Palm-print gun locks: is that the solution?

[mundame]

The newest James Bond movie, "Skyfall," has Q giving Bond (Daniel Craig) a handgun that only works for him --- it is keyed to operate by his palm print, electronically.

So of course the bad guy manages to get the gun and then tries to shoot Bond and it won't shoot. Then Bond gets it.......and it works real good.

I realized, watching this at the theater, that Hollywood was trying to give us a solution to our gun problems here.

All your guns could be keyed to your palm print, and so your ex-wife's schizophrenic teenage son couldn't steal them to go out and mow down everyone at a Christmas Disney movie.

It would cut down on theft of guns, too, which are a number one target of thieves, I read.

Would that be acceptable to you gun enthusiasts? Is it doable? Is it available yet?

[darin]

The newest James Bond movie, "Skyfall," has Q giving Bond (Daniel Craig) a handgun that only works for him --- it is keyed to operate by his palm print, electronically.

So of course the bad guy manages to get the gun and then tries to shoot Bond and it won't shoot. Then Bond gets it.......and it works real good.

I realized, watching this at the theater, that Hollywood was trying to give us a solution to our gun problems here.

All your guns could be keyed to your palm print, and so your ex-wife's schizophrenic teenage son couldn't steal them to go out and mow down everyone at a Christmas Disney movie.

It would cut down on theft of guns, too, which are a number one target of thieves, I read.

Would that be acceptable to you gun enthusiasts? Is it doable? Is it available yet?



How would my kids get to shoot them? Would I have to load the palm-print of every person in my circle onto my Guns?

My brother is schizophrenic; when he's done damage he used threats and a bat. Once he had a gun; and threatened to use it to kill one of my other brothers. I immediately disabled the pistol, and called the police. He was taken into custody and committed for nearly a year. Should I have cried "NOBODY" should have guns because my sick brother MIGHT steal one some day? He's a big man; I bet he could kill somebody with his bare hands. Maybe we should remove his arms just below the shoulder - Just in case?

[aboutime]

How would my kids get to shoot them? Would I have to load the palm-print of every person in my circle onto my Guns?

My brother is schizophrenic; when he's done damage he used threats and a bat. Once he had a gun; and threatened to use it to kill one of my other brothers. I immediately disabled the pistol, and called the police. He was taken into custody and committed for nearly a year. Should I have cried "NOBODY" should have guns because my sick brother MIGHT steal one some day? He's a big man; I bet he could kill somebody with his bare hands. Maybe we should remove his arms just below the shoulder - Just in case?



dmp. Mundame lives in a fictional world of movieland, and Hollyweirdness. I do believe mundame is the ALTER-EGO wannabe of Senator Feinstein...with those two ELECTRODES behind her ears.

[mundame]

How would my kids get to shoot them? Would I have to load the palm-print of every person in my circle onto my Guns?

My brother is schizophrenic; when he's done damage he used threats and a bat. Once he had a gun; and threatened to use it to kill one of my other brothers. I immediately disabled the pistol, and called the police. He was taken into custody and committed for nearly a year. Should I have cried "NOBODY" should have guns because my sick brother MIGHT steal one some day? He's a big man; I bet he could kill somebody with his bare hands. Maybe we should remove his arms just below the shoulder - Just in case?


Actually, your brother example does indeed seem a really good reason to exclude him from the palm-print circle.

Okay, you are saying that people would want to load the palm prints of spouses and children into the allowed-user circle. That is a good point and would have to be incorporated in such a device. It WOULD make for slippage in safety: Mrs. Lanza would clearly have loaded Adam's palm print because we know she took her sons to the shooting range.

BUT -- we also know she was getting the papers ready to commit him at the time of his rampage. Why? Well, probably because he was going crazy and talking about killing her and lots of other people! Soooooooo--- at that point she could have taken him off her gun-user software. (I would love to know if she had locked up those guns or was just sort of hoping for the best. If she locked them away, he found the key.)

Hmmmmm, I'm liking this better and better. Remember the mall shooter before Christmas? He stole the guns from someone he didn't know that well; he would not have been able to shoot them if they had electronic palm-print locking. So the technology would work against use by thieves and also by dubious family members the owner doesn't trust.

[darin]

Actually, your brother example does indeed seem a really good reason to exclude him from the palm-print circle.

Okay, you are saying that people would want to load the palm prints of spouses and children into the allowed-user circle. That is a good point and would have to be incorporated in such a device. It WOULD make for slippage in safety: Mrs. Lanza would clearly have loaded Adam's palm print because we know she took her sons to the shooting range.

BUT -- we also know she was getting the papers ready to commit him at the time of his rampage. Why? Well, probably because he was going crazy and talking about killing her and lots of other people! Soooooooo--- at that point she could have taken him off her gun-user software. (I would love to know if she had locked up those guns or was just sort of hoping for the best. If she locked them away, he found the key.)

Hmmmmm, I'm liking this better and better. Remember the mall shooter before Christmas? He stole the guns from someone he didn't know that well; he would not have been able to shoot them if they had electronic palm-print locking. So the technology would work against use by thieves and also by dubious family members the owner doesn't trust.


Sounds like a good idea until thieves start cutting off hands, eh? Then what?

I'm telling you, you're living in a fantasy world; that's a dangerous place because it simply wishes-away EVIL.

Dude - YOU really, REALLY perform MASSIVE - Titanic leaps in "logic" based off speculation.

[mundame]

Sounds like a good idea until thieves start cutting off hands, eh? Then what?

I'm telling you, you're living in a fantasy world; that's a dangerous place because it simply wishes-away EVIL.

Dude - YOU really, REALLY perform MASSIVE - Titanic leaps in "logic" based off speculation.


Okay, you don't like it. I don't know why you don't; sounds like a great idea to me, win--win. You all could have your assault weapons, even, but it would cut down a lot on kids using them to shoot lots of other kids and then kill themselves.

The idea of a schizophrenic cutting off a gun owner's right hand and somehow putting it on the stock and trigger and using it to shoot people sounds a little improbable to me, like the guy who cut out someone's eye to get into a building in "Minority Report."


Anyone like it? Is it DOABLE? Is it already out there? Is there anything like it? Sounds like a great idea to me. The bad guy can't take my gun and fire it at me: boy, I'd buy one of those palm-print locks as soon as they sold them.

[darin]

Okay, you don't like it. I don't know why you don't; sounds like a great idea to me, win--win. You all could have your assault weapons, even, but it would cut down a lot on kids using them to shoot lots of other kids and then kill themselves.

The idea of a schizophrenic cutting off a gun owner's right hand and somehow putting it on the stock and trigger and using it to shoot people sounds a little improbable to me, like the guy who cut out someone's eye to get into a building in "Minority Report."


Anyone like it? Is it DOABLE? Is it already out there? Is there anything like it? Sounds like a great idea to me. The bad guy can't take my gun and fire it at me: boy, I'd buy one of those palm-print locks as soon as they sold them.

Your entire argument is based upon your ideas of what 'could' happen, yet you balk at one I bring up?

It's a terrible idea for this reason: There's NO evidence it would make people safer. NONE. Every bit of every argument in favour of this - everything you brought up is fictional and speculative. I point out solid reasons why it's not practical - but you don't care. You don't care about reason or results because


because all that’s important to liberals is that they be seen as “doing something” no matter that there’ll be no effect on the particular issue. It’s their intentions that are paramount.

[Abbey Marie]

dmp. Mundame lives in a fictional world of movieland, and Hollyweirdness. I do believe mundame is the ALTER-EGO wannabe of Senator Feinstein...with those two ELECTRODES behind her ears.

AT, I just don't get your feelings about Mundame. She seems like a very reasonable, thoughtful person who often raises interesting points that make the board more interesting. Can we try to debate those points, rather than go personal? Thanks!

[Abbey Marie]

Actually, your brother example does indeed seem a really good reason to exclude him from the palm-print circle.

Okay, you are saying that people would want to load the palm prints of spouses and children into the allowed-user circle. That is a good point and would have to be incorporated in such a device. It WOULD make for slippage in safety: Mrs. Lanza would clearly have loaded Adam's palm print because we know she took her sons to the shooting range.

BUT -- we also know she was getting the papers ready to commit him at the time of his rampage. Why? Well, probably because he was going crazy and talking about killing her and lots of other people! Soooooooo--- at that point she could have taken him off her gun-user software. (I would love to know if she had locked up those guns or was just sort of hoping for the best. If she locked them away, he found the key.)

Hmmmmm, I'm liking this better and better. Remember the mall shooter before Christmas? He stole the guns from someone he didn't know that well; he would not have been able to shoot them if they had electronic palm-print locking. So the technology would work against use by thieves and also by dubious family members the owner doesn't trust.

I think gun owners get a bad feeling whenever any restrictions on guns are imposed. Like pro-abortion folks do when there is any proposed legislation to limit abortions, even partial-birth murders. There are certain issues like this, where fear of a real or imagined "slippery slope" takes over.

As for the palm-print idea, assuming it is technologically possible, I don't see why it can't be one option if desired. People with small children in the house could benefit from the increased safety factor. No chance litle Ralphie can accidentally shoot himself or his sibling. Others who want their spouse, etc., to be able to use the gun if needed, would not like it.

[Robert A Whit]

Okay, you don't like it. I don't know why you don't; sounds like a great idea to me, win--win. You all could have your assault weapons, even, but it would cut down a lot on kids using them to shoot lots of other kids and then kill themselves.

The idea of a schizophrenic cutting off a gun owner's right hand and somehow putting it on the stock and trigger and using it to shoot people sounds a little improbable to me, like the guy who cut out someone's eye to get into a building in "Minority Report."


Anyone like it? Is it DOABLE? Is it already out there? Is there anything like it? Sounds like a great idea to me. The bad guy can't take my gun and fire it at me: boy, I'd buy one of those palm-print locks as soon as they sold them.

When you buy any gun in CA, state law demands you also purchase a trigger lock. If somebody does not have the keys, no shooting of the gun.

[Robert A Whit]

I think gun owners get a bad feeling whenever any restrictions on guns are imposed. Like pro-abortion folks do when there is any proposed legislation to limit abortions, even partial-birth murders. There are certain issues like this, where fear of a real or imagined "slippery slope" takes over.

As for the palm-print idea, assuming it is technologically possible, I don't see why it can't be one option if desired. People with small children in the house could benefit from the increased safety factor. No chance litle Ralphie can accidentally shoot himself or his sibling. Others who want their spouse, etc., to be able to use the gun if needed, would not like it.

Trigger locks are less than ten dollars I believe. CA forced me to buy one when I bought the last army rifle.

[Little-Acorn]

What if the battery in the gun runs down?

What if I get in a fight, my hands get real dirty, and the palm-print reader can't recognize my palm print?

What if.......

You get the idea.

I'm not interested in getting a gun that has an extra piece of electronics or mechanism that might fail when I need it the most. The guns I have already, work just fine, thank you.

Liberals always make arguments based on "What if the person who owns the gun, isn't responsible enough?"

Well, the entire Great American Experiment is based on the idea that the sovereign citizen IS responsible enough. Meaning, if things go wrong, it's on him (NOT on the government) to take the consequences and sink or swim. If he wants to ask his neighbors for help, fine. That's part of responsibility. If he wants to buy insurance, ditto. If he wants to keep his guns locked in a safe, ditto. If he wants to own simple guns without fancy palm readers AND keep them locked in a safe, ditto.

It's for the occasional citizen who ISN'T responsible enough (criminals, children, convicted felons, non compos mentis etc.) that we have laws.

But we also have a Constitution, which is supreme over all else, which RESTRICTS what laws we can make. It declares that the sovereign citizen will ALWAYS be fully responsible himself in certain listed matters, whether lawmakers like it or not. And one if those listed matters, is the matter of personal weapons. GUNS. There's a section of the Constitution (amendment #2) that specifically sets personal weapons ("arms") aside and declares that NO government can restrict them.

The bottom line?

Liberals, if you think the ordinary citizen isn't responsible enough to own his own guns without restriction, then YOU are living in the wrong country. In this country, the ordinary citizen IS responsible enough. Says so, right in the Supreme Law Of The Land. And if you don't like it, tough. You can either lump it, or move out. Or change the Constitution... which no liberal has tried to do, because he knows most American citizens disagree with him and won't let him do it.

[jimnyc]

I doubt it would do anything at all to stop CRIMINALS from using guns to kill. This would only hinder law abiding gun users. I do think it would be a neat way to prevent kids from playing with them; the friendly and unfortunate deaths. But a criminal, they'll just continue to get and use weapons that don't use this intrusive technology.

[Robert A Whit]

Let's say you or I walked around armed!!!

Just who do you suppose would engage us picking a fight?

And should we also be inside a public place, sporting our pistolas, who do you think you would rather be next to, the guy with no pistola or some arch criminal?

[DragonStryk72]

The newest James Bond movie, "Skyfall," has Q giving Bond (Daniel Craig) a handgun that only works for him --- it is keyed to operate by his palm print, electronically.

So of course the bad guy manages to get the gun and then tries to shoot Bond and it uwon't shoot. Then Bond gets it.......and it works real good.

I realized, watching this at the theater, that Hollywood was trying to give us a solution to our gun problems here.

All your guns could be keyed to your palm print, and so your ex-wife's schizophrenic teenage son couldn't steal them to go out and mow down everyone at a Christmas Disney movie.

It would cut down on theft of guns, too, which are a number one target of thieves, I read.

Would that be acceptable to you gun enthusiasts? Is it doable? Is it available yet?

Lol, not to be insulting, but you seriously need to watch the mythbusters ep on thumbprint scanners for the flaws on that.

A further point: why not cut off the person hand?

[logroller]

The newest James Bond movie, "Skyfall," has Q giving Bond (Daniel Craig) a handgun that only works for him --- it is keyed to operate by his palm print, electronically. So of course the bad guy manages to get the gun and then tries to shoot Bond and it won't shoot. Then Bond gets it.......and it works real good.I realized, watching this at the theater, that Hollywood was trying to give us a solution to our gun problems here.All your guns could be keyed to your palm print, and so your ex-wife's schizophrenic teenage son couldn't steal them to go out and mow down everyone at a Christmas Disney movie.It would cut down on theft of guns, too, which are a number one target of thieves, I read.Would that be acceptable to you gun enthusiasts? Is it doable? Is it available yet?
what if its cold and I wear gloves?
ever seen the matrix; what if there was a pill you take that enabled you see the bullets mid flight and move out of the way?

[PostmodernProphet]

A further point: why not cut off the person hand?
you think its likely a guy is going to cut off your hand just so he can use it to shoot you?.......

[Missileman]

What if the battery in the gun runs down?

What if I get in a fight, my hands get real dirty, and the palm-print reader can't recognize my palm print?

What if.......

You get the idea.

I'm not interested in getting a gun that has an extra piece of electronics or mechanism that might fail when I need it the most. The guns I have already, work just fine, thank you.

Liberals always make arguments based on "What if the person who owns the gun, isn't responsible enough?"

Well, the entire Great American Experiment is based on the idea that the sovereign citizen IS responsible enough. Meaning, if things go wrong, it's on him (NOT on the government) to take the consequences and sink or swim. If he wants to ask his neighbors for help, fine. That's part of responsibility. If he wants to buy insurance, ditto. If he wants to keep his guns locked in a safe, ditto. If he wants to own simple guns without fancy palm readers AND keep them locked in a safe, ditto.

It's for the occasional citizen who ISN'T responsible enough (criminals, children, convicted felons, non compos mentis etc.) that we have laws.

But we also have a Constitution, which is supreme over all else, which RESTRICTS what laws we can make. It declares that the sovereign citizen will ALWAYS be fully responsible himself in certain listed matters, whether lawmakers like it or not. And one if those listed matters, is the matter of personal weapons. GUNS. There's a section of the Constitution (amendment #2) that specifically sets personal weapons ("arms") aside and declares that NO government can restrict them.

The bottom line?

Liberals, if you think the ordinary citizen isn't responsible enough to own his own guns without restriction, then YOU are living in the wrong country. In this country, the ordinary citizen IS responsible enough. Says so, right in the Supreme Law Of The Land. And if you don't like it, tough. You can either lump it, or move out. Or change the Constitution... which no liberal has tried to do, because he knows most American citizens disagree with him and won't let him do it.

:clap:

[DragonStryk72]

you think its likely a guy is going to cut off your hand just so he can use it to shoot you?.......

Actually, its far simpler, I was being hyperbolic. Go watch mythbusters on thumb print scanners. You can fool them by just licking your thumb.

Other scenarios: hold your wife/kid hostage to have you change the gun over, disable the thumb scanner, use older, pre-scanner guns, giving me three seconds of fire time before you even have your print scanned.

The list goes on. It worked in James bond because it was for points in combat that he had already drawn in, or so someone couldnt just slip his gun from the holster and shoot him in the back.

In the home, it takes on more forethought than that scenario, and crooks will start figuring out how to get past the, just like with ankle bracelets.

[SassyLady]

What if the battery in the gun runs down?

What if I get in a fight, my hands get real dirty, and the palm-print reader can't recognize my palm print?

What if.......

You get the idea.

I'm not interested in getting a gun that has an extra piece of electronics or mechanism that might fail when I need it the most. The guns I have already, work just fine, thank you.

Liberals always make arguments based on "What if the person who owns the gun, isn't responsible enough?"

Well, the entire Great American Experiment is based on the idea that the sovereign citizen IS responsible enough. Meaning, if things go wrong, it's on him (NOT on the government) to take the consequences and sink or swim. If he wants to ask his neighbors for help, fine. That's part of responsibility. If he wants to buy insurance, ditto. If he wants to keep his guns locked in a safe, ditto. If he wants to own simple guns without fancy palm readers AND keep them locked in a safe, ditto.

It's for the occasional citizen who ISN'T responsible enough (criminals, children, convicted felons, non compos mentis etc.) that we have laws.

But we also have a Constitution, which is supreme over all else, which RESTRICTS what laws we can make. It declares that the sovereign citizen will ALWAYS be fully responsible himself in certain listed matters, whether lawmakers like it or not. And one if those listed matters, is the matter of personal weapons. GUNS. There's a section of the Constitution (amendment #2) that specifically sets personal weapons ("arms") aside and declares that NO government can restrict them.

The bottom line?

Liberals, if you think the ordinary citizen isn't responsible enough to own his own guns without restriction, then YOU are living in the wrong country. In this country, the ordinary citizen IS responsible enough. Says so, right in the Supreme Law Of The Land. And if you don't like it, tough. You can either lump it, or move out. Or change the Constitution... which no liberal has tried to do, because he knows most American citizens disagree with him and won't let him do it.

:clap::clap::clap:

[SassyLady]

My first thought was ... gloves. When I'm walking in the desert on cold mornings in the winter, I wear gloves.

Also, when I'm attending gun safety classes, or getting wanting to try different guns at the shooting range, I can't imagine them taking my handprint and programming it into all their guns ... for each and every shooter that comes in.

And another thing, I don't want my handprint on file anywhere .... ANYWHERE!!

[PostmodernProphet]

Actually, its far simpler

you want simpler?.....how about, "Burglar uses his own gun, shoots you in the head".......

[mundame]

I think gun owners get a bad feeling whenever any restrictions on guns are imposed. Like pro-abortion folks do when there is any proposed legislation to limit abortions, even partial-birth murders. There are certain issues like this, where fear of a real or imagined "slippery slope" takes over.


My husband said EXACTLY the same thing you did when I discussed this with him yesterday.

Yeah, it's a slippery-slope issue. I can feel the power of it, too.

The camel's nose under the tent: is it possible to give any ground on either issue without the foes of either freedom rushing to prohibit everything, completely?

It is a problem. And in fact, it's not clear that giving ground won't end up in total prohibition, in either issue. Look at Britain, where horrific rampage murders did result in total gun prohibition. With the result that only criminals have guns now, smuggled in from Serbia, and the famous unarmed bobbies now have to go around armed, or die.

Slippery-slope problems are the sign of a divided people, aren't they? Everyone wants ALL or nothing. Like the Republican candidates who wanted no birth control!!!! Migod, that really is all or nothing; I was quite shocked seeing that old view show up in 2012. And it is true also that a lot of leftists want a total gun and armaments ban on everyone, by law.

There is no national consensus anymore so we get these deep, passionate splits. It's not a good sign.


What if the battery in the gun runs down?

What if I get in a fight, my hands get real dirty, and the palm-print reader can't recognize my palm print?

What if.......

You get the idea.

I'm not interested in getting a gun that has an extra piece of electronics or mechanism that might fail when I need it the most. The guns I have already, work just fine, thank you.



;) This is exactly what my husband said, too. He said the idea that computer electronics always work is not an idea that fills him with confidence.

Well, maybe Robert Whit's point about California requiring trigger locks would work. Anybody like this solution? The idea here is to find a way to let sane non-criminals own guns that aren't used by their schizophrenic 18-year-old neighbor kid to kill out the mayor and entire city council.

Personally, I think that would be preferable to what we've got going on now, crazies picking up guns pretty much anywhere and massacreing dozens of people at once.

[darin]

;) This is exactly what my husband said, too. He said the idea that computer electronics always work is not an idea that fills him with confidence.

Well, maybe Robert Whit's point about California requiring trigger locks would work. Anybody like this solution? The idea here is to find a way to let sane non-criminals own guns that aren't used by their schizophrenic 18-year-old neighbor kid to kill out the mayor and entire city council.

Personally, I think that would be preferable to what we've got going on now, crazies picking up guns pretty much anywhere and massacreing dozens of people at once.

...you are making wild generalizations like a crazy who picked up a keyboard; massacring dozens of IQ points at once.</SPAN>

[glockmail]

When you buy any gun in CA, state law demands you also purchase a trigger lock. If somebody does not have the keys, no shooting of the gun.
Most guns come with them. I put one on my shot gun then lost the key. So I cut the lock off and swore to never use a trigger lock again.

[Robert A Whit]

My husband said EXACTLY the same thing you did when I discussed this with him yesterday.

Yeah, it's a slippery-slope issue. I can feel the power of it, too.

The camel's nose under the tent: is it possible to give any ground on either issue without the foes of either freedom rushing to prohibit everything, completely?

It is a problem. And in fact, it's not clear that giving ground won't end up in total prohibition, in either issue. Look at Britain, where horrific rampage murders did result in total gun prohibition. With the result that only criminals have guns now, smuggled in from Serbia, and the famous unarmed bobbies now have to go around armed, or die.

Slippery-slope problems are the sign of a divided people, aren't they? Everyone wants ALL or nothing. Like the Republican candidates who wanted no birth control!!!! Migod, that really is all or nothing; I was quite shocked seeing that old view show up in 2012. And it is true also that a lot of leftists want a total gun and armaments ban on everyone, by law.

There is no national consensus anymore so we get these deep, passionate splits. It's not a good sign.



;) This is exactly what my husband said, too. He said the idea that computer electronics always work is not an idea that fills him with confidence.

Well, maybe Robert Whit's point about California requiring trigger locks would work. Anybody like this solution? The idea here is to find a way to let sane non-criminals own guns that aren't used by their schizophrenic 18-year-old neighbor kid to kill out the mayor and entire city council.

Personally, I think that would be preferable to what we've got going on now, crazies picking up guns pretty much anywhere and massacreing dozens of people at once.


I have zero objections to trigger locks. One poster says they are normally sold with guns.

I only know about CA laws on that issue.

I still have my trigger lock in the container it came in. So far, it has never been locked to any gun that i own.

Nobody can force me to put it onto my pistol.

[WiccanLiberal]

All right, I know the whole scanning tech thing is flawed and impractical but why jump all over a person who asks what seems to me a reasonable query aimed at seeking information? I think it illustrates the problem inherent in the gun control debate. You actually have to exchange information and debate. The issue is, IMHO, going to come down to how to keep illegal firearms out of criminal hands and prevent accidental shootings by untrained users. I don't favor more restrictions on legal ownership but I would favor a discussion of rational means to prevent inappropriate use. Trigger locks and gun safes are a good first step but they are flawed in one way. They require active participation to work. Let me illustrate a concrete example of active vs. passive protection. Healthcare providers have known for years that needle sticks can be vastly diminished by not recapping. If I use a needle and then hold the cap in my other hand to recover the needle I run a real risk of perforating myself. The scoop technique or one-handed recap helps but it is awkward and people didn't always do it. Equipment manufacturers have increasingly improved the devices that we use so that the needles retract after use so we never have to touch them once they are used. Perhaps we need to stop saying "that will never work" and start exploring to figure out what will. The people proposing gun regulations are not the enemy. They are fellow citizens with legitimate concerns. Those concerns will need to be addressed in some way if we are ever to have any peace on this issue.

[Kathianne]

All right, I know the whole scanning tech thing is flawed and impractical but why jump all over a person who asks what seems to me a reasonable query aimed at seeking information? I think it illustrates the problem inherent in the gun control debate. You actually have to exchange information and debate. The issue is, IMHO, going to come down to how to keep illegal firearms out of criminal hands and prevent accidental shootings by untrained users. I don't favor more restrictions on legal ownership but I would favor a discussion of rational means to prevent inappropriate use. Trigger locks and gun safes are a good first step but they are flawed in one way. They require active participation to work. Let me illustrate a concrete example of active vs. passive protection. Healthcare providers have known for years that needle sticks can be vastly diminished by not recapping. If I use a needle and then hold the cap in my other hand to recover the needle I run a real risk of perforating myself. The scoop technique or one-handed recap helps but it is awkward and people didn't always do it. Equipment manufacturers have increasingly improved the devices that we use so that the needles retract after use so we never have to touch them once they are used. Perhaps we need to stop saying "that will never work" and start exploring to figure out what will. The people proposing gun regulations are not the enemy. They are fellow citizens with legitimate concerns. Those concerns will need to be addressed in some way if we are ever to have any peace on this issue.

I agree with you 'intents,' the problem is that all the 'solutions' are on the law abiding folks. Those 'whom we'd like to keep weapons away from' really aren't in this group.

[WiccanLiberal]

Absolutely understood Kathianne. As I said, I don't wasn't to increase the burden on legitimate owners but it seems both sides are equating discussion with surrender. Do any of us, on either side of the issue, really want to ignore the concerns of citizens on the other side. Seeing issues in such absolute terms is a problem in itself. And it puts us no closer to a solution.

[Kathianne]

Absolutely understood Kathianne. As I said, I don't wasn't to increase the burden on legitimate owners but it seems both sides are equating discussion with surrender. Do any of us, on either side of the issue, really want to ignore the concerns of citizens on the other side. Seeing issues in such absolute terms is a problem in itself. And it puts us no closer to a solution.

And I understand where you are coming from. It seems to me that the protections of second amendment are clear, as are the penalties for those that do not adhere to the laws.

[SassyLady]

Absolutely understood Kathianne. As I said, I don't wasn't to increase the burden on legitimate owners but it seems both sides are equating discussion with surrender. Do any of us, on either side of the issue, really want to ignore the concerns of citizens on the other side. Seeing issues in such absolute terms is a problem in itself. And it puts us no closer to a solution.

If the anti-gun side were willing to listen to the fact that guns are just the tools of a larger problem, then perhaps we can sit down and discuss how to protect our children.

I don't hear anyone willing to take all young, white males and lock them up until they've been tested for psychotic tendencies ..... why are the anti-gun people advocating this extreme measure? Perhaps because it might "infringe" upon an individual's rights? And yet they are so very, very willing to disarm our nation and leave us wide open to subjugation by those that do have arms (i.e., drug cartels, etc.).

I still cannot understand why anyone would think the military and police (i.e., government) will be the first responders in wide spread emergency (i.e., Katrina). People need to take personal responsibility for their own welfare FIRST and use the government as a backup.

[Robert A Whit]

Well, my problem is that I am stochastic. And support the 2nd amendment.

[Robert A Whit]

If the anti-gun side were willing to listen to the fact that guns are just the tools of a larger problem, then perhaps we can sit down and discuss how to protect our children.

I don't hear anyone willing to take all young, white males and lock them up until they've been tested for psychotic tendencies ..... why are the anti-gun people advocating this extreme measure? Perhaps because it might "infringe" upon an individual's rights? And yet they are so very, very willing to disarm our nation and leave us wide open to subjugation by those that do have arms (i.e., drug cartels, etc.).

I still cannot understand why anyone would think the military and police (i.e., government) will be the first responders in wide spread emergency (i.e., Katrina). People need to take personal responsibility for their own welfare FIRST and use the government as a backup.

Now, that avatar would never have talked that way. (smirk)
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Damned well said Sassy. Are you a Genius?

[logroller]

For much the same reason people don't keep thousands of dollars sitting in the corner of their closet, everyone i know who owns an assault rifle keeps their weapons secure-- they are valuable. Most people I know keep their guns in a safe and the other's keep them in a locked cabinet (or on their person). Trigger locks seem under secure IMO.

[glockmail]

If you want a palm thing on your gun then buy it. Its not a retarded idea. One poster on another board suggested that we build electromagnets into the ceilings of schools to defect bullets away from kids. This was a grown man. Now a certifiable retard.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

For much the same reason people don't keep thousands of dollars sitting in the corner of their closet, everyone i know who owns an assault rifle keeps their weapons secure-- they are valuable. Most people I know keep their guns in a safe and the other's keep them in a locked cabinet (or on their person). Trigger locks seem under secure IMO.

How many people do you know that own an "assault rifle", log??--Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

How many people do you know that own an "assault rifle", log??--Tyr

Yeah, the only assault weapons I ever used were owned by the military. In the CA army Cadet program, I was able to shoot the .45 cal greasegun. I will find out the gun number. And in the regular Army, I would call the M-60 an assault weapon and I doubt I would get much argument over the BAR too. The BAR will empty the magazine with a single trigger pull and the M-60 I shot was belt ammo.

Hey, Who would argue that the flame thrower I fired was an assault weapon too? Man, that thing was nasty. I don't consider the mounted machine guns I fired to be assault weapons. Maybe if you are hurcules you can carry one around and fire it off. I dunno. Are you that strong?

On full automatic, the M-14 could be an assault weapon too given it emptied out with one squeeze.

The army however does not teach you to empty those weapons. Even machine guns need a rest. We were trained that to fire a machine gun, bursts of 6. I could squeeze the trigger of a BAR and get single shots at times and 2 shots when I wanted to. Most guys managed 3 shots per squeeze. They fired damned fast.

[SassyLady]

Now, that avatar would never have talked that way. (smirk)
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Damned well said Sassy. Are you a Genius?

All my avatars talk that way. :slap:

Genius .... :thinking5:

[DragonStryk72]

you want simpler?.....how about, "Burglar uses his own gun, shoots you in the head".......

Read again, I covered that.

[logroller]

How many people do you know that own an "assault rifle", log??--Tyr

Assault weapons: 15 people. assault rifles: don't care to know. Plausible deniability.

[Abbey Marie]

All right, I know the whole scanning tech thing is flawed and impractical but why jump all over a person who asks what seems to me a reasonable query aimed at seeking information? I think it illustrates the problem inherent in the gun control debate. You actually have to exchange information and debate. The issue is, IMHO, going to come down to how to keep illegal firearms out of criminal hands and prevent accidental shootings by untrained users. I don't favor more restrictions on legal ownership but I would favor a discussion of rational means to prevent inappropriate use. Trigger locks and gun safes are a good first step but they are flawed in one way. They require active participation to work. Let me illustrate a concrete example of active vs. passive protection. Healthcare providers have known for years that needle sticks can be vastly diminished by not recapping. If I use a needle and then hold the cap in my other hand to recover the needle I run a real risk of perforating myself. The scoop technique or one-handed recap helps but it is awkward and people didn't always do it. Equipment manufacturers have increasingly improved the devices that we use so that the needles retract after use so we never have to touch them once they are used. Perhaps we need to stop saying "that will never work" and start exploring to figure out what will. The people proposing gun regulations are not the enemy. They are fellow citizens with legitimate concerns. Those concerns will need to be addressed in some way if we are ever to have any peace on this issue.

Re: the bolded: Indeed.