But why the resistance? Why not consider that having a consumer protection agency simply evaluate the guns for any possible faults wouldn’t be such a bad thing?
I agree that the most important safety feature with guns is the brain, but that would also apply to cars and most any other consumer product. It doesn’t make all of the regulations on cars and any other product less relevant.
Very rare. I’ve put about 5,000 rounds through my Glock, no mis-fires or jams. Chuck taylor9gunwriter0 was doing a long term test of a Glock 17, last I heard it was up to 175,000 rounds with minimal cleaning and some deliberate abuse and it was something like 2 failure-to-feed(traced to a bad mgazine0, no jams or mis-fires.
They should have had Glock make the M16…
My firearms so far have a slightly better track record than my pneumatic nail gun in this regard. In otherwords I have been injured by the nail gun. :smack:
As for the tech. I would welcome it. I suspect we are a ways off. The electronics will have to be perfected, ruggedized for the much higher shock loads of rifles and shotguns, and commercialized for volume production.
But safe to say that my interest is piqued afterreading that system seems to designed with real life use in mind. Off hand shooting as well as strong hand shooting. And that the researchers aren’t trying to rush it to market.
PDF here, with some pictures of the hardware. Quite interesting.
Why did this monster chose to kill his mother?
Why did this monster chose to go to a gun-free zone to kill more people?
How do you solve a problem if you don’t know why it started?
When the law changes, you can be law-abiding and surrender your guns, or you can keep them and be an outlaw. Your choice.
I don’t think we should normalize Koreshian behavior.
*When the law changes, you can be law-abiding and surrender your *books, or you can keep them and be an outlaw. Your choice.
Scratch an anti and under the superficial layer of “compassion” you will very often find the most ruthless of authoritarians. You aren’t against killing. As you’ve made abundantly clear in this thread, there is no upper limit on the body count you find unacceptable. How many of those outlaws would you be willing to look in the face and kill personally?
You might recall that it took fighting a war to bring about the change.
If you really want to fight a war over this issue, just remember – the other side has all the guns. 
All it takes is political will. If this tragedy is enough to move popular opinion enough to sway some Republican congressmen - we will have change.
Got tired head trying to catch up on all the posts here. Here is an interesting read. All sources are listed although I did not verify them. Document is a few years old but check some of the stats out on countries that implemented bans, gun controls, and how that is working out for them.
Your contribution to this thread is to state you can’t be bothered to read it but ask that we read a 100+ page document from a pro-gun website? gunfacts.info - yeah they are very objective in their material I’m sure.
With revolvers it’s essentially a non-issue; they don’t jam. (One of the revolver’s biggest advantages!)
With semiautomatics it’s harder to say because there’s a user element involved. If a shooter doesn’t hold the gun tightly enough (called “limp-wristing”), a failure to feed or failure to eject jam may occur because some of the energy which should have gone into cycling the slide was diverted into shaking the gun around in the too-loose hands. And semiautomatics can be picky about ammo: you may see jams with Ammo Brand A but no jams with Ammo Brand B.
Most folks I know won’t trust a semiauto for carry purposes until they have fired several hundred consecutive rounds of the ammunition brand they intend to use when carrying without experiencing a single jam of any sort. So one jam per 100 shots fired would disqualify that firearm as a reliable carry gun.
lol, good point. but their document is well layed out, and they actually put some effort into it rather than stating something like “lets put an RFID chip in a freaking firing pin”.
sure, they are slanted - i don’t doubt that. read it and see for yourself. if you are pro gun control you won’t buy it but at least they list all their sources.
did the new proposed gun ban mention suppressors? i was getting ready to buy one.
There already are some safety standards in place. New handguns have to be drop-safe if they are going to be sold in the US, and the gun can’t explode under normal use, or slip into full automatic mode (just two examples). So truly faulty guns can’t be sold. And most pistols now have either a peephole or a loaded chamber indicator to make checking the status of gun easier (theoretically - you’re a dangerous fool if you actually rely on those things!), and some guns have a magazine safety which prevents the gun from being fired when the magazine is removed. (The magazine safety isn’t required in very state, though, and there’s some controversy in the gun world about how ell it works and if it causes as many problems as it solves.)
I have read that document a few times and checked at least of a few dozen of their hundreds of cites – every one I checked was exactly as stated.
The author frequently updates the document and actively solicits readers to notify him of anything they find that is incorrect.
The document is indeed objective and very thoroughly cited.
http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf
i challenge any of these gun control advocates to read it. it is eye opening. of course they don’t want to open their eyes.
I personally don’t drink and I think the world would be a better place if others didn’t. However none of these massacres were committed by someone wielding a can of beer.
Yes, alcohol-related deaths are a problem that should be tackled. Does that mean that gun-related deaths shouldn’t be tackled as well? Should we just say “Booze killed more people than guns, so I guess we shouldn’t do anything about the guns?” If not, then it’s utterly pointless to bring the subject of alcohol deaths or car deaths into this. The problem under discussion is deaths by firearms and how to reduce them.
No, you can’t “make life perfectly safe” - when has anyone ever proposed that? How about we try to make it a little safer though?
Yes, “some freedoms are worth protecting”, but at what point does the price get too high before you’re prepared to voluntarily curtail SOME of those freedoms in order to make your country a safer place?
And no, I’m not saying that the “pro-gun” position is psychopathic - I absolutely believe guns should be allowed, just not all guns, and not by everyone.
Let me make that point clear again - I’m not “asking law-abiding people to sacrifice their rights, freedoms, and enjoyment” - I’m saying that if the status quo is so clearly fucked up, then it’s time to ask those law-abiding people to voluntarily limit SOME of their gun-related rights for the benefit of ALL.
But will there in fact be any benefit? The type of crime people want to curtail (mass shootings) can be carried out by someone armed with pretty much any weapon more advanced than a muzzle-loader. I’m not sure banning particular types of guns will do much (as opposed to tighter screen of those wishing to purchase firearms, which might). But right now, some sort of gun ban seems to be all that anyone’s talking about.
I’m not willing to curtail rights to no useful purpose.