|
Vis10n
03-27-2001
08:08 PM ET (US)
|
I agree that the technology is in its infancy... but its amazing how responsive an industry can be when faced with the facts. Legislation that would afford gun manufacturers the time to innovate (probably half the time they'd ask for) would get my vote. As for the tyranny issue... I like the way this is set-up: a majority of Americans would _have_ to come to the fight for success to be assured. People just can't go around over-throwing governments willy-nilly. This isn't Eastern Europe. : ) Edited 03-27-2001 08:09 PM
|
|
accountingboy
03-27-2001
07:42 PM ET (US)
|
I understand now what you're talking about, Vis10n. Such guns have been developed, but they weren't really practical, as well as being really expensive. For a while, Colt offered a handgun that was only able to be used if the owner was wearing a cobalt magnet ring. Unfortunately, you couldn't bring that hand near your wallet because it would screw up all your credit cards. I think that magnetic/RF/electronic identification is the only technology currently available, and there are problems with both failing at the wrong time, as well as requiring you to be wearing the ring and holding the gun in the same hand (which could be difficult in a true emergency). Until we have something akin to the guns in Judge Dredd that are perfectly reliable, I don't think the personal ID gun will catch on or be truly feasible.
I totally agree with what you're saying about the 2nd amendment. Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect of "it's impossible to be a tyrant to an armed society." Whether or not we could still resist the US Army if we needed to is a question that I can't answer, and one that scares me. I don't see our government as tyrannical, but some of its actions do give me concern (Ruby Ridge comes to mind). I can only hope that if some tyrant ever does come to power, the military will see him/her for what they are and at least the majority will refuse to go along.
I really like the structure of the Swiss militia/army. Everybody has firearms (they're nice ones, too), and everybody knows how to use them, and more importantly, how not to. It does seem like a good idea, all around. Israel has the same system (I think), and although there's a lot of violence over there, it's not usually Israeli civilians using their issued weapons against the Palestinians (more rocks and bombs and the like). This isn't something I'm suggesting for America, but in Israel, all teachers are armed at schools and I've never heard about a school massacre over there.
As for kindall's statistics, it wouldn't suprise me. I think we started keeping serial # records in around 1995. If half of the households in America own at least one gun, and many own more, I'm sure some number in the 9-digit area were purchased pre-1995.
Great, now I really do sound like a gun-nut. Really I'm not, I swear.
|
|
Vis10n
03-25-2001
12:17 PM ET (US)
|
AccountingBoy... I meant actual gun locks (not safes)... something akin to a "safety" mechanism that's actually safe. The technology actually exists for a firearm to "recognize" its owner... but is expensive. Lives, of course, are more expensive; of course, mandatory locks that met certain requirements would be an inducement by the industry to innovate... it worked with car safety and elsewhere.
But like I said, the suggestion(s) I made are just a start... as for doubling of legislation, it would merely be a clarification that would make prosecution easier (given that it was well-written).
I'm interested beyond legislation, though... I didn't get into it at MetaFilter, but I think that people were missing the whole intent of the Second Amendment... everyone kept talking about foriegn invaders and the like -- which is still not out of the question -- but my personal understanding of the second amendment is that it was a manifistation of the very real concern of the founders that the American people be able to overthrow a tyrannical government again, should the need ever arise.
I'm not a a man who really sees the current US government as a tyranny (as so many in the modern "militia movement" believe)... corrupt, certainly. But not tyrannical (unless you consider this a tyranny of incompetance).
At any rate, what was on my mind is my desire to see the US restructure its own military more like Switzerland's... everyone is required to serve 12-18 months in the armed forces after highschool. When they leave, they take their fire arm with them (of course in my mind, the fire arm would have a lock on it :)... now, everyone in the US has a large firearm in their homes (if not more than one). Everyone is trained on how to use them. Everyone's firearm is registered and ballistics have been done.
Lot's of bonuses from this: we realize the benefits of having a large, well trained army without a large standing one... we have an enormous labor force for public works projects...
I'd like comments on this idea.
Also, Kindall, you mentioned that you had heard that there are currently 200 000 000 guns currently out there, untrackable... any (reliable) source on that?
- v
|
|
accountingboy
03-23-2001
05:45 PM ET (US)
|
Vis10n, I'm not quite clear what you mean by gunlocks. Trigger-locks? Actual locking guns? If you're talking about trigger locks, do you realize that they are a separate piece of equipment and not an integral part of the gun (not to mention that they're easy enough to remove with a screwdriver)?
My problem with all the suggested legislation that's bound to crop up after these shootings is that it will probably be redundant and/or nonsensical. For example, there is already a law that could hold people liable for crimes committed with their property - willful/reckless endangerment - why make another one? Or like the assault weapons ban enacted after Columbine - the guns those kids used aren't the guns covered by the ban.
The change that I support is education for those who want to buy firearms. When I go to the range, I see all kinds of behavior that makes me cringe from people that I'm sure would call themselves 'responsible gun owners.' We have drivers' ed and drivers' training before we can get a driver's license, but in most states you only have to show that you haven't been a) convicted of a felony or b) placed in a mental institution before you can buy a gun. Couldn't we have some course down at the local range, followed by a firearm movie akin to "Blood on the Highway," coupled with a frank overview/discussion of safety/storage/legal issues? I would hope that people would realize that it's something worth learning about, but maybe I'm being unrealistic. It's a big responsibility to own a gun, and the process of acquiring one doesn't really reflect that (somewhat analagous to having children).
Wow, this post is all over the place. Hope it makes sense.
|
|
kindall
03-23-2001
05:38 PM ET (US)
|
My response to that was:
Your suggestion has merit and does pretty well on three of my points (I think at least some NRA spokesmen have come out in favor of at least trigger locks), but I don't think it'll do much for my point #3 about disarming the people who commit the bulk of violent crimes, i.e. people who already have guns and a lack of respect for human life and demonstrate both on a regular basis. Even if every gun to be sold starting now had to have a trigger lock, there are still (according to hal at least) 200,000,000 guns that don't. Furthermore, locks can be broken (although possibly the lock could be designed so as to render the gun useless if you tried). Still, you want these locks to be affordable so everyone will use them, so really the best you can hope for is to use the locks to keep guns out of the hands of kids and to make sure the guy who steals your gun doesn't shoot you with it on the way out of the house. The main problem is that if a criminal wants to terrorize you with a gun, he's already got two hundred million of them to choose from. Many of these are already unregistered and will remain so.
I'm all for making people responsible for results of their actions in general, though. I once read an Asimov story in which parents were held criminally accountable for what their children did -- if the kid committed a crime, the parents would serve the same sentence as the kid. That didn't strike me as an entirely bad idea, although it was intentionally written to be as extreme and rigid as possible -- it'd never fly in this country as Asimov described it.
________________
I'd add:
What's really needed is single-user technology that lets the gun be fired only by the owner (or possibly other authorized users). This would eliminate or impede many tragedies: people who are shot with their own guns in a struggle, kids who play with their parents' guns and hurt, kids who go on school shooting rampages -- while at the same time not impeding legitimate use of the gun for defense by its rightful owner.
|
|
Vis10n
03-23-2001
05:06 PM ET (US)
|
Here's a reprint of my initial post on the idea of guns and legislation:
"a reasonable short term approach (in addition to closing the current loop hole(s) in the back ground check legislation) would be a mandate for gunlocks on all new guns, with legal liability attached to the owner if the gun they bought was not properly locked and then used in a crime; not to mention legal liability attached to anyone who sells a gun without a lock (after the law is passed), should that gun *ever* be used in a crime. I'd also like to see limited liability attached to owners of pre-law lockless guns who don't proper store the guns."
It doesn't purport to address the social ills that currently underwrite the gross violence around us, just one small area: the guns used to realize that violence.
|
|
|
New Topic
My Topics
Views:
275
(Unique:
180
) / Subscribers:
0 | What's this?
