Smart Guns Could Be Coming

[spookyturtle 9,466]

What I am saying is that you never know what gun owner is or isn't sane until it is too late. So any gun owner out there can turn out to be unfit to own let alone carry a gun. We won't know until they hurt or killed someone. Now granted, most gun owners will never hurt or kill anyone. But some will and in fact do so each and every day and we usually don't know beforehand who they are. That's the issue. And to deny that would be ignorant indeed.

Now, if you don't know who Gary Kleck is, then you shouldn't post graphs that are based on his thoroughly debunked "research".

You never know if who you encounter on a day to day basis is sane or not. Doesn't matter whether they own a gun or not. I'm too lazy to look right now, but I bet that a large percentage of assaults and robberies don't involve a gun.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You never know if who you encounter on a day to day basis is sane or not. Doesn't matter whether they own a gun or not. I'm too lazy to look right now, but I bet that a large percentage of assaults and robberies don't involve a gun.

That's true. No argument there. But if we're acknowledging that people routinely snap then why would we want to multiply the effect of that snap by having them run around armed?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

That's true. No argument there. But if we're acknowledging that people routinely snap then why would we want to multiply the effect of that snap by having them run around armed?

But according to what you posted earlier, they are already armed. You said that it's the current gun owners driving new gun sales, no new ones. So all potential psychos are already armed.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Indeed. And gun proliferation isn't how we get there. Gun violence is decreasing as - stockpiling aside - gun ownership rates decrease. To further decrease gun violence, gun ownership rates must continue to come down. Once they go up in any significant way, gun violence will creep up again. There's no such thing as a sane gun owner. Nancy Lanza, Curtis Reeves and Michael Dunn all certainly thought of themselves as sane gun owners. And until their gun ownership caused death and destruction those around them probably felt much the same. But then it happened and bodies dropped - including that of one of the gun owners that thought of themselves and were thought of as sane. They weren't.

What I am saying is that you never know what gun owner is or isn't sane until it is too late. So any gun owner out there can turn out to be unfit to own let alone carry a gun. We won't know until they hurt or killed someone. Now granted, most gun owners will never hurt or kill anyone. But some will and in fact do so each and every day and we usually don't know beforehand who they are. That's the issue. And to deny that would be ignorant indeed.

Now, if you don't know who Gary Kleck is, then you shouldn't post graphs that are based on his thoroughly debunked "research".

Perhaps someone else will point how I am wrong, but I see your two statements as mutually exclusive. I don't have it handy right now, but quite a while back, I asked you what a "gun nut" was, and you said it was anyone who owned a gun. You seem to be contradicting yourself, or at the very least, forgetting your stance from time to time.

Some gun owners will kill someone. Some non-gun owners will kill someone. Now what do we do?

[Darnell 8,478]

stupid idea. like no one ever wears gloves in cold weather. like it's only available with small caliber pistols as the electronics can't handle larger caliber pistols. and this same bill wants pistols made prior to this to be retrofitted if sold.

I not want any smart weapon unless it helps me aim over 4 km distances.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But according to what you posted earlier, they are already armed. You said that it's the current gun owners driving new gun sales, no new ones. So all potential psychos are already armed.

Careful now. To say that the declining gun ownership rates indicate that there are no new gun owners is incorrect. The scenario is more like that there are households that once owned guns but don't anymore - I know a couple of such myself. Some of those former gun owning households are then replaced by new gun owners. Then, of course, there are new households coming into existence and as long as those new households have gun ownership rates below the current rate, the overall rate will decline.

Here are the two major issues that I see. One is the unchecked transfer of firearms from current lawful owners to others that may or may not be lawfully able to own a firearm. There's no way to really find out in private transactions - and it is not required either. That's where gun proliferation to the psychos as you would call them can easily take place. That clearly should not happen but it does all the same. It's widely documented how anyone can acquire a firearm right out in the open no questions asked. The only way to stop this is to hold firearm owners fully accountable for the firearms they own. The other issue is the spreading of the nonsensical idea that the more people run around with firearms in more places, the safer everyone is; by extension the outright stupid claim that an armed society is a polite society. There's nothing polite about this society despite it being armed to its teeth. Quite the opposite.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Perhaps someone else will point how I am wrong, but I see your two statements as mutually exclusive. I don't have it handy right now, but quite a while back, I asked you what a "gun nut" was, and you said it was anyone who owned a gun. You seem to be contradicting yourself, or at the very least, forgetting your stance from time to time.

Some gun owners will kill someone. Some non-gun owners will kill someone. Now what do we do?

Prove it.

And there is no contradiction in what I said. Read it again. Ask yourself, was Curtis Reeves a sane gun owner? The answer most likely is that yes, for decades, he was indeed a sane gun owner. And then one tragic day he snapped. And a man, father and husband is dead for no reason other than Curtis Reeves lawfully carrying a firearm when he lost it.

[TBoneTX 45,309]

Acceptable portion of post returned below:

As the percentage of gun owners in the population decreases, there are fewer irresponsible gun owners out there. But there are still way too many as the tens of thousands of dead bodies a year clearly document.

ETA: Kleck.

Post returned without a now-removed quote:

What I am saying is that you never know what gun owner is or isn't sane until it is too late. So any gun owner out there can turn out to be unfit to own let alone carry a gun. We won't know until they hurt or killed someone. Now granted, most gun owners will never hurt or kill anyone. But some will and in fact do so each and every day and we usually don't know beforehand who they are. That's the issue. And to deny that would be ignorant indeed.

Now, if you don't know who Gary Kleck is, then you shouldn't post graphs that are based on his thoroughly debunked "research".

Edited February 22, 2014 by TBoneTX

[TBoneTX 45,309]

A few posts have been removed, one for a TOS infringement and others for including quotes thereof. This thread has some good arguments in it, on both sides; please keep it at a high level.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Prove it.

And there is no contradiction in what I said. Read it again. Ask yourself, was Curtis Reeves a sane gun owner? The answer most likely is that yes, for decades, he was indeed a sane gun owner. And then one tragic day he snapped. And a man, father and husband is dead for no reason other than Curtis Reeves lawfully carrying a firearm when he lost it.

Naw, your comments were deleted back then, no need to re-hash them and risk further mod action. But I will change what I said above from you saying all gun owners were gun nuts to you calling me a gun nut. It was more personal than general when I went back and re-read it. Implying that because I owned a gun, I was a gun nut.

- There's no such thing as a sane gun owner.

- Now granted, most gun owners will never hurt or kill anyone.

So you're saying even though they may not ever hurt another human being with a gun, that they are not sane because they own a gun?

Of course, the first is simply your (incorrect) opinion, but I'm trying to piece together your logic to better see where you are coming from in this goal of reducing murders.

I can't say if Curtis Reeves was sane, never met the guy. But I HAVE known, lived around, and been friends with hundreds of sane gun owners. And I am one myself. Therefore I know they exist.

While we're on the topic (and I am not trying to say the current rate of 4.8 gun deaths per 100K shouldn't be lowered before the wordsmiths try to twist my words), how come we don't dwell so much on the 5.5 non-gun homicides per 100K in the US?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Naw, your comments were deleted back then, no need to re-hash them and risk further mod action. But I will change what I said above from you saying all gun owners were gun nuts to you calling me a gun nut. It was more personal than general when I went back and re-read it. Implying that because I owned a gun, I was a gun nut.

- There's no such thing as a sane gun owner.

- Now granted, most gun owners will never hurt or kill anyone.

So you're saying even though they may not ever hurt another human being with a gun, that they are not sane because they own a gun?

Of course, the first is simply your (incorrect) opinion, but I'm trying to piece together your logic to better see where you are coming from in this goal of reducing murders.

I can't say if Curtis Reeves was sane, never met the guy. But I HAVE known, lived around, and been friends with hundreds of sane gun owners. And I am one myself. Therefore I know they exist.

While we're on the topic (and I am not trying to say the current rate of 4.8 gun deaths per 100K shouldn't be lowered before the wordsmiths try to twist my words), how come we don't dwell so much on the 5.5 non-gun homicides per 100K in the US?

I called you a gun nut? When? Link?

And no, I have not said that people are not sane because they own a gun. How did you read that out of what I posted?

Curtis Reeves was just fine. Until he snapped. And because he was able to lawfully carry a firearm at the time he snapped, a man, father and husband is dead. Were it not for his carrying a firearm, David Olsen would be alive and Curtis Reeves would be with his wife today. It's just that simple.

Lastly, where do you get your numbers from? Two out of three homicides in the US are committed with a firearm. Thus the firearm homicide rate must be higher than the non-firearm homicide rate. Specifically, according to the WSJ, there were 111,289 murders committed with a firearm between 2000 and 2010. The next highest category were knifes which accounted for 20,503 over that same time frame. Then we have "personal weapons", asphyxiation, pushing out the window and whatnot. All the non-firearm homicide categories together account for 54,193 homicides over a decade. Overall, there were 165,482 homicides. Some 67.2% of those were committed with a firearm while 32.8% were committed by other means. Your homicide rate numbers are clearly off.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I called you a gun nut? When? Link?

And no, I have not said that people are not sane because they own a gun. How did you read that out of what I posted?

Curtis Reeves was just fine. Until he snapped. And because he was able to lawfully carry a firearm at the time he snapped, a man, father and husband is dead. Were it not for his carrying a firearm, David Olsen would be alive and Curtis Reeves would be with his wife today. It's just that simple.

Lastly, where do you get your numbers from? Two out of three homicides in the US are committed with a firearm. Thus the firearm homicide rate must be higher than the non-firearm homicide rate. Specifically, according to the WSJ, there were 111,289 murders committed with a firearm between 2000 and 2010. The next highest category were knifes which accounted for 20,503 over that same time frame. Then we have "personal weapons", asphyxiation, pushing out the window and whatnot. All the non-firearm homicide categories together account for 54,193 homicides over a decade. Overall, there were 165,482 homicides. Some 67.2% of those were committed with a firearm while 32.8% were committed by other means. Your homicide rate numbers are clearly off.

Yes, you did, but the comment was deleted by a mod back in Spetember. And no need to drag it up again, would probably just get deleted or one of us in jail.

You said both things I quoted in bold in this very thread. Let me do it again... "There's no such thing as a sane gun owner. "

Not my numbers, but I got them from here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_non_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Careful now. To say that the declining gun ownership rates indicate that there are no new gun owners is incorrect. The scenario is more like that there are households that once owned guns but don't anymore - I know a couple of such myself. Some of those former gun owning households are then replaced by new gun owners. Then, of course, there are new households coming into existence and as long as those new households have gun ownership rates below the current rate, the overall rate will decline.

Here are the two major issues that I see. One is the unchecked transfer of firearms from current lawful owners to others that may or may not be lawfully able to own a firearm. There's no way to really find out in private transactions - and it is not required either. That's where gun proliferation to the psychos as you would call them can easily take place. That clearly should not happen but it does all the same. It's widely documented how anyone can acquire a firearm right out in the open no questions asked. The only way to stop this is to hold firearm owners fully accountable for the firearms they own. The other issue is the spreading of the nonsensical idea that the more people run around with firearms in more places, the safer everyone is; by extension the outright stupid claim that an armed society is a polite society. There's nothing polite about this society despite it being armed to its teeth. Quite the opposite.

Gun ownership rates are not declining we have already proved that

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Gun ownership rates are not declining we have already proved that

Where have you proven that? You posted an opinion piece that postulated that. That's not proof. Not even close.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes, you did, but the comment was deleted by a mod back in Spetember. And no need to drag it up again, would probably just get deleted or one of us in jail.

You said both things I quoted in bold in this very thread. Let me do it again... "There's no such thing as a sane gun owner. "

Not my numbers, but I got them from here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_non_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

Odd data that the nationmaster site presents. Makes little sense. They say that less than 40% of homicides in the US are committed with firearms. The FBI, the CDC and any other reputable sources have consistently put that figure closer to 70%. All of them. According to the Nationmaster data, we had 9,369 murders with firearms in the US in 2002. And they say that 39.56% of murders are committed with firearms. given these two data points, we would have had 9,369 / 0.3956 = 23,683 homicides in the US in 2002. The reality is that we had about 16,000 homicides that year. The nationmaster data presentation simply doesn't add up.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us-united-states/cri-crime

% homicides with firearms: 39.5604

Murders with firearms: 9,369