I dunno. 'Bang' when you expected 'click' is no day at the beach either.
It could lead to LESS safety with guns. So with a smart gun people could say "I don't have to worry, it is a smart gun!" and not handle it as safely.
The huge increase in negligent discharges amongst law enforcement following the introduction of Glocks and other handguns lacking a manually operated safety tends to support your supposition. Clearly they had relied in the position of the safety rather than proper handling. (Which explains those going from 1911 to Glock. Did departments going from S&W and other revolvers experience this same increase in NDs?)
Currently every firearm I own will still be functional for my great great great grandkids (as long as someone cares for them with cleaning).
Pee down the barrel of that Mosin, and you're good.
actually there is... White rural Americans does not reproduce the way they used to.
You can thank abortion laws for that.
I thought we were supposed to thank abortion laws for a reduction in urban crime?
Maryland is very close to the situation you describe as your ideal. On paper. The rules are in place for most of what you cite. However, due to prosecutorial discretion, Baltimore City (and some of the urban environs of PGC and MoCo) has one of the worst gun homicide rates in the nation. These crimes are almost invariably committed by recidivist criminals who should have been off the streets years prior for years longer.
The weird thing is during our legislative session this year, we heard from the mayor and the head of the state police and some activists about how we need more gun laws. The only people mentioning the need to enforce laws on the books were the pro gun types. And I guarantee that during elections next year, we will not hear the mayor, the governor, or the head of the state police argue against the re-election of state's attorneys based on them pleaing out gun charges in the past.
TL;dr: Great idea, political assholes will screw it up.
It's cute how hoplophobes discussing gun laws and policy sound so much like **AA discussing copyright and filesharing.
Don't forget his activities in support of Sherman Ware.
An area that's dangerous perhaps because of all the guns?
And little tykes running around with concrete sidewalks.
Perfect justification for my suggestion elsewhere: let law enforcement go first. Quite frankly, those statistics are an embarrassment and should be the first evidence to show that exceptions for LEOs should NOT exist in various pieces of gun legislation.
Interesting viewpoint and way at looking at the debates. I would tend to phrase it more along the lines of "to what degree are life and the increased chance of safety more important than what amount of liberty?" but even that phrasing could, I admit, be starting the debate, not 'just' framing it.
Your little personal firearms don't stand a chance against the military or even the police really.
Perhaps, but seeing as how we live on the same soil, they would work just fine against the soldiers' wives and cops' kids.
(And no, I'm not suggesting this. Myself and almost everyone in my social groups are at risk of being the victims in this scenario.)
Even as you read this, you are wishing that you could jam a gun in my face and make me back down.
You seem to be incredibly confident in your ability to raise an emotional reaction out of your copying and pasting.
Oh, and because one or two people are deranged idiots, doesn't mean that all gun owners are. The biggest problem that gun rights advocates have with the gun control advocates is that most of the gun control advocates don't just hate guns, but hate people that don't hate guns.
Your post reads like that.
I've seen commentary like his many, many, many times. It's actually quite disturbing and makes me wonder about the violent ideation of the speaker. I suspect that it is actually they who have these violent fantasies they ascribe to others. Further, their desire to remove guns universally is because they know they cannot be trusted with such a device.
I'm not sure how your biased screed is a response to what I wrote. Convenient jumping off point?
Again, find an armed government agency to go first. Then we can talk.
They are a stupid fucking idea that are the answer to a question nobody asked. Well nobody other than those who ultimately wish to take all guns from people not employed by the government.
For those who think I'm wrong and that these should be mandatory, why don't you go lobby the government (at any level from local to federal) and have some of these technologies mandated for LEO fire arms use. Report back with your results.
"Don't think; let the machine do it for you!" -- E. C. Berkeley