Senate Gun Control

bumper sticker wisdom from like 20 years ago about a guy who's now been dead for like 4 years.

so what's the deal with AIRLINE FOOD?!

 

yeah, probably stopped being relevant when ted kennedy died four years ago and therefore stopped being a threat to anyone (unlike your guns).

 

My karma ran over my dogma.

 

my guns have killed less people than adam lanza's guns!

 

Good times...

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23070899/shots-fired-denvers-civic-center-after-pot-rally

 

That's what happens when you make pot legal.

 

Can't tell if you're serious...

 

In any case, it should be 'fewer people'.

 

Please read my posts:

 

oh, Hells no.

 

this is how you write about the US if you want people to support gun control/sending in drones to blow up weddings

 

Oh Jesus wept.

 

Of course, neither fundy Christianity or the Second Amendment were to blame because Conservatives like those. In both cases he is just "one bad apple."

 

I think what we should do is make use of the ID sensor handgrip; the gun only works for a single owner. Then we only allow women to own and carry guns. So many problems would be solved right there. It does not fix the problem of so many our there not having the sensor, and there is an black market. But those things can be starved.

 

As already explained earlier, there are numerous issues with that idea.

First, there is the simple fact that any sensor like that would require a power source (which could die, making the gun useless for self defense). That's why the biometric gun safes out there always have a manual backup key to get in. If such a system offered a manual bypass, users would just keep it turned off. Guns are designed to be fairly simple mechanical devices for a reason. It makes them far more reliable and easier to fix. (Think of the difference in fixing older cars without computer controls compared to modern cars.) Adding features like that would make the gun less safe, because you wouldn't be able to rely on it.

Second, it would not be fool proof. It would get numerous Type I errors (denying use to the rightful owner) and numerous Type II errors (allowing someone other than the owner to use it). A gun that its owner can't use reliably is useless for defending yourself. How it scans a hand print (for example) can change radically depending on factors like how sweaty your hands are, whether they are dirty, how you grip the gun, etc. And that's not even factoring in whether you are wearing gloves at the time. (Or are people not allowed to defend themselves in the winter?)

Third, why should a gun only work for a single owner? My wife and I own several pistols, and she enjoys shooting them as much as I do. Why should she be blocked from shooting my guns (and vice versa)? Why should I be blocked from trying my friend's new gun at the range, to see if I want to buy one like it? What about pistol instructors teaching people how to shoot for the first time, so they can figure out what sort of gun works best for them? How about shooting ranges that rent firearms for people to try? The list could go on and on.

Finally, you talk about a "black market" that "can be starved", but you have no idea what you are talking about. There are around 300 million guns in the US today. What you propose would be akin to trying to starve someone to death in a warehouse full of canned food.

Additionally, because guns are fairly simple mechanical devices, you can actually build them in your garage, using some relatively inexpensive tools. (For example, you can build every part of a 1911 (except for the barrel) on a manual mill that you can buy at Harbor Freight for $600.00. (The accessories will cost you more, but the principle still holds.) For a little bit more, you can upgrade that mill to a CNC driven one and speed up the manufacturing process. People have manufactured their own AR15 lower and upper receivers on similar setups. AK47s can be built out of a sheet of metal and a welder. (One guy built an AK lower receiver out of an old shovel!) And yes, it's all perfectly legal to build your own firearm from scratch, as long as you don't build it with the intent of selling it. You don't even have to mark it with a serial number or anything else unless you later choose to sell it. (You can't build it for the purpose of selling it, but you can sell it later if you choose to. That just can't have been the reason you built it. As a general rule of thumb, you want to keep it for at least a year after you build it to prove your intent wasn't to sell it.)

In short, the entire idea is simply not feasible.

 

Nothing says manhood like a shooting a life-like female target that the NRA titles "The Ex" that ... bleeds when you shoot it. I can't say I'm surprised, really.

And people wonder why background checks should be stricter and more common???!?!

 

'merica

 

So, you accept it's a violent deterrent.

 

It isn't a life-like target, it is an undead-like target. They're zombies! I would think the right to defend one's self and the right to bear arms applies even more in the event of a zombie apocalypse!

 

Depending on how you choose to define "violent".

My handgun sitting in its holster has never been used in a violent act against anyone. Now, someone who sees me walking down the street with it on my hip might see it and be scared, but that doesn't make my carrying of it violent, any more than someone being scared of a large man walking down the street makes the man violent.

If you are scared of someone else simply because you see them responsibly carrying a holstered firearm, then that says far more about you than it does about them.

 

What does it say about a person when they are so scared they feel it is necessary to carry a firearm at all times?

 

They're paranoid?

 

They're violently paranoid?

 

The threat of violence *is* violence.