Show of HandsShow of Hands

kermie July 26th, 2015 8:16pm

Should all new guns manufactured be required to have technology that allows them to be fired only by the owner(s)?

16 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Patriotzero USA
07/31/15 8:12 pm

That would be extremely expensive and would allow the government to track firearms. Besides such technology doesn't exist.

CudOfCow Oregon
07/31/15 3:49 am

It's stupid. The guys I go shooting with really like letting others try out their new rig. I think it's a dumb idea. I can see where it would be useful, such as in law enforcement weaponry. But nah. I dont like the idea even if it is safer.

ladyniner81 I hate people
07/29/15 8:20 am

I'd say yes because it would prevent stupid relatives from handling it, but what if the handler was mentally unstable? FAIL

cowboy Dawns Highway
07/27/15 7:04 am

Bad guys will always have guns. You Liberals just don't get that for some reason.

Reply
PresWK Minnesota
07/26/15 9:05 pm

No, we don't really have any gun problems in America except for the restrictions on them

Reply
Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/27/15 5:13 pm

What he said is correct, Kermie. There is no gun problem. There is a violence problem. That's why the guns don't kill people by themselves, but the people kill people without guns.

PresWK Minnesota
07/27/15 8:40 pm

Exactly, guns aren't required, like the massacre in China where three people injured over a hundred others with just knives

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/26/15 8:35 pm

I've advocated this before. What I've come to think would be most accepted is if A) it's only for future gun purchases, retroactive modifications aren't going to fly, and B) multiple users, the most frequent complaint is that it can't be single

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/26/15 8:37 pm

user. And I accept that. That makes sense to me and doesn't diminish the intended effect- rendering stolen guns, illegally purchased guns absolutely useless. That's really our top concern. It's the guns in our streets, not the guns in your homes.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/26/15 10:58 pm

The most frequent complaint amongst gun buyers is that the technology can't be trusted.

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/27/15 8:08 am

After you make those two first points clear, probably. But prior to that, those are the most frequent points of opposition.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/27/15 2:57 pm

I disagree, and I discuss this with the relevant demographic a lot.

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/27/15 3:16 pm

You discuss gun control a lot? Something tells me I pose more question to gun owners about what would be acceptable forms of gun control to them than you do.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/27/15 5:10 pm

I just post articles about people proposing legislation like what you proposed. I don't need to ask what they think of it. We all just immediately get to the big list of objections.

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/27/15 6:12 pm

Haha yeah that's the point. I ask, how would you feel about this? Oh, ok I hear your complaint, how would you about this? You engage in essentially a circle jerk intended to produce nothing. I'm not saying you don't talk to them about it, but you

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/27/15 6:13 pm

must recognize some critical difference in the process. I'm seeking to find common grounds, I want to hear from people, what would be acceptable to them, what their concerns are. It produces something very different. The remote-disable being an

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/27/15 6:14 pm

example. It works for me, and it works that individual. I don't need my policy to be the right policy, I am actively seeking the right policy and am actively seeking contributions from opposing sides.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/27/15 6:38 pm

"You engage in essentially a circle jerk intended to produce nothing."

Not really. We're people, not lobbyists. We don't want to see people murdered any more than you do.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/27/15 6:38 pm

We just have a critical requirement that you seem not to—don't make it worse for the law-abiding.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/27/15 6:41 pm

And even that is a generalization. Opinions of gun buyers are as diverse as anyone's. There is no "circle jerk" but there is suspicion that the product of such legislation doesn't match the packaging.

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/27/15 8:04 pm

Haha circle jerk was definitely a crude phrasing if nothing else, but I hope you get what I meant by it, it's purpose wasn't to offend, that would just detract from what I was saying if it did. And I think pretty much every regulation makes it harder

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/27/15 8:06 pm

for law abiding citizens. Things like speeding limits are meant to regulate all of us because of the worst of us(on the roads). I just want an effect that is not unduly burdensome.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/28/15 10:23 pm

"I hope you get what I meant by it,"

I did, and I responded with your intended meaning in mind.

Speed limits exist as they are now to provide a secondary revenue stream to government.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/28/15 10:24 pm

They could stand to see a universal boost, so that they only target those few actually endangering people.

rabies12 Smalltown, USA
07/26/15 8:19 pm

If something happens in my household, and I am incapacitated for some reason, I want the other members of my family to be able to defend themselves using that firearm that is there for that purpose. Definite NO.

Reply
RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/26/15 8:32 pm

Owner(s) could probably be inclusive of your family.

rabies12 Smalltown, USA
07/26/15 8:36 pm

Ahh that is true, however if there is a guest staying at my household and something happens, they may need to protect themselves with my firearm and I wish for them to be able to do so.

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/26/15 8:40 pm

What do you think of the intention of the plan? To render stolen guns useless. Wouldn't that be a great thing?

rabies12 Smalltown, USA
07/26/15 8:44 pm

Of course it would be! Best thing I believe would be a device SEPERATE from the firearm, locked away and only activated when the weapon is confirmed as stolen. Then the activated remote would render the gun useless.

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/26/15 9:26 pm

I like that too! I'm trying to think of how you could make that compatible with the aim of stopping illegal re-sales. With the finger print option, any re sales would need to be reconfigured in an authorized dealer or something, which could prevent

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/26/15 9:27 pm

people buying guns to resell on the black market. I like your idea though, and I think it's an easier sell. Maybe every two months you have to hold your gun up to that device that would remotely disable the gun and press your finger print to it?

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/26/15 9:29 pm

I feel like my suggestion could be perceived as too burdensome. Can you think of anything that could help with that goal?

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/26/15 11:00 pm

What about private owners who just want to sell their guns to new private owners without having to go in to a FFL dealer?

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/27/15 5:30 am

Doopy- what are your thought on the intention of this bill? What do you think of its aim, and does it have any value to you? Because my answer would be that the loss of tracking is not worth the leeway to those owners.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/27/15 6:11 am

I think everything it aims to do will be accomplished by market forces once that aim becomes at all practical.

I think tracking is pointless without a registry and that a registry should never be created, and violates the 4th Amendment.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/27/15 6:13 am

I think that "smart gun" systems cannot prohibit straw purchases, because people will find a way to break or bypass the systems, and that the purpose of a smart gun is one that can't be turned on it's owner, not one that cannot be sold to criminals.

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/27/15 7:12 am

The essence of your disagreement seemed to be at issue with the registry. What is your fear in relation to that?

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/27/15 7:15 am

The essence of my disagreement is that what you want this legislation to do can only be accomplished in a fantasy.

I'm opposed to registry because I think it's a constitutional privacy violation.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/27/15 7:17 am

Also, to REQUIRE crippling technology on a gun infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms.

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/27/15 8:06 am

I disagree, I think there's a middle ground that can be reached here between privacy rights, the 2nd amendment, and public safety. I respect your views, even if I hope they aren't too wide spread.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/27/15 2:41 pm

But you're talking about sacrificing a lot in the way of our essential liberties for something which isn't even likely to make us significantly safer.

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/27/15 3:19 pm

I understand you feel that way, you're going to value the 2nd amendment more than I, no two ways about that. But I don't believing your right to bear and own a gun is infringed by a monitor program of some sort.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/27/15 5:11 pm

That's where the right to privacy comes in.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/27/15 5:14 pm

Besides, this type of legislation improves your feelings, not actual conditions.

RoDe Latinus wordsus
07/27/15 6:08 pm

Lol I'm looking for solutions, not trying to shove something down your throat. But how could requiring new guns have a remote-disable device increase dangerous crime? Let's try to be reasonable...

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/27/15 6:43 pm

"how could requiring new guns have a remote-disable device increase dangerous crime?"

Imagine a mugger with a device that triggers all remote-disable devices within 100 feet.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/27/15 6:44 pm

Besides, it doesn't have to produce more crime to fail to make things better, or to make them worse.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/26/15 5:45 pm

Complexity increases failure rate. I refuse to complicate the mechanism I may someday need to rely upon in life or death situations.

Reply
LeftLibertarian The Age of Outrage
07/26/15 5:29 pm

Just make it an option instead.

Reply
mikeey1962 on SOH where else
07/26/15 2:22 pm

Yea i am a gun owner i have owned at least one, 47 of my 52 years, i have family coming in about a couple thpusand people, none of our guns have killed a person, robbed a bank, committed a crime, or the people who own them, how are we reckless?

Reply
kermie gaytopia
07/26/15 3:15 pm

I'm not going to get into another argument about individual anecdote, sorry.

palindrome California
07/26/15 4:02 pm

It is an anecdote tho

kermie gaytopia
07/26/15 4:18 pm

Lol wow.

knetzere Illinois
07/26/15 1:55 pm

How does it work. Can there only be one user. What happens if it fails in an emergency situation

Reply
kermie gaytopia
07/26/15 3:14 pm

The two I'm most familiar with are tied to fingerprints and hand grip. You can calibrate it to add as many people as you want.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/26/15 5:59 pm

I think that's from a James Bond movie. The only "smart gun" on the market right now uses an RFID link to a wristwatch. It's only a .22, probably because the required electronics don't tolerate the recoil of standard power cartridges well.

kermie gaytopia
07/26/15 7:35 pm

Exactly. They're not on the market because NRA. Not because we don't have the technology.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/26/15 7:44 pm

The technology exists because James Bond?

No, they're not on the market because they're unreliable, prohibitively expensive, and don't add a lot of value.

I would never trust my life to "smart guns" in any iteration viable today.

knetzere Illinois
07/26/15 9:33 pm

The only one I've seen on the market is the watch one. There was an idea with a ring as well but the same idea as the watch rfid. Both systems have limitations that would give me pause. I don't think the NRA has and hold on the firearms industry.

Wert A picture of my junk
07/26/15 1:36 pm

No. But what an 🍳⛵️🐜 option.

Reply
allswel Minnesota
07/26/15 1:20 pm

I am not sure that technology is workable yet, or cost effective. I would prefer the technology be geared at tracing who owns the gun, then holding the gun owner responsible for whatever comes out of his gun.

Reply
kermie gaytopia
07/26/15 1:28 pm

That only tries to make something right after the fact. I think even better is trying to prevent the problem in the first place.

allswel Minnesota
07/26/15 1:32 pm

I agree Kermie, but I also think it is kind of a "genie out of the bottle" problem. If all of the gun owners would secure their guns, we could attack and gradually reduce the unlawful gun problems.

kermie gaytopia
07/26/15 1:51 pm

Definitely. Unfortunately people are just downright irresponsible.

allswel Minnesota
07/26/15 3:42 pm

Unfortunately, even though I think most people are responsible, there are more than enough who are downright irresponsible to make it mandatory that we do something. I will gladly support any program that moves guns to homes, gun ranges and hunting.

kermie gaytopia
07/26/15 1:16 pm

We have the technology, in several variations. Why the hell don't we use it?

Reply
osouless Whats Next
07/26/15 1:26 pm

It's not cost effective on a widespread scale yet, soon, but not yet. Same with solar power honestly.

kermie gaytopia
07/26/15 1:28 pm

Oh those poor gun owners might have to pay more for their precious? Boohoo.

osouless Whats Next
07/26/15 1:31 pm

While i agree, i was more inclined to worry about manufacturers. Last thing we need for gun reform is alienating EVERYONE in the process.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/26/15 5:43 pm

Because it's not mature technology and not trustworthy.

RB20 Indiana
07/26/15 7:17 pm

You sound dumb saying all you'll do is pay more. That may restrict someone from buying a gun at all, which is restricting their right to defend themselves

Doopy Remedial Americanism
07/26/15 8:28 pm

If the technology becomes viable, people will buy them without legislation. People are not buying them because the technology is not viable.