Asking for safe storage of weapons is surely a terrible burden for gun owners, I understand.
Uh? Guns themselves are remarkably safe, and their production is heavily regulated for that safety. Unlike you see on tv, guns don’t just go off, or explode.
Your use of the word “replace” is exactly the point, and why gun-right advocates will fight to the death to prevent registration. It’s only a matter of time before some idiot decides we should ‘replace’ unsafe guns with safer ones.
I’d really like you to try to do that with cars and see what happens.
And who pays the cost of that? Why should I have to replace the weapon I already own when it’s perfectly safe to fire?
And how will collectors be accommodated? Collectors are primarily interested in older guns, not stuff you can buy off the shelf anywhere.
vvv
Depending on how “safe” is defined, it can be. Some people think that anything short of keeping the gun unloaded in a safe, with all the ammunition locked away in another safe in a separate room is unsafe. They are wrong, but you can’t get them to acknowledge it. How do we insure the storage requirement isn’t one thst’s so cumbersome it keeps the gun from being useful in an emergency?
Again, what requirements do we put on cars? Why not retroactively decide that all cars must be kept in a locked garage?
Cars a hilariously easy to steal, and once stolen make committing crime a lot easier (unless the bank is on the bus route). We could save a lot of lives if we retroactively required cars to have most anti-theft features. What do you suppose is stopping us?
A friend of mine growing up had a Dodge Shadow, I think it was stolen 4 times. The police mentioned that the car only had something like 4 different keys made, so if you have a key there is a 1 in 4 chance it will work with someone else’s Dodge Shadow.
You’re also missing the point that if the gun is meant for home protection, it needs to be available should the situation arise. Makes as much sense as keeping your fire extinguisher locked up. They are after all, dangerous.
Ah yes. This is what’s affectionately known as “the gun show loop hole.” Why should classic cars be allowed on the road if they can’t pass safety and emission standards?
Cars have progressively become safer to operate, entirely due to regulations the govwrnment has passed. Talking about stealing cars is a strawman, it has nothing to do with reducing car deaths.
Biometric gun safes and grips would enable quick gun access in an emergency.
Not surprising at all. It’s how any ideological fanatics act when they can’t get what they want through a transparent process: they try instead to achieve their goal by making it just too cumbersome for most people to bother with the process. And not surprisingly, gun owners are now reacting just like pro-choice groups do.
ah, yes, hyperbole.
Not entirely. Cars also wear out fairly quickly, so implementation of the new safety features is easily done in an incremental fashion. Require all new cars be built with feature X by such-and-such a date, and in about 10 years pretty much all cars on the road will have feature X. There’s no need to force car owners to trade in their cars.
Guns, unlike cars, wear out very slowly. Incremental approaches won’t work.
Biometric gun safes are fine - but some people will insist that safe to rage require the guns inside those safes be unloaded as well. Biometric grips don’t work well enough yet to rely on them.
again, this is a long-term approach.
i’m guessing the technology will be there in the next 10 years, expecially if there’s a push for it.
Not hyperbole t all. It’s exactly how anti-abortion groups have acted over the yers, and how some anti-gun groups have acted. Some of the latter used to openly admit they were in favor of incrementally tightening gun laws with the goal of eventually achieving a complete ban.
painting everyone in favor of regulation as anti-gun fanatics is hyperbole.
i can just as easily call all gun owners psychotic death-loving fanatics. equally unhelpful.
No, you are very, very wrong. Cars have gotten safer because some consumers wanted safer cars, then some time later the government stepped in, but not with both feet. Government regulations has always lagged behind. But more importantly, the government hasn’t taken unsafe cars off the road. You can still drive a car without an airbag, or abs, for example.
It’s also a myth to think that making the car safer will make the driver safer. If you really want to make cars safe (ie prevent deaths) limit their speed to 45mph. Go on, try.
You need to look up what a strawman argument is, then try to use it correctly. Gun deaths are directly tied to stolen guns. You yourself have brought up the issue of gun thefts, including gun storage. You failed, now you’re trying to hide.
Both guns and cars are used in crimes, and both may be used to kill. The fact that we can’t regulate cars in a way that prevents them used in crimes should be a pretty good predictor of how likely gun registration/regulation will be at preventing crimes.
Classic fail.
Airbags and ABS are new features, try driving a car without seatbelts or taillights. Also try reading up on the history of car safety features, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards required manufacturers to make cars with seat belts etc, it was only later that states passed laws enforcing their use (and use went up).
as for the rest of your post, ad hominem attacks are a sign of failed logic.
ABS was first used in 1971(automotive), 1929 for aircraft. Not really that new.
when we get a federal gun registration law i’ll be lapping up all of your sweet, sweet tears.
This is good news to me because all of the guns that I own are based on designs that are 60 to 110 years old. Just like the M16, AR15, AK47 and my 1911 .45.
This is what bugs me. Those that want to restrict or ban guns really don’t know anything about them.
I return to my OP. How would registering legal guns, cut down on gun crime?
read the thread,