I'm not disagreeing with your post, quite the opposite. I just want to point out that the Kellerman study (which you allude to) that claimed a gun was 2.7 times more likely to be used against a resident of the house than against a non resident was horribly flawed.

The claim of the paper was that people who have a firearm in the home are more likely to die from their own guns. Don Kates proved that most of the victims in the study were shot by guns from outside the home, which makes the presence of the homeowner's gun independent of the death.
Kellerman also "proved" X -> Y, using data that actually proves Y -> X, by introducing a selection bias. Most of the victims in the study regularly engaged in criminal behavior. Criminals have a much higher probability of meeting a violent death, so murder victims are predominantly criminals, or their friends, family, or other associates. Criminals are also more likely to have guns in the home (which is strange given that it's illegal...).
What the study actually showed was a high correlation between being a murder victim and having a gun in the home. It did not sample gun owning households at random and determine how many suffered a shooting with a gun from that household.
Some Data

1) Put a defective ambidextrous safety on a 1911.
2) Flip it back and forth until the connection between the two halves breaks.


I had that happen once. Fortunately I discovered it in a competition, not a gunfight.

So would banning and confiscating all guns, or ending all human life. Stopping one bad thing (that doesn't happen much to begin with) with a worse thing isn't a good solution.

It's better to have to do as little as possible under stress. People forget to do things like deactivate safety levers, cock hammers, rack slides, etc. when the crazy meth addict with the machete is running at them.

That annoying thing in the middle of your trigger.

^^^ Glock haters respond ;-)

Are you saying that a gun on his hip (or my hip) is not secure? Or one on my computer desk (no kids in the house) within arm's reach? And no intelligent gun owner uses gun locks. All they do is force a thief to take the gun home to break the lock. And trigger locks are dangerous, because the possibility of a negligent discharge goes up dramatically when you stick things in the trigger guard.

Can I sweep up all the 9mm and 5.56mm?

The possibility of a mechanical failure is far more remote than the possibility of a fingerprint scanner failure. Have you ever tried scanning your fingerprints while bleeding, sweating, covered in mud, wearing gloves, or otherwise obscured?
Clearly you know very little of firearms, or you wouldn't have used the terms "bullets" (ammunition) or "mechanism" (action). Also you'd know that the vast majority of those of us who have self-defense firearms keep them loaded and would never put a lock on a gun, because trigger locks violate one of the primary safety rules ("don't put anything in the trigger guard, until you're on target and ready to shoot").
I stopped carrying a 1911, because there were a few times in IDPA, where I drew the gun and went to shoot, but forgot to hit the thumb safety. Now I either carry an XD (grip safety--hard to screw up) or CZ (decocker--even harder to screw up). So I'm in total agreement with the OP, reduce the number of things that can go wrong under stress.

Huh? That's like saying: I consider myself a moderate scientist... I believe in Intelligent Design.
Libertarianism is about choice, competition, and the freedom to decide. Keynesianism is about centralized economic control.

Instead of using vague, feel-good terms like "social justice" and "economic equality", say what you really mean: you want to use the force of government to push your view of what's "right" on the rest of us. You believe in freedom, as long as people don't say or do things you don't like. You believe that government effectively owns people's lives and property, and has the authority to tell them what they may, or must, do with it.

Or...
Come up with a good platform, based on the American ideals of individual responsibility and community involvement. This is all you need to do that:
Eliminate the executive and judicial branches as part of the legislative process. They execute the laws or judge the execution. (Hence the clever names).
For a bill to pass the legislature, it must have 90% approval.
If the bill consists entirely of repealing an existing law, it needs only 10% approval.
A ballot proposition can eliminate any law with 10% approval.
Done.

Things that would pass the 90% mark:
Bans on murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.
Things that would fail to pass the 90% mark:
Bans on sexuality, drugs, guns, etc.
Wars, slavery, genocide, etc.

I wear Radians molded earplugs with a pair of these voice amplifying earmuffs on top when I go shooting, and I can barely hear the people right in front of me (and they're not talking softly).
Combine the in ear molded plugs with a bigger set of outer muffs, rather than ones designed to amplify voices, and you'd probably miss your neighbors screaming and killing each other.
Nothing will do much for loud thuds, like bass, stomping on your ceiling, Barry White, or slamming things against the wall, because our bodies propagate low frequency sound really well, while the higher frequency stuff needs to travel through the open air to get very far.
Also, if you have a particularly loud neighbor something that helps is putting furniture (particularly furniture that holds clothing) on the adjoining wall.

So then what about tourists who walk down the sidewalk slowly, taking in the sights? Should we ban them, too? And if you're banning things that are inconsiderate, I'd like to humbly suggest one of the most inconsiderate acts possible: banning others from doing things the banner doesn't approve of.

This is the same guy who thought it would be a good idea to have the ATF force American gun dealers to sell firearms to Mexican drug lords, so he could use that later for political gain.
This is the same guy who helped cover up the FBI's involvement in motivating and equipping Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing.
This is the same guy who last week said the president has the authority to order the murder of Americans (somehow, to most Americans, ordering the murder of non-Americans is okay) without a trial, or even the presentation of evidence, simply because the president claims the target is a threat to "national security".

Now maybe it's because I recently watched the absolutely horrible Red Dawn remake, but maybe we should all stay away from Spokane.

I was there four times today alone.
Although I use cplusplus.com or docs.python.org for specific API questions, for how or why questions, stackoverflow is the best.