Oh it’s like my brother in law who likes to go camping with his bros and blow shit up and join groups like the Oath Keepers and he has the gall the to invite me because I’m a military vet. Like I’d ever join a bunch of paranoid beer-infused anarchists who couldn’t type a paragraph if their life depended on it.
So, since the trigger is apparently a single sale from a licensed wholesale or retail dealer, what’s to stop Joe GunControl from getting a license, setting up a hut of a shop, and selling a single gun specifically to affect the trigger?
Factual update: not a negligible stat.
[QUOTE=NY Times, Sep 2013]
A New York Times review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the authorities.
…The undercount stems from the peculiarities by which medical examiners and coroners make their “manner of death” rulings. These pronouncements, along with other information entered on death certificates, are the basis for the nation’s mortality statistics…
[/QUOTE]
Your original information was poor (not your fault) and is outdated. So where are we now?
[QUOTE=NYT]
Under the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention figures, in fact, gun accidents were the ninth-leading cause of unintentional deaths among children ages 1 to 14 in 2010. (The agency reported 62 such killings that year.) If the actual numbers are, in fact, roughly double, however, gun accidents would rise into the top five or six.
[/QUOTE]
Personally, I think shark bites and cougar attacks are negligible risks. Even before the numbers are adjusted, I’m uncomfortable characterizing 62 US childhood deaths per year as negligible. I do agree though that the updated figure of ~110-120 childhood deaths per annum should be placed in the proper perspective. Smaller than motor vehicle collisions, larger than influenza and pneumonia combined.
Furthermore, the NRA’s “Don’t touch! Tell an adult!” program is laughable window dressing. An organization that cared about its membership would walk it through the fundamentals of proper risk assessment rather than relying exclusively on emotional and hind brain appeals.
What is it with you gun-grabbers and your “Democracy” and your “Logic”?
What are you talking about? Look how well it worked for God when it came to Adam and Eve in Eden!
Dammit. It looks about equal to influenza and pneumonia combined or maybe a little less, but I can’t tell for certain. I had misread the chart. I need to dig deeper and find a better bracket.
Page 20. Negligible in comparison to drownings, falls, burning, poisoning, and suffocation.
Under the “If it saves even one life!” (to my knowledge, not espoused by you) , we should also be banning swimming pools and bath tubs, any mechanisim for creating fire, all prescription drugs and household cleaners, and any kind of bag (paper or plastic), or item capable of being swallowed by a child.
Some people make a value judgement that those things are useful and acceptable in society, in spite of the occasional cost in loves. Fair 'nuf, I’d agree. But those same people wail and gnash their teeth about the Evil Guns, and the EEEvil Gun Lobby,, and that we must ban these immoral destructive devices. Insert appropriate flings as to the nature of gun owners for punctuation, and appeals to please think of the children.
Suggest a better alternative. For children, that is. For adults, the NRA (one among many organizations) offers basic firearm safety classes. As Czarcasm says (and I’m paraphrasing), “What? just 'cause it doesn’t stop every child death, we should do away with Eddie Eagle altogether?”
Unlike NJ’s “Smart Gun Only” Legislation, no one is cramming Eddie Eagle/Basic Firearm Safety down the public’s throat with the approval of a legislature and the signature of governor. No one is mandating Eddie Eagle Only laws.
Or do you subscribe to the Violence Policy Center’s take on Eddie Eagle?
Clearly, anyone motivated to protect the Constitution from being undermined would cry “no” to a law that restricts firearms to a limited and inadequate design for political reasons. Since you like car analogies:
“It’s like infringing on people’s right to buy and operate dangerous polluting cars. It sucks we can’t buy $500 dangerous cars, but thems the breaks.”
Here’s one …
Guess what, we’ve developed the Smarter Car (we actually have). It’s great, you just put you destination into the GPS and the car drives you there. No need to steer. In fact, there isn’t even a steering wheel. The Smarter Car avoids all road hazards and obstacles … and even better, it has a top speed of 35mph. You know, they drive 35 in Japan and have far fewer highway deaths, so we want to be just like them. The best news of all … there will be no more standard cars available for sale; we’ll all have to buy Smarter Cars. Brought to you by Brave New World Autos.
Which is why, of course, all locks of any sort on anything from my front door to a missile silo, should be illegal. Hell, someone will just “hack” them anyway.
What about people that do not have nor plan to have children? They, if this NJ law becomes nationwide like ZZ Top, HAVE to buy a smart gun?
I agree with the OP in that the threatening behavior was WAAAAY out of line. But I also agree with those that aren’t thrilled with the possibility that the types of firearms available are only of this variety, if it comes to that.
I also find it interesting that (if factual) that law enforcement and the military doesn’t want these…if that’s the case (which I imagine is because the smart guns don’t have a high enough non-failure to fire rate) then why do they have to get foisted on the rest of us?
Smart guns are a great idea…for those that CHOOSE to buy one of their own accord…not because they have no other option.
And RE: legacy guns already out there…they will become prohibitively expensive over time due to hoarding and scarcity. These things are machines after all, and do need replacement parts from time to time.
And if you want to buy a car, you have to buy one with a seat belt, completely infringing on your rights yet again.
Aw c’mon, that’s not a valid comparison and you know it.
Find where I said guns with locks should be illegal. I’ll wait.
Very well. Also, I don’t have a problem with seat belts on guns. Helmet laws, on the other hand …
I’ve seen recipes for kimchee. It’s stale by definition.
Actually, no, it’s a very good comparison. It is not in society’s interest for you to die in an accident, same as you getting shot by someone who got your gun accidentally. I would prefer that the law were not so sweeping, given the state of the technology, but I’m glad that NJ has taken the lead to provide data.
I wonder what the death/serious injury rates are with car accidents versus accidental gun discharges?
Kimchee is not stale, it’s decomposing.
The seatbelt analogy fails at this level … ready? … The Constitution protects the right of the People to bear arms for the purpose, at least, of maintaining a well regulated militia. Until those who’s job it is to supply and arm well regulated militias declare that smart guns may completely replace real guns, they are just curiosities. The Constitutional protection of the People’s right to bear arms is not concerned with the safety of clumsy homeowners, their inquisitive children, or the crack dealer next door who is waiting for them to go to the movies so he can break in and steal their guns.
Sounds cool! I can’t wait. We could have designated raceways where people can drive like maniacs and kill themselves when they feel like it. Win win.
No it’s not a good comparison.
These safe pistols are .22 rimfire. Only one company makes it. If it was legislated that you may only by a 2 wheel drive electric car with seatbelts made by an unknown company, that would be a closer comparison.
When seatbelts where first required all new cars had them, and they did not interfer with the operation of the car if you didn’t use them. And they where a pain in the ass to use back then (remember the first shoulder harnesses?).
They got better, and easier to use. It took time. If those first seatbelts where required to be worn to operate the car, pretty much every one would have disabled them.
Your glee should be tempered by the realization that not everyone shares your “Epsilon” level wit or imagination. Many of the rest of us would love to let you sit in your automatic safe car, as long as we can have a choice of what to drive. Within reason.
I wonder what the death & injury rates are per hour of active use? Parked cars don’t kill, after all. Drivers kill.