Should all new guns manufactured be required to have technology that allows them to be fired only by the owner(s)?
That would be extremely expensive and would allow the government to track firearms. Besides such technology doesn't exist.
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.
I'd say yes because it would prevent stupid relatives from handling it, but what if the handler was mentally unstable? FAIL
Bad guys will always have guns. You Liberals just don't get that for some reason.
No, we don't really have any gun problems in America except for the restrictions on them
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.
Exactly, guns aren't required, like the massacre in China where three people injured over a hundred others with just knives
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
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.
The most frequent complaint amongst gun buyers is that the technology can't be trusted.
After you make those two first points clear, probably. But prior to that, those are the most frequent points of opposition.
I disagree, and I discuss this with the relevant demographic a lot.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
"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.
We just have a critical requirement that you seem not to—don't make it worse for the law-abiding.
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.
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
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.
"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.
They could stand to see a universal boost, so that they only target those few actually endangering people.
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.
Owner(s) could probably be inclusive of your family.
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.
What do you think of the intention of the plan? To render stolen guns useless. Wouldn't that be a great thing?
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.
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
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?
I feel like my suggestion could be perceived as too burdensome. Can you think of anything that could help with that goal?
What about private owners who just want to sell their guns to new private owners without having to go in to a FFL dealer?
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.
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.
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.
The essence of your disagreement seemed to be at issue with the registry. What is your fear in relation to that?
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.
Also, to REQUIRE crippling technology on a gun infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms.
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.
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.
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.
That's where the right to privacy comes in.
Besides, this type of legislation improves your feelings, not actual conditions.
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...
"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.
Besides, it doesn't have to produce more crime to fail to make things better, or to make them worse.
Complexity increases failure rate. I refuse to complicate the mechanism I may someday need to rely upon in life or death situations.
Just make it an option instead.
How about lanyards?
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?
I'm not going to get into another argument about individual anecdote, sorry.
Not an ancedote.. Fact..
It is an anecdote tho
How does it work. Can there only be one user. What happens if it fails in an emergency situation
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.
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.
Exactly. They're not on the market because NRA. Not because we don't have the technology.
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.
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.
No. But what an 🍳⛵️🐜 option.
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.
That only tries to make something right after the fact. I think even better is trying to prevent the problem in the first place.
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.
Definitely. Unfortunately people are just downright irresponsible.
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.
We have the technology, in several variations. Why the hell don't we use it?
It's not cost effective on a widespread scale yet, soon, but not yet. Same with solar power honestly.
Oh those poor gun owners might have to pay more for their precious? Boohoo.
While i agree, i was more inclined to worry about manufacturers. Last thing we need for gun reform is alienating EVERYONE in the process.
Because it's not mature technology and not trustworthy.
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
If the technology becomes viable, people will buy them without legislation. People are not buying them because the technology is not viable.