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

[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".

So you're dodging the question?

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

Yes, I'm dodging a question that has nothing to do with me.....I don't even know what RFID chips are but don't let that get in the way of your childish name calling games. Stay classy

 

[Spanky267]

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.

It is not wholly unreasonable. If that safety device fails to "unlock" the gun when I need it to defend myself its a problem. If I have a misfire, I can quickly pull the trigger again to restrike the round or clear the round from the chamber seat a new round in the chamber and fire again. If the RFID or Biometric system on my gun fails, what is my backup plan?

 

[[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?

Yes, I'm dodging a question

 

[The Commish]

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

well, that answers that...stay classy

 

[Spanky267]

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.

Error in respect to ammo is exceedingly rare and can be quickly overcome. Restrike or advance the cylinder on a revolver. Restrike or eject the round and seat a new one on a semi auto pistol. If the RFID or Biometric system fails on my gun due to power, software or interference what are my options?

 

[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".

So you're dodging the question?

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

Yes, I'm dodging a question

Well, now I understand all the smartass comments in peoples' sigs regarding you.

 

[timschochet]

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?

before I can answer you, I need to know what the purpose of this chip would be in an automobile.

 

[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.

Error in respect to ammo is exceedingly rare and can be quickly overcome. Restrike or advance the cylinder on a revolver. Restrike or eject the round and seat a new one on a semi auto pistol. If the RFID or Biometric system fails on my gun due to power, software or interference what are my options?

I don't know the technology. I don't know anything about what could go wrong with RFID, so instead of waxing poetic with ala the icons of the FFA I'm fine with admitting that. I was just trying to understand the line he had drawn and then he decided to go all dooshnozzle on me. As I stated before, I don't think this approach or anything like it would have an impact. Sorry if I am "dodging" your question

 

[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?

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.

I responded to that but you didn't answer my question.

Does it work both ways always or only when convenient?

 

[Chaka]

Guns jam all the time. Guess we should stop making them until they figure out a way to correct that 100%.

 

[Chaka]

Also the government's means of control isn't force it's finance and your guns won't protect you from that nor will they reclaim it for you.

 

[Clifford]

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.

Guns today aren't 100% failsafe so apparently you are ok with it in exactly such a scenario.

 

[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.

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.

It would prevent someone from firing a gun if it failed. The NJIT researchers say that have reached almost 99% reliability. But even they say that 99% isnt good enough. It has to work every time.

A police officer knows how to handle a situation where his gun misfires or jams with the current technology. What is he to do if the RFID or Biometrics in his gun fails? How does he work around such a failure? If the system isnt 100% reliable then its going to happen inevitably. If it isnt 100% reliable then it has to have an override. If its got an override then the "safety" feature can be defeated any time one wants to defeat it.

 

[Clifford]

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?

Yes, I'm dodging a question that has nothing to do with me.....I don't even know what RFID chips are but don't let that get in the way of your childish name calling games. Stay classy

Explain how this would save lives.

 

[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.

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.

Who allows their things to be stolen? I lock my house and put on my security system every time I leave. But I dont chain down my Xbox, Laptop, Ipad or other valuables. If some jerk breaks into my house and steals those things did I allow it? I didnt invite him in or tell him to take anything he wants. I did what was reasonable. I secured my home and valuables as best I could. If I left my front door open when I left and someone stole my stuff then I'm the idiot and deserve what I get. Same for gun owners.

 

[Schlzm]

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.

It would prevent someone from firing a gun if it failed. The NJIT researchers say that have reached almost 99% reliability. But even they say that 99% isnt good enough. It has to work every time.A police officer knows how to handle a situation where his gun misfires or jams with the current technology. What is he to do if the RFID or Biometrics in his gun fails? How does he work around such a failure? If the system isnt 100% reliable then its going to happen inevitably. If it isnt 100% reliable then it has to have an override. If its got an override then the "safety" feature can be defeated any time one wants to defeat it.

The police officer doesn't take the chance, leaves the fancy ### new weapon in the car and carries his personal one instead.Schlzm

 

[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.

I responded to that but you didn't answer my question.

Does it work both ways always or only when convenient?

If you want to have a law that says a gun owner is responsible for whatever crime is commited with his gun then yes it should apply to all stolen property. Currently that isnt the case. If some crackhead breaks into my house, steals some of my wifes jewelry, pawns it to buy more drugs and then ODs and dies should we be responsible? He wouldnt have died if it hadnt been for that gold necklace.

If that same crackhead break into my house and finds the .380 pistol that I own and steals it and uses it to kill his dealer in an effort to steal drugs. Should I be held responsible? I kept it secure in my home under lock and key. It wasnt laying out in the open for anyone to take. I keep it unloaded.

How and why would you differentiate these two scenarios? My personal propery was a vehicle for the death of a person in both scenarios and I am a victim of a crime in both scenarios.

 

[Spanky267]

Guns jam all the time. Guess we should stop making them until they figure out a way to correct that 100%.

Guns do not jam all the time. Even if the gun jams it can be quickly "cleared." How do you clear a gun to fire when an electronic locking system built in or attached to it fails?

 

[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.

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.

It would prevent someone from firing a gun if it failed. The NJIT researchers say that have reached almost 99% reliability. But even they say that 99% isnt good enough. It has to work every time.A police officer knows how to handle a situation where his gun misfires or jams with the current technology. What is he to do if the RFID or Biometrics in his gun fails? How does he work around such a failure? If the system isnt 100% reliable then its going to happen inevitably. If it isnt 100% reliable then it has to have an override. If its got an override then the "safety" feature can be defeated any time one wants to defeat it.

The police officer doesn't take the chance, leaves the fancy ### new weapon in the car and carries his personal one instead.Schlzm

Actually the Police officer goes one step further and has his Chief and his Union lobby to exempt him and his department from the smart gun requirement.

 

[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".

So you're dodging the question?

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

Yes, I'm dodging a question that has nothing to do with me.....I don't even know what RFID chips are but don't let that get in the way of your childish name calling games. Stay classy

Explain how this would save lives.

huh? for the millionth time this isn't my idea, I don't even know about the topic. Why is everyone asking me about it?

 

[Schlzm]

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.

It would prevent someone from firing a gun if it failed. The NJIT researchers say that have reached almost 99% reliability. But even they say that 99% isnt good enough. It has to work every time.A police officer knows how to handle a situation where his gun misfires or jams with the current technology. What is he to do if the RFID or Biometrics in his gun fails? How does he work around such a failure? If the system isnt 100% reliable then its going to happen inevitably. If it isnt 100% reliable then it has to have an override. If its got an override then the "safety" feature can be defeated any time one wants to defeat it.

The police officer doesn't take the chance, leaves the fancy ### new weapon in the car and carries his personal one instead.Schlzm

Actually the Police officer goes one step further and has his Chief and his Union lobby to exempt him and his department from the smart gun requirement.

This too. My problem with the firecontrolled platforms is useability/reliability. There are too many parts inbetween my finger and the trigger all of a sudden. Do I have to use some special device to allow other people or even myself to fire the weapon? If it's biometric then am I the only person on the planet allowed to fire the weapon unless it is recoded? How much will coding cost me to allow a spouse/child/friend also fire the weapon? If there is a device involved that has to be in a certain range <rfid> why would I want to own this weapon for home defence? If the system fails at a critical point and gets myself or my family killed is that going to be written off as an acceptable variance? If so how come me and mine are expendable all of a sudden? Also the majority of people who would seek these types of systems out are going to be the same peopel who take extreme care to secure and control any existing weapons they have. Not the dimestore coweboys with a cheapass pawnshop pistol who leaves a charged weapon justy lying around the house.Schlzm

 

[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.

Who allows their things to be stolen? I lock my house and put on my security system every time I leave. But I dont chain down my Xbox, Laptop, Ipad or other valuables. If some jerk breaks into my house and steals those things did I allow it? I didnt invite him in or tell him to take anything he wants. I did what was reasonable. I secured my home and valuables as best I could. If I left my front door open when I left and someone stole my stuff then I'm the idiot and deserve what I get. Same for gun owners.

Of course you didn't allow it. I'm not sure why you're making this as complicated as you are. I think it's pretty clear that he meant the careless gun owner who leaves his crap laying around irresponsibly. Again, I go back to my comment before. I consider gun ownership a serious responsibility. They aren't decorations (as people in this area seem to think). For me, I draw the line at it not being locked up in your house. If it's not locked up, you aren't being responsible. You can lock your house, but if your guns are out and about, you haven't done enough to secure them IMO. That's just my opinion though. That's the arbitrary line I draw. Seems most reasonable to me. If a robber breaks in then also breaks into your safe to get the guns, I don't think you've been negligent.

 

[Schlzm]

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?

Yes, I'm dodging a question that has nothing to do with me.....I don't even know what RFID chips are but don't let that get in the way of your childish name calling games. Stay classy

Explain how this would save lives.

huh? for the millionth time this isn't my idea, I don't even know about the topic. Why is everyone asking me about it?

STOP BEING OBTUSE MAN! Just explain how your quantom-encryption chip will prevent any and all firearms deaths by warping the spacetime continuum blinking them out of existence damnit!Schlzm

 

[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".

So you're dodging the question?

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

Yes, I'm dodging a question that has nothing to do with me.....I don't even know what RFID chips are but don't let that get in the way of your childish name calling games. Stay classy

Explain how this would save lives.

huh? for the millionth time this isn't my idea, I don't even know about the topic. Why is everyone asking me about it?

STOP BEING OBTUSE MAN! Just explain how your quantom-encryption chip will prevent any and all firearms deaths by warping the spacetime continuum blinking them out of existence damnit!Schlzm

 

[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?

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.

I responded to that but you didn't answer my question.

Does it work both ways always or only when convenient?

If you want to have a law that says a gun owner is responsible for whatever crime is commited with his gun then yes it should apply to all stolen property. Currently that isnt the case. If some crackhead breaks into my house, steals some of my wifes jewelry, pawns it to buy more drugs and then ODs and dies should we be responsible? He wouldnt have died if it hadnt been for that gold necklace.

If that same crackhead break into my house and finds the .380 pistol that I own and steals it and uses it to kill his dealer in an effort to steal drugs. Should I be held responsible? I kept it secure in my home under lock and key. It wasnt laying out in the open for anyone to take. I keep it unloaded.

How and why would you differentiate these two scenarios? My personal propery was a vehicle for the death of a person in both scenarios and I am a victim of a crime in both scenarios.

Are you okay with gun owners and would-be gun owners going through the same hoops as car owners and would-be car owners?

If not then I don't see why you would use cars as a point of comparison. If cars were not registered and tracked up the ying-yang (as they are) and drivers not licensed and insured (as they are) then I likely would be in favor of holding the car owner responsible for what happened if they were stolen.

Also if not, why not? (please don't respond if it's going to be more stuff about the government taking everyone's guns that argument is nothing more than a red herring).

 

[[icon]]

Guns jam all the time. Guess we should stop making them until they figure out a way to correct that 100%.

Guns do not jam all the time. Even if the gun jams it can be quickly "cleared." How do you clear a gun to fire when an electronic locking system built in or attached to it fails?

I'm convinced half the people who espouse this crap have never actually seen a weapon let alone fired one.

 

[[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?

before I can answer you, I need to know what the purpose of this chip would be in an automobile.

Doesn't matter... would you trust your life to this chip. Yes or no. Don't tim this up.

 

[[icon]]

Guns jam all the time. Guess we should stop making them until they figure out a way to correct that 100%.

Read my post regarding essential function of a firearm. Reread it. If you're commish, then read it a few more times.

 

[[icon]]

The police officer doesn't take the chance, leaves the fancy ### new weapon in the car and carries his personal one instead.

Schlzm

 

[Schlzm]

Guns jam all the time. Guess we should stop making them until they figure out a way to correct that 100%.

Guns do not jam all the time. Even if the gun jams it can be quickly "cleared." How do you clear a gun to fire when an electronic locking system built in or attached to it fails?

I'm convinced half the people who espouse this crap have never actually seen a weapon let alone fired one.

Kind of like the congresswoman who wanted to ban highcapacity magazines because eventually the owners would fire all of the rounds in them and then they would have to be thrown away and replaced by smaller cap mags, because as we all know magazines can't be reloaded or anything like that. Schlzm

 

[[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.

Guns today aren't 100% failsafe so apparently you are ok with it in exactly such a scenario.

You should probably read my essential function post as well.

 

[Schlzm]

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.

Guns today aren't 100% failsafe so apparently you are ok with it in exactly such a scenario.

You should probably read my essential function post as well.

My guns are 200% failsafe because I carry at least two of them Schlzm

 

[[icon]]

Guns jam all the time. Guess we should stop making them until they figure out a way to correct that 100%.

Guns do not jam all the time. Even if the gun jams it can be quickly "cleared." How do you clear a gun to fire when an electronic locking system built in or attached to it fails?

I'm convinced half the people who espouse this crap have never actually seen a weapon let alone fired one.

Kind of like the congresswoman who wanted to ban highcapacity magazines because eventually the owners would fire all of the rounds in them and then they would have to be thrown away and replaced by smaller cap mags, because as we all know magazines can't be reloaded or anything like that.Schlzm

Or the Gun Control Advocate who gets arrested because he "forgot" he was carrying his gun when going onto school grounds.

So much hypocrisy in this movement.

 

[[icon]]

My guns are 200% failsafe because I carry at least two of them

Schlzm

What's your EDC and BU?

G26 for my EDC but I don't carry a BU.

 

[[icon]]

This too. My problem with the firecontrolled platforms is useability/reliability. There are too many parts inbetween my finger and the trigger all of a sudden. Do I have to use some special device to allow other people or even myself to fire the weapon? If it's biometric then am I the only person on the planet allowed to fire the weapon unless it is recoded? How much will coding cost me to allow a spouse/child/friend also fire the weapon? If there is a device involved that has to be in a certain range <rfid> why would I want to own this weapon for home defence? If the system fails at a critical point and gets myself or my family killed is that going to be written off as an acceptable variance? If so how come me and mine are expendable all of a sudden? Also the majority of people who would seek these types of systems out are going to be the same peopel who take extreme care to secure and control any existing weapons they have. Not the dimestore coweboys with a cheapass pawnshop pistol who leaves a charged weapon justy lying around the house.

Schlzm

Great post here.

 

[Schlzm]

My guns are 200% failsafe because I carry at least two of them

Schlzm

What's your EDC and BU?

G26 for my EDC but I don't carry a BU.

In all honesty I work on a military base so my day-to-day "primary" is a can of bear mace and my "backup" is a leatherman. Otherwise I roll Taurus full frame snub 6rnd .357mag and a Ruger LCR .22. Depending on what I'm doing either takes the roll of primary.Schlzm

 

[[icon]]

BTW: Love this comment from another poster elsewhere:

"Even if this technology worked 100%, How long until the criminals figured out a hack? Remember Sony spent millions on a copy proof CD and a 12 year old with a magic marker figured out how to hack it."

 

[Schlzm]

BTW: Love this comment from another poster elsewhere:

"Even if this technology worked 100%, How long until the criminals figured out a hack? Remember Sony spent millions on a copy proof CD and a 12 year old with a magic marker figured out how to hack it."

 

[Spanky267]

Of course you didn't allow it. I'm not sure why you're making this as complicated as you are. I think it's pretty clear that he meant the careless gun owner who leaves his crap laying around irresponsibly. Again, I go back to my comment before. I consider gun ownership a serious responsibility. They aren't decorations (as people in this area seem to think). For me, I draw the line at it not being locked up in your house. If it's not locked up, you aren't being responsible. You can lock your house, but if your guns are out and about, you haven't done enough to secure them IMO. That's just my opinion though. That's the arbitrary line I draw. Seems most reasonable to me. If a robber breaks in then also breaks into your safe to get the guns, I don't think you've been negligent.

Excellent. On this we can agree. I think your line of reasoning is solid. I can agree with it.

 

[The Commish]

Of course you didn't allow it. I'm not sure why you're making this as complicated as you are. I think it's pretty clear that he meant the careless gun owner who leaves his crap laying around irresponsibly. Again, I go back to my comment before. I consider gun ownership a serious responsibility. They aren't decorations (as people in this area seem to think). For me, I draw the line at it not being locked up in your house. If it's not locked up, you aren't being responsible. You can lock your house, but if your guns are out and about, you haven't done enough to secure them IMO. That's just my opinion though. That's the arbitrary line I draw. Seems most reasonable to me. If a robber breaks in then also breaks into your safe to get the guns, I don't think you've been negligent.

Excellent. On this we can agree. I think your line of reasoning is solid. I can agree with it.

I don't think anything I've suggested is over the top and relatively easy to comply with. That's why I'm of the opinion that if you don't follow such basic rules the punishment you suffer for "accidents" and incidents because you didn't follow such basic rules should be much more severe than they are today.

 

[[icon]]

Of course you didn't allow it. I'm not sure why you're making this as complicated as you are. I think it's pretty clear that he meant the careless gun owner who leaves his crap laying around irresponsibly. Again, I go back to my comment before. I consider gun ownership a serious responsibility. They aren't decorations (as people in this area seem to think). For me, I draw the line at it not being locked up in your house. If it's not locked up, you aren't being responsible. You can lock your house, but if your guns are out and about, you haven't done enough to secure them IMO. That's just my opinion though. That's the arbitrary line I draw. Seems most reasonable to me. If a robber breaks in then also breaks into your safe to get the guns, I don't think you've been negligent.

Excellent. On this we can agree. I think your line of reasoning is solid. I can agree with it.

concur.

 

[The Commish]

Of course you didn't allow it. I'm not sure why you're making this as complicated as you are. I think it's pretty clear that he meant the careless gun owner who leaves his crap laying around irresponsibly. Again, I go back to my comment before. I consider gun ownership a serious responsibility. They aren't decorations (as people in this area seem to think). For me, I draw the line at it not being locked up in your house. If it's not locked up, you aren't being responsible. You can lock your house, but if your guns are out and about, you haven't done enough to secure them IMO. That's just my opinion though. That's the arbitrary line I draw. Seems most reasonable to me. If a robber breaks in then also breaks into your safe to get the guns, I don't think you've been negligent.

Excellent. On this we can agree. I think your line of reasoning is solid. I can agree with it.

concur.

oh bull####

 

[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.

It would prevent someone from firing a gun if it failed. The NJIT researchers say that have reached almost 99% reliability. But even they say that 99% isnt good enough. It has to work every time.

A police officer knows how to handle a situation where his gun misfires or jams with the current technology. What is he to do if the RFID or Biometrics in his gun fails? How does he work around such a failure? If the system isnt 100% reliable then its going to happen inevitably. If it isnt 100% reliable then it has to have an override. If its got an override then the "safety" feature can be defeated any time one wants to defeat it.

A fair point about not being able to work around it, but if a police officer is in a situation where he has to fire his gun, is he really going to have time to fix a jam in such a situation anyway?

I think if the tech can achieve the same success rates guns without it have, that should satisfy everyone right? No added risk to the gun not firing? I don;t think its fair to place a standard that they be more reliable than guns today.

 

[Spanky267]

Are you okay with gun owners and would-be gun owners going through the same hoops as car owners and would-be car owners?

If not then I don't see why you would use cars as a point of comparison. If cars were not registered and tracked up the ying-yang (as they are) and drivers not licensed and insured (as they are) then I likely would be in favor of holding the car owner responsible for what happened if they were stolen.

Also if not, why not? (please don't respond if it's going to be more stuff about the government taking everyone's guns that argument is nothing more than a red herring).

I havent said one thing about the government taking our guns. But I dont think I should have to register myself to exercise my consititutional right. I dont need a permit to speak. I shouldnt have to register my gun either. Besides the government can track my gun down now if they want. The gun manufacturer logged which dealer they sold my gun to and that gun dealer logged when they sold it to me. If its ever used in a crime ATF, FBI or local LEOs will be looking for me. How do you think they track guns now? If I ever sell it privately I will be getting a copy of the purchasers drivers license.

Guns are different than cars, boats or planes. We dont have a constitutional right to keep a car, boat or plane. i dont have a right to own a dog. But the constitution does guarantee me the right to own a gun. Now if a state wants to put some registration in place I guess they can. I wouldnt like it and I wouldnt want to live in that state. But I believe the states have that right. I dont believe the federal government has such a right.

 

[Schlzm]

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.

It would prevent someone from firing a gun if it failed. The NJIT researchers say that have reached almost 99% reliability. But even they say that 99% isnt good enough. It has to work every time.A police officer knows how to handle a situation where his gun misfires or jams with the current technology. What is he to do if the RFID or Biometrics in his gun fails? How does he work around such a failure? If the system isnt 100% reliable then its going to happen inevitably. If it isnt 100% reliable then it has to have an override. If its got an override then the "safety" feature can be defeated any time one wants to defeat it.

A fair point about not being able to work around it, but if a police officer is in a situation where he has to fire his gun, is he really going to have time to fix a jam in such a situation anyway?I think if the tech can achieve the same success rates guns without it have, that should satisfy everyone right? No added risk to the gun not firing? I don;t think its fair to place a standard that they be more reliable than guns today.

Yes. It's part of <or at least should be> of their training and takes less time to clear an unfired round than it does to change a magazine. I also want to point out that I am not against supporting manufacturers selling these types of firecontrolled platforms for those who want them. Schlzm

 

[Clifford]

The whole thing comes down to this question:

Do you believe guns should be treated like every other product on the market, or do you believe guns should be a special class of product that is immune to safety standards?

The next big question is

Do you think saving lives is an exercise worth revising this view?

Look, the tech can and will improve, and it's a matter of when not if. The when could be vastly accelerated through government funding (your taxdollars) or by exerting the same government influence regarding the American market we use on all other products and forcing the manufacturers to make a safer product (not your taxdollars). If the government provides funding in either way the pace of technological development will speed up and we will have a reliable gun that can't be fired by anyone but its owner sooner rather than later.

Truth be told, even if such tech were proven 100% reliable today, I doubt it would gain much support from the gun crowd. Spanky, let's say that in independent tests such weapons fired 1000 out of 1000 times when operated by the owner, and 0 out of 1000 when operated by a non-owner. Would that even change your mind?

 

[Schlzm]

The whole thing comes down to this question:

1Do you believe guns should be treated like every other product on the market, or do you believe guns should be a special class of product that is immune to safety standards?

The next big question is

Do you think saving lives is an exercise worth revising this view?

Look, the tech can and will improve, and it's a matter of when not if. The when could be vastly accelerated through government funding (your taxdollars) or by exerting the same government influence regarding the American market we use on all other products and forcing the manufacturers to make a safer product (not your taxdollars). If the government provides funding in either way the pace of technological development will speed up and we will have a reliable gun that can't be fired by anyone but its owner sooner rather than later.

2Truth be told, even if such tech were proven 100% reliable today, I doubt it would gain much support from the gun crowd. Spanky, let's say that in independent tests such weapons fired 1000 out of 1000 times when operated by the owner, and 0 out of 1000 when operated by a non-owner. Would that even change your mind?

1: Guns are safer than knives.2: I am against the fact that the weapon can only be fired by the owner/purchaser.

Schlzm

 

[Cliff Clavin]

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.

And if children were forced to wear helmets 24 hours a day, lives would be saved. You're unreasonable if you don't agree. WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!!??!

 

[Spanky267]

A fair point about not being able to work around it, but if a police officer is in a situation where he has to fire his gun, is he really going to have time to fix a jam in such a situation anyway?

I think if the tech can achieve the same success rates guns without it have, that should satisfy everyone right? No added risk to the gun not firing? I don;t think its fair to place a standard that they be more reliable than guns today.

Clifford, dont take this the wrong way. But the bold above shows some ignorance towards firearms. Police officers specifically train to deal with a jam in a live shooter scenario. The situation is unlikely but they have to be prepared in case it happens. Most LEOs carry semi auto pistols. Jams or misfires in semi autos are uncommon. But if a jam occurs, its most likely what is called a stovepipe, where the shell casing fails to be fully ejected after the round is fired and jams in the slide of the gun at the ejection port. All that must be done is is to rack or pull the slide back to clear the stuck casing. The next round is chambered and the gun is ready to fire. In the event of a misfire, where the firing pin strikes the percussion cap on the round but the round doesnt fire. Many semi auto pistols have a restrike capability where another pull of the trigger will cause the firing pin to strike the round again. usually the round will fire on the second strike. If not the slide is racked and the dud round is ejected and a new one is chambered in its place. All of this can be accomplished in seconds.

I have had one jam in all of the shooting that I have done. The pistol I currently own jammed on the second or thrid round I fired through it at the range. It had nothing to do with the gun or the round. It stovepiped because my hands were too high up on the grip and prevented the slide from fully moving back after the shot. My hand took the brunt of my mistake. But a quick pull of the slide and the stuck shell casing was ejected. I did it under 5 seconds. How fast do you think a police officer who drills to do this can accomplish it?

 

[[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?

Bump... I noticed that the RFID guys won't touch this with a 10ft pole.

> "It's PERFECTLY reliable"

> "Reliable enough to trust YOUR life with it?"

> (Crickets)