[buggyone]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

I would hazard a guess that you have never had to fire a gun to protect your life.

I have.

And there is no "benefit" of having a gun with a gimmick that might fail that outweighs my requirement for a totally reliable defensive firearm.

.

I imagine you firing a gun to protect your life was due to your job. I would assume a policeman's gun would be free of constraints as union bargaining would certainly dictate.

Safety is the main reason for smart technology. All the hyperbole posted about technology can be defeated or the government gonna disarm you is hokum.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by buggyone

I imagine you firing a gun to protect your life was due to your job. I would assume a policeman's gun would be free of constraints as union bargaining would certainly dictate.

Safety is the main reason for smart technology. All the hyperbole posted about technology can be defeated or the liberals gonna disarm you is hokum.

1. Your assumption is incorrect. The New Jersey law, previously cited, includes a provision for determining which "smart guns" will be issued to New Jersey police officers.

2. Ordinary citizens who are not police officers use firearms in self defense against criminals every day.

3. I worked for several years for the federal government in various technology fields and I know the technology can be defeated.

4. Even more troubling, I know how the technology can be unreliable and fail in an emergency.

5. There are many organizations and many politicians devoted to the absolute abolition of citizen ownership of firearms. If you don't know this you are abysmally uninformed. They don't keep it a secret.

.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Would that work in a Georgia bar?

Originally Posted by CFrance

Explain, please.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Would what work in a Gerogia bar - and what is a Gerogia bar?

Sorry about the typo.
With Georgia passing their " guns anywhere" law...........they will need all the safety help available.

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

1. Your assumption is incorrect. The New Jersey law, previously cited, includes a provision for determining which "smart guns" will be issued to New Jersey police officers.

2. Ordinary citizens who are not police officers use firearms in self defense against criminals every day.

3. I worked for several years for the federal government in various technology fields and I know the technology can be defeated.

4. Even more troubling, I know how the technology can be unreliable and fail in an emergency.

5. There are many organizations and many politicians devoted to the absolute abolition of citizen ownership of firearms. If you don't know this you are abysmally uninformed. They don't keep it a secret.

.

at this "reasoning". 'Nuff said, next topic please.

[ilovetv]

To me it seems dangerous to an innocent gun owner whose gun might be stolen and hacked into and used to commit murder.

When the gun is admitted as evidence how can an innocent owner prove somebody stole it and hacked into it and that it was somebody else who did it??

Knowing how much damage the Target credit card hacking caused widespread, I'd be very leery of hackers into these guns widespread, leaving law-abiding citizens and police defenseless in a mass attack.

[Taltarzac725]

Sentencing Law and Policy: "Smart Gun Technology Could Have Blocked Adam Lanza"

I wonder if Adam Lanza's mother would have purchased smart guns when all she really had to do to keep them out of his hands is put gun locks on them?

[waynet]

I support the right of citizens to own firearms,I am an owner myself. But I do detest those people that go overboard with it especially the NRA which I am no longer a member. People there are too many guns out there for anyone to take away. There has been a record surge in firearms production and transactions. Between 2005 and 2013 NFA applications rose by more than 380%. There were 8.5 million guns produced in 2012 alone. In 2011 there were 6.5 million guns produced. This is a dramatic and unprcedented growth in the firearms and ammunition industry. People there are too many guns out there for anyone to try and take. Keep listening to the NRA and the gun manufacturers who are really one in the same and all there "take away your weapons garbage". They are both laughing all the way to the bank.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

1. Your assumption is incorrect. The New Jersey law, previously cited, includes a provision for determining which "smart guns" will be issued to New Jersey police officers.

.

As my signature says ...

Carl, your statement is incorrect.

The NJ law, if you would actually read it says this about which "smart guns " will be issued to New Jersey police officers and some others:

The provisions of this section shall not apply to handguns to be sold, transferred, assigned and delivered for official use to: (1) State and local law enforcement officers of this State; (2) federal law enforcement officers and any other federal officers and employees required to carry firearms in the performance of their official duties and (3) members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of the National Guard.

Now Carl, tell me where did you get your information? You certainly told us a fact that is not a fact. What other of your facts should we believe. I have not checked them and leave it to you to post your evidence of veracity.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by waynet

I support the right of citizens to own firearms,I am an owner myself. But I do detest those people that go overboard with it especially the NRA which I am no longer a member. People there are too many guns out there for anyone to take away. There has been a record surge in firearms production and transactions. Between 2005 and 2013 NFA applications rose by more than 380%. There were 8.5 million guns produced in 2012 alone. In 2011 there were 6.5 million guns produced. This is a dramatic and unprcedented growth in the firearms and ammunition industry. People there are too many guns out there for anyone to try and take. Keep listening to the NRA and the gun manufacturers who are really one in the same and all there "take away your weapons garbage". They are both laughing all the way to the bank.

Well said.
Congress cannot even pass a budget. How in the hell would they pass a law to collect all the guns in the US?

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by waynet

I support the right of citizens to own firearms,I am an owner myself. But I do detest those people that go overboard with it especially the NRA which I am no longer a member. People there are too many guns out there for anyone to take away. There has been a record surge in firearms production and transactions. Between 2005 and 2013 NFA applications rose by more than 380%. There were 8.5 million guns produced in 2012 alone. In 2011 there were 6.5 million guns produced. This is a dramatic and unprcedented growth in the firearms and ammunition industry. People there are too many guns out there for anyone to try and take. Keep listening to the NRA and the gun manufacturers who are really one in the same and all there "take away your weapons garbage". They are both laughing all the way to the bank.

My dad was a youth when the Volstead Act was passed, prohibiting alcoholic beverages. He told me that up until that time he had never had a beer. But, when the government told him he couldn't have any he immediately started drinking it.

An identical reaction occurred when the first "assault weapon" ban was passed. Millions of people who had no interest in owning an AR-15 rifle, being told that they would soon be denied the right to buy one, went right out and bought one.

A similar surge in the purchase of firearms occurred when Obama ran for president. It was perceived that if elected he would be an anti-gun President, so gun sales surged. As his Attorney General periodically made statements that seemed to indicate that anti-gun legislation might be proposed, new surges of gun sales occurred.

And now the price of ammunition has skyrocketed, when it can be found at all. There is a severe shortage of ammunition. Factors include millions of rounds more than usual being purchased by the Department of Homeland Security to be stockpiled in the United States; the policy of the Defense Department to shred used military ammunition brass rather than selling it to commercial reloaders to be used to provide lower cost reloaded ammunition to the civilian market; and the government-forced closing of the last existing lead smelting operation in the United States.

One need not be a conspiracy theorist to discern that that government policy continues to be in opposition to the interest of gun owners.

------------------

And, regarding that disparaging remark about taking away our firearms, see my original post entitled Molan Labe in the forum of Non-Villages Discussions.

It puts that allegation in perspective.

LATE ADDITION: The Moderator removed my post entitled Molan Labe due to having classified it as "political." Since I expressed no opinions in that posting, I must assume that it was removed because the people who I identified as supporting total gun bans were elected politicians.

.

[Cajulian]

Check the Canadian and UK polls on the topic of governments ability to confiscate guns and you will see that majority of citizens wish they had never given up their rights of gun ownership.

Have you seen Canadian stories like the one where a young student drew a gun at school and the next thing that happens is the government raids the parents home with a swat team only to find that the homeowner/parent did not own any firearms.

Is that the type of government you want in the U.S.? We are already having inappropriate swat team raids now in the U.S. Even when there are appropriate investigations that warrant home raids, often our government organizations make mistakes, raiding the wrong home and destroy innocent people's property and traumatizing innocent people.

Anyone that is informed, knows that every state in the U.S. has studied and proven many times over, that violent gun crimes have come down substantially with legally armed citizens. If you don't believe this, then you live in an ideological bubble.

Would your wish be, for all cities to be like Chicago, with the most gun control in the nation on law abiding citizens along with their perennial leading gun crimes in the country by criminals.

I 100% agree with Carl. He at least is very well informed and balances the pros and cons of citizens owned firearms. He speaks from experience. For myself, coming from an International based set of experiences in some pretty extreme technologies, and with the largest american company we have, I fully agree that with these Smart Gun technologies, there are many pitfalls in their reliable use.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the ideological intent to provide as much safety as possible with the use of firearms. The problem is that, they are not ready for implementation and reliable use. Like many laws passed in this country, politicians propose and legislate laws that do nothing to solve the problem other than to make a political statement.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by blueash

As my signature says ...

Carl, your statement is incorrect.

The NJ law, if you would actually read it says this about which "smart guns " will be issued to New Jersey police officers and some others:

The provisions of this section shall not apply to handguns to be sold, transferred, assigned and delivered for official use to: (1) State and local law enforcement officers of this State; (2) federal law enforcement officers and any other federal officers and employees required to carry firearms in the performance of their official duties and (3) members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of the National Guard.

Now Carl, tell me where did you get your information? You certainly told us a fact that is not a fact. What other of your facts should we believe. I have not checked them and leave it to you to post your evidence of veracity.

Your quote is from Section a.

My information is from Section d. of the same law.

The commission shall issue a report to the Attorney General upon its determination that personalized handguns qualify for use by State and local law enforcement officers. In making this determination, the commission shall consider any advantages and disadvantages to using these weapons in the performance of the official duties of law enforcement officers and shall give due regard to the safety of law enforcement officers and others. The commission shall expire thereafter.

The Attorney General shall be authorized to promulgate rules and regulations that apply the provisions of this section to handguns to be sold, transferred, assigned and delivered for official use to State and local law enforcement officers upon a determination by the commission that personalized handguns qualify for use by State and local law enforcement officers.

----------------------------

Is this too subtle for you?

Initially, the law does not apply to state, local or federal law enforcement officers.

Subsequently, after a committee settles on what "safe guns" are acceptable for law enforcement, the Attorney General can "promulgate rules and regulations" to determine what "safe guns" state and local police will use.

Note that federal officers are not included in the Attorney General's rules and regulations because a State Attorney General cannot exercise authority over federal officers.

THAT is where I got my information.

.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Cajulian

Check the Canadian and UK polls on the topic of governments ability to confiscate guns and you will see that majority of citizens wish they had never given up their rights of gun ownership.

Ok, I'll look that up at your suggestion..

Gallup poll The Right to Bear Arms: U.S. and Canada

"Canadians were asked, "For each of the following groups, please indicate whether or not you think they should be allowed, by law, to own a gun: the general public." A majority of Canadians (63%) said they do not believe that the general public should be allowed to own a gun, while 36% said it should"

A poll conducted by a gun advocacy group in Canada (CFI) found this:

"The question was phrased as follows:

In Canada private ownership of firearms is legal for hunting, target practice and other recreational purposes. To own a firearm someone must be licensed by the government and cannot have a criminal record or mental instability. Should private ownership of firearms remain legal in Canada or should private firearms ownership be banned entirely?

� Private firearms ownership should remain legal in Canada - 75.8% -agreed"

Do not confuse that poll with the earlier. They are not inconsistent. One asks if all guns which are presently limited and registered be taken away. The Canadian answer to that is no. The Gallop asks about the general public having guns (in other words not limited to registered hunting, etc as in the second poll), and the Gallop poll says No to allowing it. Please cite your evidence that the majority of Canadians wish they had not given up their gun rights (there is no right to bear arms in Canada and never has been by the way, the law changes as do other laws over the years, but there are no "gun rights")

Turning to England
There was a recent online poll, in other words people who wanted to click could, this is the opposite of a random poll, and the online poll was for a newspaper identified as consistently conservative (think Fox News like). In that poll 85% wanted to repeal the ban on handguns. What result would you expect if the poll were limited to Fox News viewers in the US?

Here is a poll done in a neutral manner:

"ICM interviewed a random sample of 1000 adults aged 18+, by telephone between 31 May and 1 June 2006. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules." Its conclusions were:

" 60 per cent of people think it is too easy to get a gun in the UK. "

So I would conclude, Canadians polls do not show the majority wish to change the gun control policy. I could not find an English poll exactly asking about reversing their gun control, but offer the one above which says that 60% think it is too easy to get a gun. Do you have a non-biased poll to support your claim? Or were you just "shooting from the hip?"

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by buggyone

No, it is about SAFETY. Just think of the large number of children who take a gun to school just to show it off; think of the children who find a parent's gun and shoot one of their friends as a game; think of a burglar stealing your pistol. Without the safety device, the guns are useless and deaths are prevented.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that safety devices cannot be placed on guns. No one is taking guns away from you. If a person can afford a gun, they can afford a safety device so that arguement is out the window.

It is all about SAFETY.

Do you agree that the store owner should have been threatened with having his store burned down and with his life being threatened?

These smart guns are one of those devices that sound good but technically will be a bust. Lets look at the first point. Guns in the hands of youngsters or accidental shooting. Where does the fault lay? It falls on the gun owner. If you choose to own a weapon, then you choose to make sure the weapon is properly secured. In all the cases I've read the reason it happened was because the gun owner did not take the proper precautions to secure the weapon. Whether that be a smart gun or not it will not change. Now when it comes to criminals stealing your weapon, All locking devices can be unlocked. So while the smart gun may sound good, its basically a political football and a waste of time and expense. Education and training these are the answers to curbing accidents. Kids are curious. If your going to own a gun then every one in the family needs to be educated on the proper use of a firearm and the proper handling of a firearm. Once you take away the mystery you take away the curiosity. When your not around lock it up. All my children who are now grown and all my grandchildren know how to properly handle a firearm. They know it is not a toy. They know it can do great harm if not treated with respect. They also know how to use it correctly. But it is still locked up so they cannot gain access without me being there.

As for the accident statistics there are far more items that need attention to curbing injury. Both sides the anti-gun and the pro-gun are feed nonsense by the zealots that run the campaigns on each side.

Now as for the people that threatened the store owner, they are as bad as the ones that threaten gun owners. As far as I'm concerned they are criminals. That includes both sides of the fence.

And I agree it is about safety but safety starts with the person not the object. Until we realize that fact there will be these useless discussions that produce no solutions.

Lets start with enforcing the laws that cover negligence and I have read a few incidents that could have been prosecuted under existing laws. Lets start with enforcing the firearm laws already on the books.

[Indydealmaker]

All polls are too easily rigged by the way they are worded or by the audience polled.

The anti-gun movement claims that passing laws outlawing guns will control gun crime. Everybody conveniently ignores the fact that laws are obeyed ONLY by law abiding citizens. Gun crime will not abate, but law abiding citizens will be a more easy target.

NO form of prohibition has ever worked in this country...alcohol, drugs, cheating on a spouse, running red lights, speeding, rape, murder by any means, child abuse. All of the forgoing have laws or humane condemnations which effect to prohibit, but all are rampant and growing.

Predators will always hunt the weak. ALWAYS.