smooth

The only thing that would prevent your wife from using the gun would be the code that was inserted into the chip. There is no reason why you, your wife, and your brother couldn't be authorized to use the weapon.

Such a system wouldn't consist of a public registry database--which might raise concerns over gun ownership and registration processes. Instead, a system could be developed that allowed the primary owner to hold the weapon for X amount of time and then allow other people to authorize their prints, as well.

This would eliminate the possibility of children and non-authorized individuals (burglars, robbers, etc.) firing someone else's weapons.

In fact, as technology increases it could conceivably monitor one's body while the trigger was being fired. Most importantly, it could take an electronic print of who fired it at discharge--including the mental state at the time.

Of course, I also advocate the development and use of non-lethal (but effective) means to incapacitate intruders/attackers.

seretogis

K. I. S. S.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

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.

smooth

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.

smooth

Your theory also doesn't address the other concern I posted: how to prevent unauthorized discharges of one's weapon.

You might be able to "gun proof" your children. But you can't gun proof the mugger, the rapist, or the murderer.

If you have an idea that addresses those concerns post it and we'll discuss that one too.

seretogis

Dank, your entire post was great but I want to single out this statement as it is so incredibly true.

My family is very pro-gun and pro-hunting. Since a young age I have had a gun (air pellet rifle, and then later a .22 at about 10 years old) and been to the range with my family and hunting many times to shoot it. I received my firearm safety certificate at about age 14, and I was taught at a very young age that guns are not toys and that you have to be very careful around them. There was no doubt in my mind, even at six years of age, that a gun could be a terrible thing if you didn't know how to use it, or a "bad person" used one. While my parents failed in many respects, this was a lesson that stuck with me and I am grateful for it.

A problem with guns, as with a lot of issues, is that parents don't want to be parents. They don't want the responsibility of their child's safety, and don't want to have to give up any of their pleasures in order to be a parent. They want to be their child's "friend" and never say no.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

smooth

Your ability to understand the importance of gun safety, notwithstanding, "the problem with guns" stems more from people, like you and Dank, who are unable to de-polarize essential issues.

I actually made the point a few posts back that our political and legal discourse creates such polarized views.

For those who don't know, the term discourse refers to the use of language to control ideology. That is, our language shapes our thoughts--and vice versa.

For example, in this case both sertogis and Dank focused on arguing against one facet of the gun control argument--that parents are responsible for teaching their children gun safety.

Of course, no one I know disagrees with such an assertion. Yet, this does not absolve the government from protecting citizens from wrongful discharges of weapons, whether they be accidental (children) or intentional (crime).

By focusing on this one issue you ignore an entire spectrum of other relevant issues.

That said, assuming parents are responsible for teaching their children gun safety (including five year olds who shoot four year olds), how does that absolve society from creating measures that protect the communities from other weapon dangers?

seretogis

I changed "The" changed to "A" in my previous post as clarification.

Of course I don't believe that parents teaching kids about gun safety would solve all issues relating to guns, it was just a poor choice of words. However, a large amount of justification that I hear for gun control (though, surprisingly, not on this board) is "think of the children" -- and so I thought it important to back up Dank's point. Parents, not the federal government, should be doing all that they can to protect their children.

Some other measures that I believe would help (along with parents acting like parents) include but are not limited to:
+ mandatory completion of an authorized firearm safety course (or a displayable firearm safety certificate) prior to purchase of a gun
+ mandatory instant background check at all points of sale for firearms or fire-arm related products such as ammunition or holsters (already in place in most states, though this would call fo r the removal of a waiting period)
+ implementation of youth firearm safety/avoidance programs with public elementary schools (such as the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" program which teaches kids to stay away from guns if they see one, and tell an adult.)
+ much harsher penalties for crimes which are committed with a firearm (already implemented to some degreein some states)

Now, whether these should be implemented on a state or federal level (or at all) is debatable. I think of the above as all inexpensive and effective solutions which do not greatly impact the law-abiding gun-owner -- unlike national gun registration, gun confiscation, "assault rifle" or clip-size bans, etc.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

smooth

I just wanted to make clear that I'm referring to a problem with the language that creates an inability to de-polarize the issues--not an inadequacy of individual persons.

The "people like you" refers to the general public without training in discursive practices.

My apologies if it sounded condescending.

reconmike

The other problem with the nano-chip theory is that guns have to be disassembled for cleaning purposes, hence removing and altering the weapon to fire without this device is highly probable and likely.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

Lebell

Sticky,

You've hit upon a central issue that I think we as a society are struggling with: How much should the government protect us from ourselves?

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

duckduck

Uh, seeing how there's a bit of confusion about firearms and Canada and how I have my PAL (Possession and Acquisition License), here's a few guidelines. Note that I'm not setting myself up to be the end-all, know-all about all the laws. If you want the "meat" of our laws, go here:

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/owners_....asp#crossing1

I was 19 when I got my PAL. It was for non-restricted (ie. rifles, shotguns) and restricted (ie. handguns). Prohibited weapon (ie. M-14, Uzi's, etc.) licenses have to be grandfathered (ie. under most normal conditions, you will not be able to get a license to buy automatic weapons in Canada).

We have uses for all of our firearms (roughly 40). Rifles are used for varmit control, shotguns for deer hunting, handguns for deer hunting in tree stands, and handguns for euthanizing pigs and other animals on the farm.

I have my collector's status which allows me to visibly wear any of my firearms on me as long as it's on my property at anytime (though, quite frankly, that doesn't mean much seeing as how anyone can carry any legal firearm at any time as long as they're "in control" of it.......which has a very loose definition). Collector's status just makes displaying and purchasing easier.

In getting my PAL, we were shown stats that show they're are roughly 25 million firearms in Canada. We have a population of roughly 30 million. That's almost a gun for every man, woman, and child.

Our gun control laws here are, quite frankly, pathetic. We were told that the RCMP had been keeping track of gun sales since the Montreal shootings. It was later found out, that when the government called upon those stats, that the RCMP found keeping track impossible and had disposed of what records they had. We have recently spent $700 miillion on attempting to register every gun in Canada (which, I'm sure, the criminals will be the first to do *rolls eyes*). What do we have to show for it? Not much. $700 million could have put quite a few cops on the street, IMHO. They've made the law abiding citizen the criminal.

Licenses for guns were originally plastic. Now they're paper. My uncle photoshopped a bunch of his to show that he had registered Patriot missiles and chainguns to show how ludricrous and pointless this method is to our PAL instructor (who fully agreed).

The orginal people doing the registration were fired. Under free trade, the government had to put the job out to companies in North America. A Canadian company won the bid, but can you imagine what would happen if a company way down in Mexico had won? It's all ready a red tape fiasco; it'd be even worse 2500 miles away.

What about registering really old guns without serial numbers? They give you a friggin' sticker. Yes, a sticker to place on the barrel. I'm sure that won't come off when you're hunting.

I believe in having a firearms license. People who operate firearms need to have respect for them and know how to properly operate them. Registration? $700 million tax dollars down the drain. Scrap it now and cut the losses.


Why is crime lower here? It's frickin' cold! Can you imagine drive-by shootings at -15 C? "Sowwreey Lawwrry--my tongue goot stuck to tthe gune"

__________________
Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way!

toxic515

Damn, Duck Duck, I enjoyed the post. Sometimes I get a bit polarized by things and tend to really dig into the personal liberty issues and the historical significance, etc. I appreciate your sense of humor and approach to the argument a great deal. And to everyone involved in any way... thanks for the mind candy!

__________________
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies
like a banana.