Tierney’s ‘Gun Safety’ Nonsense
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Tierney’s ‘Gun Safety’ Nonsense

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638

    Tierney’s ‘Gun Safety’ Nonsense

    The Corner
    The one and only.



    By Charles C. W. Cooke
    May 16, 2013 4:00 Pm


    The Hill has a story today that leaves one wondering if, when it comes to gun control, there is any line too ridiculous for progressives to cross:
    A House Democrat inspired by the last James Bond movie has offered legislation to produce handguns with “personalization technology.”
    The idea is to produce guns that can only be used by the gun’s owners. Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) cited the latest James Bond movie, “Skyfall,” as inspiration for the bill.
    “In the most recent James Bond film, Bond escapes death when his handgun, which is equipped with technology that recognizes him as its owner, becomes inoperable when it gets into the wrong hands,” Tierney’s office said in a statement introducing the bill. “This technology, however, isn’t just for the movies — it’s a reality.”
    Sure, one can already buy guns with this technology — although it’s pretty unreliable. It’s certainly a good idea for a gun safe. If Americans wish to take advantage of it, then good for them. Naturally, though, Tierney doesn’t have that in mind:
    Under his bill, guns made in the United States would have to be built with this technology two years after the bill becomes law. Older guns being sold by a business or individual would have to be retrofitted with this technology after three years.
    And who will pay for this? The taxpayer, naturally.
    The bill says the cost of retrofitting these older guns would be paid out of the Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Fund, where confiscated assets from criminal investigations are placed.
    In the Boston Globe, John Rosenthal of Stop Handgun Violence, claimed that, with this technology, “We could reduce the majority of gun deaths in this country.”
    This is spectacularly dishonest. According to the anti-gun Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 606 people were accidentally killed by firearms in 2010. Of course, not all of these people were killed with handguns and many of them were killed when the guns were being held by their primary owners. Moreover, the law would do nothing about the vast majority of those 300 million-plus guns that are already privately owned. But let’s presume for the sake of argument that such a system would prevent some handgun accidents, especially children accidentally shooting themselves or others. Had such a system been around in 2010, we might say that it would have saved between 1 and 606 lives.
    And that’s about it. In 2010, 19,392 people killed themselves with firearms. If you’re going to take your own life, that the gun you use only works in your hands is wholly irrelevant.
    Meanwhile, 11,078 people were murdered with firearms in 2010. Here it is possible that, by limiting the sharing and theft of guns, a few deaths could be shaved off this number. Still, America would remain a country with 300 million–plus grandfathered weapons. If you’re going to murder somebody with a gun, you’re probably not going to be following the rules that apply to only a few of them.
    “We could reduce the majority of gun deaths in this country”? Give me a break, John.
    I order to address a small problem — a real and serious and horrible problem, but a small one nonetheless — Tierney wants make sweeping changes to the way in which Americans use firearms, overcomplicating access to what is a primary self-defense weapon for milllions of Americans. The suggestion here is that the law require — require – American citizens to sample distinguishing information — fingerprint, handprint, or what you will — and then have this information tied to any handgun they own. This would be an unprecedented and worrying step. Technology is unreliable and it is quite easily hacked, and I would certainly not want to be in a position in which I had to convince a jury that a murder committed with a gun that could ostensibly only be fired by me was not in fact fired by me. There, we would be getting into Minority Report territory. Worth it? I think not.
    What's your opinion? Do you think the technology is right for this to work now?

    Tierney?s ?Gun Safety? Nonsense | National Review Online






    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  2.   
  3. #2
    Sounds like equine poop, so I guess he's been grazing in a field full of loco weed. He must be an ass.
    Stop, Drop, and Roll won't work in Hell.
    The truth about the former Republic of the United States of America:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Ioz...ayer_embedded#

  4. #3
    It won't happen any time soon. This tech is to unreliable at this point in time. gun manufactures have been working on this tech for some 10 years now and they have not found a way to make it small enough or reliable enough for it to really be worth going forward with. And there is the problem of how to power the unit and where to put it. Whether to put it in the firearm or on the person that is going to own the firearm. Plus there is the cost of it all. Average citizens will not or do not have the funds to retrofit firearms that they already have. And if they do have to do the retrofit then it is going to cost a lot of money for them to do it if they have more than one firearm that will need to be retrofitted. I know that I sure don't have the money to retrofit all of the firearms that I have. It would cost me some where around $2k to do it to all of my firearms and I do not have that kind of money to do this with. So I would not do it at all. This may be fine some time in the distant future but not at this point in time. It just will cost to much to do it. Then I want to know who will be getting all of the money from all of the firearms that will be retrofitted? Will it go to the government or to the gun manufactures or to the gumsmith that does the retrofit? Or does it go to all of these?

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,348
    Blog Entries
    2
    If it's on TV, it must be true. It never ceases to amaze me how many people fall for the special effects they see on TV.

  6. #5
    Again,,,, do criminals purchase firearms legaly? No they don't. So what good would it do in those cases. And I think the dude has been smoking too much crack.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sepra Peratus/Arkansas
    Posts
    1,638
    If, and that's a big if, it was reliable and cheap. It could keep your gun from being used against you in a hand to hand tussle. Other than that if your gun was stolen it could be taken off. If it was made to disable the gun if removed, then there goes the cheap. Then theres the reliability factor. Would really hate it if during a gunfight it decided that you're not the owner, could really turn it into a bad day.
    Just a few things I was thinking about.
    ~Responsible people who understand that their personal protection is up to them, provide themselves with protection. Those that don't have only themselves to blame.~Proud NRA ~SAF~GoA Member~

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    This is Texas, I call BS and will not surrender or redo/retrofit any of my firearms, period, what are the libtards going to do about the deaths by hammers, put a serial number on the face so when they find the hammer they know who bought it. Somebody will soon request this, must be some good dope in Washington.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    2,837
    The Federal Government has NO authority to infringe on the second amendment.
    Not the courts not congress nor SCOTUS. It is a fact that you can find for yourself in a copy of the constitution, you only need to read it to know the naked truth.


    Sent from behind enemy lines.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Louisville Ky.
    Posts
    1,043
    Quote Originally Posted by UATKP View Post
    Sounds like equine poop, so I guess he's been grazing in a field full of loco weed. He must be an ass.
    Same old Lib tactic. Make firearm ownership as difficult as possible to keep people from exercising their 2A rights.

  11. #10
    I am not surprised by Tierney's proposal. The vast majority of the Socialists and the Left has lost touch with reality and are living in "La La Land" and taking his cue from the movies proves he does, too.

    That we keep (re)electing these "head-cases" is what escapes me.
    Highly recommended reading:
    .
    QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast