Skip to main content

View Diary: Personalized Handgun Safety Act of 2013, or using technology to stop the carnage (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If this ever got passed (3+ / 0-)

    it might make a small difference in certain kinds of gun violence, like when a gun is taken away from the owner by a thug who then uses it to shoot the owner (and that happens).
    But what it doesn't address is the huge number of 300 million guns that are already out there.
    I'd rather see us put energy into mandating taggants added to bullets and those bullets tracked from manufacturer to retail buyer. With "signed" bullets, the need for any kind of gun control will be greatly diminished.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Wed May 15, 2013 at 04:25:38 PM PDT

    •  I think we need ever "weapon" in the arsenal (3+ / 0-)

      for the battle to end the carnage. Pun intended.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed May 15, 2013 at 04:30:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree in principle (3+ / 0-)

        but the reality is that getting anything to move is going to be tough. Moving a law that mandates a particular, questionable technology MUST be installed in EVERY gun on the market will have a huge resistance factor built in.
        I can't even figure how it would work technically. Would it read a fingerprint on the trigger with some micro scanner? Would it need a password entered into it to activate it? Most guns don't have batteries or electronics, what kind of mechanism would "personalize" the gun, disable it when picked up by someone else and be quick enough and sure enough to make it a functional weapon for it's legitimate owner?
        The technical and political problems with this idea are so steep that it seems like a diversion of resources on our side to follow it and might be something the gunloons point to as "They just hate guns".

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Wed May 15, 2013 at 04:41:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "signed" bullets (3+ / 0-)

      biggest issue with that idea is called "re-loading".

      I pick up lead from different places (tire stores, scrap re-sellers, etc) melt it down and cast my own slugs.  I buy a few pounds of gun powder every month. then re-use my old casings or get some from friends or from scrap re-sellers.

      They would have to ban re-loading to make "signed" bullets universal.  That would be an effective way to reduce the amount of shooting people do.  Ammo is expensive and re-loading saves money.

      Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

      by DrillSgtK on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:17:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Taggant in the powder. (2+ / 0-)

        or in lead from the gun shop.
        Reloading is OK, but the taggant must be there.
        Otherwise the bullets are contraband, and like an ounce of dope is assumed to be for distribution, unsigned bullets are assumed to be for murder.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:32:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  All an "signature" in gun powder would do (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, theatre goon, FrankRose

          is help in catching the criminal after the fact, which almost always happens anyway now. This would help reduce gun violence exactly how? We need to focus more on the symptoms & causes of the violence if we want to reduce it.

        •  taggant in the powder (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, theatre goon, FrankRose

          or in the lead.  

          you would be making re-loading so expensive that people would not follow the law.  The reason people reload is to reduce the cost of shooting.  Making it so you had to buy your supplies from special places drives up the cost to the point most people would not be able to afford it.  In the mean time, lead is cheep and easy to find, and gun powder can be made for low cost if it comes to it. just not the quality of todays manufactured powder.

          taggant in the powder seems like it is a solution that really would not do much.  

          Think about it, taggant in the powder of a bullet.  The best it could narrow it down to the batch made between a set of dates and shipped to several stores.  not to a person. (not with out driving up the cost of ammo.)

          Here is an example.  I reload.  I buy a pound of gun powder at a store.  This pound was made at the same time as several hundreds of other pounds.  You can buy half pound and even quarter pounds.  to have a taggant that ID's each pound would jack up the cost a lot.  Who would maintain the data base of who made it, wholesaled it, distributed it, sold it to whom?  

          The ammo manufacture is not going to taggant each box of ammo when they produce five million boxes a year.  

          Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

          by DrillSgtK on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:00:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Let's see - we've heard this before (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jan4insight, Sandino

            We can't pass any laws because some subset of gun owners won't bother following the new law?

            Yet they are all presumed to be responsible, law abiding gun owners, right up until there is something they personally don't want to comply with, right?

            Yes, they all are presumed innocent, right up until they drop their loaded firearm and it shoots someone, right up until their child or their child's friends shoots someone in the house with the loaded gun that was left unattended...

            When will it dawn on gun owners that they better be part of tightening up gun safety law and reg instead of continued denial and claims that people won't follow any new laws or regs.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Wed May 15, 2013 at 08:24:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The problem of gun nuts cures itself (0+ / 0-)

              one tiny casket at a time.

            •  They are law abiding up to a point... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas, theatre goon, FrankRose

              when the law makes it imposable for them to own or use their firearm, they stop following the law.

              Take New York's law of 7 bullets.  You can't have more than seven bullets in your gun in New York.  This makes one of my guns useless as it has to have 8 bullets in the clip so it can feed into the chamber.

              I know many people in NY with the same kind of gun who will not follow that law, instead they have hidden their guns and only take them out when they feel safe.

              The problem is that the Court has ruled that owning a gun is a right, like petitioning the government.  You can't put restrictions on that to such an extent that it prevents the use of that right.  

              When people start breaking the law in large numbers that is an argument that the law is preventing the right.

              Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

              by DrillSgtK on Thu May 16, 2013 at 05:05:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I understand your argument and (0+ / 0-)

                appreciate how arbitrary it is to pick the number 7 as a limit.

                Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful comments here.

                But it is critically important to recognize that there is growing anguish, resentment, and resolve to address the absurdly loose gun policies we have tolerated for so long.

                The non-gun toting public is just plain tired of all the irresponsible and reckless behavior surrounding guns, both in the home and in public, especially all the discharge incidents that are deemed "accidents", but in reality are the predictable result of careless, ill-informed, and impulsive behavior.

                According to the National Library of Medicine more than half of unintentional shootings are committed by children and teens. That is an obvious problem. But the scariest part is that almost half of unintentional shootings are committed by adults, who really ought to know better.

                Disclaimer: I was taught to shoot straight at the age of 10 and grew with guns. I support the RKBA for self defense, and believe there are many regulations that can make gun ownership and use safer for both the owner and for everyone around them.

                There is no 2A right to create a menace.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:43:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I agree that 7 is arbitrary and that there (0+ / 0-)

                are probably some guns that become useless no matter where you draw the line.

                Let me ask you. (You don't have to answer, if it's too personal). Is that particular handgun your essential tool to carry for self defense?

                Or is it a gun that has some features you like, and is missing some features that your other guns offer.

                As for people who have that gun who live in New York, there are several obvious options, including:

                1. Sell the firearm to someone out of state.
                2. Keep the firearm in your safe at your vacation home, which is not in New York state.
                3. Turn the gun in to police in New York state.
                4. Keep the gun at home locked and separate from the clip, which is locked up too and has 8 bullets in the clip.
                5. Continue to carry the gun with 7 bullets in the clip and a spare bullet in your pocket.
                6. Continue to carry the gun with 8 bullets in the clip.

                I can see why people would ignore the law if they want to personally be the one who will challenge that law in court.

                What I read in your complaint is that the 8 bullet requirement of the clip is actually a safety feature, that if a partially empty clip is removed and reinserted the gun will not discharge.

                Seriously, if this gun is your favorite self defense tool, how hard is it carry around the clip with 7 bullets and a spare in your pocket. If you face a situation, you can take cover, insert the 8th bullet and put the clip in the chamber.

                I see the 7 bullet requirement for that gun as meaning that fewer people will be carrying around that gun - ready to shoot without thinking.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Thu May 16, 2013 at 10:54:00 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  It does address the existing guns (3+ / 0-)

      "And individuals or businesses selling older handguns must have them retrofitted with personalization technology within three years after the bill is enacted"

      keep in mind this is aimed (pun intended) at handguns, not rifles, shotguns or carbines.

      Handguns are used in most crimes, most suicides, and most negligent discharges.

      However, the idea that "personalization" will prevent most gun deaths is not realistic.  Most gun deaths are suicides. (see the fourth box down under the O)  These guns are not normally stranger's weapons, but owned by the person or by a member in the home.

      You rarely see someone break into a home to use someone else's gun to kill themselves. They tend to use their own.  A "personalized" gun would work for the owner in a suicide.

      Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

      by DrillSgtK on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:26:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How many people would comply with (4+ / 0-)

        taking their fetish object to a gunsmith and having this device, whatever it is, installed? Particularly people with large collections would not comply, creating a situation where a large number of otherwise law abiding citizens are suddenly outlaws. Without registration, there's no way to tell who owns what gun, so no way to enforce a rule like this other than by voluntary compliance and that'll work, yeah right.
        What kind of technology is it anyway? How do you retrofit this to an antique revolver?
        BTW the people who most often have their gun taken from them and used on them are cops, IIRC, and they are (or were) considering  some kind of personalizing system on service weapons, but they also bring up the reliability/speed issue.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Wed May 15, 2013 at 05:39:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree that compliance would be an issue (3+ / 0-)

          How would I justify taking my several guns to some guy who will, i don't know, drill out part of my Glock 22, then mess with my trigger system to instal some system that should make it only work for me?

          If he can, would he know how to do the same to my Navy Colt 1851?  Would the work be guaranteed? what if he disabled my guns? Or it did not work when I needed it?  Would I be allowed to sue the guy? (rather would my family?)

          that is one of the biggest problems with non-gun owners trying to make laws on guns. They don't understand guns.

          To most, a gun is a gun.  They lump pistols in the same category as an M2 50 cal. They don't know the difference between a revolver, auto or single shot.  Even then they just assume that the inner workings of a Glock 22 is the same as that of a 1911.  (see wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/... )

          I have more than a few guns, how much would it cost to do this to them?  Likely more than I can afford.  It would cause a lot of people to become law breakers.

          Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

          by DrillSgtK on Wed May 15, 2013 at 06:11:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Just the non-criminals (0+ / 0-)

          the rest can be incarcerated and their illegal murder toys CONFISCATED!

          Unless they are part of a state militia that is well-regulated, in accordance with the constitution.

      •  It does happen, though. (2+ / 0-)
        You rarely see someone break into a home to use someone else's gun to kill themselves.
        It's exactly what my late husband Bob did. We were separated and I took my gun with me when I left, in part because he'd said he'd kill himself if I ever left him. (He was verbally, emotionally, sexually, and physically abusive, and it git to the point where I was convinced he was going to kill me and was trying to kill my dog.) Over a year later, with no gun in the home, he broke into his girlfriend's house shortly after she left town for a long weekend and shot himself in the head with her competition target pistol.

        Organ donors save lives! A donor's kidney gave me my life back on 02/18/11; he lives on in me. Please talk with your family about your wish to donate.

        Why are war casualty counts "American troops" and "others" but never "human beings"?

        by Kitsap River on Wed May 15, 2013 at 07:34:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site