Quote:
Originally posted by dank4meh
How many times has your computer crashed at an extremely inopportune moment? Guns malfunction enough as it is, and when you talk about adding something even more complex into the mechanism its reliablity drops. I am not willing to risk that added factor of unreliability when someone has broken into my house and is threatening my life or the life of a loved one.
Safety wise, the situation should not be the child proofing of your gun it should be the GUN PROOFING of your child. There are no such thing as gun accidents, there are only negligble discharges. Teach your child about the gun, educate them. Let them learn to respect the firearm for what it is. Show them that it is a very powerful device and teach them the correct way to use/fire it. Also if you plan on owning a gun TAKE CLASSES on how to use it properly as well as some self defense classes that concentrate on handgun use, which will minimize the likely hood of having your weapon taken from you by an assailant.
|
Your concept of gun safety is an interesting theory but certainly doesn't guarantee protection of innocent victims from the harmful effects of your weapon--a role of government I believe in and accept.
The question I have is how to implement weapon safety without infringing upon fundamental rights the US population agrees upon.
I'm not certain how complex you think a microchip that retains a unique print of someone who fires it would be. Hard coded chips don't "crash" as you put it. Your computer (and the direct answer to your question is:
never due to the design of the architecture;
rarely due to operator error and even
less often than those times due to "bugs" in the software) "crashes" as a result of a myriad of issues--not the least of which is the fact that it is a composit of mis-matched parts and virtual drivers, etc.
A more correct analogy would be: how often does your remote control fail?
Almost every component of a modern vehicle is regulated by circuits. Yet, you trust those circuits far more frequently and in spite of much greater threats to many more people's safety than your resistance to the implementation of circuitry into weapons.
We'd have to ask our current military posters but I'm willing to bet that far more complex circuitry is being implemented into their weapons than what I propose here. In fact, our military's superiority seems to hinge upon technological advances--why the desire to retain outmoded technologies in our personal defense?
Conversely, we could easily place such chips into our fingers so only "authorized" individuals could initiate a trigger. That, of course, might be more objectionable on the grounds of personal privacy than my first proposal.