So this 18 year-old kid - Kai Kloepfer is working at creating guns with fingerprint sensors on them that would only allow the person who has registered the gun to shoot it. Do you think this is a viable means of "gun control" to solve the issue of accidental (and stolen gun) shootings?
There is ONLY one means of gun control.
No guns.
That notion has been around for decades...the military have been toying with the idea of biometric lockouts on military firearms, so that enemies cannot turn their own guns against them. If they haven't come up with a viable solution, I cannot see how this kid can make it work.
It is said it won't work in a military application but what about a domestic application?
How is one distinguished from the other.
The technology is identical...only the application changes.
There is only ONE safe gun. That is the gun you do not possess.
After i quit hunting i sold all of my guns and let my F.A.C expire. Im fine with "no guns"
Quote from: "Leopardsocks"
The technology is identical...only the application changes.
There is only ONE safe gun. That is the gun you do not possess.
Let's get over the whole no gun thing mmmkay. We both know Americans won't give up their guns for anything.
The application is different making the technology more viable in a domestic setting. They talk about it in the video.
Quote from: "RW"
Not a word of a lie, my ex-bf had an almost identical idea.
No way!
Quote from: "RW"
I'm dead serious RW.
I believe you. I've been told though that it isn't a new idea.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "RW"
Not a word of a lie, my ex-bf had an almost identical idea.
That is incredible Shen Li..
He never pursued his idea?
Finger gun is the worlds safest gun.
Quote from: "RW"
It's not a new idea. It's been being kicked around for use in firearms for at least the past decade. In fact I have a firearms bed safe that responds to my finger prints in order to open it. The major problem lies in reliability. A duty weapon that is carried on a daily basis is subject to a fair amount of abuse; making sure the technology needed to operate it remains undamaged is problematic. You are also adding an unpredictable element into the mix which can conceivably add a level of malfunction to the weapon. Eventually this kind of technology will become reality but it will only be useful when it becomes almost bullet-proof (no pun intended).
Quote from: "Fashionista"
That is incredible Shen Li..
He never pursued his idea?
It wasn't identical, but similar to what RW posted. He never got a proper prototype going and kinda gave up on it when he realized other people had similar ideas.
We can pass laws to keep guns from the good guys, we can create devices to make them safer for the good guys .... but we cannot keep fully operational guns from those who would use them for bad purposes
There is no device nor law that can keep criminals from getting fully operational guns on the black market
Quote from: "cc la femme"
There is no device nor law that can keep criminals from getting fully operational guns on the black market
It is the same with illegal drugs and prostitution.
in that items in demand when legislated against or banned in itself creates sources .... yes it is.
Quote from: "cc la femme"
We all know prohibition never created a crime problem. ac_rollseyes
Quote from: "cc la femme"
There is no device nor law that can keep criminals from getting fully operational guns on the black market
Why do good guys need guns?
Quote from: "Leopardsocks"
Quote from: "cc la femme"
There is no device nor law that can keep criminals from getting fully operational guns on the black market
Why do good guys need guns?
I don't need a gun Leopardsocks.
ac_wot
Exactly!!!
Yet that is the argument offered for allowing gun proliferation. "I'm a good guy. Therefore I need a gun, because the bad guys have one."
It is irrational. By that argument, every single person would own a firearm.
Yet that is the insanity that underpins American gun control discussions.
Quote from: "Leopardsocks"
Quote from: "cc la femme"
There is no device nor law that can keep criminals from getting fully operational guns on the black market
Why do good guys need guns?
ac_wot[/quote] Nice try, but you won't divert me that easily.
CLEARLY My point was "There is no device nor law that can keep criminals from getting fully operational guns on the black market" .. period
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Quote from: "Leopardsocks"
Quote from: "cc la femme"
There is no device nor law that can keep criminals from getting fully operational guns on the black market
Why do good guys need guns?
ac_wot
Nice try, but you won't divert me that easily.
CLEARLY My point was "There is no device nor law that can keep criminals from getting fully operational guns on the black market" .. period
Quote from: "cc la femme"
Quote from: "Leopardsocks"
Quote from: "cc la femme"
There is no device nor law that can keep criminals from getting fully operational guns on the black market
Why do good guys need guns?
ac_wot
Nice try, but you won't divert me that easily. I was not commenting on why anyone would need a gun or not.
CLEARLY My sole point was "There is no device nor law that can keep criminals from getting fully operational guns on the black market" .. period
period
Hey I never thought of posting my point of view multiple times so that it would sink into the old gents addled brain. God knows it can be a challenge to convey your point of view to a mentally rigid old goat like Socks.
Good idea cc.
A few years ago a neighbors kid a few doors down was saying stupid shit like, I don't like you, your white, I kill you, bang bang. We dismissed it as just kids being stupid. But later the older brother spouted off about his dad having a gun and saying stupid shit like he could kill anyone if he wanted to and my dad fights in an army back home. I told my hubby and he asked me if we should get a gun. I said no but we opted to have a couple good bats by the door. Although a bat compared to a gun is a bit different. I might be open to buying, registering and learning how to properly operate one. Also having a locking cabinet but still undecided.
But kids won't be able to shoot their moms inWalmart
Quote from: "Annie"
I can take you out shooting, if you want to handle one...
I'm thinking more of in a legal firing range with a licensed teacher. Make it like a family thing, where we all go together and learn. My sister in law did it with her hubby and she said it was not only educational but fun. I also want to learn archery. My brother does it and my daughter learned years ago. It's good upper body exercise. I want to make the Merida cosplay for Fan Expo next year so I'd like to know more about bows and arrows anyways.
I still think there is a domestic application for those who insist on having a firearm. It could have a significant impact on injuries with firearms of and by children and prevent accidental shootings.
The idea isn't to take guns away from people (in the US) but to make them safer to have in homes or carry on somebody's person.
Safe guns :) I have many guns in the safe, and one safely beside me.
Alright, the issue of gun control, total BS, but the real issue is education, and safe gun storage.
In the US guns where in almost every home , gun clubs everyplace, and pretty much a national sport.
Now with all that gone gun crimes is way up, reason is lack of education.
Kids would learn not to mess with guns, and they sit by the door even.
Now nobody teaches the kids, and now they have many more accidents.
People leave them out still though, now kids can get them, and a crack head can also since society turned to crap.
Also whats with all the libtards with guns voting for the likes of Obama, the Hollywood ones glorify them even while telling you not to have one.
If your not home lock them up in a vault, get some basic training with one if you want one.
I like the Idea of the Safe gun in the video, but people need education before even touching one.
Think of the children!
Quote from: "RW"
Yes, the children.
I heard a partial news cast stating that a four old boy, shot his brother in the head.
The brother shot, did not survive, as I understand.
This isn't just careless storage of a firearm.
The children would be better off if the parents was educated, and taught their kids better.
Today with gun locks, and safes there shouldn't be an issue.
But there is an issue :/
That's why people need educated, and instead of people like Obama letting violent offenders out, and wanting them to have a right to more guns, keep them labeled as felons.
People need good training, and education to keep kids safer, and themselves.
They also need to work on keeping the mentally ill from getting hold of guns, some of the mass shootings the last few years has been on the feds.
They get a call from the gun dealers when selling a gun, and they have to do a background check.
One of the questions is have you been deemed mentally unstable. Apparently answering those questions is a waste of time since nobody checks if they are true.
Quote from: "Frost"
They get a call from the gun dealers when selling a gun, and they have to do a background check.
One of the questions is have you been deemed mentally unstable. Apparently answering those questions is a waste of time since nobody checks if they are true.
You can't really check into a person's mental health. HIPAA laws prevent any kind of inquiry into an applicants mental health history. The whole concept of a mental health background check is purposely set up for failure. It is simply another example of the ineptitude of our so-called law makers.
They check here.
It's not that difficult to get a restricted PAL in Canada.
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "Frost"
They get a call from the gun dealers when selling a gun, and they have to do a background check.
One of the questions is have you been deemed mentally unstable. Apparently answering those questions is a waste of time since nobody checks if they are true.
You can't really check into a person's mental health. HIPAA laws prevent any kind of inquiry into an applicants mental health history. The whole concept of a mental health background check is purposely set up for failure. It is simply another example of the ineptitude of our so-called law makers.
True, but when it's known like some was they should be kept from guns, many are in the police databases.
Quote from: "Frost"
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "Frost"
They get a call from the gun dealers when selling a gun, and they have to do a background check.
One of the questions is have you been deemed mentally unstable. Apparently answering those questions is a waste of time since nobody checks if they are true.
You can't really check into a person's mental health. HIPAA laws prevent any kind of inquiry into an applicants mental health history. The whole concept of a mental health background check is purposely set up for failure. It is simply another example of the ineptitude of our so-called law makers.
True, but when it's known like some was they should be kept from guns, many are in the police databases.
Does this depend on which state a person lives in Renee and Frost?
When buying a gun there is a call to the ATF which is federal so it's all 50 states.
Any mental issue may, or may not be in a police database, likely not unless arrested.
The thing is those databases isn't tied together as much as they should be, so the ATF will okay a gun to a mental nut job.
There is a hole in the system that needs closed for mentally ill, if violent they should be in a database even if it's under the privacy gray area.
Anyone with a mentally handicapped person in the household should have any gun locked away, that should be a law as well.
Unless you carry it on you, be smart enough to lock them up, that would save a lot of lives.
It would keep kids from them, nut jobs, and thieves.
A safe is pretty reasonable anymore, many with a biometric hand print needed so you can get to them fast.
If you can afford a gun, and ammo, you can afford a good safe, or vault.
Quote from: "Frost"
Any mental issue may, or may not be in a police database, likely not unless arrested.
The thing is those databases isn't tied together as much as they should be, so the ATF will okay a gun to a mental nut job.
There is a hole in the system that needs closed for mentally ill, if violent they should be in a database even if it's under the privacy gray area.
It only appears in the database if the wackos are convicted of an offense as I thought.
It really don't matter about the database as it is, you can get in the paper want adds, or computer to find people selling guns all over the place.
No check needed buying from a private party.
Quote from: "Frost"
No check needed buying from a private party.
Same here in Canada Frosty. You want a gun, you can get it. No courses and licenses required.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Frost"
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "Frost"
They get a call from the gun dealers when selling a gun, and they have to do a background check.
One of the questions is have you been deemed mentally unstable. Apparently answering those questions is a waste of time since nobody checks if they are true.
You can't really check into a person's mental health. HIPAA laws prevent any kind of inquiry into an applicants mental health history. The whole concept of a mental health background check is purposely set up for failure. It is simply another example of the ineptitude of our so-called law makers.
True, but when it's known like some was they should be kept from guns, many are in the police databases.
Does this depend on which state a person lives in Renee and Frost?
The ATF NICS check is the only nationwide check system available to firearms dealers. As Blue stated it is a criminal data base; mental health doesn't really come into play unless you have a conviction that can be attributed to psychotic behavior.
In the case of a mentally ill person who has never been convicted of a crime there is no way to do a real mental health check. Federal protection laws known as HIPAA (The Federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) protects a person's medical confidentiality and prevents anyone (even law enforcement) from delving into your medical records. In certain states you can sign a waiver that allows law enforcement to acquire and review your medical records but it is generally only when applying for a hand gun permit, class III tax stamp or concealed carry permit.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Frost"
No check needed buying from a private party.
Same here in Canada Frosty. You want a gun, you can get it. No courses and licenses required.
There should be, and I have thought a long while there should be a good way to take guns into a dealer, and make the sell to a private party.
The shame is that the dealer would charge you for that when the ATF should do it for free.
The way it is you might be selling to a felon, or someone with a restraining order.
Also if your selling to someone out of state that's illegal.
I forgot to mention, a dealer can refuse a sell if he believes someone is not right in the head.
Quote from: "RW"
Well, that's leaves me hooped! ac_toofunny
Quote from: "RW"
No they don't. There is no way to check. As was mentioned, dealing with healthcare professionals encompasses an expectation of confidentiality, even in Canada. Actually, they are typically bound by this expectation, and rightfully so.
How it works in Canada, is a healthcare professional would have to deem that his "client" is
The vast majority of individuals are held back from obtaining a firearm due to their criminal records. Typically, violent and drug related convictions will most likely prevent one from obtaining a licence.
Quote from: "Annie"
Every person in Canada that has a firearms licence has proven his/her basic knowledge on handling, storage and use of firearms. They can bring you anywhere (including any range) and "teach" you the basics.
On a side note, the one interesting thing a Canadian Firearms licence does have, even on renewal, is that your spouse must also sign for you.
This doesn't matter if you're single, but if you are married (and they know your status), your spouse must sign you off as "safe." There's even a number for the spouse to call in private, need be, right where they sign, if they feel "unsafe" or "coerced" while signing.
Interestingly enough, your significant other could have more of an impact than any other entity respecting your ability to own firearms. No doubt this is due to the fact that most shooting deaths are domestic disputes gone bad.
Quote from: "Keeper"
FAC? Old man... ac_razz
And yes, if you have kids, keep your shit locked up. No matter how well you taught them, kids still like to play cowboys & indians.
My shit hangs on the wall. But! I don't have kids. Shit, I don't even have many visitors.
Understand your responsibilities. These do vary depending on your surroundings.
Common sense trumps any laws, or no laws at all. Sadly, some people don't think very well. And I thought I was "off!" The more I see & read in the World, the more I realize that most people are more fucked up than me. And that's not reassuring...
Quote from: "Mel Gibson"
This doesn't matter if you're single, but if you are married (and they know your status), your spouse must sign you off as "safe." There's even a number for the spouse to call in private, need be, right where they sign, if they feel "unsafe" or "coerced" while signing.
Interestingly enough, your significant other could have more of an impact than any other entity respecting your ability to own firearms. No doubt this is due to the fact that most shooting deaths are domestic disputes gone bad.
I didn't know this Mel Gibson..
It seems like a good idea.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
It seems like a good idea.
Most don't...
I may be the only valid PAL holder here. My ex had to sign my renewal when we were still married. I didn't even have to hold a gun to her head! ac_dunno ac_wot ac_toofunny
Now, I suppose the applicant could forge the signature, but if that was ever found out, the licence would be stripped.
So, a word to the spouses of firearms owners... Yes, you are required to sign the renewal form.
Quote from: "Mel Gibson"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
It seems like a good idea.
Most don't...
I may be the only valid PAL holder here. My ex had to sign my renewal when we were still married. I didn't even have to hold a gun to her head! ac_dunno ac_wot ac_toofunny
There are others that are firearms owners, but they may live in the United States.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Most owners here live in the US. Different rules and regs, especially regarding handguns. Long gun ownership isn't terribly different between Canada and the US, believe it or not! The big difference is handguns. Canada imposes extra rules and regs on handguns, essentially limiting them to sporting use only for most (i.e. to the range and back for target practice).
Quote from: "Mel Gibson"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Most owners here live in the US. Different rules and regs, especially regarding handguns. Long gun ownership isn't terribly different between Canada and the US, believe it or not! The big difference is handguns. Canada imposes extra rules and regs on handguns, essentially limiting them to sporting use only for most (i.e. to the range and back for target practice).
Even within the United States rules vary from state to state according to what Renee and Frost have written.
That's true. Especially with open carry, concealed carry (pistols)...
Quote from: "Mel Gibson"
This doesn't matter if you're single, but if you are married (and they know your status), your spouse must sign you off as "safe." There's even a number for the spouse to call in private, need be, right where they sign, if they feel "unsafe" or "coerced" while signing.
Interestingly enough, your significant other could have more of an impact than any other entity respecting your ability to own firearms. No doubt this is due to the fact that most shooting deaths are domestic disputes gone bad.
I remember that little clause from my ex-bf who had quite the gun collection.