Raping and robbing are almost fucked up as killing people. Why would I stoop to your level of problem solving and social discourse?
3 Likes
The historical progression from sword, to bow, to gun is pretty clear:
- massive, exponential increase in lethality â physics, basically
- huge reduction in skill required
- huge reduction in strength required
At the point when a three year old child can easily push a button and kill someone with it, thatâs a very different class of weapon.
The progression is logical, there will be a class of weapons beyond guns that are even more dangerous. I expect there weâll see the regulation we never got on firearms because cowboys and freedom and shit.
Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
Itâs coming.
The problem with laws like this is that the people who werenât locking them up before probably arenât going to now, just because thereâs a law. How are they going to get caught? Itâs not like seatbelt laws, where youâre actually out in public and could get a ticket. The only way they could possibly get caught is if something bad happens (itâs used accidentally, or it gets stolen), and even then theyâll probably just lie and say it was locked up and the whole gun safe got stolen. Or just not report it stolen at all.
Consumer choices donât make a person part of a minority group.
Honestly, I think most people are going to start with dick jokes before thinking youâre unhinged.
1 Like
It better be.
1 Like
If there were 5 bow and arrow for every 1 american floating around out there, weâd need more laws to control bow and arrow related accidents and violence too.
And still 99.99% of those bows would be hurting no one.
Why do you object to this law?
1 Like
At first I wrote a response about trigger locks, but I see you are actually talking about gun safes, which didnât appear to be directly references in Heller. So it would appear safes are something of an open question, which is yet another reason why SCOTUS should have heard this case.
Putting on our amateur lawyer hats, Heller did say âthe requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.â So I imagine the gun safe question would appear to hinge on comparing the hindering effects of a safe vs. trigger lock. I think Heller is fairly clear that relatively quick access is a protected right, and so the discussion comes down to splitting hairs over how much hinderance is allowed.
laws like this are more about their being legal accountability in the event of a tragedy, without such a law someone with an unlocked loaded gun doesnât hold responsibility if a child shoots themself with it.
iâm curious why are the same people are against smart guns, which are essentially a trigger locked gun that is keyed to one individual or fob so the gun can be both safe/locked and quickly accessible? smart guns have been almost unanimously âshot downâ (excuse the pun) by the pro gun crowd.
1 Like
Iâll tell you why. They see as a form of control. They feel if this type of gun will be made, the government will force every one to use it. Which sounds like paranoia and delusion, except New Jersey passed a law saying just that in 2002.
FWIW I am 100% for the development of said technology. Assuming it works with a near 100% success rate, it would be a great tool especially for the casual gun owner. I am 100% against making said technology mandatory.
Thanks for the explanation, I often wonder about these sorts of things and donât always understand the opposition.
What if it were optional, but could be used in lieu of a trigger lock or safe? Meaning you could trigger lock your gun or use a safe, or use a smart gun. That seems reasonable to me, is it?
Arenât there negligence laws already in place to handle that kind of situation?
My objection is that it is unnecessary, unenforceable, and doubtful that it will DO anything. Anyone not properly storing their firearms now are unlikely to do so just because some law says they need to. That is still the attitude with countless other laws, but unlike helmet laws, cops canât enforce your guns being stored properly until after the fact.
5 years from now if you show me a significant reduction in accidental shootings in SF I will concede it being a good law.
Again, as above, I think mandatory laws like that donât do anything. I am 100% behind properly storing your weapons. Though depending on who you live with, you can keep a loaded firearm accessible with out endangering anyone. Again, as some of my other examples, how you store things depends on what is going on in your life. A bottle of pain pills could be stored differently depending on if you are 60 years old living alone, 20 something with toddlers, or 30 something with teenagers. One should take prudent measure based on their situation.
I am 100% for the concept of a smart gun. Assuming it worked well, it would be an added layer of safety. And something like that would take the place of locks or safes.
A few high profile convictions, after the fact, might change the attitude about the law.
1 Like
Right. Just like how they convictions for gun crime and drugs have made people more compliant with the law.
ETA - to be clear, if someone is harmed from their negligence, they should be punished.
Well, then convict away. If theyâre too stupid to follow the law, Iâm not opposed to them being punished if the triggering event (ahem) is a child hurting themselves with a gun.
Actually - the risk is that when you hang out where lots of people get shot, you have a much more likely chance of being shot - and killed. The 4.2 number comes from the Branas study which I have pasted an excerpt of below. People carrying guns did have a higher death rate, they probably have other factors like their own aggression and involvement in the incident that play into that. I would put forth that them carrying a gun is correlated with the same factors, but not a causal agent.
RESULTS
Over the study period, our research team was notified of 3485 shootings of all types occurring in Philadelphia. This translated into an average of 4.77 (standard deviation [SD] = 2.82) shootings per day, with a maximum of 21 shootings in a single day and an average of 9 days a year that were free from shootings. From among all these shootings, 3202 (91.88%) were assaults, 167 were self-inflicted (4.79%), 60 were unintentional (1.72%), 54 were legal interventions (1.55%), and 2 were of undetermined intent (0.06%). When we considered only assaults, an average of 4.39 (SD = 2.70) individuals were shot per day in Philadelphia with a maximum of 20 in a single day and an average of 13 days a year in which no individuals were shot.
From among all 3202 individuals who had been shot in an assault, we excluded those aged younger than 21 years or of unknown age (29.83%), non-Philadelphia residents (4.34%), individuals not described as being Black or White (1.62%), and police officers that had been shot (0.09%). From the remaining group of 2073 participants, we randomly selected and enrolled 677 individuals (32.66%). We also concurrently identified and enrolled an age-, race-, and gender-matched group of 684 control participants.
Case participants and control participants showed no statistically significant differences in age group, race, and gender distributions, or in the times of day, days of the week, and months of the year when their data were collected. Case participants and control participants were thus successfully matched on age category, race, gender, and time.
However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).
Because guns are relatively simple mechanical devices, but they still can and do fail.
Adding on more claptrap makes them more likely to fail. If you are going to use a firearm as a tool in defense of life why would you add more points of failure? There are plenty of ways to secure firearms as is without adding smart gun âtechâ that really does not exist on a proven scale yet.
