Slashdot Mirror
Gun Rights Groups Say They Don't Oppose Smart Guns, Just Mandates
Lucas123 (935744) writes "When two gun stores attempted to sell the nation's first integrated smart gun, the iP1, gun advocacy groups were charged in media reports with organizing protests that lead to the stores pulling the guns from their shelves or reneging on their promise to sell them in the first place. But, the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation say they do not oppose smart gun technology, which they call "authorized user recognition" firearms. "We do oppose any government mandate of this technology, however. The marketplace should decide," Mike Bazinet, a spokesman for the NSSF, wrote in an email reply to Computerworld. However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology."
Once the police are happy enough with the technology to use it exclusively, then a mandate is appropriate.
I'm not holding my breath.
No I don't. What do you propose? That all cars should also be "smart cars" which will not start without owners fingerprint for the sake of safety?
You, too, might be upset if the government legislated that all pacemakers run on a derivative of the Win9x kernel.
Sure, if you want to buy a pacemaker running Win9x then I don't care because that doesn't interfere with my choice. However, when you start telling *me* my safety critical device has to have an unreliable technology incorporated into it, then damn right you are going to encounter my indignant resistance.
If I were to buy a handgun for personal protection, I'd like to have the authorized user recognition technology so that the weapon couldn't be turned against me in a difficult situation. But I'd also not like it mandated. I might want a custom gun, I might want something that works with gloves, I might want something more reliable than a funky computer, I might want a non-crippled device for any number of reasons.
But I want to make that choice for myself, weighing each instance.
(Please note: I have never owned any guns, I am not a member of the NRA, I just happen to agree with them in this instance.)
John
Good thing we have a constitutional right to rape and drive dangerous cars. Oh, wait, just the right to bear arms.
And free speech. Even if it's as besieged as the rest of the rest of the Bill of Rights.
However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology.
Let them pass the laws. A few days later, when headlines erupt about stolen "smart" guns being used in murders, or some cop getting killed because his "smart" gun wouldn't fire, the laws will go away soon enough.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
My 1911 is perfectly safe when used in accordance with good firearms safety practices.
This is no different that a car or a chainsaw or pool. Things of all sorts are dangerous in the hands of stupid people.
How this is news to you is what I cannot understand.
Funny how the most virulently anti-gun people tend to be the ones who know the least about 'em.
The unknown is skeery.
Not at all. Finger print and other ID technologies are both easily bypassed AND notoriously unreliable. Show me a device that allows access 99.9% of the time and denies others access 99.9% of the time, and pro-gun groups will be all for it. Unfortunately, this isn't the case today. Requiring this technology when the technology isn't there would result in people being unable to use their guns when their life's depend on it while at the same time, NOT stopping the criminals from using the very same guns.
And I have no problem with these smart guns for anyone who wants to buy one. In fact, I could see advantages for these guns under certain circumstances if I was in situations where there was a risk my gun would be taken away from me in a struggle. However, personally I would not want one of these. The main reason being that it is another point of possible failure or breakdown that could keep my gun from firing in the event I need to use it. When people need to use a gun in self-defense they usually have less than a second to make that decision and pull the trigger. THere is no time to be fiddling with some gizmo or something that might prevent the gun from firing.
You mean like an ignition interlock device?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Hitting pedestrians is pretty much this, yes. However, like with firearms, the vast majority of people have little interest in killing random folks.
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
Well in the case of a car it is "steer and floor it" but the concept is fairly similar.
This tech has no merit as a safety device. /.ers especially should be able to imagine the reliability issues with jamming consumer electronics into a mechanical device that experiences massive shock, vibration, rough handling, exposure to the elements, etc. Nevermind all the opportunities for spoofing/jamming/circumventing the "safeguard".
And nevermind that Armatix has been lobbying state governments for these very mandates, so that they can carve out an early lead and attempt to establish a monopoly via regulatory capture.
If you're afraid of your gun being taken away in a scuffle, you need more training.
A federal law stating - that the civilian authorities of any given city or state, be subject to the same firearm restrictions, as the civilians themselves. Yes, including the SWAT, and special response teams. Magazine limits, smart guns, etc. After all, if it is OK, for the average citizen to be subject to proposed restrictions, the the police forces should be governed by the same restrictions.
You'll love this!
http://www.newyorker.com/onlin...
Don't show Penn Jillette, though; he might start shouting at you.
Mandates could be a great thing - to those with a lot of old tech guns!
Just think of all the money they can make selling them after the sale of new old-tech guns are outlawed!
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
Autoloading pistols are very finicky systems as anyone who's done any gunsmithing can tell you. Adding more mechanical complexity, not to mention electrical complexity, is a very bad idea. The resulting guns almost certainly won't work reliably. Far and away the most important safety feature of a gun is that it goes bang when you pull the trigger and successfully cycles so you can do it again - thereby dealing with whatever you were shooting and making you safer. Any "improvements" to guns that don't facilitate that aren't actually improvements.
Don't forget New Jersey passed it's mandate before the technology had even been invented as a functional device. When it was passed it was merely a concept. Beyond that we don't even know how well the technology behind that Armatrex pistol is going to work out. The pistol in question itself is COMPLETELY ill suited for personal defense purposes. Being .22 LR, a round known for piss poor performance and reliably.
You could easily consider this as just kind of a test bed for future proper defensive arms. And we don't really know just how many ways this equipment might be up having points of failure. I personally imagine that it will be a good decade before any gun maker will consider offering this technology in a significant portion of their wares. We, as people of the gun, prefer things that we know will WORK. Reliability. Is. Critical. Case in point the 1911 is one of the biggest selling handguns on the market. A design invented in... 1911. Over a century old.
No, handing the woman a gun might allow her to put an extra hole into whoever is assaulting her, thus preventing a rape. Women with guns, best thing about 'merica.
You already have this special secure token that lets you start your vehicle, and by willingly handing that token over to another person you are assumed to have taken some degree of legal responsibility for what they do with said vehicle.
It's called a key.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
And even if they were, a car is engineered to minimise its ability to cause injury and damage.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Not to the same level, or with the same level of anonymity. Guns are small, compact and allow people to remain somewhat hidden when shooting. Cars are much larger, and noticeable in crowds. Lets see you kill or maim someone with a car from the safety of a roof top.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
The irony is especially sweet here considering you're posting anonymously on an internet forum, exploiting "old fashioned" speech laws (that were drafted with printing presses and quill pens in mind).
Almost certainly true. Consider contraceptives. First they were illegal, then legal (and properly so in a free country.). Now they are mandatory that companies pay for them.
The exact same rhetoric used to get them legalized is now used to justify them as mandate.
So this is not only not a silly conclusion, it is almost a foregone one.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
And you base this off of... what? Your own delusions and preconceptions about a group that includes a third of the nations population?
Yup. Except a key is not much added complexity when considering how complex an entire car is.
On the other hand, any locking mechanism for a gun is going to be more complex than the gun itself.
Although the bottom line is that civilians should not be forced into anything that everyone else is not. If the tech is good enough for civilians then it's good enough for a cop or a soldier. If it isn't, then civilians shouldn't have it forced upon them either.
Crooks will just view the police as a convenient reservoir of of more reliable weapons.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
And I'm sure that you believe yourself to be a rational person.
Yet you could not stop yourself from including denigrating language in a post complaining about the behaviour of others.
point me at the legal mandate that says all cars must have keys....
A car is designed to bleed energy in a collision to protect it's occupants. Against flesh this helps very little as flesh is very frail compared to an automobile.
Sigh. There is no such thing as an unregulated free market. Unregulated markets are quickly subverted by a few large corporations to prevent competition and stop new corporations from getting a foothold. Can you name me one unregulated free market that has ever existed?
Oh give me a fucking break. Yes cars and guns are different. So are guns and knives. So are cars and poison. The point that the call to make everything in the world safe is absurd on the face of it, sure we can do so within reason in all cases and I don't think anyone objects to this goal.
But mandating nonexistent technology for 2A protected firearms is exactly what it looks like, backdoor infringing, and you know it.
People still have the "right" not to be shot by a "stupid" gun, but that right doesn't supercede my right to own one of these non-"smart" guns.
You do realize there's and estimated 100 million gun owners in the United States. By basic probability you're going to have a certain percentage of them that are bug nuts. However that percentage is going to be exceptionally low. Otherwise the internet would have probably caught fire from all the hate mail and threats you're speaking of.
Do you make it a habit of using really idiotic generalizations often in life?
...and you idiots whine about the delusions of others.
Unless you are living in some kind of "food desert", your chance of being shot approximates zero. Your open hatred of your fellow voters is about as realistic as people afraid of a zombie apocalypse.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
How's that?
No, what's scary is people who think other people should be disarmed and "culled from the herd."
At the risk of Godwinning...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
An easily copied token (in the case of most cars) is not really that secure and certainly quite different from the supposed security built in to so-called smart guns.
You're full of shit. The NRA doesn't cater to the crazies but the media makes sure to try and stick them on the NRA every chance they get. The NRA has a membership of over 3 million people. No doubt they have their share of nutjobs just like every large organization but the majority of them are responsible people. No one really has a problem with "smart" guns but most gun owners don't want them mandated. I am actually intrigued by the idea but I'd like the technology to mature a bit more before I purchase one.
However, they do oppose people's right not to be shot by a stupid gun that someone takes away from the stupid owner of said stupid gun.
Sure they do, it's just that their idea that the people with the right to not be shot should get a gun and use it to protect themselves doesn't mesh with your idea that nobody should shoot anyone, ever, for any reason. That's not the same thing as opposition.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Did anyone really think that pro-gun groups would oppose manufacturers giving people the option of buying guns with additional safety devices?
What's really going on is that pro-gun groups are pretty certain (with good reason!) that these smart guns don't work reliably, and likely never will. Plus there's some concern about backdoors that might allow the guns to be deliberately disabled, which could enable smart gun mandates to easily turn into forcible disarmament.
But, given a smart gun that actually works, is very, very close to 100% reliable (meaning it almost never fails to recognize its authorized user, mostly), and isn't subject to control by third parties, I'm sure there would be a great market for them. I'd definitely buy one. I train a little from time to time in techniques for protecting my gun from being taken from me, and while I have considerable confidence in my ability to retain control of my gun, I'd love to have an additional technological backstop.
But it's very unlikely they'll ever be sufficiently reliable. So my response has been from the beginning: Let me know when all of the police forces have adopted them and love them, since cops are at considerable risk of being shot with their own guns. When police are confident that the reliability is high enough they want to carry them, then I'll be interested in looking at the possibility myself.
Mandates, however, make no sense. Build good enough technology and people will buy them. If that's not possible, then mandates are obviously going to meet with stiff resistance.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Illegal is not a possible outcome of the marketplace. You don't seem to understand what that concept is.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
No, he (like most pro-gun control people) base it off a very small and select group of nuts that the Brady group and CSGV and others parade around as "typical NRA members". They don't bother to actually think about what they are being fed, they just gulp it down.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr...
S5.1.1Each vehicle must have a starting system which, whenever the key is removed from the starting system prevents:
(a) The normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and
(b) Either steering, or forward self-mobility, of the vehicle, or both.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children, ranging from toddlers to pre-teens.
Cite?
Given that CDP numbers put the total number of accidental shooting deaths annually between 500 and 600 -- for all ages of shooters -- I expect your link to be very interesting.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Yeah, I feel like we missed a step here, but I doubt that Smith and Wesson will be particularly keen on a law fitting a trigger lock to every gun they sell.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Yep. Now imagine that everyone be required to have one of those in their car. There would be a huge backlash from the general law abiding populace.
Being the actual point of the second amendment was to allow the citizens to raise arms against their own government or an other government. (They just completed a revolution from their mother government, the founders heads were filled with a lot of idealism, and a lot of distrust in big organizations) So they created the second amendment as a way to insure the citizens feel free and safe.
Being that the United States is one of the most stable country in the world. The idea of a violent revolution is a rather remote aspect, sure there are some fringe groups, but none have major public opinion, and prefer to work with our current system of government then actually fight with arms against it. Means right now in history the Gun rules seem outdated and leaves us open to citizens being danger to themselves and others because of the gun.
Most people do not think ahead in such abstract reasons, so the pro-gun supporters try to bring up short term threats on trying to show that the gun is useful today and now, as to not have the citizenry get lazy on their rights, and sign away their freedom.
I myself do not own a gun, nor do I have any plans on buying one soon... However the fact that I could get one without having to go threw government approval process to make sure that my ideals match the governments, is a comforting freedom.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology."
You're too late subby, at least in the case of New Jersey it's already law.
And they've already been sued over NOT enforcing it.
I don't think that a .22 is going to satisfy the courts, it being too light of a round for common self-defense or other tasks, but it's an actual problem. I personally don't have any problem with smart gun tech as long as it's optional.
But it's a HUGE expense for not much gain - the vast majority of shootings are either by a user that would be authorized, or by a criminal having had possession of the firearm for long enough to bypass or reprogram any such system.
I don't read AC A human right
The government can't disable a key (or a car) - yet. It's about control over what you own.
Actually, most consumer vehicles are designed to minimise pedestrian injury these days, particularly given that most impacts occur in urban environments and are therefore comparatively low-speed. There are even standards they test against in Europe.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Uh... what? There are at least three safeties on the average 1911. Model 80s add even more, ensuring the firing pin is nowhere near the round until the trigger is pulled.
Please, by all means, show me -some- statistic that a 1911 in C1 "cocked and locked" will fire when dropped. Even if the safety is off there is still the grip safety that keeps the pin well away from the action.
Of course, if someone fears carrying in C1, there is always a Glock, or just carrying the 1911 in C3.
1911s are fairly simple weapons. If they fired every time someone dropped one, it would be on the national news because the press slavers for articles on defective guns.
Yes, the state of CA disagrees with the grandparent poster... but the state of CA tends to disagree with the Constitution a lot of times.
I shouldn't feed a troll, but in the real world, a 1911 is a safe weapon, unless the owner does something stupid like botch a trigger job, run double-charged loads, or anything like that. One can watch YouTube torture tests to see what genuinely certified morons have done to 1911s, and how idiot-resistant Colt's creations are.
"gun fondlers"
Troll... Didn't read beyond that point.
Citation?
Only numbers I could find even close to this are the total number of people who were accidentally shot over a SIX year period. Not just by children, but by adults.
And that reference mentioned in passing that their definition of children was "under 25 years of age".
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
When we first had the flame war over this discussion, many people properly pointed out that the system blatantly fails at every scenario except 'gun stolen from a safe while owner was still wearing the arming watch.'
The RFID range of the watch was enough that if you were in a struggle, the gun is still armed regardless of which participant is in control of the weapon.
The RFID system can be easily jammed by an aggressor with $4 of Radio Shack hardware, making your gun useless as he threatens you with a steak knife.
If someone is concerned about family playing with long arms (rifles and their kin) that are proudly on display while armed and (for no good reason) loaded, some security measure like this would help protect the children slightly, but it has no use for personal defense weaponry.
I think you need to give yourself a fucking break.. No where did I state that we should mandate the technology.. I was just pointing out the bad logic that being used to counter the cars analogy, but keep up your strawman.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I'm not a gun owner either and not a member of any gun related organizations.
I agree the technology sounds useful but mandating a technology that is unproven and not likely to have an impact... I have no idea what the statistics for are for a person being shot by an assailant with their own gun are but I'm sure it's really low. Gun locks are not intended to keep a burglar from using your own gun against you, they are intended to keep accidental discharges from happening and unauthorized users like kids from playing with them.
As for theft, gunlocks or any other system can be circumvented.
hearing ``click'' when you want to hear ``bang''.
How many instances will there be of a firearm refusing to fire and thus endangering the life of the user?
How many of those 4,000 children had firearms safety training?
Given that shooting is the only academic sport which has _never_ had an injury in the U.S., why not mandate that it be a part of the curriculum, and that all children receive firearms safety education appropriate to their age each year?
It's just like requiring backup cameras on cars --- it might prevent a handful of injuries statistically (and 4,000 incidents for over 300,000,000 firearms is rather a small handful, no?) --- but it will increase the expense for everyone.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
The rest are shooting at human silhouettes, basically fantasizing about shooting people. It's really sick.
And here, I see another person who is fantasizing that other people want to be murderers. It's really sick.
If you can't draw a moral distinction between murder and self defense, then I sure you never vote and absolutely never serve on a jury.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
they do oppose people's right not to be shot by a stupid gun
Bullshit.
They absolutely and completely support peoples' right not to be shot by a gun, smart or stupid, or murdered with any other tool, or with fists, feet, etc.
This is why murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated assault, assault, reckless endangerment, domestic violence and many related crimes are on the books and enforced, because people have a right not to be a victim of violence, particularly not deadly violence.
It's also why it's legal to defend yourself, up to and including with deadly force, when necessary.
In fact, the main reason pro-gun groups oppose smart gun mandates is because they fear such mandates would undermine the right not to be the victim of violence, by making making self-defense less possible (because the smart guns will be unreliable).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Sigh. There is no such thing as an unregulated free market. Unregulated markets are quickly subverted by a few large corporations to prevent competition and stop new corporations from getting a foothold. Can you name me one unregulated free market that has ever existed?
"Shakedown Street"
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
We'll see.
Play Command HQ online
Sure, ISPs. Anyone is free to install new wires or fiber, they just need to pay off the right people to do it. It's a free market! Obviously, Comcast and Verizon are the only companies that are successful in this market.
To have guns insured just like cars are, so that gun owners will always have enough funds to cover any damages that may ensue from mishandling the weapon.
If gun insurance coverage was mandatory then there'd be the right framework for a proper marketplace dynamics.
The state of CA is not a good example of safety evaluation. They require each model of gun to go through an expensive(IIRC, ~$25,000 per) "testing" process. A gun made in 5 different calibers and 5 different colors or finishes requires the manufacturer to pay 25 times the fee to be able to sell in CA. This process has little to do with safety. It's about income for the state and discouraging gun manufacturers from selling in their state.
Do car manufacturers need to have each color of their cars to be "safety tested" before they can be allowed to sell them? If a new color is introduced, is it inherently illegal to sell until it has gone through the testing process?
In fairness to your point, the 1911 design does lack some improvements that have been developed in the last 100 years. During that time, it was a standard sidearm of our military and used by law enforcement agencies. It may not be a perfect design, but it's clearly not inherently unsafe. The hypothetical situation you describe is due to unsafe handling practices.
>the vast majority of people have little interest in killing random folks. I'm not so sure that's true regarding the gun-fondlers. When I go to the range, there will be maybe one other person shooting at round targets. The rest are shooting at human silhouettes, basically fantasizing about shooting people. It's really sick.
That's to try to replicate a realistic situation. Other humans are the most dangerous thing you will ever encounter.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Full disclosure, I'm a gun owner. I wouldn't call myself a "gun nut" by your standards, but I believe I have a right to on the hunting rifle and shotgun I own.
My question to you, my obviously excessively "liberal" friend, is what the fuck is the point of owning and carrying a weapon if you aren't going to carry it all the time? You carry it all the time because situations that arise that may require you to use you chosen form of protection aren't exactly scheduled. A rapist isn't going to say "Oh, sorry Ma'am. I didn't realize today wasn't rape day. Meet you tomorrow at the same time? Don't forget your gun."
I realize this is probably a bad example for you, but let's look at another form of protection. A condom. It's used to protect consenting adults from problems that tend to arise from sexual intercourse. It doesn't do you any good when you're on your way to the girls house and the condom is sitting in your fucking sock drawer at home, does it! I realize it's tough to compare avoiding getting an STD or unwanted pregnancy to getting forcibly raped because you are un-armed that day...
by willingly handing that token over to another person you are assumed to have taken some degree of legal responsibility for what they do with said vehicle
Be specific. What degree of responsibility do you have for the decisions made by another person who is driving your car? Are you talking about handing your keys to someone who tells you in advance that they intend to drive it into a crowd of people at SXSW? Or are you talking about someone who borrows your car to run to the grocery store, but who freaks out along the way and kills some pedestrians? What is your (the car owner's) responsibility for the deaths of those people in the second scenario? What is Ford's or Audi's responsibility for that person's unforeseen irrational act? Be specific.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The rape threats, the murder threats, the wildly violent language...
What's interesting to me is that in online conversations about gun control, it's generally the anti-gun people who use such language. Not always, of course, but the overwhelming majority of violent language comes from those who want to restrict rights.
What's even more common from anti-gun people, of course, is ridicule, particularly of forms that imply sexual attachment to guns, or that guns are a mechanism for compensating for sexual deficiency, as though that has any relevance whatsoever. I suppose it's a way to deride the opposing position when you don't have any real arguments to make.
if gun fondlers
Yeah. Like that, though you at least veiled it a bit more than most.
need to be culled from the herd
And I see you did take the next step, proposing violence. Though, again, a bit more veiled than most. My experience of similar discussions makes me sure that if we debated a bit you'd eventually slide into clear calls for violent murder of gun owners, or at least someone else espousing your position would -- and odds are that none of the gun owners in the discussion would do anything like that.
Thank you for making my point so clearly.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"A kid has no problem operating an improperly secured gun. A car without keys is useless to a kid and to most adults."
"improperly secured", exactly my point. A car can be dangerous, we all agree, good.
Here's the thing, the 'guns are sppoer dangerous' thing is clearly false, as if they were a) cops wouldn't be allowed to have them and b) we'd be all over giving them to the criminals as much as possible, so as to allow them to self-extract themselves from society. That neither of these things is observed gives proof to the lie.
Cops have guns to protect themselves, not you. And they do so for a reason, they are effective. Same reason I have one, cause carrying a cop is not convienient.
Umm, old people keep mowing people down with their cars. This lady just drove her car into a cafe in my town. Cars are way more dangerous than guns.
"or face increasing regulation of said killing devices."
Reasonable regulation is understandable, but doesn't the government have to prove at some point that they need to be regulating stupidity with guns within the walls of people's homes?
That's a key part of this debate that people sweep under the table with various gruesome statistics (4000 dead each year, etc.). What is the price of freedom from over-regulation, or taken to the extreme, tyranny?
By the way - Do you own a "said killing" device?
The people who are most vocal about gun ownership are also the most unhinged.
Classic lazy ad hominem. The usual method of "argument" resorted to by the intellectually lazy and craven nanny statist. An assertion without any evidence, pure empty rhetorical BS. Which you know, which is why you're posting as the coward you are.
The most unhinged people in gun conversations are the ones who have no idea what they're talking about, but do it anyway. Thanks for being today's example.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Few mature libertarians argue that free markets are perfect. Free markets exchange one set of problems caused by government and regulation for another set of problems that people can choose to deal with (or not) through personal responsibility and voluntary cooperation. Human problems exist in both cases, but libertarians tend to prefer personal choice as a response. Painting libertarians as utopians is probably only accurate as far as the college campus goes.
Hmm...from your original post:
BLOCKQUOTE>4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children, ranging from toddlers to pre-teens.
So, you referred to deaths...and from the post you were responding to...
Oh, wait! He was referring to deaths too!
So, again, citation? Accidental shooting deaths were 606 in 2010 from shooters of all ages. And 3800 from 2005-2010 (inclusive). So, where's the 4000 killed by children with firearms every year?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The history of democracies suggest that violent reviolution is 90% going to happen over the next 100 years. The civil war was only 149 years ago. The riots of the civil rights movement was only 50 years ago. Human nature doesn't change. There will be a military coup or a revolution.
What are you smoking? The gun in my closet is 100x more dangerous than pretty much any car by virtually any measure.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
"4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children"
So deaths would indeed be the standard you were asking people to consider, specifically deaths by children.
Are you really that stupid as to not be able to remember what you wrote?
4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children, ranging from toddlers to pre-teens.
Do you happen to have a citation on this? Most studies like this tend to do things like include 19 year olds as 'children' and include deliberate shootings by gang members.
Don't forget that you'd currently have to weed out any shootings by children who happened to get ahold of an officer's gun, normally a parent's. Thus far ALL law and military are completely exempt from any proposed rules requiring smart guns.
Probably not, given that there are only about 230 justifiable homicides a year,
Most justifiable shootings don't result in a fatality.
My kid shooting yours would require him obtaining the key & combination for my safe.
I don't read AC A human right
In organized events, I shoot historically accurate reproduction revolvers loaded with real black powder. After use they are cleaned with soap and water and then aggressively lubricated to fight corrosion. Please explain how this technology being forced on me is going to help or even be anything but a nightmare.
But painting groups as 100% extreme purists is the only way idiots can make a point.
Deaths versus shootings...are you really that stupid as to not be able to tell the difference? Here's your citation: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=number+of...
You need to actually read your citation. From the top link:
Deaths: From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. More than a third of the victims were under 25 years of age.
So, 2005-2010 is six years. 3800 / 6 = 633 (actually it's a bit less than that, the article rounded up; and 2005-2010 was a range of particularly bad years; it's generally lower, and declining). 633 is quite different from 4000. But your claim was even stronger... that those 4000 were all accidentally shot by children. Your citation doesn't provide any numbers on how many of those people were accidentally shot by children, unfortunately. But it's clearly less than 633 per year, and therefore even farther from 4000 per year.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I find it rather surprising, but generally it is a position based almost entirely on fear, and not on fact. They may well be people who are generally rational in their life, but when it comes to this issue fear and propaganda motivate their position, not facts and logic. They want guns banned because they are scared of them, not because they've done any research and concluded it would make things safer.
You can clearly see it in the grandparent post. Not only the name calling, but the complete detachment from the reality of things. The fact that he believes that a small group of crazies are synonymous with the greater gun owning population. Same deal with how people will generalize the nut jobs at the Cliven Bundy ranch to be the greater gun owning populace.
None stop to think that around 40-50% of all households own a gun in the US, meaning that you know someone who owns a gun, even if you don't know it, and that if that behaviour and thought were the norm for gun owners it would be rampant rather than aberrant.
They are the same as people who will point the finger at religious or environmental extremists and declare that all people of that religion or viewpoint must be extremists and scary.
It is sad, because an informed debate on gun control could be very useful, but it is really hard to have when so much of the "control" side is actually wanting a ban and the reason they want it is fear, not logic. They don't do any research, except maybe to try and look up numbers that support their view. They don't want information, since emotion is the driving factor.
Hence, name calling, scare rhetoric, and so on.
I'm burning a well deserved mod point to post this.
I'm not so sure the NRA doesn't use FUD as their primary tactic to keep themselves funded. I'm a gun owner, I have a carry permit, and I own scary 'assault rifles'. I joined the NRA to support my right to own firearms.
Then the NRA started sending me letters.
First, Obama was going to take away all of my guns. Next it wasn't just Obama, but the entire UN coming after my guns. Next the single greatest threat to this nation was Obama. It just kept rolling on and on. Most of the arguments presented in the letters were pure FUD, the kind that would make old Microsoft proud. It was enough to ensure I never give them money again. I've donated to state groups and I'm still looking for a sane national gun lobby.
In regards to the topic of smart guns. I personally don't want one, but I don't see anything wrong with them. I don't think that mandating smart guns will have any effect on gun violence. If I can steal my dads gun to go to school, I can steal the watch it uses to fire. If I'm going to commit a crime with a gun I bought, I bet I bought the device to fire it. That's no reason to stop working on smart guns, but this technology should remain the choice of the end user.
This is a bizarre argument that is extra-constitutional.
The exact text of the 2nd amendment is,
What's funny is that the constitution has some pretty clear rules about what to do in cases of insurrection and treason.
Hint: The event that lead to the drafting of the constitution WAS insurrection against the US Government that was founded under the Articles of Confederation.
The idea that a person might have to be shown to be mentally competent and capable of owning and being responsible for a firearm isn't radical. It isn't even controversial outside of the gun nut circles. Even among mainstream GUN OWNERS, it's non-controversial.
Yet, it's these damned gun fetishists who are driving the gun policy and gun debate in this country. That's the problem. It's not the vast majority of people who own guns and are responsible, it's this lopsided minority that are willing to take up arms against federal officers to protect a guy who's freeloading off of federal lands or people who are extremely armed and vocal about their guns.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
That post is currently mod'ed +5 insightful.
Moderation +4
70% Insightful
20% Interesting
10% Troll
Which indicates a problem with having a discussion on this issue. Some people do not see that language as offensive or trolling. They believe it to be "insightful".
Instead of regulating the devices (which is unconstitutional and pointless) increase the responsibility for gun safety. If you own a gun that is used to shoot someone else, you go to jail for several years. Make responsibility for gun ownership be "outcome based."
This could be made adjustable. The sentence could be determined based on the facts of the case, perhaps increasing in duration based on the severity of the injuries caused (victim's age, permanent damage/disability inflicted, number of victims, recovery time, pain, etc.) Add a substantial penalty if the gun was not safely stored, such as treble the sentence. If a gun is reported lost or stolen, then sentence could be decreased based on a factor of time: if a gun is used to harm someone the day you reported it stolen, you're still fully responsible for having lost it. If it's not used for a year, the penalty could be lower; after five years it would be fully off your record.
Note that this doesn't mandate any particular protection technology. If you think a fingerprint interlock and a trigger guard is good enough, then maybe you can sleep easy leaving it on your nightstand. If you're worried that a kid might play with it, you'll probably choose a good gun safe. If you're worried that your assault rifle might be used in a shooting spree, you won't keep a dozen 50-round magazines in the house. And if you're stupid enough to let a child get killed with your gun, you can go sit in jail for a few decades.
If you're going to own a weapon, you (and nobody else) must secure it so it doesn't end up in the wrong hands.
John
I'm not an expert on US case law but it's certainly an insurance issue, and I believe that there has been criminal liability in extreme cases.
https://www.google.co.uk/searc...
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
That's to try to replicate a realistic situation. Other humans are the most dangerous thing you will ever encounter.
You may want to re-think that... with heart disease being the leading cause of death... about 10x that of homicides... pick a food high in cholesterol.
http://www.nbc40.net/story/25555423/new-jersey-sued-accused-of-ignoring-02-gun-law
http://www.northjersey.com/news/new-jersey-sued-accused-of-ignoring-2002-gun-law-1.1019058
You might want to look up some of Niven's laws. In particular, your issue seems to be with #17...
There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.
From http://nyagv.org/wp-content/up..., which is one of the first links that comes up:
Deaths: From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.ii More than a third of the victims were under 25 years of age.
That's less than 800/yr total, and less than 260 are under 25, meaning that accidental shooting deaths are one of the least common causes of death in the US, especially for kids.
Conversely, preventable medical errors kill over 200,000 Americans every single year, and in fact is the third leading cause of death in this country, dwarfing gun deaths and car deaths combined.
That said, after you start advocating for stricter control over doctors, drugs, and hospital procedures, I might consider listening to you make crap up about too many gun deaths.
PS: This is what a source citation looks like. A smart-ass link to Let Me Google That For You? Not so much.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
We shouldn't mandate that cars should be safe.............?
The day that cars become tools that are used for self defense, this analogy becomes applicable.
But anyhow, cars used recreation-ally, on private tracks, are not required to be safe.
That's your choice. Me, I'd rather have all kinds of options, which could include "RF watch", "NFC ring", "DNA-tester", "fingerprint recognition", or even nothing at all.
I'm certainly not worried about Mr. Radio-Shack-Equipped Burglar, because that's so far from a Realistic* argument that it's not worth discussing. (* pun intended.)
John
Why should I accept any risk of that ? It's not like you have my interest at heart. It's a selfish fantasy that you'll be left the last man standing.
Nullius in verba
That was just... just terrible. It's like a child wrote it. Is that indicative of what the New Yorker is publishing these days?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
The idea that a person might have to be shown to be mentally competent and capable of owning and being responsible for a firearm isn't radical. It isn't even controversial outside of the gun nut circles. Even among mainstream GUN OWNERS, it's non-controversial.
Got something to support that assertion? I don't think you'll get much argument from gun owners that people should be mentally competent and capable, but I think you'll find a whole lot of opposition to government processes to check competence and capability and to restrict ownership to those who pass the tests.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Can you name me one unregulated free market that has ever existed?
Almost every black market ever.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You don't drive much do you?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Enough said....
--Hired Net Grunt
Can you name me one unregulated free market that has ever existed?
China had a period of prolonged peace with barely a hint of any government, so that's probably going to be one of your best examples. If I remembered the less-famous notable Chinese philosophers I'd give you the name of the one who wrote about this, but alas ... it was during the time when the Roman Empire was first ravaging the West. Maybe somebody else can fill in the proper nouns.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Now what's your excuse? Did the 'market' decide this was required for cars?
I would say yes, since, prior to keyed ignition systems, cars probably got stolen a lot.
The question you should be asking, assuming you want a legitimate and factual answer, is "which came first: The keyed ignition, or the law requiring keyed ignitions?"
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It's bullshit that you got modded as a troll for plainly stating the libertarian ideology that underlies the kook groups like the one in this story.
Markets are good. Free markets are bad. We use regulations to turn bad markets into good ones but we have to be careful not to have bad regulations.
My gun, no, but neither has any of my cars.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
How about markets in lawless places? In places like, say, America before Europeans arrived. If there was no government in the modern sense then that would be a free market.
And a market being "subverted by corporations" or "uncompetitive" doesn't make it non-free. A free market is a market with zero regulations, including taxes. Such markets are inherently uncompetitive and opaque which is why we use regulations to make them more transparent and competitive -- because we think competitive transparent markets are good.
We didn't "let the marketplace decide" whether to mandate seat belts in cars. They're a damn good idea, so we mandated them in new vehicles. But we didn't require that you retrofit them, nor that you get rid of your older car. The same will happen here.
I piss off bigots.
...and women wouldn't get raped because they'd exercise their free-market rights...
There have been arguments made that legalizing prostitution and the associated stigma reduces certain sex crimes. So, in certain cases, our puritanical laws may be increasing certain crimes over that of a more laissez-faire policy and attitude.
You make the poor assumption that dangerous just means to oneself, not to others as well.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Yeah I might be. And if I were I would complain about that regulation, not about the entire concept of regulation.
People who make reasoned, informed arguments against specific regulations -- I'll listen to those people. People who make unreasonable, ignorant arguments against the notion of improving life with market regulations -- those people are kooks who deserve to be ignored.
Mmm hmm. And we license drivers. I think that would be a reasonable step for gun ownership.
Chain saws aren't an existential problem. There are very few instances or murder or negligent death by chain saw. If that number increases then we can consider doing something about it at that point.
Now imagine a proposal that such tests be used to validate voting rights. If you fail the test, you cannot vote.
There would be a massive uproar.
Yeah I might be. And if I were I would complain about that regulation, not about the entire concept of regulation.
People who make reasoned, informed arguments against specific regulations -- I'll listen to those people. People who make unreasonable, ignorant arguments against the notion of improving life with market regulations -- those people are kooks who deserve to be ignored.
If you can improve life with market regulations, sure. Personally, I prefer the type of regulations that simply require clear and accurate labeling which allow people to freely make a choice about their purchase. I do not support the type of regulations that require those choices to be made for me or anyone else.
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
The drop&discharge issue that was cited is addressed with the firing pin safety. When I said "improvements", I meant there's more than one way to implement that feature.
In order to get a discharge, the gun must be dropped at a fairly specific angle onto a hard surface while the hammer is down to allow the force of hitting the ground to drive the firing pin forward. CA's safety tests were developed specifically to cause rare, specific failures.
The 1911 is a good whipping boy for arguments like this because the original 1911 can be cited as having a specific problem, even if it's difficult or impossible to go out and buy a 1911 that exhibits the specific issue today.
And even if they were, a car is engineered to minimise its ability to cause injury and damage.
For its occupants, yes; for those it strikes, not so much...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Unfortunately shooting a burger has very little influence on its cholesterol content.
I've no issue with it, but I wouldn't want to buy one. The main reason is just cost and maintenance. It is very unlikely I'll ever use my guns for anything except at the range given that I don't carry and my home is very unlikely to be broken in to for a number of reasons. so that being the case, why wouldn't I want one? Well because it is something else that can, and thus probably will, go wrong and it'll add cost. Guns are already not cheap, at least not for high quality ones. I really don't want to pay more for a component that I don't find useful.
The reason I say it isn't useful is because I wouldn't trust such a thing as the be-all, end-all of safety. So I'd still need to own physical safety devices like a safe, and I'd still need to make sure to use proper firearm handling (as in not pointing it at people, not messing with the trigger, etc). I just can't see what I'd gain from it, and as such I wouldn't care to spend the money on it.
I'm fine if others see a useful situation for them and wish to own one, but I wouldn't want it forced on me because I cannot see how it would make my firearms any safer, and you can guarantee it would make them more expensive.
You just gotta poke around...
"The odds of using a gun to defend yourself are statistically tiny. But the odds of getting liquored-up and shooting Mom over an argument about the pot roast are rather high."
Great idea, we should all do our part to collect old guns. There's no reason to let guns sit in warehouses or gun stores for longer than the lifespan of a cell phone.
I was looking at some that were on sale yesterday and was thinking I can probably take 3, maybe 4 of them off the streets myself.
...or using the steering wheel....
Deaths versus shootings...are you really that stupid as to not be able to tell the difference?
I'm not sure what you're on about with that question. You said 4,000 people/year die from being accidentally shot by children. Those would be shooting deaths. What is the difference you're talking about?
The very first link returned by your Google search says that almost 3,800 people died from unintentional shooting deaths in the six years from 2005 through 2010. That's about 633 per year. So no, 4,000 or so people in the US do not die every year because they're accidentally shot by children.
Most of the people accidentally shot by children are other children. According to this report, 98 kids under 18 died from accidental shootings in 2010, and 85% of them (83) were shot by other children.
Not just without regulations, but without controlling authority. Which precludes corporate monopolies. So "uncompetitive" and "subverted by corporations" are both actually reasons to call it a not-free market.
I'm pretty sure it was meant as trollish humor. A more serious idea of the Libertarian Police Department is how the police work in Jennifer Government.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Actually, most consumer vehicles are designed to minimise pedestrian injury these days, particularly given that most impacts occur in urban environments and are therefore comparatively low-speed. There are even standards they test against in Europe.
This is for accidental pedestrian encounters at relatively low speeds such as city driving where such encounters are much more common. It wouldn't help you much if the person behind the wheel intended to do you harm. I don't think any pedestrian safety design will save you if you get smacked head on at 60 mph. Possibly repeatedly if they were really determined.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
I will give you that.... and it probably does very little against the flu which according to the cdc also out ranks homicides in the leading causes of death. Unless of course someone decides to start shooting people that sneeze in which case we could have a problem.
4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children, ranging from toddlers to pre-teens.
I think that you are conflating and mangling multiple sources here, all of which have problems.
According to the CDC, in 2010 (latest available data) the total number of people of all ages that were UNINTENTIONALLY shot and killed was 606.
So where does your 4,000 number come from?
Anti-gun folks want this type of technology mandated as a barrier to gun ownership. This technology increases costs, and there is ZERO data to show that this technology increases safety. If this technology proves unreliable; it could actually decrease the safety of the end user.
The only people pushing for this gun technology are the manufacturers of that technology and anti-gun people. That alone is enough to make me suspicious.
The mandate argument is strictly a distraction. We gun owners live with TONS of mandates regarding our ownership and use of firearms. Comparing driving mandates to gun ownership is stupid. Driving is a state-granted privilege. The right to bear arms is a natural-born, constitutionally protected right.
Learn the difference.
Yep this is why the hoods of so many modern cars are shaped like a fat man's belly.
A car also has steering and brakes and a forward speed relevant to human control (even the nutty fast ones).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Even then, the organizations with the most muscle create and enforce monopolies, barriers to entry, or taxes on potential competitors.
Get ready to have your mind blown, then look up "Pedestrian Impact Safety."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Well that sounds like a problem with people not properly securing their guns. Put severe negligence laws on the books (which many states don't have - http://smartgunlaws.org/child-...) and enforce the penalties when they happen and I imagine that the numbers will significantly drop.
Are there cheap, shitty safes that kids can get in? Yes. So let's certify them to some standard and go from there.
No, free markets really are good, the problem is that they very rarely exist in reality. Dumb libertarians try to apply naive "free market" thinking to everything, including roads, showing why their philosophy doesn't work.
Free markets work great when you have high availability of information, so consumers can make intelligent choices, and when there's lots of competitors and the barriers to entry are very low. So, for instance, you don't really need much regulation for things like landscaping or housekeeping; consumers can make their own choices here, there's no shortage of competition, there's almost nothing keeping someone from entering business as a landscaper or housekeeper, etc. Even better, large companies don't have any real advantages here or any way of keeping smaller competitors out of the market (instead, larger companies end up just having higher prices due to their higher overhead). But internet service, electricity service, water/sewer service is totally different because of the natural monopolies in those markets, and the very high barriers to entry, so regulation in these markets is essential. Libertarians simply cannot understand this due to their simplistic thinking, and just cling to the mantra of "free markets will solve everything!".
Stop trying to backdoor around the 2nd amendment.
A better analogy would be the keyed ignition (mechanical or wireless electronic) which practically all cars already have to make unauthorized use more difficult.
Bring guns up to the same standard and then we'll talk ;-)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I think that's pretty easy to prove simply by looking at countries where prostitution is legalized.
Nobody wants to be shot by his own firearm, so there is an incentive to own a gun that attempts to prevent it. Once the technology is reliable, I think people would rather own a weapon that can't be fired by their assailant, their 3-year-old kid, etc. Obviously it's not there yet, and may never get there, but we won't ever get there if gunmakers don't even try.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
However, they do oppose people's right not to be shot by a stupid gun that someone takes away from the stupid owner of said stupid gun.
Shooting someone remains illegal, so Im not clear what your beef is.
They are guaranteed the right to carry stupid guns
FTFY. The Constitution: Not just a stupid historical document.
You're using Detroit (in the top 10 for violent crime) as the basis for your argument for applying rules/laws on national scale? That's like estimating the salt needed for winter for all American cities by measuring the requirements of Duluth, Minnesota.
Good thing you didn't have to turn when you did this or the steering lock would have got you into a huge accident. I, for one, am glad you are no longer able to do this.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Do you have a car with OnStar by any chance?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If it might not fire when I pull the trigger, I'm 100% against it. So I'm surprised they backpedaled. They certainly hate the idea as much as I do.
As an NRA member I have to agree with you, they do love to stir up their members. That said, they are not really and different than any other lobby group in that regard.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
No different from a car or chainsaw or pool huh? Point any of those things at me and try to kill me. I will stand 15ft away and attempt to dodge or flee. You get 10 chances and must reset to the 15ft distance after each attempt.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
okay the biggest problem with any kind of Total Gun Control is
Show of "hands" here how many of y'all have access to both a chem lab and a metal shop??
and how many of y'all have access to a "stash" of ammo and guns in an "undisclosed location"??
with a good chem lab making the primers/charges is dirt simple
with a good metal shop making a gun and ammo is not even dirt simple.
Yes My Friends if push came to shove we would have AKs for Days
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Capitalism in its purest form.. might makes right
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Yeah I would imagine blood splatter has a pretty strong chance of infection.
A better analogy would be the keyed ignition (mechanical or wireless electronic) which practically all cars already have to make unauthorized use more difficult.
Bring guns up to the same standard and then we'll talk ;-)
If the keyed ignition was legally mandated to have a biometric lock or 10 cm proximity sensor, it might be analogous.
Of course, it's a dumb comparison to begin with, as a gun, unlike a car, is intended for use in life-or-death situations, where any sort of unnecessary delay in deployment could be fatal. If you're getting into potentially fatal situations with a car, in which the useability of the key is a factor, you're probably doing it wrong.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Trigger locks and gun safes are readily available and already mandated in many areas.
Start talkin'.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Whether through intent or ignorance, you completely missed OP's point.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Let me know when all the major auto manufacturers voluntarily take the sensor technology used in these "smart guns" and puts it in their emergency brakes to prevent unauthorized passengers from pulling it. And as everyone else has said, let me know when the police and military have this technology in all of their guns. At that point, it'd be worth some consideration. Until then, I think anyone buying one of these things for protection is a fool.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
They just threaten the life and livelihood of anyone selling it:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
Not that this level of honesty is characteristic or anything.
What has _already been proposed_ is that all cars won't start unless the driver proves they haven't been drinking. For some reason most drivers aren't any more happy with that proposal than gun owners are with this one.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
1) "the people" is a phrasing which is a little vague but often means a group or groups not individuals; usually "person" is used for individuals (see rest of document.)
2) Militia is how it starts out- people forget that part. In context, it doesn't look like they are literally saying let people have small pop guns for hunting and feeling manly or giving cowards false security. They wrote things to be open for interpretation shifts over time rather than having to redo it frequently. Also, they didn't win the revolution because some people had guns; they acquired more weapons than what was on hand at the start.
3) The constitution is not the bible. The clever part being the patch system; which is where Amendments come in.
4) Mistakes were made, prohibition for example, slavery for another. Thinking "Arms" does jack today is laughable. Other nations handle the issue better.
Free training and access to serious guns and weapons in many controlled safe ways is possible; others do it sanely without a full time military, why can't we? Some nations make everybody get military training; which makes an insurgency extremely effective later on and those work well against bigger opponents. It needs updating for fighting machines... except most governments see that as a holy grail of control. The idea individuals can do shit is idiotic; it takes large numbers working towards a common goal - which is the proper mode of thinking here. When stuff gets so bad you have a mass resistance you need the groundwork laid for an effective insurgency; and insurgents can steal and smuggle but they need something to grab and know how to use it. Poorly defended armory bunkers is one approach... where it would take 100 people to capture it for example. Chipping weapons makes this difficult not to mention the huge profits extorting money from the buyers long term (tanks etc too; interesting they don't have preventive measures on those.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Most, if not all the ranges around me do not allow the use of human silhouette targets, zombies, or animals. You only have the option of shooting a circle target.
However, for self defense training and practice, the use of human shapes is ideal, as just hitting in the black does not mean much. To stop a violent attacker, you usually want to hit vital areas, rather than periphery areas and extremities of the body. An attacker can still continue to attack if wounded in the arm, or shot in the stomach, where-as hitting in a vital area, like the thoracic cavity, or the cranial ocular cavity is the quickest way to stop an attacker... it just so happens to also be the same areas that are most lethal. Why do you think most, if not all, police agencies use human silhouettes for pactice, are they also mentally "sick" and daydreaming of shooting people?
I also doubt the truth in your statement, and are more likely making this up. You call the people at ranges "gun-fondlers", but in the same breath say "when I go to the range". Doesn't that make you a fellow "gun-fondler" or are you somehow morally unapproachable while performing the same actions as the people you are trying to put down.
However, they do oppose people's right not to be shot by a stupid gun that someone takes away from the stupid owner of said stupid gun.
Shooting someone remains illegal, so Im not clear what your beef is.
Well, it's not typically illegal if the person you're shooting is committing a violent criminal act at the time... maybe OP has a soft spot for rapists and gang bangers?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Source
One major caveat. I think I mixed up the process COMPLETELY. I believe that's backwards. Ban people who have been shown to be incapable of owning firearms, not TEST.
Still, mainstream gun owners support proposed mainstream gun legislation. It's the far fringe whack jobs who are in opposition.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Mandate smart guns and see how quickly smart gun jammers become available. Despite being illegal, we have cellphone jammers for relatively cheap. I don't see anything stopping thieves from doing the same if it means they can't be shot at.
Now you sir, need to lay off the caffeine.
A gun safe is like a garage and a trigger lock is like a wheel clamp...neither requires some token that's kept with the driver to be presented to the car on every use.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Liberal writer.
Liberals have deep feelings and shallow thoughts.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
You mean space shuttles and naval ships that have an army of support engineers constantly maintaining them at very high cost? Or vehicles where electronics failure generally isn't life threatening and failure modes are taken into account which lead to the electronics doing nothing?
And jamming the signal doesn't require a lot of time. There would be a limited number of chips driving the technology with a known frequency list. Easy enough to create a jammer.
I'm pretty sure cops, snitches, and gangster controlling turf are some sort of regulation.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
But that is not the message that gets out. In addition "voluntary" goes out fairly rapidly when one person or organization concentrates too much wealth, which is de facto power. Soon people are compelled by the wealthy and/or corporations and voluntary organizations are destroyed.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I shouldn't need to provide stats to an AC, but here goes...
There are approximately 300,000,000 privately owned guns in the US (estimate by NRA). And those are distributed to about 40-50% of the total households in the US. That is a lot of people owning a whole lot of guns.
Of those 300 Million guns in circulation, and those households that own guns, there were only 12,102 deaths (homicides) from firearms for the year analyzed. That same year drunk drivers killed 15,935 alone, not including other means of aggravated homicide by other means. This translates to LESS THAN 1% of all firearms being used in violent crimes. (if I divide the number of gun deaths, by the number of guns, I get 0.00004034%, which is statistically insignificant).
Of all the firearm homicides committed each year, 2/3rds of them are criminal on criminal violence (aka: gang related). And gangs in general are responsible for 50-90% of all violent crimes (with or without firearms), meaning gang members actually DO have an interest in killing folks and committing violence, but even statistics show, that they even prefer to kill other gang members rather than "random" folks.
So by own admission, your car is just as dangerous (or innocuous) as your gun, since neither have killed anyone. Then why do you try to claim that your gun is more dangerous than your car?
If you put both your car and your gun on the ground, side by side, will the gun have a propensity to do something that your car won't? Will the gun suddenly get 'bored of sitting there' and jump up and shoot anyone given enough time? Didn't think so...
Yup. Except a key is not much added complexity when considering how complex an entire car is.
I am not so sure about that. Here in the UK we used to have tremendous problems with cars being nicked, mainly because mechanical keys were so straight forward to bypass. The motor industry here was encouraged to invest heavily in this though so now we have some of the most secure keys in the world protecting our cars. We have things like immobilisers as standard, so the actual mechanical key is not really any good unless the electronics in the fob is also working and present.
Car keys used to be pretty basic, and maybe they still are in the US (although I doubt it), but in most of the europe they are complex little remote controls such that manufacturers are now starting to do away with they actual key bit and just leave a fob. That way the car does things like auto unlock when you move within a few feet of it and just have a start button for the engine.
You might say that this is not actually a feature you want, and I might even agree. The fact is though that most car keys are very far from basic compared to the rest the car. The truth is that the security on modern cars is often the most advanced part to keep one step ahead of the criminals.
I dont read
So is a nuclear bomb and we don't let every Joe Schmoe have one, what's your point?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If I'm in a car and "Steer and floor it" as someone else suggests, there's a huge chance I could maim myself, possibly kill myself I'm unlucky, even with a seatbelt.
Cars are rarely advertised with their power to stop other human beings from being mobile, or even possibly living.
I can fire a bunch of bullets and kill a lot of people. In that same amount of time in a car I'm just shifting into first.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
When we first had the flame war over this discussion, many people properly pointed out that the system blatantly fails at every scenario except 'gun stolen from a safe while owner was still wearing the arming watch.'
It probably fails at this scenario too. While low level crooks/theives might not be smart or have resources, they do use and are part of a larger criminal network, and it wouldn't be long before people figured out how to disable the electronic lockout, or reprogram the chip to match a new arming watch.
Just like the guy who steals smart phones, might not have the know how, he then sells them to someone who has the capability of reprogramming the IMEI number on them to make them re-usable. Same with some smart keys and other devices for cars, if a "clone" can't be made, it can still be bypassed someway, given the criminal has the gun in their possession and unlimited time to perform the modifications.
I don't know where you get your info, but you can buy a new 1911 in CA no problem. Maybe you were referring to a particular make, but there are tons of 1911 models by many manufacturers that are available in CA for new purchase. Springfield and Kimber come to mind.
Forty thousand random people are killed and maimed each year by cars.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
A 50MPH impact with a pillow would be devastating. A Ford Taurus grill would be a lot worse than that. It's all relative.
Really? There is an open air drug market in DC. Try selling illegal drugs on that piece of real estate. There are bunch of highly armed guys who will show you what real market regulation looks like.
Both the Inca and Aztec Empires had strong central governments. I think you are viewing some things through rose colored glasses.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Driving is a PRIVILEDGE, not a protected right. Gun ownership (and carrying) is a PROTECTED RIGHT. See the difference there?
Do you need a license before you are free to speak your mind? Or have to register your opinions with the government before being able to have one? How would you feel about that if people were pushing for that law? Or how about requiring a license before getting a trial by your peers? Without, you sit in the slammer after you get arrested.
The military does it all the time. As does the aeronautics industry, space exploration, the auto industry, mining equipment, etc.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Can you name me a market that has no controlling authority? Unless you are restricting your definition of controlling authority to government agencies only, I can't think of any markets without controlling authorities. Illegal drug markets are a good example. Controlling authorities all over the place; from the cartels that produce and import to the drug gangs that murder the people who attempt to steal market share (i.e. encroach on turf).
Freedom of movement is a protected right, though.
How about a crossbow or a flamethrower?
(neither of those requires a license, at least in US)
Masterful trolling, sir.
First, Obama was going to take away all of my guns. Next it wasn't just Obama, but the entire UN coming after my guns. Next the single greatest threat to this nation was Obama. It just kept rolling on and on. Most of the arguments presented in the letters were pure FUD, the kind that would make old Microsoft proud. It was enough to ensure I never give them money again. I've donated to state groups and I'm still looking for a sane national gun lobby.
I'm in the same boat (I'm actually glad that I didn't get lifetime membership, at least they cannot claim me as member anymore).
The sane national gun lobby would be SAF. Now, those guys don't concentrate on public propaganda at all, they do only lobbying of political candidates, and participate in lawsuits. But I think their track record on this, especially the latter, is actually better than NRA's - heck, the victory in Heller alone is monumental, and it was a SAF lawyer that secured it.
They are also more pragmatic about engaging in the gun control discussion, whereas the NRA has been all "not one step back" as of late, even when they're clearly wrong, or when there's no real hope to hold your ground. In particular, SAF is willing to expand and strengthen background checks, but wants to use that as a trade card to win some gains on other fronts - in particular, national concealed carry reciprocity, and a well-defined procedure for reviewing and reinstating gun rights for people who are denied them by law (due to mental issues or criminal behavior - as it stands, today, not paying taxes once can make you ineligible for firearm ownership for life).
Time Warner should just shut up and do what it's told by its Comcast betters.
Every black market not controlled by organized crime you mean.
Are your for requiring every car to check the drivers blood alcohol content before it will allow the engine to start or to allow it to shift and be put into motion? Are you for requiring all cars to automatically brake if something is detected in its path? These items would add more to the cost of a car and negatively impact all drivers even ones that never drink, but more Americans are killed with cars than are killed by guns every year. Would you do it for the children?
Respect the Constitution
But it was all taken over by people with guns who disparaged them for not having a market because there was no gold involved or deeds for the land they lived on.
Painting groups as 100% extreme purists is the foundation of all political satire.
No, because that violates my freedoms. What if I need to start the car quickly in order to run over a thief that is in my garage, that small delay could mean the difference between the scumbag running away safely versus my right to kill anyone in my garage.
Many/most auto transmissions have a way to defeat the interlock too. I had to use mine when I swapped out the engine.
I'd be willing to bet there were keys for other ways of securing a vehicle before there were keyed ignitions. In fact, given that the early cars were crank start, probably locking the trunk was close enough.
I have a laptop with a fingerprint scanner and I would not accept that technology on a self-defense firearm even were I for the idea in general.
The difference between you and I is that I would attribute the "likely or able to inflict harm or injury" falls on the person wielding either of the two, not the objects themselves. I would think that the person determined to harm you with either a car or a gun, is what is dangerous in that type of situation.
LMOL - yeah can't add electronics to mechanical things: Airplanes, cars, washing machines....yeah it's a real bitch.....
The idea that a person might have to be shown to be mentally competent and capable of owning and being responsible for a firearm isn't radical.
Wouldn't you first and foremost want to make being mentally competent and responsible a requirement for voting? Or are you a radical fetishist who believes that no one should even have to show an ID to vote? Or maybe we can assume that everyone over the age of 18, not incarcerated in a penal or mental institution, is actually a...wait for it...citizen.
I'm more concerned that he seems to have problems separating fantasy and reality. What proportion of murderers are (were) members of the NRA, compared to the general public, by the way? Should the USAians ban the NRA or make membership mandatory to prevent murdering?
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
Why only man-shaped targets?! Do you need more equalism training?
Sheesh. I suppose next you're going to tell us that you only shoot at white targets, or only black targets...
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
Your right, it is, I take it by what you meant is that if you are killed, you can no longer move? With protected rights, everyone has them, and can excercise them, until they infringe on someone else's protected right. Then that person is held responsible for overstepping the bounds of their right.
ie: just because one person can say something horible, or holds a terrible opinion, doesn't mean that everyone's freedom of speech should be put under restriction, rather, the single person should be held accountable for the things they said, if any laws were broken (like slander or inciting violence, etc.) then the one person should be held accountable and punished for it according to law. If the person who had their rights violated by the offender feels the need for restitution, they or their families are free to open a civil suit for reparations.
With gun laws, people want to ban and restrict everyone, including the law abiding who are not violating any other persons rights, rather than just those who actually do perform illegal actions with them. That is not right, and not how our Constitution and laws were meant to function.
It adds expense and inconvenience. It's something else that might fail when you need the car. You might need to get somewhere, or you might feel you are in a potentially dangerous situation and want to leave it. It may refuse to start the car while you're under the legal limit, and hence legally considered safe to drive. (IIRC, current use is for people who are forbidden to drink as part of their parole, and detecting any alcohol is bad.)
In the meantime, I'm not going to get behind the wheel with significant amounts of alcohol in my system, and I'm not lending the car to somebody I think might drive drunk, so it's not going to add any safety to my car. (Similarly, mandatory seat belt use didn't change my behavior in the slightest.) Sort of like how gun laws tend to disproportionately affect law-abiding gun owners, who generally aren't the problem.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
No, I meant that driver licensing sort of infringes on one's freedom of movement.
Generally speaking, I don't see why any shall-issue scheme that does not place onerous restrictions would be unconstitutional.
There is little doubt that without the NRA lobby assault rifles would have been banned federally. A good chance that there would have been no grandfathering and you would have had to turn yours in. The next target would probably be "automatic handguns" as a class. We're talking about Feinstein being a given a free hand! If anything the NRA is too conservative, too reactive; the anti-2nd Amendment lobby is limited by nothing except the size of their dreams for a progressive future where government makes anything possible. .
Yea, there are exceptions to every rule, hence my use of the qualifying term, "almost."
Is this open air drug market the only place to buy drugs in DC? Or are there other places you can go and not have to deal with the "regulation" that you're talking about?
Yes, even regulated black markets can spawn unregulated ones.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Not a sizable one, but my wife's uncle trades produce from his farm for produce from his neighbors' farms for personal use. It's a small market, but it's a market. Technically the government acts as a controlling authority but in practice behavior is governed by a desire not to lose the neighbors' good will; the government never gets involved.
Obviously, that doesn't scale. Which is my point; a 'free market' of any real size doesn't exist (for long). The best you find is a market where the actors have all relevant information and none of them have enough share to unilaterally push the price around. The only ways you get that is by (a) having a controlling authority regulating stuff; otherwise folks hide information and use it to gain more share to the point they control the price, or (b) by having all the actors decide not to hide info etc. The latter is improbable at scale. The former will probably eventually hit regulatory capture and go bad.
Yes! And even then, the markets controlled by criminals can and do give rise to (blacker? Black black?) markets, because there's always somebody, somewhere, that doesn't want to have to deal with someone else's bullshit just to trade for goods.
It's black markets all the way down!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You do realize that, in one of the two US battleship vs. battleship battles, one of the US battleships suffered a major power failure and was out for ten minutes, during which time it was taken under fire by a Japanese battleship and two heavy cruisers, don't you? Had there not been another US battleship on the scene, things could have gotten quite embarrassing. (It had problems figuring out which radar blip was which, and the battle ended fairly shortly after that was figured out.)
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Not yet.
John
I'm pretty sure cops, snitches, and gangster controlling turf are some sort of regulation.
Not the shakedown street I was referring to. But nice try.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I'd be willing to bet there were keys for other ways of securing a vehicle before there were keyed ignitions. In fact, given that the early cars were crank start, probably locking the trunk was close enough.
From what I've read (kind of a car junkie, so this discussion is right in my wheelhouse), Cadillac technically came out with the first keyed-ignition system in 1912, which also happened to be the first self-start (i.e., non-hand-cranked) system as well; it required a key to be inserted and turned to a certain position before the starter button could be pressed.
So yea, call it a hunch, but I bet the law cited above was legislated some time after 1912.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Given the rabid attacks often launched by people claiming to be the NRA, it can be hard to take them seriously. The title of "gun nut" is well deserved for many of them; and when you're talking to a gun owner, it's hard to know which kind you're talking to.
I just thought it relevant that even though I'm not a gun nut, I still think people should have the rights granted them in the Constitution - all of them, and for the reasons stated. We should be able to defend ourselves against tyranny and despots.
John
You just described government, too.
There are quite a few libertarians who take great pains to give to charity, and many who do not (same as conservatives and liberals). There are virtually no libertarians who want to take your money and give it to causes you disagree with.
Try reading Mencken. He's libertarian in a significant way, but doesn't paint anything as 100%. He's also funny as hell.
Once the police are happy enough with the technology to use it exclusively, then a mandate is appropriate.
I'm not holding my breath.
That makes sense... whilst the police, in the US, certainly have a legitimate need to carry arms. They also have an incentive to use these guns, if they are reliable. As it'll make it harder to use an officer's gun against him.
:)
:)
I am surprised by this outbreak of common sense from an organization that often have very little empathy for.
Don't worry I'll stop my preacher on why guns shouldn't be allowed in the first place, fixing a America is beyond the scope of a slashdot post anyways
My point was: There is too much common sense.
Regarding mandates, why don't you take that discussion when the technology is reliable. Maybe you should have build in camera too
Or maybe you should just reduce the classes of weapons available to normal people for other than sports with appropriate safety measures...
Either way, take that discussion when technology is mature.
Interesting theory.
It no doubt explains why the 300M guns cause about 10K deaths per year while the 250M cars cause about 35K deaths per year.
Fewer cars, more deaths. And yet guns are more dangerous?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I believe in individuals being socially responsible by choice. I do not believe that the government taking my money had handing it out like candy in any way helps me be more socially responsible.
And the choice to eat that food is made by a human being his own worst enemy. just another way to view that and inject a bit of personal responsibility.
Okay, lets use "vast majority of gun owners" or "gun owners that have chosen not engage in the illegal drug trade". You do realize that the overwhelming majority of gun homicide is committed between gang members, right? very little ( 0.1%) of it is guy goes nuts and shoots up a school or mall.
and how many people are killing and maiming from the the safety of a roof top? More people die in the US from cars than guns. More actual children (18) die in the US from water than guns.
Are keys actually mandated by law or did manufacturers just realize that people wanted them?
Do you know what else would make it difficult to kill children? A $5 lock that's already required to be sold with each handgun.
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
Meh. Look at the actual revenue of the NRA. The gun manufacturers contribute very close to 0% of it. Nearly all of it comes from individual members. Why would you think they'd focus mostly on representing their tiny minority contributions over their vast majority contributions?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I'm not so sure as they already provide one (maybe not a trigger lock as it is sometimes a slide-lock) with every gun they sell as do all other manufacturers that I am aware of. It may be a law already. That is a much different proposition than requiring electronics and their connections that must be hardened against very high g-loads. Optics manufacturers sometimes fail at it.
I'll agree that most gun owners support banning possession by people who've demonstrated a tendency for violently abusing the right.
As for "mainstream gun legislation" support, that depends on what it is. Most of the so-called "common sense gun laws" proposed lately do not enjoy much support from mainstream gun owners.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
No license or insurance is required to own a car, only to drive it on public roads. The analogy with guns is the permission to carry a gun in public, which in most states does require training and a background check.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I loved how he ended the article about rampant greed with a plug for his book.
I think we are basically in agreement; there really are no free markets in any meaningful sense. Simple bartering (which doesn't even require money) is about it. My main point is that when people are pushing for free markets; take a careful look. Don't be surprised if you find a frustrated would-be monopolist. Free markets are one of the great myths of our current political environment and the people pushing free (i.e. unregulated) markets have been largely destructive to society as a whole. Not completely destructive; you can definitely overdue regulation but some of the deregulation has been terribly destructive. I am thinking here of the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
it's certainly an insurance issue
Not really. In the US, each driver has to carry liability insurance.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
In much the same way a 38 special is designed to minimize injury as compared to a 357. A car can be designed to minimize damage, but that's still meaning breaking both legs, versus both legs and an arm.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Because bad voting decisions don't lead people to die instantly.
It's not like I could go out and vote and next thing you know a someone died because of my vote.
Would your logic not suggest that people who voted for george w bush have blood on their hands because of Katrina and Iraq? Do Obama voters have blood on their hands because of drone strikes?
What about FDR and the atomic bombs?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
given that there are only about 230 justifiable homicides a year, and 60,000 cases where the gun is presented but not actually used
Correction... Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...
Come on! We're not opposed to shooting people, we're opposed to being told we can't!
Geeez! I mean COME ON!
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
You can't possibly be that naive - he did say unintentional deaths, did he not?
Add in all the _intentional_ gun deaths and it becomes the MOST common way for young people to die.
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
Sounds like I need to get some wolf, black bear, and mountain lion targets then since those are all things I have encountered in the wild at very close range. This is also why I now carry a sidearm when out in the north woods of Minnesota.
Time to offend someone
Nope and for many good reasons other than just OnStar.
Time to offend someone
And we license drivers.
You left off an important clause in you statement which should read:
And we license drivers to operate their motor vehicles on public roads.
No license is required to own or operate a vehicle that is operated exclusively on private property. I already have to have a license if I want to carry any of my firearms in public spaces, it is called a carry permit, or a hunting license in my state. In most cases there is some amount of training required with either of these and it varies by state. Also these license are typically far more restrictive in firearms allowed than any driver's license in regards to what vehicle is allowed. For example having a CCW permit doesn't mean one can go walking around down town Minneapolis with a deer rifle slung across their back (also you couldn't take a .22lr pistol deer hunting in this state), but I can drive any non commercial vehicle on any public road way.
Time to offend someone
You can't possibly be that naive - he did say unintentional deaths, did he not?
No, he didn't; I have a hard time believing someone can be so oblivious that they forget to read the comment their talking about.
Add in all the _intentional_ gun deaths and it becomes the MOST common way for young people to die.
If that's true, you should have no problem presenting the empirical data that supports your claim.
(FYI, it's not true - for young people aged 14-24, the most common cause of death is auto accidents)
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
That is funny, there is about the same amount of car deaths in the US as there are gun deaths.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
where do you get your 10k deaths from? There were over 32k deaths per year from guns.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Does your first phrase indicate your intelligence level, or do you just like coming up with strawmen?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Most other countries realize that in certain things where you have to create a local monopoly, it almost NEVER makes sense to give that to a private company which is not strictly regulated. And they also realize that you don't have to create a local monopoly with vertical integration but only that one layer where it is needed. I think what you are seeing is the stupid ways we have regulated markets in the US giving fuel to the fire on both sides.
This is all correct IMO. What we need is municipally-owned last-mile connections, which are then leased to ISPs. But the problem is we have too much corruption, resulting in laws that prevent municipalities from owning infrastructure.
The NRA absolutely uses FUD.
They also represent the gun industry, and their own vision/cersion of America (their own politics), rather than gun owners.
Only something like 4% of gun owners are members of the NRA, yet they claim to speak for all of us.
And I for one, want nothing to do with the NRA, no matter how many weapons i own.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
oh shut up
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
You must live in a gun-hating state. In all the gun-friendly states the Constitutional Carry people have made sure there are literally no restrictions whatsoever for carrying around guns. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad, but my guess is it will be the law in 45 states by the end of the decade, like it's already the law in many states, and it undermines your point about licenses.
The current political ideology of the gun rights movement is zero restrictions, zero rules of any kind. Those people are honest about their goals so I credit them with that honesty. I don't think they are hoodwinking anyone, they are implementing plain policy based on honestly convincing a plurality to support their goals.
Great. Then like me you don't support free markets. You support certain market regulations. That's nice, me too.
I prefer not only labeling but safety regulations. What I mean is, I don't just want landlords to warn tenants about lead paint, I want to actually remove lead from paint. And we did that two generations ago and have benefitted greatly from that regulation. I'm also quite glad that elevators are regulated for functional safety, not merely warned with a sign saying "Use elevator at your own risk". These kinds of safety regulations can be difficult because if you go too far you create a problem that's even worse, but luckily we have a robust process for reviewing regulations and changing them.
My comment was about "America before Europeans arrived", and what I meant was America the country, not "The Americas" the pair of continents, so the Inca and the Aztec don't count. My understanding of the pre-colonial American Indians was that they had some things like "cities" but nothing at all on the scale of the Inca or the Aztec; they were largely warring with one another and did not have central authorities. But what the fuck do I know? That could all be wrong. I'm just saying, you could possibly find "free markets" in historical times in areas without government at all.
Like, say, today in Sudan. I bet that's a pretty free market.
Yeah. There are licenses for political rallies. So yes, there are licenses for that. Yes.
I don't register my opinions with the government because there isn't a compelling reason for doing that, not because there is a magical Constitutional argument against it. There are compelling reasons to manage guns and driving.
And also voting, by the way -- a fundamental right that we have all sorts of different rules for. Oh, you have to register to vote? LORDY LORDY THE IMPOSITION! TYRANNY! Give me a fucking break.
I don't, actually - and I've intentionally avoided GM primarily for that reason.
I'd have to verify that I could kill OnStar at the hardware level (i.e. unplug it) before buying one, actually.
You can buy a car without having a drivers license, you can use it on private property without needing a license. The act of taking it out on public property (ie: streets and highways) is only when a license is required. You don't have to have a license or pass any kind of qualifying tests for merely buying and owning a car. Same with registration tags, you don't have to have valid registration if it's parked on your property and not driven on public roads.
Same with political speech, you can do that on the internet from your house no problem, without a license, it isn't until you want to assemble on public property that may interfere with the public use of the property that you have to get a permit for it. Some would argue, and have valid points, that needing a permit for a rally or protest somewhat invalidates the freedom to peacefully assemble however (especially if a permit for a rally is denied for some reason). So using that as an argument is somewhat wishy washy.
Same with voting, several states have tried to imposed voter ID laws that simply require the voter to show state ID when casting a vote at the polls, and have been shot down and sued by the Justice Dept. for discrimination. These laws were for the sole purpose of validating that the person who was voting was the person they said they were, and that they are legal qualified to vote (ie: a citizen of the US). Voter registration is a joke, and if you want that kind of 'license' for firearms where NO ID is required, and its a honor system then good luck, because that's not what most people are demanding when it comes to firearm licenses and registration.
In most states (with the exception of a couple like Arizona), the act of carrying a weapon in public concealed requires a license already, approved and signed by the local sheriff or law enforcement, or the state. Why the should the mere act of owning a firearm be licensed though, this doesn't hold to the other examples arguments.
If firearms are treated like autos, then someone should be able to purchase as many as they like, with no license, no registration, unless they want to carry them i public. The current laws in most states are already more strict than this. Last time I checked, each firearm I purchase is put into a state database and registered when I buy it, I have to pass a qualifying written test every 5 years in order to purchase handguns, and I can't carry it out concealed in public without a CCW permit (carry license) which in the case of firearms, most counties in CA deny to everyone but politically connected people.
California is a good example of how the permit system can be mis-used. Because the law requires a permit for CCW, without a permit, you are not allowed to carry. The sheriffs here deny all persons (even persons with no criminal background and who would otherwise meet all criteria to carry) because it's the agenda of the political forces to not allow carrying. How would this go over, if all permits to hold political rally's were denied without review. Wouldn't that be considered bypassing the constitutional right of assembly and stifling free speech. All you need is a permit, but when no permits are issued, there becomes a big problem.
Gun owners have fallen for these traps time and time again over the last few decades, and are not falling for it anymore. We know what the end game of all this is, if the gun-control advocates get their way. The gun-control advocates say they will be happy if "X" happens, then laws are changed to require "X", time passes, then the gun-control advocates want to go further and suggest "Y". Rinse & repeat until the end conclusion is a total ban on all firearms to civilians.
Once again. You are still left with the problem of a large pool of weapons to steal from.
You are conveniently ignoring that in your rush to use any kind of distorted logic to twist reality to suit your pet agenda.
We have a massive number of heavily armed civilians in this country. You probably gloss over this fact because you have a hardon for the government. They are still there though. They are human and fallible and subject to corruption and error.
Also, whatever industry that remains in place to service these armed civilians will also be a point of explotiation. More guns and ammo floating around.
Then of course there are those inconvenient contraband smugglers that the government can't seem to stop. But they are a different matter.
So disarming the lawful citizens won't really solve the underlying problem of getting rid of guns. There will still be plenty.
Finally. A 1911 used by a soldier is as same as the 1911 used by a civilian. This is actually not a bad thing as that designation often changes.
Clearly you view the idea of a smart gun as a way to game the system and ignore the law and effectively strip citizens of their rights.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"if you want that kind of 'license' for firearms where NO ID is required, and its a honor system then good luck, because that's not what most people are demanding when it comes to firearm licenses and registration."
Awesome, we found common ground. We both support this. Sounds good then, I look forward to your support.
Guns, speech, and cars are all different which is why we treat them differently. They also share similarities which is why they can be compared. It is a mistake to make too much of a metaphor between them because they aren't the same thing.
they have those requirements already ... they are called cable locks and trigger locks & one is provided with every new gun sold in the USA.
and we have a winner .... clearly the law came long after the technology was well established.
neither ... it was a request for a cite ... thanks!
(see how I don't automatically assume that you are a dick? Evidently someone with mod points clearly thought so ... )
Per another post of mine, the first keyed starting mechanism was introduced by Cadillac in 1919, so yea, I'd guess that predates the law.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
"Smart Guns" may someday actually be something reliable... Currently they are so far from that condition that EVERY piece o legislation mentioning them exempts police, military, and anyone else that is responsible for defending "Those In Power" from any requirement to use them
Though the death threats and ignorance so far exhibited are just wrong... my family and I deserve the same reliability that TPTB's guardians do...
Springs, levers, and some moderately accurate machining makes for a weapon that goes "boom" every time the trigger is pulled... nothing less is acceptable