Pro-gun article

[Alvin Walton]

So say I currently have one hand gun in the house that my wife and my 18 year old daughter and I use for household protection.

The law changes and I have to turn in my gun.

Since only finger print guns exist I have to buy three of them, one for each of us.

Gongratulations, I now have two additional guns in my house.


How would the manufacturer be able to properly test your gun?

How would a gunsmith be able to service your gun?

It will never happen......

[RedskinRat]

To Obama's dismay, America not outraged by gun control fail, poll suggests


On the surface, the poll released by The Washington Post and Pew Research Center made no sense. Only 47 percent of respondents said they were "disappointed" or "angry" that the Senate last week failed to advance a bill to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales.

Yet in February, a Pew poll found that 83 percent of respondents supported an expansion of background checks to cover gun shows and all private sales – measures that would actually be stricter than what the Senate rejected.

Assault weapons, for example, are used in only a small number of murders every year. And while Obama said up to 40 percent of guns are purchased without background checks, the actual number is closer to 20 percent, according to Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler.


POTUS got upset that the NRA supposedly misrepresented the facts of the debate, yet he used the same ploy to try to get his way.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

So say I currently have one hand gun in the house that my wife and my 18 year old daughter and I use for household protection.

The law changes and I have to turn in my gun.

Since only finger print guns exist I have to buy three of them, one for each of us.

Gongratulations, I now have two additional guns in my house.


How would the manufacturer be able to properly test your gun?

How would a gunsmith be able to service your gun?

It will never happen......

Because it's not that simplistic.

A computer has a passkey, but you can authorize multiple users. You lock your bags at the airport but TSA has an override key.

They can grandfather existing guns, so no one loses the guns they have, but new guns must have a safety lock that uses biometrics. The biometrics can have up to 3 authorized users plus an override for testing/police usage. The override is a lengthy procedure, say as an example, engage the manual safety, pull the trigger twice, release the safety, expel a round, then the gun the gun is enabled for one live shot.

Point is not to say that would be it but that there are possible solutions, that we use in other parts of life and could be adapted to a gun safety process so that, without infringing on the right to bear arms, which is one of the most vital ones imo, you can prevent accidental harm. That would be a good thing.

Cars right now, use that type of override procedure for things like resetting electronic tire pressure gauges and check engine lights. Cell phones and baggage locks have override systems in place so that the government can use them with proper warrants.

Instead of saying no it won't happen, why not look for a way that your rights and enjoyment can continue, while addressing safety and danger concerns.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Because it's not that simplistic.

A computer has a passkey, but you can authorize multiple users. You lock your bags at the airport but TSA has an override key.

They can grandfather existing guns, so no one loses the guns they have, but new guns must have a safety lock that uses biometrics. The biometrics can have up to 3 authorized users plus an override for testing/police usage. The override is a lengthy procedure, say as an example, engage the manual safety, pull the trigger twice, release the safety, expel a round, then the gun the gun is enabled for one live shot.

Point is not to say that would be it but that there are possible solutions, that we use in other parts of life and could be adapted to a gun safety process so that, without infringing on the right to bear arms, which is one of the most vital ones imo, you can prevent accidental harm. That would be a good thing.

Cars right now, use that type of override procedure for things like resetting electronic tire pressure gauges and check engine lights. Cell phones and baggage locks have override systems in place so that the government can use them with proper warrants.

Instead of saying no it won't happen, why not look for a way that your rights and enjoyment can continue, while addressing safety and danger concerns.

Tire pressures??????
Seriously????
I'm talking about protecting my family from an intruder and you compare it to tire pressures?
WTF?

It will be far too cumbersome and far too unreliable and far too expensive and
it will be a huge pain in the ass for the govt and everyone else.
The NRA will never let it happen.
Do you realize the impact it would have on the huge firearm industry the USA has?
Its ridiculous to try it across the board.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The fault is with the goverment agency that did not shut them down after so many violations. The laws were in place and the goverment failed to enforce them and allowed the business to rack up violation after violation.

LOL, right, not the fault of the store owner to run his store in the right and responsible way, it's the government's fault but we will still complain government interferes ,you can't have it both ways.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

To Obama's dismay, America not outraged by gun control fail, poll suggests


On the surface, the poll released by The Washington Post and Pew Research Center made no sense. Only 47 percent of respondents said they were "disappointed" or "angry" that the Senate last week failed to advance a bill to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales.

Yet in February, a Pew poll found that 83 percent of respondents supported an expansion of background checks to cover gun shows and all private sales – measures that would actually be stricter than what the Senate rejected.

Assault weapons, for example, are used in only a small number of murders every year. And while Obama said up to 40 percent of guns are purchased without background checks, the actual number is closer to 20 percent, according to Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler.


POTUS got upset that the NRA supposedly misrepresented the facts of the debate, yet he used the same ploy to try to get his way.

Really, a Yahoo poll???ok.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Really, a Yahoo poll???ok.

Reading comprehension FAIL. It says right there 'Pew' and 'Washington Post'.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Tire pressures??????
Seriously????
I'm talking about protecting my family from an intruder and you compare it to tire pressures?
WTF?

It will be far too cumbersome and far too unreliable and far too expensive and
it will be a huge pain in the ass for the govt and everyone else.
The NRA will never let it happen.
Do you realize the impact it would have on the huge firearm industry the USA has?
Its ridiculous to try it across the board.

First, examples of available tech are meant to demonstrate that it can be done. Certainly there are other examples in far more secure and realtime critical systems, but tire pressure gauges show to me show that it can be done at minimum impact and on a widespread distributable platform. A physical safety switch already on the gun is no more complex then an on off switch of a child's toy, yet it's purpose is defined by it's presence on the weapon.

As for reliability, clearly the technology would have to be trialed and tested first and proven with demonstrable reliability. Some forms have already tested to 99.9%, which is far better then the M-16 I had in the Army which jammed far more often than 1 time in a 1000. (My friend's Desert Eagle was obviously also more reliable than an M-16 )

Cost and trouble for the government are both hyperbole. The government will simply write the law, then enforce it as it sees fit, like with most things. The cost to a gun owner would only be incurred when you want to buy a new gun or retrofit an old one. Might it be high at first, maybe, so were airbags and antilock brakes, now they are an accepted cost for the value they add. At least it's not a tax where the government takes the money, and wastes it. Instead it would go to job creation and competition as manufacturers strive to find better ways.

The NRA may never let it happen. I think that's a shame because it diverts NRA resources they could use to fight for less government intrusion by making guns safer and less of a threat except by their true owners. By fighting this the NRA gives those in the government who want to truly limit our rights an avenue under the guise of public safety to continue making attacks against our 2nd Amendment rights.

The gun industry, if it embraced it wholesale, would simply turn the marketing around, showing how one system is better than the other. Gun enthusiasts are dedicated buyers, and if they feel the gun they are buying is safe and reliable then they won't be deterred from an added safety feature. And if it means that there is less government interference in the individual owner's right to own a gun, the market would probably increase.

Bottomline - a technologically updated safety switch (which is all this is) would make guns safer, remove objections to gun ownership such as harm to small children, and likely lead to reduced public demand for government interference in our 2nd Amendment rights, since there would be less crime from stolen or unauthorized gun usage.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Reading comprehension FAIL. It says right there 'Pew' and 'Washington Post'.

So if I hit your link does it ,or does it not take me to Yahoo news, you can't even spin your lies right?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So if I hit your link does it ,or does it not take me to Yahoo news, you can't even spin your lies right?

A Yahoo news writer wrote an article about a Washington Post Poll. He says that in the second paragraph:

On the surface, the poll released by The Washington Post and Pew Research Center made no sense. Only 47 percent of respondents said they were "disappointed" or "angry" that the Senate last week failed to advance a bill to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So if I hit your link does it ,or does it not take me to Yahoo news, you can't even spin your lies right?

At 04-25-2013 01:04 AM you posted "Really, a Yahoo poll???"

Is that accurate or not?

My link is a link to a Yahoo News report of two polls, one by The Washington Post and one by the Pew Research Center.

[Alvin Walton]

Eli fan boy fail.....

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Giantone

So if I hit your link does it ,or does it not take me to Yahoo news, you can't even spin your lies right?

How in the hell do you figure RR is lying on this? I mean, we know that you're a liar from the other thread, and you've lied in this one. But what the ? This is so obvious!

[Giantone]

Oh look , the NRA version of the Pep Boys are all here.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Oh look , the NRA version of the Pep Boys are all here.

"Look over there!" isn't going to work.

Please explain yourself or admit you're wrong and go away.