Toddler Shoots and Kills Mother

[Imperializt Russia]

A smart gun wouldn't have gone off in the hands of a baby- and just how light of a pressure was on the trigger if a baby could pull it?- But the NRA is using a half-assed New Jersey law as an excuse to ban the manufacture and distributions of smart guns. Even though the author of that half-ass bill explicitly supported doing away with the mandate.

Gun control groups accuse New Jersey of ignoring 'smart gun' law

N.J. Democrat: We will reverse smart gun law if NRA plays bal

Classily, two gun store owners who were going to sell smart guns backed down after being bombarded with death threats. And not from gun control advocates.

Death threats stop gun store from selling 'smart' gun. Why?

I really like smart guns, provided if the battery fails or it becomes electronically unresponsive the "break" position is one that will allow firing.

It's useful for a whole hell of a lot of reasons. This one is a good one.

The only reason I could be considered "opposed" to smart guns is that they can't really be retroactively applied as technologies to existing models of firearm. Either it spoils its appeal, particularly in the case of older or more popular weapons, also because it'd be incredibly easy to disable.

If I were an American I would oppose any measure to prevent the sale of "conventional" firearms and replace them with smart guns.
If a person comes into a store and says words to the effect of, "I would like a gun" - which I am reading as I would like a gun, any gun, for my personal defence - the gun shop owner should try and steer them to a smart gun. Pointing out the probably-high market price, of course.

[Divitaen]

I really like smart guns, provided if the battery fails or it becomes electronically unresponsive the "break" position is one that will allow firing.

It's useful for a whole hell of a lot of reasons. This one is a good one.

The only reason I could be considered "opposed" to smart guns is that they can't really be retroactively applied as technologies to existing models of firearm. Either it spoils its appeal, particularly in the case of older or more popular weapons, also because it'd be incredibly easy to disable.

If I were an American I would oppose any measure to prevent the sale of "conventional" firearms and replace them with smart guns.
If a person comes into a store and says words to the effect of, "I would like a gun" - which I am reading as I would like a gun, any gun, for my personal defence - the gun shop owner should try and steer them to a smart gun. Pointing out the probably-high market price, of course.

But a smart gun mandate would serve to gradually encourage people to encourage older models of guns with smart guns. People will always want to buy newer guns with better technology, and if we stock all those newer guns with proximity watches and fingerprint technology, eventually more and more people will use smart guns. It's not the best solution, but it's definitely going to help save lives.

[Gun Manufacturers]

It also means what you do with the gun is quite traceable. That's why you'll find a lot of people shoot themselves in Switzerland as opposed to other people; it's very easy for the police to figure out where the bullets came from.

No offense, but in most places in the states, you can do that too; bullet casings come with their own serial numbers. And, at least in TN, they do background checks at stores for buying ammunition (if it isn't legally required, then Gander Mountain must elect to do it anyway). That said, since it is the casing, not the bullet that have the registration, bullet registration wouldn't have much effect on trace-ability of the round, as long as the person shooting picks up the casings when they are done.

Bullet casings don't come with their own serial numbers. Even if they did start coming out with serialized ammunition, as long as the purchaser's serial number isn't logged anywhere, all that will tell you is who sold it.

[Esternial]

Ah, I see.

Ultimately that goes to show, then, that having a gun out in public is just an extra hazard for you and others.

Ummm, did you even read the post to which you are replying?

How does having a modern firearm with ample protection against accidental discharges ultimately go to show that carrying a firearm is just an extra hazard?

Because despite those ample protection people still manage to get themselves killed, I had expected that point would be obvious.

[Big Jim P]

Ummm, did you even read the post to which you are replying?

How does having a modern firearm with ample protection against accidental discharges ultimately go to show that carrying a firearm is just an extra hazard?

Because despite those ample protection people still manage to get themselves killed, I had expected that point would be obvious.

Same with cars etc. Accidents happen.

[Divitaen]

Because despite those ample protection people still manage to get themselves killed, I had expected that point would be obvious.

Same with cars etc. Accidents happen.

And so we should regulate cars to make them safer. And punish people who knock others down.

And while we're at it, let's do the same with guns.

[Staffordish Commonwealth]

U wot m8 atleast its not in purpose..RIP to the mother though..

[Big Jim P]

Same with cars etc. Accidents happen.

And so we should regulate cars to make them safer. And punish people who knock others down.

And while we're at it, let's do the same with guns.

As I pointed out, we already do. In both cases. We don't need more regulation.

[Divitaen]

And so we should regulate cars to make them safer. And punish people who knock others down.

And while we're at it, let's do the same with guns.

As I pointed out, we already do. In both cases. We don't need more regulation.

And as I linked in articles in a previous post, prosecution is extremely rare. Most of the time prosecutors refuse to prosecute negligent parents, making bogus arguments such as how they lost a child and shouldn't have to suffer and all that.

[Esternial]

Because despite those ample protection people still manage to get themselves killed, I had expected that point would be obvious.

Same with cars etc. Accidents happen.

I thought it had already been established a long time ago those two things aren't comparable.

For one, they have very different functions.

Please don't compare pears and apples to make an argument.

[Big Jim P]

Same with cars etc. Accidents happen.

I thought it had already been established a long time ago those two things aren't comparable.

For one, they have very different functions.

Please don't compare pears and apples to make an argument.

An accident is an accident.

[Big Jim P]

As I pointed out, we already do. In both cases. We don't need more regulation.

And as I linked in articles in a previous post, prosecution is extremely rare. Most of the time prosecutors refuse to prosecute negligent parents, making bogus arguments such as how they lost a child and shouldn't have to suffer and all that.

Then blame the lack of prosecution under current law instead of advocating more (unnecessary) law.

[Esternial]

I thought it had already been established a long time ago those two things aren't comparable.

For one, they have very different functions.

Please don't compare pears and apples to make an argument.

An accident is an accident.

Jim, for God's sake, you're smarter than this. Please stop trying to dumb down this argument to make a half-assed point.

That same faulty reasoning can be applies to spades, pens or just about any object that has at some point resulting the unfortunate and somethings very Darwinistic death of an individual, and I certainly don't appreciate your attempt to turn a discussion that deserves a degree of complexity into a matter of "Derp = Derp".

At least have some degree of honesty about this. You know cars and guns have different functions and a different value in society overall. Please don't play "kindergarten discussion", you're certainly capable of more than rattling the weakest bunch of pro gun arguments...after all you managed to make me more sensible towards guns, but seeing this makes me wonder have that ever happened, man...

[Divitaen]

And as I linked in articles in a previous post, prosecution is extremely rare. Most of the time prosecutors refuse to prosecute negligent parents, making bogus arguments such as how they lost a child and shouldn't have to suffer and all that.

Then blame the lack of prosecution under current law instead of advocating more (unnecessary) law.

Or maybe we should promote legal reform to more vigorously prosecute and punish parents for negligence. And we should pass child safety regulations forcing parents to buy the necessary materials to safely store guns, both in public and in the home. And we should impose regulations for parents to ensure that a gun is never easily accessible to a child.

[Big Jim P]

An accident is an accident.

Jim, for God's sake, you're smarter than this. Please stop trying to dumb down this argument to make a half-assed point.

That same faulty reasoning can be applies to spades, pens or just about any object that has at some point resulting the unfortunate and somethings very Darwinistic death of an individual, and I certainly don't appreciate your attempt to turn a discussion that deserves a degree of complexity into a matter of "Derp = Derp".

At least have some degree of honesty about this. You know cars and guns have different functions and a different value in society overall. Please don't play "kindergarten discussion", you're certainly capable of more than rattling the weakest bunch of pro gun arguments...after all you managed to make me more sensible towards guns, but seeing this makes me wonder have that ever happened, man...

Accidents can involve many different items. Why single out guns? Especially considering that guns are hardly high on the list of causes of accidental (or even intentional for that matter) deaths.

[Esternial]

Jim, for God's sake, you're smarter than this. Please stop trying to dumb down this argument to make a half-assed point.

That same faulty reasoning can be applies to spades, pens or just about any object that has at some point resulting the unfortunate and somethings very Darwinistic death of an individual, and I certainly don't appreciate your attempt to turn a discussion that deserves a degree of complexity into a matter of "Derp = Derp".

At least have some degree of honesty about this. You know cars and guns have different functions and a different value in society overall. Please don't play "kindergarten discussion", you're certainly capable of more than rattling the weakest bunch of pro gun arguments...after all you managed to make me more sensible towards guns, but seeing this makes me wonder have that ever happened, man...

Accidents can involve many different items. Why single out guns? Especially considering that guns are hardly high on the list of causes of accidental (or even intentional for that matter) deaths.

Because their primary function is to specifically to inflict harm to protect the owner. If it inflicts harm on its owner it does the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do.

[Imperializt Russia]

Accidents can involve many different items. Why single out guns? Especially considering that guns are hardly high on the list of causes of accidental (or even intentional for that matter) deaths.

Because their primary function is to specifically to inflict harm to protect the owner. If it inflicts harm on its owner it does the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do.

I don't think that's an especially accurate summation of the purpose of a firearm.

It would be true of saying that's the primary goal of owning a weapon for personal defence.

[Master Shake]

Accidents can involve many different items. Why single out guns? Especially considering that guns are hardly high on the list of causes of accidental (or even intentional for that matter) deaths.

Because their primary function is to specifically to inflict harm to protect the owner. If it inflicts harm on its owner it does the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do.

Knives and a ton of other power tools could do the same...

[Divitaen]

Jim, for God's sake, you're smarter than this. Please stop trying to dumb down this argument to make a half-assed point.

That same faulty reasoning can be applies to spades, pens or just about any object that has at some point resulting the unfortunate and somethings very Darwinistic death of an individual, and I certainly don't appreciate your attempt to turn a discussion that deserves a degree of complexity into a matter of "Derp = Derp".

At least have some degree of honesty about this. You know cars and guns have different functions and a different value in society overall. Please don't play "kindergarten discussion", you're certainly capable of more than rattling the weakest bunch of pro gun arguments...after all you managed to make me more sensible towards guns, but seeing this makes me wonder have that ever happened, man...

Accidents can involve many different items. Why single out guns? Especially considering that guns are hardly high on the list of causes of accidental (or even intentional for that matter) deaths.

Um, I can think of three reasons actually:

1) Guns often have a rate of fire and range that other lethal items don't have. Compared to knives and cars, guns can do more damage. (And no, don't give me the stupid argument that more people die from cars than guns. Obviously it's not comparable since there are more cars in the US and more cars are on the road in public moving about that there are guns readily accessible.)

2) Guns often have a significantly higher lethality and mortality rate. For example, mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%. 30% for stab wounds to the heart.

3) Guns are there to kill or injure others. Cars are there to transport people. Knives are there for cooking and carving.

Also, I really get amused by the typical pro-gun slogan, "why pick on guns, other things kill people but no one wants to ban them". Ok, chew on this. If I told you that we should ban private citizens from owning nuclear missiles, tanks and explosives, would you honestly tell me, "why pick on explosives, other things kill people too"??

[Imperializt Russia]

It's worth pointing out there are tens of millions more firearms in the US than there are cars.

[Esternial]

Because their primary function is to specifically to inflict harm to protect the owner. If it inflicts harm on its owner it does the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do.

Knives and a ton of other power tools could do the same...

That would indeed be an argument, provided you ignore "primary function" in my post.

[Big Jim P]

Then blame the lack of prosecution under current law instead of advocating more (unnecessary) law.

Or maybe we should promote legal reform to more vigorously prosecute and punish parents for negligence. And we should pass child safety regulations forcing parents to buy the necessary materials to safely store guns, both in public and in the home. And we should impose regulations for parents to ensure that a gun is never easily accessible to a child.

The first part eliminates the need for the rest.

[Master Shake]

Knives and a ton of other power tools could do the same...

That would indeed be an argument, provided you ignore "primary function" in my post.

A knife actually is meant to kill animals and even humans...Knives evolved from swords...remember?

[Big Jim P]

Knives and a ton of other power tools could do the same...

That would indeed be an argument, provided you ignore "primary function" in my post.

Already addressed:

Because their primary function is to specifically to inflict harm to protect the owner. If it inflicts harm on its owner it does the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do.

I don't think that's an especially accurate summation of the purpose of a firearm.

It would be true of saying that's the primary goal of owning a weapon for personal defence.

[Big Jim P]

Accidents can involve many different items. Why single out guns? Especially considering that guns are hardly high on the list of causes of accidental (or even intentional for that matter) deaths.

Um, I can think of three reasons actually:

1) Guns often have a rate of fire and range that other lethal items don't have. Compared to knives and cars, guns can do more damage. (And no, don't give me the stupid argument that more people die from cars than guns. Obviously it's not comparable since there are more cars in the US and more cars are on the road in public moving about that there are guns readily accessible.)

2) Guns often have a significantly higher lethality and mortality rate. For example, mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%. 30% for stab wounds to the heart.

3) Guns are there to kill or injure others. Cars are there to transport people. Knives are there for cooking and carving.

Also, I really get amused by the typical pro-gun slogan, "why pick on guns, other things kill people but no one wants to ban them". Ok, chew on this. If I told you that we should ban private citizens from owning nuclear missiles, tanks and explosives, would you honestly tell me, "why pick on explosives, other things kill people too"??

1 cars do more damage when they hit someone that a bullet does.
2 Given
3 Guns are designed for many other reasons as well.

And here we go again with the "nuke" argument.