2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,334
- 52,587
- 2,290
No.Be VERY specific and explain how the NRA stops the research on the smart gun tech. Then explain how it is banned for the CDC to research firearms deaths, since it is not actually banned, and how the NRA prevents that from happening.I don't know what this has to do with what I wrote. The NRA is wrong on smart guns for the reasons I stated, reasons which you have chosen to ignore. Who is supposed to render judgement on constitutional rights, the Supreme Court or the NRA? It doesn't bother you that the NRA interferes in such matters? Negating the efforts of constitutionally elected legislators and preempting the efforts of constitutionally appointed judges?There are many questions that come with smart gun tech. For instance, how quickly will it be available to fire once you need it? What happens when the batteries run out? How reliable is it/how likely is the gun to misfire? Is it waterproof? Does RFID tech stop a criminal or child from actually firing the weapon when you are in the same room (pertinent to the idea that it stops a criminal from taking your weapon and shooting you with it)? Does the fingerprint method allow for both quick access AND work when the environment is not ideal (dirty or went)? Are these weapons waterproof.And what good reason would that be? Either the NJ law would stand constitutional muster (which I personally doubt it would) or it would be struck down. This nonsense, where the NRA makes it impossible to manufacture or distribute such weapons in the US, is based solely on the fear that maybe what NJ did is constitutional. That's called cowardice. It's also a circumvention of our legislative and judicial processes.I disagree. The problem is that every time the issue is talked about the only ‘solutions’ that anyone talks about is gun control and those are not solutions at all. You are not going to reduce death with more gun control. We already have gun control – what we have unchecked is a cultural problem and a gang problem.
When the entire political discourse centers around a non-solution you are not going to get anywhere.
I can’t tell you what they are ‘afraid’ of or if they are afraid at all. All I can tell you is why I do not support any further gun control and that is because it does not have any real gains.
And gun restrictions are extremely common. The question has never been no gun restrictions. The question is should we add FURTHER restrictions on a right. I say no.
?
If they are pointless than there really is even less reason to do more things that are pointless. I would not go as far as stating they are pointless. What I find pointless is expanding them past the point we are already at.
No one is standing in the way of smart gun technology. What you are talking about is nothing more than a smoke screen. What people have stood in front of is mandating smart gun tech at this point. And for good reason.
Gun control. A very vague term. Hundreds of millions of guns. 3-D printing technology looming. I don't think limiting magazine sizes are the answer to our problem. But of course that's just what I believe, not what I know. I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.
I would like to see independent testing done The price tag on this tech is also very steep. AFAIK, the most recent iteration of smart pistols is in the iP1 and I cant find anything relating to actually testing how the weapon except by the NRA:
Armatix iP1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And they leave a pretty bad review. I would like to see these tested by someone without an agenda on some of the same metrics - misfires, time to fire ect. Part of my problem with gun restrictions like you mention is that we ALREADY know what these bans do because they have been done before and they are not effective at curbing homicides. I have no looked at how they work against suicide but I suspect that they do not (have no idea how a magazine limit would be able to impact suicides).
The NRA's position is exactly the same with regards to the CDC. The NRA cowardly attempts to circumvent their research.
My position is a simple one. Preventable deaths should be prevented. There is no reason to treat death from gun violence any differently than we treat highway fatalities, or smoking-related deaths. We allow people to proceed, unfettered, to do what they can to bring down the death rates. We don't stop the auto industry from developing safer cars and we don't forbid PSAs which tell us not to smoke.
Then explain why you support a BIASED research by a Government agency that is so biased the Congress had to step in and stop them in the 90's.
I will, however, ask you a simple question. Do you believe preventable deaths should be prevented?
The rest of this so-called debate is pointless and irrelevant to me. I know the avoidable death is real. I don't believe the threat to gun rights is real.
Of course...and Americans use guns 1.5 million times a year to prevent death at the hands of violent criminals...according to bill clinton....
21,000 gun suicides.... 1.5 million violent criminal attacks stopped....which number is bigger?