Sotomayor's views on guns prompt questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reba--

When there are many guns lying around or floating around, it's easier for a person to do more greater damage. Ever heard of hand grip Id tagging? I don't know if exit today or not, but from what I've heard when a gun is registered to a buyer, the buyer's palm prints will be on the gun, and only that buyer can fire that gun, if someone else tries to fire that buyer's gun, it won't fire, even if the gun had been stolen, the gun will no longer be any good to fire. ;)
 
Reba--

When there are many guns lying around or floating around, it's easier for a person to do more greater damage. Ever heard of hand grip Id tagging? I don't know if exit today or not, but from what I've heard when a gun is registered to a buyer, the buyer's palm prints will be on the gun, and only that buyer can fire that gun, if someone else tries to fire that buyer's gun, it won't fire, even if the gun had been stolen, the gun will no longer be any good to fire. ;)

That would be awesome if all guns were manufactured with this feature!
 
Reba--

When there are many guns lying around or floating around, it's easier for a person to do more greater damage. Ever heard of hand grip Id tagging? I don't know if exit today or not, but from what I've heard when a gun is registered to a buyer, the buyer's palm prints will be on the gun, and only that buyer can fire that gun, if someone else tries to fire that buyer's gun, it won't fire, even if the gun had been stolen, the gun will no longer be any good to fire. ;)

that invention occurred at NJIT - just 20 min from me.

Cops' opinions and my opinion - great idea but risk is too high. Electronic device fails. it always fail. what if the battery goes dead or the connection link goes dead when you really need the gun?

The risk is too high for it to be beneficial
 
that invention occurred at NJIT - just 20 min from me.

Cops' opinions and my opinion - great idea but risk is too high. Electronic device fails. it always fail. what if the battery goes dead or the connection link goes dead when you really need the gun?

The risk benefit is too low for this to be practical on larger scale.

Then troubleshoot it until it gets perfected. That would a good paying job for u, Jiro. :D
 
Then troubleshoot it until it gets perfected. That would a good paying job for u, Jiro. :D

already tried for past several years. This is old technology and old news but it's buried because it's ineffective. I do not support this idea anyway.
 
already tried for past several years. This is old technology and old news but it's buried because it's ineffective. I do not support this idea anyway.[/QUOTE]

Why not?
 
Why not?[/QUOTE]

ineffective. risk benefit is unacceptable. I do not support any electronic device on "safety" equipment. For example -

a fire extinguisher with electronic device that checks your fingerprint that only authorized people can use it.

you see where I'm getting at?
 
Oh so you've tried it already, Jiro?
 
Oh so you've tried it already, Jiro?

already tested by professionals. what you think why nobody especially law enforcement have it?
 
'Smart gun' still hasn't hit the mark
Five years ago, New Jersey became the first state to limit the sale of handguns to weapons equipped with technology that prevents all but the gun's owner from firing a shot.

The controversial law, aimed at reducing the number of children killed by handguns through accidents, suicide or acts of violence, had one very big caveat: It would not go into effect until the state was convinced these futuristic "smart guns" actually work.

Today, after gun manufacturers, engineering firms and research universities have spent millions competing to perfect the weapon, the quest has wandered onto the slow track.

The federal government has all but ceased its funding, crippling research. Legal squabbles over patents shelved promising technologies. And gun manufacturers got out of the business entirely, wary of potential lawsuits and marketing guns that would cost far more.

However, one of the few remaining hopes for a "smart gun" lies in the Newark laboratories of the New Jersey Institute of Technology. The school has spent nine years and $4 million in grants to develop a technology that identifies gun owners based on how they squeeze the trigger.

NJIT officials say their gun works 99 percent of the time. But they know that's not good enough. Getting it to work all the time, they say, could take years and substantially more funding than the university now gets.

"It's still very crude," said Donald H. Sebastian, senior vice president for research and development at NJIT.

He said it would take "about two years of steady effort with proper funding" to develop a working smart gun prototype.

"We haven't had the steady effort or the proper funding," Sebastian said. "It's a million-dollar-a-year effort to keep people working on it full time."

Instead, the university is banking on a $250,000 federal grant -- its first in two years -- to continue working on its "dynamic grip recognition" technology.

this was developed at NJIT - a technology university in Newark, NJ - one of the highest crime rates in NJ along with Camden. this is still developing for 9 years and even Newark police (and NJIT police) don't even trust it!!! :lol:

if cops don't trust it, yea... then how can you expect us to trust it too?
 
[/SIZE][/FONT][/color]

Are you saying we should not have any gun??

Well, let me tell you something.

On April 16, 2007, there were thirty-two people were murdered, and all people were disarmed by their government. There was only one murder who broke the law and had a gun. Is it sound right to you, isn't it?

Think about it.

I never say that anyone should not have any gun.

I am saying that the people should be examine and common sense test before they are allow to be the gun owner like driving test before own driving liescne.



I bet you never understand about 2nd Amendment, come on and you can't take our gun rights away and go review on 2nd Amendment before start nonsense argument.

2nd Amendment is Bill of Rights, you can't overturn it, hehe.

I will become gun owner in later, none of your business to interfere with gun owners.


I am sorry to say that you are a very difficult person to accept others´ POV.

Please accept the fact that each person entitle its view differently as you.
 
Thanks for the link Jiro, It's the shame that they don't trust this technology and how there's no guarantee that it'll work all the time. It would have made this world a big differences if we had ways to prevent further violence crimes and accidents. I supposed we have to wait around forever for a new technology to come up. Bummer...
 
More people (babies, kids, teens, adults) were killed accidentally by automobiles than guns. According to some estimates there are some 200 million privately owned guns in the United States (this estimate varies).

But for cars, there was an estimated 136 million cars in 2007 on the road but some 43,000+ were killed each year in motor-vehicle accidents.

Table MV-1 - Highway Statistics 2007 - Highway Statistic Series - Policy Information - FHWA
43,100

Yet, over 40,000 people die each year from automobile accidents versus some 750 to 850 die each year from accidental shootings.
NSC - Injuries in America 2008

Let's ban cars first before we ban guns. Guns are much, much safer than cars that are drastically less risk to have.


First: Nobody says here that guns should be banned but restriction.

Second: Accord your link, the drivers lack their common sense as the same as gun owners as well. That´s why I am for that every drivers and gun owners should have common sense test before they are able to be responsible drivers and gun owners.

Third: You compared car accidents with gun accidents is fallicious because it´s people´s lack of common for WANT to shoot and car accidents cause by drviers´ lack of common sense due DUI, cell phones, etc.
 
I am sorry to say that you are a very difficult person to accept others´ POV.

Please accept the fact that each person entitle its view differently as you.

interesting..... I say same for you :lol:
 
Thanks for the link Jiro, It's the shame that they don't trust this technology and how there's no guarantee that it'll work all the time. It would have made this world a big differences if we had ways to prevent further violence crimes and accidents. I supposed we have to wait around forever for a new technology to come up. Bummer...

instead of technology and laws.. it's usually much more effective to tackle the problem at the very basic level - humans.
 
yes, his opinion was to register all the guns so the Nazi party knew who owned them. the Nazis went door to door to take them away from the owners. so when the stormtroopers started rounding up people to cart off to the gas chambers and ovens, one had a chance

For Jews, other races and anti-Hitler only.

Reba´s post
No, it was more than opinion. It was an action. Hitler's action of removing guns from the Jews and potential "dissidents" ensured their becoming sitting ducks for his evil plans.

Yes, it´s his opinion for jews, other races and German anti-Hitler, anti-politicans and homosexually only and support German citizens, that who support Hilter.
 
For Jews, other races and anti-Hitler only.

Yes, it´s his opinion for jews, other races and German anti-Hitler, anti-politicans and homosexually only and support German citizens, that who support Hilter.

are you telling me that you failed to see such a simple, obvious concept? That same concept happened over again and again and again for thousand of years. That's why the founding fathers built this country with that in mind as well. It prevents the government from becoming a dictator.
 
interesting..... I say same for you :lol:

No, I use good common sense and know how to handle the debate with agree to disagree without take posters´s posts personally. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top