Ah geez, not this shit again...

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://bostonglobe.com/podium

A GUN SOLUTION AT OUR FINGERTIPS

It is clear that the NRA has a stranglehold on Washington and true reform will have to come from the states.

In Massachusetts, the solutions are right at our fingertips.

Just as your fingerprint can be used to unlock your iPhone, fingerprint technology can be used to operate firearms.
Doing so would ensure that a firearm could be operated only by its rightful owner or designees.

Unless and until the gun was hacked of course...

Massachusetts should build on our first-in-the-nation consumer protection regulations for firearms sold here.
The state's consumer protection statute allows the attorney general to regulate firearms and further protect the citizens of
the Commonwealth from undue harm. It's time we use the power of this law to protect the health and safety of our citizens...

What if the citizen decides to protect their health and safety by bypassing the
fingerprint lock to ensure the firearm works when they need it to?

...and do what Congress can't - require gun manufacturers to utilize existing personalized gun technology...

That exists only in spy movies

...for all weapons sold in the Commonwealth

WARREN TOLMAN

Candidate for attorney general

Mr. Tolman, please leave scientific and technological ignorance to Republicans-
got "Strategic Defense Initiative", anyone?


As an aside: I do really like being a resident of the Bay State, but certain types are just a little
too smug about residing here...

[NYC_SKP]

1. The Moms Demand Action group, now joined with Bloomberg and MAIG, are pretty crafty in their mission

And I mention this because I was just reading their "about" page yesterday, shaking my head. Yes, they want to dismantle gun rights at the local level, it's no surprise, see point #6, below.
Of course, if gun rights activists try to do that, they call it an "assault".

Point #4 is where this new "child safe gun technology" would the cost of a firearm out of reach of anyone but the wealthy and criminals.

And, read the underlined part, the biggest lie in their whole presentation:

Moms Demand Action supports the 2nd Amendment, but we believe common-sense solutions can help decrease the escalating epidemic of gun violence that kills an American child every 3 hours and 15 minutes. Whether the gun violence happens in urban Chicago, suburban Virginia, or rural Texas, we must act now on new and stronger gun laws and policies to protect our children.

Moms Demand Action envisions a country where all children and families are safe from gun violence. Our nonpartisan grassroots movement is made up of more than 100,000 members and a chapter in every state across the country. We are educating, motivating, and mobilizing moms and families to take action that will result in stronger laws and policies to save lives. We support these solutions to help address gun violence in the United States:

1 Require background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases;
2 Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds;
3 Track the sale of large quantities of ammunition, and ban online sales;
4 Establish product safety oversight of guns and ammunition, and require child-safe gun technology;
5 Support policies at companies and public institutions that promote gun safety;
6 Counter the gun industry’s efforts to weaken gun laws at the state level.

We are facing a public health crisis: Nearly eight American children are shot and killed every day. Anything else responsible for this many deaths would be immediately investigated and regulated. Not a single federal law has been passed in decades to prevent gun violence – not after Columbine and not after Newtown.

I can agree with Point #1 and Point #3 and Point #5, conditionally.

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. *Officially* joined, that is- MDA always was Bloomberg's creature

Someone else here pointed out they made it official just before they would
have been compelled to file a Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service.

[spin]

3. I see some serious problems with fingerprint technology for firearms. ...

1)I lived in Massachusetts for a couple of years and I remember the cold winters when I wore gloves. Fingerprint technology does not work if you are wearing a full glove on your shooting hand.

2) Fingerprint technology would require the use of a battery. If the battery loses its change it would be useless as a home defense weapon. Many people store their weapons properly in a safe and rarely handle them. It would be all too easy to forget to charge your self defense weapon or to change the batteries on a regular basis and that could lead to a tragedy. Assume you are an armed homeowner and you find yourself facing an intruder who intends to harm you or your family and is armed. You point your firearm at him and pull the trigger and nothing happens.

Beretta Announces Position Concerning "Smart Gun" Technology

***snip***

We also know that people rely upon firearms to protect their lives. The Fall 1995 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology reports that firearms are used defensively 2.3 million times per year. (A subsequent National Institute of Justice study places the number of defensive uses at 3 million per year and a Los Angeles Times survey placed the number at 2.5 million defensive uses per year.) Many of these defensive uses involved warding off danger by simply displaying the gun, but in 15.6% of the defensive uses, the person using the gun stated that they "almost certainly" saved their life by doing so.

This means, for every life lost in a firearm-related accident in that same year, 255 lives may have been saved through defensive gun use. (It should also be noted that most firearm accidents are hunting accidents or involve the owner of the firearm shooting themselves or another person, none of which would be prevented by "smart gun" technology or, for that matter, any lock.) For every accidental death, suicide or homicide involving firearms in 1994, 10 lives may have been saved through defensive gun use.

Most importantly, these studies document the importance of firearm use in saving lives. A device that prevents or seriously impedes such use -- such as current "smart gun" concepts -- would cost more lives than it might save.

***snip***

The idea of a "smart gun" has appeal to the unwary and has been promoted by gun control advocates who have no technical understanding of firearms design nor, apparently, of the risks inherent in their proposals. Beretta trusts that politicians and voters who consider this issue carefully and objectively will agree that such devices should not be required in handguns.


http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=905

[ileus]

10. When seconds count, you try, and try, and try again....until you're dead.

Of course those that write these laws want you dead, that's helps bolster their support. "Oh look he was killed trying to swipe his finger print....oops."

[Duckhunter935]

4. want to see a run on firearms........

only after the police adopt it since a firearm must operate 100% of the time and this just will cause that to drop.

[Starboard Tack]

5. Growing pains. You'll be just fine. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. The Democratic Party and Commonwealth won't be...

...if Tolman attempts to have his way.

In practice, simple technological solutions to complex problems tend to be
neither 'simple' nor actual 'solutions'.

I would point out as an example firing pins that imprint upon bullet casings.
Turns out, this much-touted method for tracking guns that are used in crimes
can be defeated by a) simple wear and tear, b) replacement of the firing pin
c) the use of a brass catcher, d) use of a two dollar nail file, or e) use of a revolver.

I give those that shill such things the same respect due the folks who sell
$39.95 add-ons for your car that will give you 100 MPG...

[NYC_SKP]

7. No problem, just outlaw nail files and brass catchers, replacing a fire pin becomes a crime!

See how easy that is?



....that's the road they're taking...

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. Don't forget outlawing revolvers and picking up your brass!

[DonP]

54. Close the revolver loophole!

[oneshooter]

11. And the first time that it fails, and costs someone their life.

That will also be filed under"growing pains".

[Starboard Tack]

12. If you depend on a gun to save your life, then you already failed

Worrying about shit like this is more likely to cost you your life. Try to think positively and think how many lives can be saved by implementing such safety features.

[Bazinga]

14. you keep saying that carrying is more likely to cost you your life,

where is the evidence to support such a claim? Can it really be shown that those who legally carry weapons are more likely than their peers to be victims of any crime, much less murder?

[sir pball]

15. So the police should be the first to adopt this tech, yes?

It's a recognized issue, officers having their firearms taken used against them. Surely you support their mandatory use of this technology as well?

[Starboard Tack]

18. Absolutely!

In fact, I am opposed to the routine carrying of firearms by anyone, especially the police.

[Jenoch]

21. If it were known by everyone that cops

were unarmed, which direction do you believe the crime rate would go?

If you lived in the U.S. For 35 years, either you are quite old or you were a bobby in Manchester for a very brief period. Which is it?

[Starboard Tack]

25. Down of course.

And I am quite old. I thought that was obvious.
The problem with routinely armed cops is that it creates an us versus them mentality and an inherent mistrust. This is less prevalent in small town America and also in some inner city neighborhoods, but overall, the citizenry in the US does not trust cops and a big reason for that is because they are armed to the teeth and are generally not friendly.
This does not help with cooperation or the flow of information between potential witnesses and LE.
This is also one of the reasons why the citizens want the right to be armed and I don't blame them. Cops are not routinely armed in the UK, because the people would not stand for it and the cops don't want to be, because they want to be considered part of the citizenry rather than a paramilitary organization.

[gejohnston]

31. actually, it has more to do with US

distrust of authority in general. Has nothing to do with the cops being armed, has everything to do with the country's founding being based on the writings of Enlightenment era classical liberals.

Cops in the UK never carried guns because the citizens would view the MPD as the British Army, who was known for a lot of things, but respect for individual rights wasn't one of them.

[Jenoch]

36. I think you are wrong about which way crime would go, at least in the urban areas.

I grew up in a small town where there was no distrust of local law enforcement, well except for the small numbers that went afoul of the law. I have lived in suburbia for a little more than 20 years and I see no distrust of law enforcement. I do know of urban areas in the Twin Cities where there is a lot of distrust of law enforecement, coincidently, that is where the most gun crime occurs. If those cops were routinely unarmed those areas would turn into Manhatten from Escape to New York and it would take Snake Plissken to get the law abiding citizens to safety.

(I had thought you were in your early 60s.)

As you may remember I have two brothers who are cops. One in a small department adjacent to Minneapolis (1st ring old suburb) and another in a city of 40,000 but the metro area has a population of 220,000. Neither of said they would go anywhere on duty without their sidearm. They also wear bullet resistent vests while on duty every single shift. Neither has ever discharged their gun in a combined 58 years of experience. I also have two cousins in small towns in Wisconsin, one a chief of police, the other a chief deputy. The deputy has had two shoot his weapon on two different occasions, neither perp was killed, they did both shoot at my cousin first however, one was with a .30-06, it's a good thing he missed.

None of these guys are trigger happy. They would not do their jobs if they were required to be disarmed.

[Starboard Tack]

40. I said nothing about disarming cops.

I said that I am opposed to the routine carrying of weapons in public. Big difference. There are times when it makes a lot of sense to be well armed, but those occasions are few and far between, as your brothers and cousins can testify to. Having a weapon or two available in a patrol car, or station house, makes a lot of sense. Wearing one while directing traffic or writing a parking ticket or canvassing potential witnesses doesn't.
Unfortunately, though, I can sympathize with your brothers. I wouldn't wear a uniform on the street in the US without a gun either. It will take a huge social shift to change the gun mentality in the US. The horse is out of the barn and at full gallop. Good luck trying to get it back in the barn.
I think 2A seemed like a good idea at the time, but sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for.

[Jenoch]

43. You sure do seem to contradict yourself with this post.

If the cop does not have his duty weapon in a holster on his person, then he is disarmed.

You are correct, the horse is out of the barn.

[Starboard Tack]

45. Let me clarify, for there is no contradiction.

Unarmed is not the same as disarmed. Just as I support the right to own firearms, and even carry them when necessary, I do not condone the practice of carrying them routinely, by anyone. The circumstances necessary for carrying should be extreme and the decision to carry or not should be well considered. It should not be as automatic as putting on shoes and socks.

[Jenoch]

49. Cops are away from their squad and their department headquarters

with frequency. If that duty gun is not on their person, they are both disarmed and unarmed.

[Starboard Tack]

64. That's when they should make a rational choice

Disarmed does not mean leaving your gun in your car. It means being forced to leave it. I recommend being unarmed, not disarmed.

[Jenoch]

66. If department policy is changed

to your poont of view, then he officers would be disarmed. I don't know why your are arguing semantics, the result is the same, a cop without his duty gun on his person at most times.

[Straw Man]

84. And if their rational choice is not your rational choice?

That's when they should make a rational choice

Disarmed does not mean leaving your gun in your car. It means being forced to leave it. I recommend being unarmed, not disarmed.

Sometimes the rational choice is to be armed. Sorry.

Perhaps we should extend this "rational choice" policy to the UK. Let patrol officers carry firearms if they wish. Let's see how many would. I think the result might surprise you.

[Straw Man]

85. Well considered decisions.

The circumstances necessary for carrying should be extreme and the decision to carry or not should be well considered. It should not be as automatic as putting on shoes and socks.

Yes. Officers should consult an oracle daily before commencing patrol. They know that they will always need their shoes and socks, but they will rely on the oracle to tell them when they will need a firearm.

[hack89]

37. So police having guns is a contributing factor to gang warfare?

Really.

[Starboard Tack]

38. As they are an armed gang themselves, what do you think Hack?

Gangs are all about territory and the armed LE gang is no different. Drawing boundaries, a sense of belonging, good guys and bad guys, kinda like Iraq and Afghanistan. Same shit.

[hack89]

39. I think it is an incredibly stupid idea

Gangs fighting over drug money and territory have all the motivation they need to kill each other.

[gejohnston]

44. Gangs are all about territory

That was true in the 1950s-late 1960s when gangs had rumbles with tire chains, ice picks, knives, baseball bats after school. That is no longer the case in the US, now it is about sales territories and employee theft.

[Starboard Tack]

46. Right. It's not about territory

" now it is about sales territories and employee theft"
I give up

[gejohnston]

51. drug sales, not "this is my turf"

two different concepts. Before it was territory for the sake of territory, and no monetary motive. Now its the drug business, and the money. FWIW, they began using guns after passage of the Gun Control Act and Nixon started his war on drugs. While the first is coincidence and a simple correlation, I think the second is causation.

[Straw Man]

58. Blighty.

The problem with routinely armed cops is that it creates an us versus them mentality and an inherent mistrust.

Ah yes, the "us versus them" mentality, so unlike the state of affairs in the UK, where everything is skittles-and-beer between the populace and the police ...



http://www.marxist.com/riots-london-britain.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14439970

You've been away for a long time, my friend.

[sir pball]

23. Fair's fair, and thank you

For being reasonable and consistent

[bossy22]

17. Do you take the same attitude with other technology?

Do you feel fine with putting untested safety technology in all cars? Airplanes?

The general life cycle of technology is that first you work out the bugs, then you incorporate into everyday life. Not the opposite way around. It would be like if the government mandated that all new cars have airbags in 1975, just a few short years after major car companies started playing around with them in concepts.

On a personal note, I can't stand this argument for fingerprint locks on gun for the life of me. It is deceptive in its very nature. It makes the reader believe that firearms are inherently dangerous based on design/engineering- irregardless of how the user decides to "use" it. I ask you, how many guns blow up in their users hands each year? How many just fire on their own without any human intervention?

Gun accidents don't usually happen due to design failure, they happen due to human stupidity, which is extremely hard to regulate if you intend to still treat adults like adults. If you want to treat everyone as just a grown up child that's a different story....

[Starboard Tack]

19. Untested? Why shouldn't it be tested?

The problem is not the guns, but the users. Accidents are a small aspect of the issue. Whether the user is a child or a mugger, the gun is not going to work - that's what is important. Think about it.

[gejohnston]

22. or the mugger will do what warring Australian biker gangs do

make their own submachine guns.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Damn! I forgot that's why people carry guns.

To protect themselves against warring Australian biker gangs.
You are a hoot GE.

[gejohnston]

29. simply pointing out that muggers won't be using these guns

My point has more to do with, at the risk of being a technocrat, people have no business regulating things they know nothing about. The typical gun control advocate, in my experience, is ignorant of (or dishonest about)
the technology, current gun laws, and basic facts of criminology. I always question the intellect of politicians who get their ideas from watching B grade movies and spy thrillers.

[Starboard Tack]

32. So you think the car manufacturers should regulate exhaust emission standards?

And politicians should only regulate politics? Hmmm?!?!?

I thought your issue was with the technical unfeasibility, not the regulation. Or is it both? And what does public and personal safety have to do with gun control advocacy?

[gejohnston]

34. no, scientists who are experts in that area

And politicians should only regulate politics? Hmmm?!?!?

I thought your issue was with the technical unfeasibility, not the regulation. Or is it both?

the OP is about a pol pushing a regulation that doesn't have any knowledge or background.

And what does public and personal safety have to do with gun control advocacy?

Nothing actually. It really has to do with culture war and ideological dominance, and nothing to do with safety. That is why gun control advocates depend on appeal to emotion and various logical fallacies. They seem to treat shootings as political fodder, murder and violence by other means as statistics. Hence the "gun suicide" instead of "suicides" and "gun murders" instead of "murders".

[Starboard Tack]

41. Guns are the weapon of choice for both murder and suicide in the US

Couldn't have anything to do with their efficacy, by any chance? Hence the overall murder and suicide rates are much higher than they would be in a less gun infested society. Now, that being the case, what the heck is wrong with trying to reduce those numbers without taking away the rights of individuals to own guns?

[gejohnston]

42. Sorry, emperical evidence says otherwise

Hence the overall murder and suicide rates are much higher than they would be in a less gun infested society.

Sorry, there is no empirical evidence to support that, so says the NAS and CDC among other studies abroad. Your assumptions are not based on evidence and is fallacious logic. Using your logic, Iceland and Norway should have higher murder rates than UK, but UK is the most violent country in Western Europe. Canada's murder rate is about the same as UK, but is more "gun infested" than Florida and California.

Now, that being the case, what the heck is wrong with trying to reduce those numbers without taking away the rights of individuals to own guns?

See above. Besides, the number of people who defend themselves, using conservative FBI and CDC estimates, outnumber murders and suicides 4-1.

[bossy22]

52. That is factually incorrect

The U.S. sits in the middle of the pack when it comes to suicide rate. Japan has a significantly higher rate of suicide despite being a "gun free" nation

[Starboard Tack]

53. What exactly is factually incorrect?

Are you saying that guns are not the weapon of choice for either murder or suicide in the US?
I think you will find they are.
I said nothing about suicide rates, just the weapon/method of choice.

[Straw Man]

56. Suicide?

It's not exactly relevant to the discussion, is it? Should I choose to take MY life, MY gun would respond to MY fingerprint and allow ME to blow MY brains out. This technology would have little or no effect on suicide rates.

[Starboard Tack]

61. But would it respond to your troubled teenager's fingerprint?

You see, it's not all about you, my friend.

[Straw Man]

65. My troubled teenager ...

... were such a person to exist, would have no access to my firearms to begin with. He or she, poor hypothetical soul, would have to find another means of leaving this world.

[Starboard Tack]

69. Got it! Explains your position perfectly!

With that attitude you make quite a poster boy for the gun culture.

[Straw Man]

70. Which part?

With that attitude you make quite a poster boy for the gun culture.

Which part? The part about not having children, or the part about practicing safe storage of my firearms?

I'm sorry. Was I cavalier in my attitude toward the emotional problems of the child that I don't have?

[Starboard Tack]

73. The part where it's all about you and screw everyone else and their kids.

[Straw Man]

75. Sorry -- I can't find that part.

My only point was that the smart gun won't effectively deter suicide because people tend to do that with THEIR OWN guns, which are already coded to THEIR OWN fingerprints, allowing THEM to blow THEIR OWN brains out.

See? It works just as well in the third person.

[Starboard Tack]

77. And my point is, they are welcome. It's not about them, but others who may find their guns

like their angst ridden teenagers or depressed spouse or their curious toddler. Do you get it now? It's not all about you.

[Straw Man]

78. Around, around the mulberry bush ...

And my point is, they are welcome. It's not about them, but others who may find their guns

like their angst ridden teenagers or depressed spouse or their curious toddler. Do you get it now? It's not all about you.

And my point, which you seem to have missed again, was that locking up one's guns precludes that eventuality without an expensive and unproven technology, a technology which would do nothing to prevent the gun owner's suicide. Apparently it is fine with you if gun owners commit suicide. I suggest to you that this demonstrates a callous indifference to human life.

[Starboard Tack]

80. Around your mulberry bush.

We're talking here about guns that are NOT locked up. Why would we care about locked up guns, unless they were stolen? We're talking about guns that people carry around in public, guns that can easily be stolen by a determined thief. We're talking about guns that are carelessly left lying around.
Why would we use an unproven technology? Did I suggest that? What I do suggest is developing a solid technology, which despite you and the other naysayers, is possible. Sorry if it's expensive, but lives are expensive too.
Callous is not giving a shit about shooting victims. Callous is about shooting down every positive suggestion for safety, especially if it is going to cost you a few extra bucks. Callous is caring more about yourself and your wallet than the lives of others.

[Straw Man]

82. Perhaps you forgot ...

We're talking here about guns that are NOT locked up. Why would we care about locked up guns, unless they were stolen? We're talking about guns that people carry around in public, guns that can easily be stolen by a determined thief.

... that we were talking about suicide. Remember? So a determined thief will use his x-ray vision to see that someone is carrying a concealed gun and then will mug that person for his gun in order to commit suicide with it? Is that what you're suggesting?

We're talking about guns that are carelessly left lying around.

My solution to that is to not carelessly leave guns lying around.

Why would we use an unproven technology? Did I suggest that? What I do suggest is developing a solid technology, which despite you and the other naysayers, is possible. Sorry if it's expensive, but lives are expensive too.

The editorial cited in the OP calls for legislation mandating use of the existing technology. Anything is possible, but what is being proposed is foolish. Am I a naysayer? Sorry, but sometimes "nay" is the correct answer. There is absolutely no evidence that this technology would save any lives. But what the hell, let's try it as long as it's not your money that's being spent.

Callous is not giving a shit about shooting victims. Callous is about shooting down every positive suggestion for safety, especially if it is going to cost you a few extra bucks. Callous is caring more about yourself and your wallet than the lives of others.

Nowhere did I say that I don't care about shooting victims. That particular calumny originated with you, who, on the other hand, invited gun owners to go ahead and off themselves. Sounds pretty callous to me.

[hack89]

59. Heller say you have the right to own a handgun in your home

So how do you intend to reduce suicides with that in mind? It is impossible to determine who will commit suicide.

[Starboard Tack]

68. Hey, if you want to eat your gun, be my guest, but...

how would you feel if a family member used your gun to end it? A gun can be a very "handy" problem solver for those in pain. How would you feel if junior decided to point it at his sister and pull the trigger during one of those "fraternal moments"?
We're never going to eliminate idiots, suicides, accidents or homicides, but if we make an effort to reduce them by common sense safety technology, that is pretty much idiot and theft proof, then we might put a big dent in the numbers.

[Straw Man]

71. Callous much?

Hey, if you want to eat your gun, be my guest, but...

Who's the poster boy for the anti-gun culture?

[Starboard Tack]

74. Not me, that's for sure

I have nothing against guns, just the assholes who think it's cool to carry them around and don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

[Straw Man]

76. Got it.

I have nothing against guns, just the assholes who think it's cool to carry them around and don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

So you don't care if such people die. Check.

And I have nothing against gun controllers, just the hypocrites who try to mask their hatred, prejudice, and authoritarianism in verbal gymnastics and contorted logic.

[Starboard Tack]

81. Tell that to someone who advocates for gun control.

I advocate for common sense and fair legislation addressed at public safety that respects individual rights. I advocate for self control and safety, not gun control. Find me one quote that makes me an authoritarian, a hater or prejudiced against group of people.

[Straw Man]

83. That's what I'm doing.

Tell that to someone who advocates for gun control.

I advocate for common sense and fair legislation addressed at public safety that respects individual rights.

Of course you do, dear. Of course you do. No one could possibly be against something that's "common sense" and "fair," especially if it "respects individual rights." The problem is that the legislation you're advocating for meets none of those criteria.

I advocate for self control and safety, not gun control. Find me one quote that makes me an authoritarian, a hater or prejudiced against group of people.

The irony is rich. You're arguing for a gun control measure as we speak. You told gun owners to go ahead and eat their guns if they wished. No, you're not a controller or a hater. Not a bit.

[Starboard Tack]

88. Bullshit. I'm not advocating for any particular legislation.

I think gun manufacturers could make their devices safer by implementing new technology. You can try to paint me as a controller all day long. Doesn't make me one. But I do hate assholes, you're right about that.

[Straw Man]

94. So ...

Bullshit. I'm not advocating for any particular legislation.

... we can agree that this technology should not be mandated in Massachusetts? That's the matter under discussion, no matter how much you would like to pretend that it's all about you and your opinions.

You do realize, of course, that legislation is the only way that this technology would be adopted, since it's something that the market certainly doesn't demand. Nobody says to him/herself, "Gee, I'm an irresponsible gun owner, so I think I'd better get one of these fingerprint-recognition guns so that I can just leave my guns lying around."

Your stance is untenable: "I think we should have it, but I don't want to mandate it. I'd rather just wait for human nature to change, and then when it doesn't, I can carp about irresponsible assholes and thereby assert my moral superiority."

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. 'Safety' is the latest product of the euphemism treadmill

Gun control advocates prefer using it lately, as 'gun control' has become
rather too obviously a euphemism for 'gun prohibitionism'.

As evidence, I give you the gun prohibitionist in this thread that claims to be
a safety advocate...

[Jenoch]

86. Here is a quote from you:

"...assholes who think it's cool to carry them around and don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves."

Did you already forget posting this?

[Starboard Tack]

89. No, and I stand by it.

Last edited Mon Dec 30, 2013, 09:27 PM - Edit history (1)

What's your point? Do you think it's cool to carry guns around? Really? Because there is nothing cool about it.
I understand some carry because they live in fear, or it is their job, but those who carry because they think it's cool are complete assholes.

[Jenoch]

91. My point was to provide you with a quote which you asked for.

[Starboard Tack]

93. I asked for a quote that makes me an authoritarian, a hater or prejudiced against a group of people.

What group are you referring to? Oh right, I said "I have nothing against guns, just the assholes who think it is cool to carry guns around and don't give a fuck about anyone else. "
Now how does that make me an authoritarian, hater or prejudiced against a group of people. I'm against assholes, that's all.

But feel free to keep digging. Meanwhile I'm off for a swim.

[Jenoch]

95. The quote indicates you are a hater and are

prejudiced against those who conceal carry. That is obvious from nearly all of your posts.

I'd like to go for a swim, but the beach where we swim at is covered with ice and snow and it's -5° today.

[Starboard Tack]

99. I hate nobody. I hate ignorance and selfish behavior

which we all suffer from at times. Concealed carry is sometimes justified and a smart thing to do. Routine carry is foolish and only serves to encourage the peddlers of fear and disharmony. I wish you and yours a peaceful and healthy new year.

[gejohnston]

97. Post 89 for judgemental

that could be viewed as "prejudiced against a group of people", I would simply describe it as judgmental. Comparing the State/Crown as a "parent" certainly smacks of authoritarianism.

[Starboard Tack]

100. I am judging an attitude, a state of mind, not a group of people.

Do you think carrying a gun in public is cool? If so, please explain what you find cool about it.

[gejohnston]

102. I don't buy into the concept of "cool"

it isn't about "coolness". That went out in Jr. High. You are projecting your outlook onto others, and judging them based on that.
It is simply exercising their right no more, no less.

[Starboard Tack]

104. That's my point GE. All these guys who think it's "cool" are still in Jr. High

Has nothing to do with exercising a right. We all have the right to behave like idiots, but most of us choose not to and a few think it's cool.

[gejohnston]

105. you missed my point

people stop doing things "to be cool" in Jr. High. Yes, it has everything to do with exercising a right.

[Starboard Tack]

106. So, what are you saying? Because someone has a right to do something, he should exercise that right?

My point is, that it's about personal choices, not rights. We all have the right to act foolishly, but most of us choose not to. Many people perceive guns as being "cool", whether you and I do or not. Many think carrying a gun is a "cool" thing to do. You may think the word disappeared when you were in junior high, but it didn't. "groovy" may hav faded away, but "cool" has stuck around, like it or not.
But feel free to use others descriptors, makes no difference. All you need to do is visit a gun show or a Cabelas and you will hear the oohs and aahs about the coolness of the latest gun gear, from the latest holsters to the pink pistols. Fear is what is being sold, but "Cool" is what is marketed and "cool" is what is bought into.

[gejohnston]

107. Yes if that is their choice,

they also have the right not to.
Been to plenty of gun shows and gun shops in my life. I didn't find any Ohhs and ahhs. Now finding something rare like a Mauser Luger in .45 ACP was cool. The price tag vs my budget wasn't.

[Starboard Tack]

108. So you think everyone should carry a gun because it is their right.

Yet you choose not to. What's with that?
I agree that certain guns are cool. Carrying them thoughtlessly, just because it is legal, is not cool. Sorry. Just because something is a right doesn't make it cool. That is my point.
I guess you don't go to Cabelas much. On my few visits I have witnessed many such reactions by those smitten with the fashionista coolness of gun toting. But YMMV

[gejohnston]

109. not quite

Yes if that is their choice, they also have the right not to.

means they have the right to or not to. The only "should" I believe is that people should have the choice, and I respect that choice either way. I give the decision to carry the equal respect I give someones decision not to.

[Starboard Tack]

110. Wow! You, apparently, respect any choice, regardless of it's value.

I respect the right to choose, but not the choice. Just as I respect and support a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion, but I do not respect those who choose abortion as a primary method of birth control.
Just as I respect a voter's right to choose, but I don't necessarily respect their choices.

[gejohnston]

111. not quite,

My thinking is a lot more nuanced than that. Respect is different than agree with. In the case of the voter, not agreeing with the choice is not the same not respecting the reason for the choice.

Agreeing with and respecting, or not, are two different concepts. You can disagree with someones choice but respect their reasoning for it. Conversely, you can agree with someones choice but not respect their reason for doing so.

When it comes to natural rights/individual rights, my approval means not much.

If I were to write the educational standards in the US, I would make Enlightenment writers like Locke (and the writings of founders like Thomas Paine's books and the Federalist/Anti Federalist papers) mandatory starting in Jr. High if not grade school.

[Starboard Tack]

112. OK, so let's get the nuance down on the subject at hand

You respect the choice to carry indiscriminately because it is a right. Does that also mean you agree with that choice?

I think where we differ is, that I respect one's right to choose, but I definitely do not respect the choice, whether I agree with it or disagree with it. I respect your right to decide anything, but not the decision itself. Agreeing or disagreeing with something has nothing to do with respect.

[gejohnston]

113. OK

You respect the choice to carry indiscriminately because it is a right.

I agree with the choice either way.

Does that also mean you agree with that choice?

Most of the time. It depends on the reason why. Most of the time it would have to be some asinine reason for me not to respect it.
I can agree with a choice but not the respect the reason.

[Starboard Tack]

114. Now you are starting to lose me

You say you agree with the choice, either way. Do you mean you agree with the right to choose, or the actual choice?

Then you say you agree with the choice to indiscriminately carry most of the time, depending on the reason. Indiscriminately means there is no specific reason besides the possibility of needing it. So do you repect that reason, or lack thereof?

I can think of lots of good reasons for carrying a gun, but the remote possibility of it coming in handy, is not one of them, nor is the notion that it is a cool thing to do, nor is the notion that I should do it because it's my right and rights need to be exercised in a particular way. So, those who say they carry because it is their right are full of shit. That is not the reason they carry, it's merely an attempt to justify their behavior.

[gejohnston]

115. simple

You say you agree with the choice, either way. Do you mean you agree with the right to choose, or the actual choice?

both

Then you say you agree with the choice to indiscriminately carry most of the time, depending on the reason. Indiscriminately means there is no specific reason besides the possibility of needing it. So do you repect that reason, or lack thereof?

Yes. Perfect example of agreeing with a decision but disrespecting the reason for it: Someone votes for Obama (which I agreed with and did) over Mitt but did so for a reason I would not respect (being an Mormonphobe) instead of a respectable reason (like mine, him being the better person).

I can think of lots of good reasons for carrying a gun, but the remote possibility of it coming in handy, is not one of them, nor is the notion that it is a cool thing to do, nor is the notion that I should do it because it's my right and rights need to be exercised in a particular way. So, those who say they carry because it is their right are full of shit. That is not the reason they carry, it's merely an attempt to justify their behavior.

Two of those reasons are actually good. You seem to think there is some social harm, there is no evidence of it. In fact, opponents can't come up with logically valid or even rational reasons to not allow it.

[Starboard Tack]

116. I didn't mention not allowing carry. That is not my issue.

The laws, rights etc. are pretty irrelevant. Anyone who really wants to carry is going to carry, regardless. My issue is with the mentality that thinks it is in some way positive or progressive or cool.

[gejohnston]

117. It certainly isn't

negative (not based on any empirical evidence. It is actually neutral), progressive is a relative term. In NY and much of the south, it was progressive. Have to understand the history of gun control in the US in its entirety. When California introduced a law that would require all gun and ammo sales be registered, I'm guessing you would think of it as progressive since it was introduced by progressives. A similar law was introduced in Mississippi in 1954, was it progressive then even though laws supporters were not?

[Starboard Tack]

118. You completely miss my point.

I'm NOT talking about gun control, or the legality of carrying a gun around, or the history of Mississippi or Japan's suicide rate or fucking Wyoming. I'm talking about the practice of carrying guns, which contributes to tens of thousands of deaths and injuries every year. That is empirical evidence, all the rest is smoke and mirrors and total bullshit.
Dead is dead. It makes no difference if the killer is a good guy or a bad guy. Can't you see that? People are carrying guns every day, for the express purpose of killing other humans, should the "necessity" arise. This is a society that is seriously diseased, especially when folk think that it is OK to behave in such a way.

There is nothing NEUTRAL about it. You need to get off that fence and take a stand, instead of waffling on about history and Japan and Wyoming. Just sayin'!

[gejohnston]

119. you didn't make a valid point

tens of thousands of deaths and injuries every year. That is empirical evidence, all the rest is smoke and mirrors and total bullshit.

the vast majority of which are by criminal gangs who don't legally own the guns, not legally carrying them. To equate gangsters and drug dealers, and that is really what you are talking about, from some guy with a CCW is asinine and absurd.

It makes no difference if the killer is a good guy or a bad guy. Can't you see that?

actually, it does. Because if the good guy can't defend himself, the good guy sometimes die or is an extend stay in the hospital. You are basically saying that you value the life of a sociopath criminal over an innocent person who is a victim of a violent crime.

People are carrying guns every day, for the express purpose of killing other humans, should the "necessity" arise. This is a society that is seriously diseased, especially when folk think that it is OK to behave in such a way.

No, to defend themselves against people who have zero respect for life or the safety of others. While common in our society, rarely does it involve wounding someone, and ever more rarely does it involve death.
Self defense is a fundamental human and natural right. If you want an example of a diseased society, see Kitty Genovese.

[friendly_iconoclast]

87. You are advocating for security theater as well as gun control...

...with a soupçon of culture war thrown in, as evinced by your remarks about
gun owner suicides. Mandating that imperfect and easily hacked technology
be included in firearms requires technological ignorance and a profound disregard for
human nature.

[Starboard Tack]

92. Boy, you guys are really scrambling for some traction on this one.

"...with a soupçon of culture war thrown in, as evinced by your remarks about
gun owner suicides." Nice try.

Where do I suggest MANDATING an imperfect technology. In fact, I suggest perfecting a technology that both manufacturers and gun owners and the general public will all be happy with. I believe we have the wherewithal to accomplish that. Now all we need is the will.

Of course, it will not stop all killings, be they accidental or intentional. It definitely won't stop suicides by owner, but neither does the status quo. But it could save countless other lives.
You naysayers remind me of the Flat Earth Society.

[Straw Man]

96. Traction.

In fact, I suggest perfecting a technology that both manufacturers and gun owners and the general public will all be happy with.

Here's the rub: I will never be happy with adding a technology that

(a) makes it impossible for me to allow anyone else to fire my gun;
(b) requires the gun to be reprogrammed in order to sell it;
(c) adds complex circuitry to a simple mechanical device that I am otherwise capable of repairing myself.

Why would I want such a thing? To protect the public from my own potential irresponsibility? I behave responsibly, and I resent the suggestion that I do not. Nope, owners will never be happy with it.

Manufacturers won't care either way. If it's mandated, they will make it, and the customer will bear the cost.

The general public will be split. Most won't care in the slightest. Anyone who knows anything about guns will have contempt for it. The controllers will pat themselves on the back that "something has been done" and will shift their focus to newer and better ways to infringe rights.

[Starboard Tack]

98. As I said and you continue to confirm, it's all about you

I'm done discussing this with you.

[Straw Man]

103. Absolutely wrong.

As I said and you continue to confirm, it's all about you

I'm done discussing this with you.

No. I only refer to myself as representative of gun owners. You will never convince them that they need or should want this technology. Mandating it would be the only way to bring it to market, and I oppose that, as, supposedly, do you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

101. "Where do I suggest MANDATING an imperfect technology."

Problem is, that is exactly what Tolman proposes to do. Hence, my dismay.

..In fact, I suggest perfecting a technology that both manufacturers and gun owners and the general public will all be happy with. I believe we have the wherewithal to accomplish that. Now all we need is the will.

Unless there is some technological advance that you have not shared with us, it would
seem the wherewithal is absent.

[hack89]

72. What technology will stop suicides?

You are being silly.

[bossy22]

55. It should be tested

but at this point it hasn't been tested enough to mandate it on all new guns. I'm not against the idea of a personalized gun, I just think that are the current level of technology it just isn't reliable enough. As for actually preventing a mugger from using it- well I don't think this technology is really going to stop that- they will simply just disable it. A gun is a strictly mechanical piece of equipment- you can't permanently integrate an electronic lock into it and expect it to be tamper proof- or even hard to tamper with for that fact. This is not like electronic ignition lock in a car (which works by disabling the necessarily electrical parts that are needed to start the engine), there are no electric parts in a gun. The only way this technology could seriously work would be if you replaced the current mechanical firing mechanism with an electrical one- and that isn't easy. You would essentially have to completely redesign all modern firearms- and even then the the electronic parts might not be able to handle the forces that are created when the powder in the ammunition ignites.

The key thing to this whole debate is- if it is so necessary, so reliable, and can save so many lives by preventing unauthorized use- why aren't police mandated to use it? Many police officers have been killed by their own firearm. It would make sense to require them to use the technology if what you say is all true (Ill give the author of the article credit- he did mention police should use it). If not, then the intentions of the law aren't to prevent accident and injuries

[ileus]

9. what a bunch of asshats...

In a perfect world your finger print unlocks your phone. Most times it's 3 or 4 attempts then you disable the junky software...after a bunch of failures.

Just what you need on a lifesaving device, something that keeps it disabled to help assure it's operator dies trying.


Typical laws written by fools that only know "guns kill people"

[Starboard Tack]

13. That's right. Stay with that positive thinking.

Wouldn't want your life taking device to malfunction.

[blueridge3210]

16. He is positive

Positive that he doesn't want his life endangered by someone with little knowledge of how firearms work and the ideas they tend to favor.

[Starboard Tack]

20. This isn't about how firearms work

It's about how to prevent them from working when in the wrong hands. I'm sure that nobody wants to be shot by their own gun, or have one of their kids blow them away.

[gejohnston]

24. it is about how firearms works

because you have to design and build it as intended. Under German law, smart technology must be put on newly manufactured guns once the technology exists and actually works. Either Walther, Sauer, HK, and Mauser Jagdwaffen are violating German law, or the technology is still movie fiction like undetectable guns.

[Starboard Tack]

28. As we move from Australia to Germany

It's like watching NatGeo with you. OK, let them work on it, but first of all, let's motivate them by telling them they have to make it work. Kinda like that MPG thing Detroit couldn't get it's head around.
Are you honestly suggesting that nobody can come up with the technology to fix this issue as we go into 2014?

[gejohnston]

30. Well, we are not the only country in the world

They have been working on it for forty years. Most innovations in firearms comes from Europe. That has been the case for quite some time. Granted Colt made some of John Brownings designs, but most of them were purchased by the Belgian company FNH, the current owner of Winchester. If it happens, it will either be FNH or Walther.

Kinda like that MPG thing Detroit couldn't get it's head around.

automotive engineering is quite different than firearms and the issue is entirely different.

Are you honestly suggesting that nobody can come up with the technology to fix this issue as we go into 2014?

Not really, and I actually think it will cost more lives than it will save. I give it closer to 2020 and will first see it in German gun shops in 2025. You will see it in US and Canadian gun shops after both of us "have been called home by the lord".

[Starboard Tack]

33. Maybe they should give the job to Apple

It might take them a year. It's all about motivation.

[gejohnston]

35. an open source Android or Linux devoloper

would do a better job. At least then there is a chance it won't be a collaboration between a Chinese sweatshop and Norinco.

[Starboard Tack]

47. Right, but you get my point.

BTW, Apple is UNIX based and a lot of Linux programmers/developers have day jobs at Apple and Microsoft

[gejohnston]

50. Yes I know, they share the same kernal

point is Apple tends to put form before function, and is over priced.

[Starboard Tack]

63. True. Only Apple product I use is an Iphone

and that was free. Have a dual boot linux/windows7 on the laptop and a Galaxy 10.1 tab

[ileus]

48. Let's keep crapple away from anything of mine.

[Straw Man]

57. Apple?

aybe they should give the job to Apple

It might take them a year. It's all about motivation.

C'est a rire. Or any other high-tech firm, for that matter. The computer industry is notorious for rushing buggy products to market and letting the "early adopters" discover the "issues." Why take a simple and useful mechanical device and fuck it up with dodgy technology just so that some hack politicians can pretend that they have done something to promote public safety?

Let the police and the military use it first. If they're satisfied with it, then go ahead and foist it on the rest of us.

[krispos42]

60. Show me a police department that will...

...accept these guns as duty weapons.

when they gain widespread acceptance among big city police forces, including their SWAT teams, I'll be interested.

[bossy22]

62. exactly

until the proponents of these laws actually apply them to police, then their true intentions are not safety.

[krispos42]

67. I want the same reliably and dependability the cops get

When they trust the technology, you have my attention.

[Eleanors38]

79. If this were to work, it would be with an electron "gun."

Perhaps something similar to a hand-held rail gun. At least the SD unit's personalization function would be as reliable as the entire unit, like my Samsuck.

By then we will have slogged through what a firearm is and all those attendant issues.