Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Question goldengrain: If you absolutely have to depend on a gun to protect your life and your loved ones lives, what kind of failure rate would be acceptable to you? Ten percent? 1%?
And yes guns are not 100% reliable. I shoot thousands of rounds annually in various firearms that I own and at times and for various reasons I have had misfires. A clean and properly maintained weapon loaded with defective ammunition may misfire.
The fingerprint gun is a great idea but it will never be adopted by Police because a COP is never going to trust something as complex as the electronic circuitry this gun uses.
I paid over $1,200.00 for the last handgun I bought. The fingerprint technology would add at least $200 to the price of a handgun. A citizen that only wants a gun for protection may not have the resources or be willing to pay the extra $200 this technology adds to the price of a gun.
Four year olds can be taught NOT to do things. They can be taught NOT to touch firearms. Do most four year olds know that they should not touch a hot stove burner? Did you have to put their hand on a burner to teach them this? Call Child Protective Services if you did. Any kid can be taught to NOT touch a gun unless a responsible adult is present. Many have not been taught this because their parents are total morons. The N.R.A. has saved more lives with their gun safety programs that all of the do good M****r F*****s in the entire gun control crowd.
GL
I think if most people can afford the 1200 they probably could shell out the extra 200.
No one has said these guns have a high failure rate.
I am not saying every gun should be such, but just the gun/s generally used for protection around the house IF you prefer to have one at the ready and not locked in a closet somewhere with the ammo locked away somewhere else, which you must do now, legally.
I think it would be more convenient for the homeowner and many of these murders by children would not have happened.
The same thing could be said about automobiles also. You know and understand the use of a car, you just have no knowledge of the use and intent of owning firearms.
Why not ban the use of automobiles ? Are there any cases of a 4 or 8 YO's causing the death of of a child by auto ? I suspect it would be very common and they kill way more kids than guns.
“Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children from 2 to 14 years old".
I know this was addressed to EB Wick, but again, she said nothing about banning, she just suggested adding more taxes. As for automobiles, they ARE regulated, trying driving yours without registering it. If guns were regulated like cars, it would help...make people take a test to prove they can use them safely like we do with drivers licenses, make them register their guns like we do our cars, and maybe it is even a good idea to require carrying liability insurance while we're at it, so if some dufus leaves it leaning against a door where their 4 year old can shoot another child with it, at least the funeral will be covered. Again, why are people insisting that we are talking about a BAN when regulation of any type is brought up?
I think if most people can afford the 1200 they probably could shell out the extra 200.
No one has said these guns have a high failure rate.
I am not saying every gun should be such, but just the gun/s generally used for protection around the house IF you prefer to have one at the ready and not locked in a closet somewhere with the ammo locked away somewhere else, which you must do now, legally.
I think it would be more convenient for the homeowner and many of these murders by children would not have happened.
But I and a lot of people don't have any children. At my age I think I need some immediate protection ready. Home invasions, for example, are not uncommon. It should be up to the parents to store their guns in an appropriate place. It's not the government's right to intrude into all kinds of details of our personal lives like that. Kids should brush their teeth daily, eat a balanced diet, get regular physical exams, and many other things, but that is the parents' responsibility, not the state's.
As usual, politicians don't know what they're doing when they consider gun control. They make people agree to a medical records check and deny a gun to anyone who was treated for a mental health problem. If they had looked up the data, they would have found that the mentally ill, even those with serious mental health problems, are LESS likely to be violent than the general population. And they are much more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of crimes of violence. This at a time when New Jersey has numerous sites saying they're trying to remove the stigma of mental illness. What hypocrisy! The vast majority of the mentally ill suffer from depression, eating disorders, phobias, etc. All these laws do is make them less likely to seek help.
First off, the second amendment was written, by context of the surrounding documents, quotes, and literature at that time as a means to protect the citizenry from their own government. When did this change? The history of the entirety of humanity in almost every nation in the world has shown time and time again why the effective use of a deterrent, such as a gun by society as a whole could prevent tragedies like what happened to the Cambodians, the Russians, the Jews, etc from being massacred by their own government. Any talk of gun control is immediately irrational and stupid. Guns are not the problem. Idiots with guns are. Sorry, but there is a price to pay for our freedoms and as awful and insensitive as this is gonna sound, a few dead kids every year is worth that cost.
And that isn't making light of what has happened or continues to happen in this country. I'm just tired of seeing politicians and people use gun tragedies as some sick political scheme to enforce their backward views on the rest of us. If trying to capitalize on tragedy is your thing, go for it. But to me it is pretty disturbing seeing our own President capitalize on every liberals wet dream (dead kids) on national television.
As far as I know, there are no fingerprint-safety guns in production today.
Thank you.
I don't know why, as it would seem to help both sides of this controversy and glean more income for gun manufacturers as well. Just does not make sense to me.
But I and a lot of people don't have any children. At my age I think I need some immediate protection ready. Home invasions, for example, are not uncommon. It should be up to the parents to store their guns in an appropriate place. It's not the government's right to intrude into all kinds of details of our personal lives like that. Kids should brush their teeth daily, eat a balanced diet, get regular physical exams, and many other things, but that is the parents' responsibility, not the state's.
As usual, politicians don't know what they're doing when they consider gun control. They make people agree to a medical records check and deny a gun to anyone who was treated for a mental health problem. If they had looked up the data, they would have found that the mentally ill, even those with serious mental health problems, are LESS likely to be violent than the general population. And they are much more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of crimes of violence. This at a time when New Jersey has numerous sites saying they're trying to remove the stigma of mental illness. What hypocrisy! The vast majority of the mentally ill suffer from depression, eating disorders, phobias, etc. All these laws do is make them less likely to seek help.
But children are not the entire problem. It seems to me that it would be much easier to leave a loaded gun out where you can get to it in an emergency if you were sure no one could use it but you. A fingerprint gun would allow you to do that with no problem at all.
On top of that, many of the news stories that get all of us riled up ARE of children who get their hands on guns and go berserk. They are often guns the parents keep around the house. If those guns were fingerprint controlled the kids would have to resort to something less lethal, like knives.
I don't follow these issues, but it stands to reason that all people who require some psychiatric help - the majority of them - are not violent. What they should be able to catch is troubled kids in school and give them some help before things get out of hand. A lot of these kids show problems early on and nobody seems to want to intervene. New Jersey is right, there should be no stigma attached to being in therapy. Most of my friends who have undergone therapy are now better adjusted and have more insight into life than those who have not.
And that isn't making light of what has happened or continues to happen in this country. I'm just tired of seeing politicians and people use gun tragedies as some sick political scheme to enforce their backward views on the rest of us. If trying to capitalize on tragedy is your thing, go for it. But to me it is pretty disturbing seeing our own President capitalize on every liberals wet dream (dead kids) on national television.
I understand, and this is what I think the fingerprint guns would drastically cut down. I find it strange that they are not on the market since they have been available to 'other than the public' for years. Not that I am implying a conspiracy or anything.
Accidents occasionally happen, especially around young children. The parents obviously made a terrible mistake leaving the gun where they did.
Its an unfortunate, sad situation. But we should not be banning anything because a 4 year old cant use it properly.
Yes, gun violence in the U.S. is absolutely an issue, and accidents (and deliberate non accidents) happen more than just occasionally.
The U.S. has THE highest per capita gun ownership rate on the entire planet. Nobody in this thread, not even the extremist anti gun control, 2nd Amendment chest beaters, can deny that we live in THE most gun saturated country in the world. Is this what we want? Why? Are we supposed to be proud of this? (That isn't directed specifically at you--asking in general, to the whole thread.)
And despite living in one of the most developed, supposedly most enlightened, technologically and socially advanced, first world countries in the world, we also have among the highest gun violence rates in the world, certainly in the developed world, comparable to some of the most violent, poorest nations in Central & South America and Africa. Is this really just a coincidence? Just from a purely logical standpoint, the answer to guns can not be "more guns". The answer can't be an INTRAnational, inter-citizen arms race. Or, it can be, and then we can reap what we sow.
But I do not advocate a "gun ban". I don't think any reasonable person advocates any such extreme measures...that's been said ad nauseum in this thread. However I think stricter gun control (and harsher punishment for people that don't adhere to the strictest standards of gun safety) is absolutely reasonable.
There are people in this thread saying that what happened in Toms River is strictly about bad parenting and has nothing to do with guns. I think that's absurd. In my opinion, it's not really specifically about parents needing to supervise a 4 year-old better. What if it had been their 14 year-old child, instead of a 4 year-old child? Who keeps a close, vigilant, supervisory eye on their 14 year-old? The REAL POINT is not that the parents weren't watching their kid closely enough. It's that they weren't watching their guns ("8 to 10" guns) closely enough.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
