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

[BigSteelThrill]

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

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

Do childproof caps prevent small children from opening pill bottles?

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

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

Well stated. He is intentionally obtuse all too often.

 

[Chaka]

I love when the argument turns into "Well it would be really difficult to accomplish so why bother."

 

[Otis]

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

Yes

no

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

So every person in the US, who has a weapon would be expected to have this safety feature? The billions of guns that are already owned...? And you can guarantee none of the ones that did have this feature could have the feature disabled?Obviously you are the "moron", because you don't understand that safety features can be removed from a firearm.. Or that there will always be illegal weapons in the world that children can be killed with.

You are clueless...

Lol at parents removing the safeties from their fireaems so their kids die.

There are a handful of posters on this board who so consistently put out ignorant, low-IQ content. Only a handful, but boy are they rock-solid dependable in their craft.

 

[Otis]

I love when the argument turns into "Well it would be really difficult to accomplish so why bother."

Modern day 'murica doesn't like hard stuff.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

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

Yes

no

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

So every person in the US, who has a weapon would be expected to have this safety feature? The billions of guns that are already owned...? And you can guarantee none of the ones that did have this feature could have the feature disabled?Obviously you are the "moron", because you don't understand that safety features can be removed from a firearm.. Or that there will always be illegal weapons in the world that children can be killed with.

You are clueless...

Lol at parents removing the safeties from their fireaems so their kids die.

There are a handful of posters on this board who so consistently put out ignorant, low-IQ content. Only a handful, but boy are they rock-solid dependable in their craft.

Parents? Way to be in your own little world.. It would be stolen weapons that would have the feature removed.. And yes, criminals have children too...

I'd think the guy with the low IQ was the one who thinks congress have waive a magic wand and from that point forward all firearms will be 100% childproof..

 

[Chaka]

Well since some people will do bad things we shouldn't bother trying.

 

[Chaka]

And heaven forbid we go after the unscrupulous FFL holders.

I can only laugh.

 

[timschochet]

I love when the argument turns into "Well it would be really difficult to accomplish so why bother."

To be fair, I would pose it a little differently: If something is very difficult to accomplish, then there may be a point where it's not worth it to continue, because the cost exceeds the reward. That may be the case here; I'm not sure. My problem with most of these discussions is that the pro-NRA types make this argument in response to EVERY proposal, no matter what it is.

 

[Otis]

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

Yes

no

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

So every person in the US, who has a weapon would be expected to have this safety feature? The billions of guns that are already owned...? And you can guarantee none of the ones that did have this feature could have the feature disabled?Obviously you are the "moron", because you don't understand that safety features can be removed from a firearm.. Or that there will always be illegal weapons in the world that children can be killed with.

You are clueless...

Lol at parents removing the safeties from their fireaems so their kids die.

There are a handful of posters on this board who so consistently put out ignorant, low-IQ content. Only a handful, but boy are they rock-solid dependable in their craft.

Parents? Way to be in your own little world.. It would be stolen weapons that would have the feature removed.. And yes, criminals have children too...

I'd think the guy with the low IQ was the one who thinks congress have waive a magic wand and from that point forward all firearms will be 100% childproof..

We're not suggesting that we need safeties on there to protect the criminals' children, Tesla.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

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

Yes

no

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

So every person in the US, who has a weapon would be expected to have this safety feature? The billions of guns that are already owned...? And you can guarantee none of the ones that did have this feature could have the feature disabled?Obviously you are the "moron", because you don't understand that safety features can be removed from a firearm.. Or that there will always be illegal weapons in the world that children can be killed with.

You are clueless...

Lol at parents removing the safeties from their fireaems so their kids die.

There are a handful of posters on this board who so consistently put out ignorant, low-IQ content. Only a handful, but boy are they rock-solid dependable in their craft.

Parents? Way to be in your own little world.. It would be stolen weapons that would have the feature removed.. And yes, criminals have children too...

I'd think the guy with the low IQ was the one who thinks congress have waive a magic wand and from that point forward all firearms will be 100% childproof..

We're not suggesting that we need safeties on there to protect the criminals' children, Tesla.

He didn't specify children of non-criminal parents.. And I guess in your eyes, the owners of some 270 million firearms out there, already existing in the US, that wouldn't have this technology, are criminals as well, or maybe their children don't count?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Well since some people will do bad things we shouldn't bother trying.

Who said we shouldn't bother trying... I actually suggested a method of replacing the firearms that didn't have child safeties. The question was asked "Would RFID/biometrics stop children from accidentally discharging their parents firearms?" It will not, because we will never have this technology on all firearms.

And correct me if I'm wrong, it's typically going to be the bad or irresponsible gun owners who don't take safety precautions with their firearms, that let their weapons get in the hands of the children.. It would also be the bad or irresponsible gun owners that don't follow the new rules as well...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

And heaven forbid we go after the unscrupulous FFL holders.

I can only laugh.

your bias is showing..

 

[Otis]

Yeehaw.

 

[Chaka]

And heaven forbid we go after the unscrupulous FFL holders.

I can only laugh.

your bias is showing..

And your bias is that most guns on the street are stolen. Go figure.

Sorry but guns on the street come from multiple sources and unscrupulous FFL holders (which implies that there are scrupulous ones btw so don't turn this into a crusade about all FFL holders) are a huge source of the problem and we can actually do something about them (because, y'know, the government actually has information about who has a Federal Firearms License holders) if we had the will, which we clearly do not.

Heaven forbid we actually mandate they monitor their stock and we actually monitor them. OH NOES THAT WULD MEEN RMAGETONS!!!!

 

[Chaka]

Well since some people will do bad things we shouldn't bother trying.

Who said we shouldn't bother trying... I actually suggested a method of replacing the firearms that didn't have child safeties. The question was asked "Would RFID/biometrics stop children from accidentally discharging their parents firearms?" It will not, because we will never have this technology on all firearms.

And correct me if I'm wrong, it's typically going to be the bad or irresponsible gun owners who don't take safety precautions with their firearms, that let their weapons get in the hands of the children.. It would also be the bad or irresponsible gun owners that don't follow the new rules as well...

So therefore the problem wouldn't be corrected so why bother.

Yeah we get it. So, y'know, why not actually try to do something about it before the morons get their hands on guns.

O NOES THAT WULD B BAD!!!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Well since some people will do bad things we shouldn't bother trying.

Who said we shouldn't bother trying... I actually suggested a method of replacing the firearms that didn't have child safeties. The question was asked "Would RFID/biometrics stop children from accidentally discharging their parents firearms?" It will not, because we will never have this technology on all firearms.

And correct me if I'm wrong, it's typically going to be the bad or irresponsible gun owners who don't take safety precautions with their firearms, that let their weapons get in the hands of the children.. It would also be the bad or irresponsible gun owners that don't follow the new rules as well...

So therefore the problem wouldn't be corrected so why bother.

Yeah we get it. So, y'know, why not actually try to do something about it before the morons get their hands on guns.

O NOES THAT WULD B BAD!!!

Show me where I said don't bother.. He asked a question, that is what I was responding to. Maybe if you take your meds you can focus long enough to read that far back..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

And heaven forbid we go after the unscrupulous FFL holders.

I can only laugh.

your bias is showing..

And your bias is that most guns on the street are stolen. Go figure.

Sorry but guns on the street come from multiple sources and unscrupulous FFL holders (which implies that there are scrupulous ones btw so don't turn this into a crusade about all FFL holders) are a huge source of the problem and we can actually do something about them (because, y'know, the government actually has information about who has a Federal Firearms License holders) if we had the will, which we clearly do not.

Heaven forbid we actually mandate they monitor their stock and we actually monitor them. OH NOES THAT WULD MEEN RMAGETONS!!!!

Reading comprehension down?

 

[Chaka]

Look Carolina I have no problem with you personally and we have been to this rodeo before. My beef isn't with you personally.

The sad and harsh reality is that the pro gun power base (i.e. the NRA) is completely opposed to any form of restriction of guns on any level, regardless of how they may protest otherwise. And even more sad is the fact that, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the country supports serious reform to our gun laws for some bizarro world reason it isn't gonna happen. So just accept your victory with the confidence that the nutjobs who you support, in the final analysis if not the details, are going to win no matter what.

Congratulations.

 

[Chaka]

And heaven forbid we go after the unscrupulous FFL holders.

I can only laugh.

your bias is showing..

And your bias is that most guns on the street are stolen. Go figure.

Sorry but guns on the street come from multiple sources and unscrupulous FFL holders (which implies that there are scrupulous ones btw so don't turn this into a crusade about all FFL holders) are a huge source of the problem and we can actually do something about them (because, y'know, the government actually has information about who has a Federal Firearms License holders) if we had the will, which we clearly do not.

Heaven forbid we actually mandate they monitor their stock and we actually monitor them. OH NOES THAT WULD MEEN RMAGETONS!!!!

Reading comprehension down?

No, is yours?

 

[timschochet]

Carolina Hustler, I'm very glad that you disagree with Chaka's representation of you, and that you think that we SHOULD bother to do something about gun violence and accidental gun deaths. That's encouraging to hear. What, specifically, do you have in mind? Please let us know the action that we should take to make things better.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

And heaven forbid we go after the unscrupulous FFL holders.

I can only laugh.

your bias is showing..

And your bias is that most guns on the street are stolen. Go figure.

Sorry but guns on the street come from multiple sources and unscrupulous FFL holders (which implies that there are scrupulous ones btw so don't turn this into a crusade about all FFL holders) are a huge source of the problem and we can actually do something about them (because, y'know, the government actually has information about who has a Federal Firearms License holders) if we had the will, which we clearly do not.

Heaven forbid we actually mandate they monitor their stock and we actually monitor them. OH NOES THAT WULD MEEN RMAGETONS!!!!

Reading comprehension down?

No, is yours?

Yours obviously is, because I never even alluded to "most guns on the street are stolen" or "the problem wouldn't be corrected so why bother."

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Look Carolina I have no problem with you personally and we have been to this rodeo before. My beef isn't with you personally.

The sad and harsh reality is that the pro gun power base (i.e. the NRA) is completely opposed to any form of restriction of guns on any level, regardless of how they may protest otherwise. And even more sad is the fact that, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the country supports serious reform to our gun laws for some bizarro world reason it isn't gonna happen. So just accept your victory with the confidence that the nutjobs who you support, in the final analysis if not the details, are going to win no matter what.

Congratulations.

Anyone who stands opposed to ignorant anti-gun narrative and/or propaganda now supports the NRA/Nutjobs.. got it..

Biometrics and/or RFID are both idealist answers the problem, but in reality are not going to fix the problem. If every firearm in the US could be outfitted with this technology, and it actually could render the weapon useless if tampered with (as Clifford claims, but he is wrong about), and it wouldn't by virtue of expense limit ones ability to own a firearm, then it's a great idea.. If it's not going to fix the problem, if it's a very expensive idea, if it's going to potentially limit ones ability to exercise there right or protect themselves, then it's not the answer..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Carolina Hustler, I'm very glad that you disagree with Chaka's representation of you, and that you think that we SHOULD bother to do something about gun violence and accidental gun deaths. That's encouraging to hear. What, specifically, do you have in mind? Please let us know the action that we should take to make things better.

Education is the primary tool. You also have to accept that there will be casualties. Unfortunately there are ignorant and irresponsible people in this world, who endanger themselves, others, and children and many ways. You can't eliminate that factor, so don't assume you can eliminate the product of those ignorant and irresponsible people. A child safety feature on firearms is a good idea, but lets not assume it solves the problem.

 

[drummer]

Carolina Hustler, I'm very glad that you disagree with Chaka's representation of you, and that you think that we SHOULD bother to do something about gun violence and accidental gun deaths. That's encouraging to hear. What, specifically, do you have in mind? Please let us know the action that we should take to make things better.

 

[Chaka]

And heaven forbid we go after the unscrupulous FFL holders.

I can only laugh.

your bias is showing..

And your bias is that most guns on the street are stolen. Go figure.

Sorry but guns on the street come from multiple sources and unscrupulous FFL holders (which implies that there are scrupulous ones btw so don't turn this into a crusade about all FFL holders) are a huge source of the problem and we can actually do something about them (because, y'know, the government actually has information about who has a Federal Firearms License holders) if we had the will, which we clearly do not.

Heaven forbid we actually mandate they monitor their stock and we actually monitor them. OH NOES THAT WULD MEEN RMAGETONS!!!!

Reading comprehension down?

No, is yours?

Yours obviously is, because I never even eluded to "most guns on the street are stolen" or "the problem wouldn't be corrected so why bother."

Interesting. I think you are quite good at eluding.

 

[Chaka]

Proud gun owner here BTW.

I mention that in every one of these threads but no one cares.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

And heaven forbid we go after the unscrupulous FFL holders.

I can only laugh.

your bias is showing..

And your bias is that most guns on the street are stolen. Go figure.

Sorry but guns on the street come from multiple sources and unscrupulous FFL holders (which implies that there are scrupulous ones btw so don't turn this into a crusade about all FFL holders) are a huge source of the problem and we can actually do something about them (because, y'know, the government actually has information about who has a Federal Firearms License holders) if we had the will, which we clearly do not.

Heaven forbid we actually mandate they monitor their stock and we actually monitor them. OH NOES THAT WULD MEEN RMAGETONS!!!!

Reading comprehension down?

No, is yours?

Yours obviously is, because I never even eluded to "most guns on the street are stolen" or "the problem wouldn't be corrected so why bother."

Interesting. I think you are quite good at eluding.

... alluded

 

[timschochet]

Carolina Hustler, I'm very glad that you disagree with Chaka's representation of you, and that you think that we SHOULD bother to do something about gun violence and accidental gun deaths. That's encouraging to hear. What, specifically, do you have in mind? Please let us know the action that we should take to make things better.

Education is the primary tool. You also have to accept that there will be casualties. Unfortunately there are ignorant and irresponsible people in this world, who endanger themselves, others, and children and many ways. You can't eliminate that factor, so don't assume you can eliminate the product of those ignorant and irresponsible people. A child safety feature on firearms is a good idea, but lets not assume it solves the problem.

So you are in favor of child safety features on firearms?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Carolina Hustler, I'm very glad that you disagree with Chaka's representation of you, and that you think that we SHOULD bother to do something about gun violence and accidental gun deaths. That's encouraging to hear. What, specifically, do you have in mind? Please let us know the action that we should take to make things better.

Education is the primary tool. You also have to accept that there will be casualties. Unfortunately there are ignorant and irresponsible people in this world, who endanger themselves, others, and children and many ways. You can't eliminate that factor, so don't assume you can eliminate the product of those ignorant and irresponsible people. A child safety feature on firearms is a good idea, but lets not assume it solves the problem.

So you are in favor of child safety features on firearms?

Pretty sure I said that earlier in the thread, but if you didn't read it earlier, yes..

I think all new firearms should have some affordable child safety mechanism that doesn't hinder the intended use. A government sponsored voluntary buy back system could help replace some of the firearms that don't have safeties.

I still think the most effective tool would be education.. With 270 million guns existing in the US, it's going to take a loooooong time to effectively retire the ones without safeties..

 

[Clifford]

I love when the argument turns into "Well it would be really difficult to accomplish so why bother."

To be fair, I would pose it a little differently: If something is very difficult to accomplish, then there may be a point where it's not worth it to continue, because the cost exceeds the reward.That may be the case here; I'm not sure. My problem with most of these discussions is that the pro-NRA types make this argument in response to EVERY proposal, no matter what it is.

Just to add to the "difficulty" factor, this is already being done and the tech has already been judged effective without any government support whatsoever. So let's be clear that the huge mountain of difficulty we are talking about is passing safety standards.

The difficulty lies in mouth-breathers like Hustler who truly are not at all interested in doing anything, and are in fact vehemently opposed to anyone trying anything.

To round out his worldview, he thinks it's ok to shoot someone if you start an argument with them and they threaten you with words only, like "I oughtta kick your ###." He thinks he should legally be able to kill someone for that.

 

[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.

 

[Spanky267]

I love when the argument turns into "Well it would be really difficult to accomplish so why bother."

To be fair, I would pose it a little differently: If something is very difficult to accomplish, then there may be a point where it's not worth it to continue, because the cost exceeds the reward.That may be the case here; I'm not sure. My problem with most of these discussions is that the pro-NRA types make this argument in response to EVERY proposal, no matter what it is.

Just to add to the "difficulty" factor, this is already being done and the tech has already been judged effective without any government support whatsoever. So let's be clear that the huge mountain of difficulty we are talking about is passing safety standards.

The difficulty lies in mouth-breathers like Hustler who truly are not at all interested in doing anything, and are in fact vehemently opposed to anyone trying anything.

To round out his worldview, he thinks it's ok to shoot someone if you start an argument with them and they threaten you with words only, like "I oughtta kick your ###." He thinks he should legally be able to kill someone for that.

The tech has been judged effective in limited scale testing. We dont know how well it will work on a wider scale. 6 mall cops at a college doesnt constitute wide scale testing. Their own researchers admit that 99% reliability, which they say they can achieve, isnt good enough for the real world. They are also still having issues with their dynamic grip recognition being able to discern the grips of authroized and unauthorized male users. The New Jersey Institute of Technology's design incorporates the system in the grip of the gun. They envision it as an add on for current guns. also because its built into the grip, and since the grips of many guns can be removed and changed it can be deleted from a gun. Not all guns have removably grips. But most revolvers do and many semi auto pistols do as well. Especially if they are of all metal construction.

The other technologies that use wristbands, watches or rings can are problematic if the rings, wirstbands or watches are lost or damaged. I'm sure none of us have ever lost a ring or broken a wrist watch.

I'm not saying that these technologies arent worth pursuing or that they are dead ends. They just arent the panacea you seem to think they are. They arent the answer to all of our prayers. Again if you dont replace every legally owned gun in america with one of these you wont eliminate accidental shootings.

 

[Clifford]

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.

 

[Clifford]

I love when the argument turns into "Well it would be really difficult to accomplish so why bother."

To be fair, I would pose it a little differently: If something is very difficult to accomplish, then there may be a point where it's not worth it to continue, because the cost exceeds the reward.That may be the case here; I'm not sure. My problem with most of these discussions is that the pro-NRA types make this argument in response to EVERY proposal, no matter what it is.

Just to add to the "difficulty" factor, this is already being done and the tech has already been judged effective without any government support whatsoever. So let's be clear that the huge mountain of difficulty we are talking about is passing safety standards.

The difficulty lies in mouth-breathers like Hustler who truly are not at all interested in doing anything, and are in fact vehemently opposed to anyone trying anything.

To round out his worldview, he thinks it's ok to shoot someone if you start an argument with them and they threaten you with words only, like "I oughtta kick your ###." He thinks he should legally be able to kill someone for that.

The tech has been judged effective in limited scale testing. We dont know how well it will work on a wider scale. 6 mall cops at a college doesnt constitute wide scale testing. Their own researchers admit that 99% reliability, which they say they can achieve, isnt good enough for the real world. They are also still having issues with their dynamic grip recognition being able to discern the grips of authroized and unauthorized male users. The New Jersey Institute of Technology's design incorporates the system in the grip of the gun. They envision it as an add on for current guns. also because its built into the grip, and since the grips of many guns can be removed and changed it can be deleted from a gun. Not all guns have removably grips. But most revolvers do and many semi auto pistols do as well. Especially if they are of all metal construction.

The other technologies that use wristbands, watches or rings can are problematic if the rings, wirstbands or watches are lost or damaged. I'm sure none of us have ever lost a ring or broken a wrist watch.

I'm not saying that these technologies arent worth pursuing or that they are dead ends. They just arent the panacea you seem to think they are. They arent the answer to all of our prayers. Again if you dont replace every legally owned gun in america with one of these you wont eliminate accidental shootings.

No one is looking for 100% eradication of problems associated with guns. Measures are intended to decrease harmful impacts. I am not suggesting our government impose untested technology as a mandate.

I am suggesting the primary thing holding back the technological development is the lack of investment from the industry. A government safety standard would spur that investment. The investment vastly improves time to market and quality of tech. That is how safety standards generally work. This has to be the 20th time I have repeated this and it's an exceedingly simple concept. Demand drives funding drives technological development. The only reason I can see people not getting this at this point is not wanting to get it, and wanting to turn the conversation away from this to something they can more easily oppose.

 

[timschochet]

I have to say that in this thread, both Spanky and Carolina Hustler have demonstrated an acknowledgement of the problem and a willingness to consider real solutions to solving it. That is quite different from other pro-NRA types I have met on these boards ( for example, Mr. Two Cents and 5 Digit Know Nothing) and its to their credit. Rather than continuing to attack them Clifford, you might want to really consider what they're saying and engage in a discussion rather than a polemical argument. (Especially with Spanky, who appears to know a lot about this subject. )

 

[tommyGunZ]

Wow - 6 pages on this? What's there to discuss? A guy walks into an elementary school a year ago and takes out 20 2nd and 3rd graders, and NOTHING changed. If that didn't move the needle, this 3 yr old dying from an accident isn't going to spark change. Still too many right wing gun wackos in our society for change to take place. Maybe 20 years from now enough of them will have died off that we can move forward.

 

[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.

These systems will be able to be overridden. If you dont collect every gun in america and replace it with a smart gun, guns are going to be stolen and used in crimes. The NJIT Smart gun can also have its smart technology disabled. These guns can be stolen and used in later crimes like any other gun. Just like you dont need the key to steal a car.

 

[Spanky267]

I love when the argument turns into "Well it would be really difficult to accomplish so why bother."

To be fair, I would pose it a little differently: If something is very difficult to accomplish, then there may be a point where it's not worth it to continue, because the cost exceeds the reward.That may be the case here; I'm not sure. My problem with most of these discussions is that the pro-NRA types make this argument in response to EVERY proposal, no matter what it is.

Just to add to the "difficulty" factor, this is already being done and the tech has already been judged effective without any government support whatsoever. So let's be clear that the huge mountain of difficulty we are talking about is passing safety standards.

The difficulty lies in mouth-breathers like Hustler who truly are not at all interested in doing anything, and are in fact vehemently opposed to anyone trying anything.

To round out his worldview, he thinks it's ok to shoot someone if you start an argument with them and they threaten you with words only, like "I oughtta kick your ###." He thinks he should legally be able to kill someone for that.

The tech has been judged effective in limited scale testing. We dont know how well it will work on a wider scale. 6 mall cops at a college doesnt constitute wide scale testing. Their own researchers admit that 99% reliability, which they say they can achieve, isnt good enough for the real world. They are also still having issues with their dynamic grip recognition being able to discern the grips of authroized and unauthorized male users. The New Jersey Institute of Technology's design incorporates the system in the grip of the gun. They envision it as an add on for current guns. also because its built into the grip, and since the grips of many guns can be removed and changed it can be deleted from a gun. Not all guns have removably grips. But most revolvers do and many semi auto pistols do as well. Especially if they are of all metal construction.

The other technologies that use wristbands, watches or rings can are problematic if the rings, wirstbands or watches are lost or damaged. I'm sure none of us have ever lost a ring or broken a wrist watch.

I'm not saying that these technologies arent worth pursuing or that they are dead ends. They just arent the panacea you seem to think they are. They arent the answer to all of our prayers. Again if you dont replace every legally owned gun in america with one of these you wont eliminate accidental shootings.

No one is looking for 100% eradication of problems associated with guns. Measures are intended to decrease harmful impacts. I am not suggesting our government impose untested technology as a mandate.

I am suggesting the primary thing holding back the technological development is the lack of investment from the industry. A government safety standard would spur that investment. The investment vastly improves time to market and quality of tech. That is how safety standards generally work. This has to be the 20th time I have repeated this and it's an exceedingly simple concept. Demand drives funding drives technological development. The only reason I can see people not getting this at this point is not wanting to get it, and wanting to turn the conversation away from this to something they can more easily oppose.

So you want the government to artificially stimulate demand for a product that the consumers of the current product havent had an interest in purchasing and the makers of the product havent had the demand to need to develop and market?

What other areas do you think the government should stimulate or stifle demand?

There is little to no demand amongst consumers for this product. It doesnt seem that law enforcement is that interested in the product either since they have been exempted from compliance in the New Jersey smart gun bill.

 

[Spanky267]

Wow - 6 pages on this? What's there to discuss? A guy walks into an elementary school a year ago and takes out 20 2nd and 3rd graders, and NOTHING changed. If that didn't move the needle, this 3 yr old dying from an accident isn't going to spark change. Still too many right wing gun wackos in our society for change to take place. Maybe 20 years from now enough of them will have died off that we can move forward.

Tommy what would you say the solution would have been if Adam Lanza had plowed his car into the kids at a bus stop or on a playground? If he had killed 20 kids and 6 teachers with his car instead of his moms guns? Would it have been any less tragic? The guy was evil he wanted to kill people. He succeeded. Do you think that taking those guns away or putting biometric locks on those guns would have stopped him?

 

[Clifford]

I have to say that in this thread, both Spanky and Carolina Hustler have demonstrated an acknowledgement of the problem and a willingness to consider real solutions to solving it. That is quite different from other pro-NRA types I have met on these boards ( for example, Mr. Two Cents and 5 Digit Know Nothing) and its to their credit. Rather than continuing to attack them Clifford, you might want to really consider what they're saying and engage in a discussion rather than a polemical argument. (Especially with Spanky, who appears to know a lot about this subject. )

If you read anything you would know I have already congratulated Spanky for at least having the balls to support his argument. However it has quickly emerged that everything he and CH point to as shortcomings would likely be solved by the very thing they oppose, a mandate. And if they didn't default quickly to BS arguments about people ripping apart their guns so they can be less safe, or minor quibbles, or using numbers that are deceptive, or complaining that this won't affect every gun and won't end every possible gun violence scenario, I wouldn't fault their arguments. But those arguments are faulty, even though they are arguments and different points of view. For one, they single out guns as a special case that should be immune from safety standards, which is illogical. CH supports mandating safeties, which can easily be switched off by children or someone who took your gun, but opposes the exact same governmental action aimed at better tech that would not be so easy to disengage in these scenarios.

I mean I know you love singing koombaya and never met a waffle you didn't like, but until you actually have an opinion on this subject that can withstand a light breeze, how about staying out of it?

I love when the argument turns into "Well it would be really difficult to accomplish so why bother."

To be fair, I would pose it a little differently: If something is very difficult to accomplish, then there may be a point where it's not worth it to continue, because the cost exceeds the reward.That may be the case here; I'm not sure. My problem with most of these discussions is that the pro-NRA types make this argument in response to EVERY proposal, no matter what it is.

Just to add to the "difficulty" factor, this is already being done and the tech has already been judged effective without any government support whatsoever. So let's be clear that the huge mountain of difficulty we are talking about is passing safety standards.

The difficulty lies in mouth-breathers like Hustler who truly are not at all interested in doing anything, and are in fact vehemently opposed to anyone trying anything.

To round out his worldview, he thinks it's ok to shoot someone if you start an argument with them and they threaten you with words only, like "I oughtta kick your ###." He thinks he should legally be able to kill someone for that.

The tech has been judged effective in limited scale testing. We dont know how well it will work on a wider scale. 6 mall cops at a college doesnt constitute wide scale testing. Their own researchers admit that 99% reliability, which they say they can achieve, isnt good enough for the real world. They are also still having issues with their dynamic grip recognition being able to discern the grips of authroized and unauthorized male users. The New Jersey Institute of Technology's design incorporates the system in the grip of the gun. They envision it as an add on for current guns. also because its built into the grip, and since the grips of many guns can be removed and changed it can be deleted from a gun. Not all guns have removably grips. But most revolvers do and many semi auto pistols do as well. Especially if they are of all metal construction.

The other technologies that use wristbands, watches or rings can are problematic if the rings, wirstbands or watches are lost or damaged. I'm sure none of us have ever lost a ring or broken a wrist watch.

I'm not saying that these technologies arent worth pursuing or that they are dead ends. They just arent the panacea you seem to think they are. They arent the answer to all of our prayers. Again if you dont replace every legally owned gun in america with one of these you wont eliminate accidental shootings.

No one is looking for 100% eradication of problems associated with guns. Measures are intended to decrease harmful impacts. I am not suggesting our government impose untested technology as a mandate.

I am suggesting the primary thing holding back the technological development is the lack of investment from the industry. A government safety standard would spur that investment. The investment vastly improves time to market and quality of tech. That is how safety standards generally work. This has to be the 20th time I have repeated this and it's an exceedingly simple concept. Demand drives funding drives technological development. The only reason I can see people not getting this at this point is not wanting to get it, and wanting to turn the conversation away from this to something they can more easily oppose.

So you want the government to artificially stimulate demand for a product that the consumers of the current product havent had an interest in purchasing and the makers of the product havent had the demand to need to develop and market?

What other areas do you think the government should stimulate or stifle demand?

There is little to no demand amongst consumers for this product. It doesnt seem that law enforcement is that interested in the product either since they have been exempted from compliance in the New Jersey smart gun bill.

I don't believe there is no consumer demand and until you can prove that I don't accept it. My brother-in-law wants it. My friend that owns guns wants it. So you and CH don't, and I know two people that do. Does that mean consumer demand is 50% of all gun owners?

Probably not, so unless you have a survey to point to let's not make grand assumptions like this. All I said was a government mandate would induce R&D investments immediately.

Besides, I have already provided you with various sources saying there is a lot of consumer demand. There are multiple companies trying to refine and perfect the technology because they believe there is a consumer demand. I linked an article stating there is demand from both the military and police. So I've shown demand and you've shown nothing other than your opinion.

There wasn't demand for an iPhone before there was an iPhone. I think that thing is doing OK in the market.

 

[Clifford]

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?

 

[timschochet]

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]

How could you possibly think they support a government-imposed safety standard? Every post they have made has been in direct objection to the idea.

 

[timschochet]

How could you possibly think they support a government-imposed safety standard? Every post they have made has been in direct objection to the idea.

In post #280, Carolina Hustler states he is in favor of a standard. In post #282,. Spanky says that "smart guns should be added to the mix." Neither guy explicitly states this should be mandated by the government, but neither says it should be purely voluntary, either. Hence my confusion.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I love when the argument turns into "Well it would be really difficult to accomplish so why bother."

To be fair, I would pose it a little differently: If something is very difficult to accomplish, then there may be a point where it's not worth it to continue, because the cost exceeds the reward.That may be the case here; I'm not sure. My problem with most of these discussions is that the pro-NRA types make this argument in response to EVERY proposal, no matter what it is.

Just to add to the "difficulty" factor, this is already being done and the tech has already been judged effective without any government support whatsoever. So let's be clear that the huge mountain of difficulty we are talking about is passing safety standards.

The difficulty lies in mouth-breathers like Hustler who truly are not at all interested in doing anything, and are in fact vehemently opposed to anyone trying anything.

To round out his worldview, he thinks it's ok to shoot someone if you start an argument with them and they threaten you with words only, like "I oughtta kick your ###." He thinks he should legally be able to kill someone for that.

Hustler was simply showing you the folly in your logic.. You miss-characterized me completely either in your lack of reading comprehension, or in your ignorance... Yea, I'm the "mouth-breather" but you're the one make claims about the product you are completely ignorant of, and that are blatantly untrue..

Also, testing done and results proven by people who are paid by the inventor or corp producing the product don't prove the product is full proof.. They prove the product is promising.. You act like it's an iron clad lock down resolve that is only not implemented because your straw-man opposition is standing in the way... Safety features on firearms is not a new idea, I hate to break it to you...

 

[Chaka]

Aside from "accidental" there are other types of gun death that we may want to try and prevent.

Y'know, just sayin'.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It doesnt seem that law enforcement is that interested in the product either since they have been exempted from compliance in the New Jersey smart gun bill.

There is a reason law enforcement has been exempted.. Probably because it makes the firearm less reliable..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

If you read anything you would know I have already congratulated Spanky for at least having the balls to support his argument. However it has quickly emerged that everything he and CH point to as shortcomings would likely be solved by the very thing they oppose, a mandate. And if they didn't default quickly to BS arguments about people ripping apart their guns so they can be less safe, or minor quibbles, or using numbers that are deceptive, or complaining that this won't affect every gun and won't end every possible gun violence scenario, I wouldn't fault their arguments. But those arguments are faulty, even though they are arguments and different points of view. For one, they single out guns as a special case that should be immune from safety standards, which is illogical. CH supports mandating safeties, which can easily be switched off by children or someone who took your gun, but opposes the exact same governmental action aimed at better tech that would not be so easy to disengage in these scenarios.

I mean I know you love singing koombaya and never met a waffle you didn't like, but until you actually have an opinion on this subject that can withstand a light breeze, how about staying out of it?

You don't know wtf you're talking about.... Link to the bolded?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I don't believe there is no consumer demand and until you can prove that I don't accept it. My brother-in-law wants it. My friend that owns guns wants it. So you and CH don't, and I know two people that do. Does that mean consumer demand is 50% of all gun owners?

Probably not, so unless you have a survey to point to let's not make grand assumptions like this. All I said was a government mandate would induce R&D investments immediately.

Besides, I have already provided you with various sources saying there is a lot of consumer demand. There are multiple companies trying to refine and perfect the technology because they believe there is a consumer demand. I linked an article stating there is demand from both the military and police. So I've shown demand and you've shown nothing other than your opinion.

There wasn't demand for an iPhone before there was an iPhone. I think that thing is doing OK in the market.

Your problem is that you're arguing with a strawman.. Neither Spanky or I have argued that child safety features are a bad idea, or that some sort of child safety feature shouldn't be mandated for all new guns...

You have some unrealistic expectations about the effectiveness of these new features though.. There are 270million firearms in the US without these features. And stolen weapons can and will have any biometric or RFID feature disabled, and I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are completely wrong, disabling that feature can be done without rendering the firearm useless like you claimed earlier..

You will accomplish a whole lot more by educating the public. Child safeties are a good idea, but are not going to positively effect the statistics for a looong time..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

My friend that owns guns wants it.

Well that settles it then