That so many "accidents" go unpunished is appalling to me. If a kid shoots himself with his dad's gun because it wasn't secured, lock the father up for a very long time. If a kid shoots some other kid because it wasn't secured, lock the owner up...heck, let him face murder charges for all I care. People in this country have a glaring disrespect for firearms. That needs to change. They want the "right" without the responsibility.

Agreed. If you allow your gun to be stolen you should be accountable for the downstream impact.

Would this apply to any item that you own? Lets say your car is stolen and used in a burglary or a homicide? Should you be charged? Agree with Commish that the penalties should be severe. But you may have gone a step too far.

How does the pro gun crowd generally respond when the gun regulation crowd uses all the testing and regulation associated with operating a motor vehicle as a point of comparison for gun control?

Does it cut both ways always or only when convenient?

 

[Clifford]

We arent talking about cars, pill bottles or cleaning chemicals here. We are talking about a constitutionally protected right.

And now we finally get to the real reason for opposition. Any sane measures to decrease violence = gun control.

Look, all the 2nd amendment guarantees you is the right to bear arms (For the purpose of maintaing a militia).

It does not, in any way, specify what type of gun or what type of technology the gun could have. And how could it, back then we were talking muskets. Nothing about a safety standard would in any way curtail your right to bear arms. Nothing.

As for going back to education, who doesn't know this: We need to educate everyone that guns are dangerous if handled carelessly.

Seriously?

You confuse my concern for a technology that isnt 100% reliable in non life and death situations to outright refusal to accept the technology. Would I want it on a firearm that I own? No. Would I want to deny others from having it if they want it? No. Would I want the government to force me to have this tech on the guns I own? No.

You mention a safety standard again. But fail to flesh out what you mean? It could be conceived as an infringement of my rights if that safety standard brings with it a potential for failure that endangers my life or those of my loved ones.

You scoff at my suggestion that we need to step up our efforts to educate the public in general and gun owners specifically that what they own could be a danger to themselves or others if they handle or store it improperly. But we need to do it. Apparently not all gun owners are getting the message.Millions of American gun owners never have an incident with their firearms. But others do.

Why are you so convinced the technology can't work. I want to understand that. Despite independent testing that shows not just one but several of these technologies are very effective and reliable, you seem to fear the chance of it breaking down more than you fear people being killed by a gun.

I really can't state more clearly that I think the government should never force a standard on guns that would cause them to fail to operate. This doesn't have to be done in a heavy-handed way, but that doesn't mean our government can't do things to spur investment in the technology either.

To you last point about education, see the last quote in my sig. By allowing everyone to own guns, we are by default saying that the percentage of the population we know to be hopelessly stupid and careless can own guns. Not every hopelessly stupid and careless person will have a record. So if you only rely on education, you are basically saying the collateral damage to the children and relatives of the hopelessly stupid and careless are acceptable collateral damage.

You and CH keep harping on this scenario where the government forces ineffective tech on gun manufacturers which makes guns less reliable. Why are you both so attached to this scenario which even today does not map to the facts of where the tech is?

I tend to agree with Clifford here that the technology should be explored, but candidly, unless the tech can be proven 100% fail safe, it cant and shouldn't be legally required. IMO, No tech of this type will ever be proven 100% fail safe.

Ergo... call me HIGHLY skeptical of its deployment, and vehemently opposed (as backed by legal precedent [DC v Heller*]) to its mandate.

* "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." [DC v Heller]

The tech I am talking about would not prevent someone from firing a gun. A 100% failsafe is unachievable and an unfair standard. Companies are already claiming above a 99% effectiveness rate.

 

[Chaka]

Tell you what, if the anti-gun-control-regulation crowd agrees to identical testing, registration & insurance requirements that we have for cars and drivers then I will not push for holding gun owners responsible for when they allow their gun to be stolen.

That means that every gun can be tracked from manufacturer to dealer to every single consumer who purchases that gun new or used, and every gun owner must pass a gun safety written and practical test for every class of gun including re-licenseing every four years AND being required to carry property & casualty insurance to cover any accidents caused with the gun by the owner.

Deal?

 

[[icon]]

A 100% failsafe is unachievable and an unfair standard.

And this is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. When it comes to a life-on-the-line scenario... to me that's a perfectly fair scenario.

 

[[icon]]

Tell you what, if the anti-gun-control-regulation crowd agrees to identical testing, registration & insurance requirements that we have for cars and drivers then I will not push for holding gun owners responsible for when they allow their gun to be stolen.

That means that every gun can be tracked from manufacturer to dealer to every single consumer who purchases that gun new or used, and every gun owner must pass a gun safety written and practical test for every class of gun including re-licenseing every four years AND being required to carry property & casualty insurance to cover any accidents caused with the gun by the owner.

Deal?

You guys are sure making us want to agree to mandatory licensing and registration with these confiscation programs going on in various states right now. Forgive me if I'm not jumping all over myself to leave a giant paper trail right to my gun safe

You have zero ground to stand on... none. Won't happen.

 

[The Commish]

A 100% failsafe is unachievable and an unfair standard.

And this is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. When it comes to a life-on-the-line scenario... to me that's a perfectly fair scenario.

Do you hold the gun manufacturer to that same standard? Meaning, only produce a weapon that functions 100% of the time or don't produce one at all? Just wondering how far this goes. (Similar to the question about automobiles)

 

[[icon]]

A 100% failsafe is unachievable and an unfair standard.

And this is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. When it comes to a life-on-the-line scenario... to me that's a perfectly fair scenario.

Do you hold the gun manufacturer to that same standard? Meaning, only produce a weapon that functions 100% of the time or don't produce one at all? Just wondering how far this goes. (Similar to the question about automobiles)

A revolver is going to fire every time unless there is an ammunition malfunction (which is far lower than 1%). A quality magazine-fed semi automatic handgun is going to fire every time unless there is a misfeed which has a failure rate far lower than 1%). My glock subcompact pistol has had 1 misfire (ammunition failure due to cheap reload ammo, which I don't use for self-defense), and zero misfeeds in roughly 2000 rounds fired.

These are the limits of technology required to the essential function of the firearm.

Adding in a "bio-safety" is not a required to the essential function of the firearm and therefore must NOT interfere with the essential function of the firearm. For that reason, I feel it is fair to hold it to 100% standard.

 

[Chaka]

Tell you what, if the anti-gun-control-regulation crowd agrees to identical testing, registration & insurance requirements that we have for cars and drivers then I will not push for holding gun owners responsible for when they allow their gun to be stolen.

That means that every gun can be tracked from manufacturer to dealer to every single consumer who purchases that gun new or used, and every gun owner must pass a gun safety written and practical test for every class of gun including re-licenseing every four years AND being required to carry property & casualty insurance to cover any accidents caused with the gun by the owner.

Deal?

You guys are sure making us want to agree to mandatory licensing and registration with these confiscation programs going on in various states right now. Forgive me if I'm not jumping all over myself to leave a giant paper trail right to my gun safe

You have zero ground to stand on... none. Won't happen.

I know it won't happen and I never said it would happen.

I'm sorry that you don't want gun owners to take responsibility for what happens with their guns. If they were the good gun owners that they all claim to be then it really wouldn't be a problem, would it?

And it's the paranoia about gun seizures that is truly laughable. It is as likely to happen on a national scale as the reinstatement of prohibition or banning cars. That is just a red herring argument designed to incite the latent paranoia that so many gun owners have of the government.

You can feel free to link all the gun seizure programs, as you have in other threads (or was it someone else? Whatever), but I am pretty sure I have seen those links before and am unimpressed. I have zero fear that the state or federal government is going to come and seize my guns (yes, I have three).

 

[timschochet]

A 100% failsafe is unachievable and an unfair standard.

And this is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. When it comes to a life-on-the-line scenario... to me that's a perfectly fair scenario.

If Clifford is right and at least some children's lives can be saved- then your position here, Icon, seems wholly unreasonable.

 

[The Commish]

A 100% failsafe is unachievable and an unfair standard.

And this is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. When it comes to a life-on-the-line scenario... to me that's a perfectly fair scenario.

Do you hold the gun manufacturer to that same standard? Meaning, only produce a weapon that functions 100% of the time or don't produce one at all? Just wondering how far this goes. (Similar to the question about automobiles)

A revolver is going to fire every time unless there is an ammunition malfunction (which is far lower than 1%). A quality magazine-fed semi automatic handgun is going to fire every time unless there is a misfeed which has a failure rate far lower than 1%). My glock subcompact pistol has had 1 misfire (ammunition failure due to cheap reload ammo, which I don't use for self-defense), and zero misfeeds in roughly 2000 rounds fired.

These are the limits of technology required to the essential function of the firearm.

Adding in a "bio-safety" is not a required to the essential function of the firearm and therefore must NOT interfere with the essential function of the firearm. For that reason, I feel it is fair to hold it to 100% standard.

If I'm hearing correctly, you're ok with an error with respect to ammo, but not gun safety measures. Is that correct? Ammo seems to be an essential element....just trying to understand the arbitrary line here so I can determine if further conversation is fruitful.

 

[timschochet]

Tell you what, if the anti-gun-control-regulation crowd agrees to identical testing, registration & insurance requirements that we have for cars and drivers then I will not push for holding gun owners responsible for when they allow their gun to be stolen.

That means that every gun can be tracked from manufacturer to dealer to every single consumer who purchases that gun new or used, and every gun owner must pass a gun safety written and practical test for every class of gun including re-licenseing every four years AND being required to carry property & casualty insurance to cover any accidents caused with the gun by the owner.

Deal?

You guys are sure making us want to agree to mandatory licensing and registration with these confiscation programs going on in various states right now. Forgive me if I'm not jumping all over myself to leave a giant paper trail right to my gun safe

You have zero ground to stand on... none. Won't happen.

And now we're back to this again. It always comes back to this maddening, illogical, unreasoning fear of the government seizing your guns. No matter what other arguments you offer (some of them sensible, some not) I'm convinced that this sheer paranoia lies at the core of all opposition to reasonable gun safety proposals. And ultimately it makes reasonable discussion impossible.

 

[Chaka]

A 100% failsafe is unachievable and an unfair standard.

And this is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. When it comes to a life-on-the-line scenario... to me that's a perfectly fair scenario.

If Clifford is right and at least some children's lives can be saved- then your position here, Icon, seems wholly unreasonable.

More than just some children, it will reduce the effectiveness of stealing guns and using them in crimes against adults too.

 

[[icon]]

It always comes back to this maddening, illogical, unreasoning fear of the government seizing your guns.

Connecticut says Hi, Tim.

 

[Chaka]

Tell you what, if the anti-gun-control-regulation crowd agrees to identical testing, registration & insurance requirements that we have for cars and drivers then I will not push for holding gun owners responsible for when they allow their gun to be stolen.

That means that every gun can be tracked from manufacturer to dealer to every single consumer who purchases that gun new or used, and every gun owner must pass a gun safety written and practical test for every class of gun including re-licenseing every four years AND being required to carry property & casualty insurance to cover any accidents caused with the gun by the owner.

Deal?

You guys are sure making us want to agree to mandatory licensing and registration with these confiscation programs going on in various states right now. Forgive me if I'm not jumping all over myself to leave a giant paper trail right to my gun safe

You have zero ground to stand on... none. Won't happen.

And now we're back to this again. It always comes back to this maddening, illogical, unreasoning fear of the government seizing your guns. No matter what other arguments you offer (some of them sensible, some not) I'm convinced that this sheer paranoia lies at the core of all opposition to reasonable gun safety proposals. And ultimately it makes reasonable discussion impossible.

It really is sad to see otherwise reasonable people go all Illuminati/New World Order when it comes to gun seizures.

 

[Chaka]

It always comes back to this maddening, illogical, unreasoning fear of the government seizing your guns.

Connecticut says Hi, Tim.

 

[[icon]]

A 100% failsafe is unachievable and an unfair standard.

And this is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. When it comes to a life-on-the-line scenario... to me that's a perfectly fair scenario.

Do you hold the gun manufacturer to that same standard? Meaning, only produce a weapon that functions 100% of the time or don't produce one at all? Just wondering how far this goes. (Similar to the question about automobiles)

A revolver is going to fire every time unless there is an ammunition malfunction (which is far lower than 1%). A quality magazine-fed semi automatic handgun is going to fire every time unless there is a misfeed which has a failure rate far lower than 1%). My glock subcompact pistol has had 1 misfire (ammunition failure due to cheap reload ammo, which I don't use for self-defense), and zero misfeeds in roughly 2000 rounds fired.

These are the limits of technology required to the essential function of the firearm.

Adding in a "bio-safety" is not a required to the essential function of the firearm and therefore must NOT interfere with the essential function of the firearm. For that reason, I feel it is fair to hold it to 100% standard.

If I'm hearing correctly, you're ok with an error with respect to ammo, but not gun safety measures. Is that correct? Ammo seems to be an essential element....just trying to understand the arbitrary line here so I can determine if further conversation is fruitful.

I thought I had made it pretty clear by saying it 3 times, but I'll go ahead and bold it for you

Let me know if I have to use a bright color or maybe set up some blinking arrows.

 

[Spanky267]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/toddler-dies-after-accidentally-shooting-himself/article_bb4785fe-e45e-52e4-9c3e-b0e428ca2d0f.html

Really a 2 year old less than 5 miles from my home. Someone needs to held accountable for neglect at least...right?

This is the most honest approach to gun ownership IMO. The severity of accountability needs to match the severity of ownership. It's not close today.

How would you go about changing it?

Changing what? Levels of accountability? Pretty simple....give people less wiggle room when it comes to their accountability for owning a gun. That so many "accidents" go unpunished is appalling to me. If a kid shoots himself with his dad's gun because it wasn't secured, lock the father up for a very long time. If a kid shoots some other kid because it wasn't secured, lock the owner up...heck, let him face murder charges for all I care. People in this country have a glaring disrespect for firearms. That needs to change. They want the "right" without the responsibility.

Agreed. If you allow your gun to be stolen you should be accountable for the downstream impact.

Would this apply to any item that you own? Lets say your car is stolen and used in a burglary or a homicide? Should you be charged? Agree with Commish that the penalties should be severe. But you may have gone a step too far.

How does the pro gun crowd generally respond when the gun regulation crowd uses all the testing and regulation associated with operating a motor vehicle as a point of comparison for gun control?

Does it cut both ways always or only when convenient?

It applies here because you mentioned that someone should be held fully responsible if their gun is stolen and used in the commission of a crime. Would said owner be exempt if he kept it in a safe and it was still stolen?

I bring up cars because they can be equally secured with locks, alarms etc. Yet they are still stolen.

 

[[icon]]

So guys who want to chip guns.. what do you propose happens to the millions of non chipped guns in circulation now? Those will obviously just go away with the wave of a wand, right?

I'm glad some of you have zero impact (and will always have zero impact) on legislation where I live

It's a states rights issue IMO. Let states who want to cave to the pressure ban whatever they want, chip whatever they want... and people can choose where they want to live accordingly.

 

[[icon]]

I have a question for Commish/Tim/Clifford/etc... It's an obviously flawed hypothetical so spare me the act of tearing it apart. However, taken as it is, I would like you guys to answer this.

Would you support the deployment of this RFID chip into automobiles in a manner where the seatbelt wouldn't tension and the airbag wouldn't deploy in an accident unless it detected the RFID chip?

 

[The Commish]

A 100% failsafe is unachievable and an unfair standard.

And this is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. When it comes to a life-on-the-line scenario... to me that's a perfectly fair scenario.

Do you hold the gun manufacturer to that same standard? Meaning, only produce a weapon that functions 100% of the time or don't produce one at all? Just wondering how far this goes. (Similar to the question about automobiles)

A revolver is going to fire every time unless there is an ammunition malfunction (which is far lower than 1%). A quality magazine-fed semi automatic handgun is going to fire every time unless there is a misfeed which has a failure rate far lower than 1%). My glock subcompact pistol has had 1 misfire (ammunition failure due to cheap reload ammo, which I don't use for self-defense), and zero misfeeds in roughly 2000 rounds fired.

These are the limits of technology required to the essential function of the firearm.

Adding in a "bio-safety" is not a required to the essential function of the firearm and therefore must NOT interfere with the essential function of the firearm. For that reason, I feel it is fair to hold it to 100% standard.

If I'm hearing correctly, you're ok with an error with respect to ammo, but not gun safety measures. Is that correct? Ammo seems to be an essential element....just trying to understand the arbitrary line here so I can determine if further conversation is fruitful.

I thought I had made it pretty clear by saying it 3 times, but I'll go ahead and bold it for you

Let me know if I have to use a bright color or maybe set up some blinking arrows.

So ammo isn't an "essential function" in your mind or is it an admitted double standard?

 

[The Commish]

I have a question for Commish/Tim/Clifford/etc... It's an obviously flawed hypothetical so spare me the act of tearing it apart. However, taken as it is, I would like you guys to answer this.

Would you support the deployment of this RFID chip into automobiles in a manner where the seatbelt wouldn't tension and the airbag wouldn't deploy in an accident unless it detected the RFID chip?

I'm not to be included in this conversation as I don't believe it matters one way or the other to overall gun ownership and/or safety. I made clear above how I'd go about curbing all these "accidents".

 

[[icon]]

A revolver is going to fire every time unless there is an ammunition malfunction (which is far lower than 1%). A quality magazine-fed semi automatic handgun is going to fire every time unless there is a misfeed which has a failure rate far lower than 1%). My glock subcompact pistol has had 1 misfire (ammunition failure due to cheap reload ammo, which I don't use for self-defense), and zero misfeeds in roughly 2000 rounds fired.

These are the limits of technology required to the essential function of the firearm.

Adding in a "bio-safety" is not a required to the essential function of the firearm and therefore must NOT interfere with the essential function of the firearm. For that reason, I feel it is fair to hold it to 100% standard.

If I'm hearing correctly, you're ok with an error with respect to ammo, but not gun safety measures. Is that correct? Ammo seems to be an essential element....just trying to understand the arbitrary line here so I can determine if further conversation is fruitful.

I thought I had made it pretty clear by saying it 3 times, but I'll go ahead and bold it for you

Let me know if I have to use a bright color or maybe set up some blinking arrows.

So ammo isn't an "essential function" in your mind or is it an admitted double standard?

Jesus christ dude, are you intentionally obtuse or mentally damaged? Ammo was included in the "THESE are the limits of the tech required for function" paragraph. Cmon now...

Gun mechanism = essential function of gun going bang = engineered as good as possible (essentially 100%)

Ammunition = essential function of gun going bang = engineered as good as possible (essentially 100%)

RFID Ring/Gun combo = not essential function of gun going bang = Zero acceptable interference.

Again.... I can draw up some flashcards with pictures if it would help

 

[[icon]]

I have a question for Commish/Tim/Clifford/etc... It's an obviously flawed hypothetical so spare me the act of tearing it apart. However, taken as it is, I would like you guys to answer this.

Would you support the deployment of this RFID chip into automobiles in a manner where the seatbelt wouldn't tension and the airbag wouldn't deploy in an accident unless it detected the RFID chip?

I'm not to be included in this conversation as I don't believe it matters one way or the other to overall gun ownership and/or safety. I made clear above how I'd go about curbing all these "accidents".

So you're dodging the question?

or you wouldn't trust your life to this RFID system?

 

[The Commish]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/toddler-dies-after-accidentally-shooting-himself/article_bb4785fe-e45e-52e4-9c3e-b0e428ca2d0f.html

Really a 2 year old less than 5 miles from my home. Someone needs to held accountable for neglect at least...right?

This is the most honest approach to gun ownership IMO. The severity of accountability needs to match the severity of ownership. It's not close today.

How would you go about changing it?

Changing what? Levels of accountability? Pretty simple....give people less wiggle room when it comes to their accountability for owning a gun. That so many "accidents" go unpunished is appalling to me. If a kid shoots himself with his dad's gun because it wasn't secured, lock the father up for a very long time. If a kid shoots some other kid because it wasn't secured, lock the owner up...heck, let him face murder charges for all I care. People in this country have a glaring disrespect for firearms. That needs to change. They want the "right" without the responsibility.

Agreed. If you allow your gun to be stolen you should be accountable for the downstream impact.

Would this apply to any item that you own? Lets say your car is stolen and used in a burglary or a homicide? Should you be charged? Agree with Commish that the penalties should be severe. But you may have gone a step too far.

How does the pro gun crowd generally respond when the gun regulation crowd uses all the testing and regulation associated with operating a motor vehicle as a point of comparison for gun control?

Does it cut both ways always or only when convenient?

It applies here because you mentioned that someone should be held fully responsible if their gun is stolen and used in the commission of a crime. Would said owner be exempt if he kept it in a safe and it was still stolen?

I bring up cars because they can be equally secured with locks, alarms etc. Yet they are still stolen.

He said if it was "allowed to be stolen". To me that means the owner was careless with the gun, but he might mean something else.