Please tell us when a consumer firearm is needed?
When I want to have some fun. This is the thing the pearl-clutching gun-grabbers consistently overlook: lots and lots of people think that hunting or target shooting at the range, or plinking, or simply going out in the woods/desert and shooting the fuck out of old washing machines or whatever is a ton of fun. Sure, sometimes we tell ourselves it's to protect our homes and families from home invaders or the zombie apocalypse or big government run amuck, but the real truth is simply that it's a fucking blast (no pun intended) to go out 3 or four times a year and waste $50 worth of ammo. Lots and lots of people spend an equal amount per annum on fantasy football or a dozen other equally harmless pursuits; and they present an equal danger to society as we do, which is to say: none whatsoever.
That's why "assault weapons" (which is to simply say "any modern semi-automatic rifle") are so popular, because they're fun to shoot. The much-touted violence in places like Chicago (and I live nearby) are the result of out-of-control gang members using ALREADY ILLEGAL 9mm pistols, NOT any kind of "assault weapons". Convicted felons possessing firearms is ALREADY another felony and no "common sense gun safety" (can you say "lipstick on a pig?") legislation is going to make that less likely to happen. When the gun-grabbers tout this kind of "common sense anti-assault weapon" talismanic-thinking crap, they're specifically targeting law-abiding gun owners, AND THEY KNOW IT. If they were serious about the issue, they'd spend a tenth of the money on gang-unit intelligence and get far better results. And they'd stop being disingenuous by not counting suicides (~63%) in their "OMG gun death!" statistics. Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country; Rahm Emanuel (mayor of Chicago) has been cutting gang unit budgets and police retirement replacement hiring for YEARS, and then blaming the resulting upswing in violence on a lack of yet-more draconian anti-gun laws.
Now, a couple of caveats: 1) being a responsible gun owner (to say nothing of being a responsible parent) means NOT leaving a loaded handgun lying around (with the safety off and one in the chamber FFS) where a toddler is likely to get their hands on it and kill themselves, and 2) I'm under ZERO delusions that the SWAT team (much less the US military) are outside my house saying to themselves "We better not risk it men, he's got a shotgun in there".
They are not complex, but they are precision - tolerances are tiny fractions of a millimeter. On parts that can wear down over time, or corrode, or get coated in dust. This is why responsible gun owners recognize the importance of maintaining their gun. If you buy a gun for self-defense and just leave it sitting by the bed for ten years, when someone really does come to rob your house it may well just jam. Or explode and take your fingers off.
I do wonder if there were similar objections raised when the safety was first introduced.
It goes both ways. The gun rights lobby opposes any and all forms of regulation, even the most common-sense, because they fear exactly the scenario you describe: If the government is allowed any power to regulate guns, that power could be deliberately mis-applied to restrict access.
This is why there has been intense opposition to things like restrictions on high-capacity magazines, or requiring less environmentally-damaging alternatives to lead shot.
The situation is paralleled in abortion, and has a similar effect: It forces political pressure groups to the extremes. Either prohibit entirely, or allow without restriction, both of which are not what the public in general desires.
Reliability is the big problem here.
Yes, somebody potentially could duplicate your fingerprint to use your gun, but it would be so much easier to just get a "dumb" gun, that it would not really be worth it.
However, this system malfunctioning (or if I forget to take my gloves off before firing) is a much bigger problem because when you need a gun, you really need it and fast,because you usually cannot ask the attacker to take a break, smoke a cigarette while you reboot the gun.
Mmm. And you can just put one of those up alongside a busy city sidewalk or next to a primary school can you?
If there's no law against you installing it, then yes you most definitely can put one in; a school being nearby doesn't affect that.
Now if it was a busy city sidewalk FIRST, and you adding that fence there is deemed a nuisance, they might be able to force you take it down, for the same reason they could force you to take down any fence you added -- forced easement (Your new fence is an eyesore or blocks a public view previously enjoyed).
City dwellers tend to not like electric fences very much, and many towns have passed a local ordinance restricting where
they can be installed to agriculturally-zoned land, OR require permits for fence projects, and may simply deny you the permit to install an electrified one.
On the other hand, if you got any required permits and had it installed it before the ordinance was passed, then the city cannot make a post-facto law to force you to remove it, provided it is on your property.
No. Just wrong. The jack takes about 20 seconds and makes very little noise.
I've seen someone using a die-grinder cut through 12 locks, including high-security ones in less than 15 seconds each.
Congratulations the crook that actually cut the lock, took off and received a minimal dose and you just killed someone.
You had no control of the actions that resulted in that person's death, and put a lock containing a clear warning.... the bike thief set those events into motion.
Next you'll say the shiny sports car had too much bling on it which distracted a pedestrian into kicking a dog, who then ran across the street, snatched a woman's baby, and dropped the kid down an open sewer vent where the child drowned, Therefore, having too much bling on your car makes you a baby killer.
We need to keep working toward a system where our Senators and Representatives actually know what We The People want and need.
What makes you think that they don't? I'm rather certain that most of them know that most people don't want children used as experimental subjects without their parents permission. But the legislators have other priorities.
Why the heck would a police officer be cutting your bike lock unless you are illegally parked?
Destruction of the offender's property is not a legal remedy for illegal parking, anyways.
If they need to forcibly remove your bicycle, then they can get a Locksmith to make a key for the lock without
destroying your property, impound your bike AND your $100 lock, and bill you for the costs, or auction off the assets.
And note well that this "well organized militia" would need to be totally independent of government control or approval. But it's also worth noting that such things have a very bad track record historically, i.e. even worse than governments.
If it's right next to a public space where a kid might accidentally touch it, you are going to be held liable if negligence.
Assuming the fence is installed correctly with a proper fence charger; coming into contact with it is just going to sting --- not capable of causing al electric shock or serious injury even to a squirrel, let-alone a kid.
The electric fence you can have with proper signage is limited in amperage to about 100 mA, AND more importantly; it's not a continuous current like line power, but a small pulse of current lasting 1/300th of a second, and another pulse every second..
Therefore..... it's not even something that can kill somebody. It's not the sign that makes electric fences legal or not a boobytrap...... It's the fact that these devices have to be designed in a certain way, and they are safe.
There *IS* no conservative candidate for Presidency. A conservative is one who wishes to conserve some currently existing state or feature. I often think of myself as a conservative, though only on some issues. The Green party is traditionally the most conservative of the existing parties, but it's never been all that conservative. People who want to "go back to the good old days" are not conservative, they are reactionary. Being conservative often works, but being reactionary never does. See "Dollo's Law" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... with particular attention to why it is valid.
8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss