I can agree with most of this. There already is required courses for handguns in most states. Where you lose me is tax manufacturers for "damage and costs to society" if a guns is used correctly and legally there are no damages. Are you suggesting we hold gun manufacturers accountable for illegal actions of individuals? Because that could ooen a can of worms for manufacturers of just about every product ever made
The whole going after the manufacturers thing is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to eliminate legal gun ownership in this country. This is one of Clinton's goals.
I know you are a strong supporter of gun rights. I am interested to hear your opinion on the idea of "smart gun" technologies. Guns that dont fire unless they are matched to the owner. They are advancing in recent years. Suppose these technologies became fully developed. Would you be opposed to a government mandate that all guns must be equipped with this technology linking the gun to the registered owner or no????
If I could be 100% assured that only I could control the thing I'd love my guns to work this way. It's an additional safety feature with having kids around (2 more on the way btw) and no one is ever going to break into my house and use my own gun on me with this technology. It would allow me to safely keep one loaded on my nightstand instead of locked up in a safe. But I am highly skeptical about whether I'd actually be the only one with control over it. The last thing I would want is the government to have control over every gun - with the ability to disable them all at the drop of a hat. They'd also have to grandfather in all existing guns if something like this were to ever go down.
Just make sure background checks are actually done how they should be done and severely increase penalties for illegal guns. Over time that should take care of the vast majority of problems. Why should the gun industry be taxed because the government can not ensure background checks are done correctly and refuse to penalize criminals harshly enough to curtail their use of illegal guns? 97% is the percentage of gun murders committed with illegal firearms, is that the fault of the manufacturer?
Well I don't think they will ever be "100% assured." Is it 100% assured that guns will fire properly and not blow up in your hands today? But I see what you are saying in that the technologies aren't ready just yet for mass application. But they will be. soon. The idea though that the government could remotely control all the guns from a central database is a pretty huge stretch. There are numerous different companies working on this and they are having hard enough time linking the gun to the person, let alone linking it so it can be manipulated remotely. Or working together to give the government access. What you are suggesting is kinda like in the early days of GPS and On Star if someone said I am leery about it because I don't want the government disabling vehicles at the drop of a hat. Well yeah, I dont think anyone wants that but that was a difficult task then and a difficult task today. As for older guns? I envision a retrofit technology. The new law says all new and existing guns need to be equipped with this technology. If you don't have it you get fined/face possible jail time (idk). A lot of people will equip their old gun, a lot will take their chances with the fine but at the very least you'd be saving the lives of the hundreds that die each year from getting their hands on daddy's gun. not to mention the impact it could have on people stealing guns. congrats on the new arrivals
You tax the gun industry because their product is inherently dangerous and causes a huge amount of damage in society every year. If guns were not manufactured there would be far fewer homicides committed in the heat of the moment, such as the Will Smith homicide this thread is about.
Nah - you want to tax the gun industry because you want to eliminate it. If it was just about inherently dangerous products you'd have a long list of industries to go after.
If the person who shot Will Smith got 10 years in prison the last time he had an illegal gun he would still have been there and not been able to shoot Smith.
I'm not a gun owner but if I was I wouldn't want the technology. The whole purpose I would own a firearm would be to protect my family. Well if someone where to break in my home and shoot me to the point I'd either be dead or unable to use my firearm nobody else in my home would be able to either because of the technology therefore it would still leave my family in danger. Then you'd probably have hackers and other people working on ways to overrun the system. You have to remember the bad guys tend to always be one step ahead of the good guys.
And in trying to make Bernie look bad she disgustingly uses the tragedy in Sandy Hook to make a political point. Bernie is on the right side of this issue, Hillary is not. Hillary is using dead 5 year olds to gain political points. She truly is one of the most disgusting human being we've ever had running for this office.
This might help a little with gun crime but we also have to keep in mind that guns are simple machines and smart devices would likely be easy to circumvent. There's also 3D printed guns right around the corner.
if liquor wasn't produced there would be no more good person turned convicted vehicular manslaughter inmate. why aren't we railing against jack daniels inc?
but its a lot easier to catch someone driving around drunk than it is to catch someone carrying an illegal gun. I mean this post of yours comes directly after you said that if the police had caught the person who shot Will Smith carrying an illegal gun he could never have been able to commit the crime. Isn't this a better solution to something that is obviously difficult to catch?
I'm not so sure how easy it would be to circumvent. I think the problem is with terminology. "Smart" gun throws off our perceptions because we are used to smart phones, ie interconnected software in phones. It doesn't even have to be that. They are developing simple built in or retrofitted grip or fingerprint recognition guns. You pick it up and it recognizes your hand. The only circumvention there would be to strip the device of the technology - which would be illegal. again some people would comply some wouldnt but it would help in accidents at the very least. I could see the police also wanting the device. No more officers getting shot with their own guns after a struggle or criminal stealing it barry's point about it not being able to be used in an emergency if the original owner can't is valid though.
that was waterboy saying if they had stiffer penalties for when they did catch him with an illegal gun he would still be in jail. they did catch him and let him off easy. and he went bought another illegal gun and killed someone. how are we not recognizing the problem here? as far as technology in guns, i don't think i would like it to go that far. maybe some sort of fingerprint i.d. to activate it and a hibernation mode. but practically speaking. firing ranges and such, teaching kids how to handle a firearm, not sure your proposed technology would work
Guns are already taxed and regulated. Just like booze is. You really want the carnage to end, you make everybody in the perp's chain of supply strictly liable for the damage he caused. We got lots of lawyers in America. We could make this work.
