Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Every single child is at some point burned. Either from a pot of water, or an iron, or water from the faucet that is too hot. This is how we learn what “hot” is. It is an accident, the problem is that the children do not know what hot is until it happens. Every day automobile accidents happen. Every single day firemen peel metal away to recover the body of the now deceased teenager. Every single day.
People take the wrong medication, thinking they are grabbing one and instead get the other. They add the wrong ingredient to a recipe by accident. They trip, fall, stumble, stub their toes. Accidents happen, it is why we call them accidents.
Guns are no different. If everyone followed the rules of the road, proper following distance, obeyed speed laws, did not drive too fast for conditions, we would reduce but not eliminate accidents. Cars would still hit some debris on the road, slide on a patch of wet pavement, or oil on the pavement. If people followed every single rule of safety with a gun, then accidents would be reduced, but not eliminated.
The people who argue we should ban cars do so because of the environmental impact of the internal combustion engine. They do not argue that so many people are injured or killed in cars. They don’t argue that Motorcycles are inherently more dangerous, so we should ban them. This despite the fact that Doctors call Motorcyles Donorcycles.
Private planes fall out of the sky, and kill the people inside, and occasionally someone on the ground. But we still allow people to fly planes don’t we?
A gun is a tool, like a hammer. Even when it is used properly there is a chance you can be injured. It is why they advise you to wear safety glasses and gloves when using a hammer. People cut their limbs off with chain saws, because they aren’t careful enough, and because there is some danger involved. Yet we don’t argue that chainsaws, hammers, or pry bars should be banned.
Only with Guns do we argue that we should get rid of the tool. Why? Why is it that guns occupy a special place in our language? Guns are useful, and if used properly can provide a great service to the one wielding it. But like a hammer, you can make a mistake even if you have been using one for years, or decades, and smash your thumb.
Some argue, with some merit, that accidental discharges should be called negligent discharges. They have a point. But accidental discharge does not mean you did something stupid, or you did not make a mistake. It means you did not intend for the result to happen. Just as when you are driving around listening to loud music with friends going a little fast, you did not intend to slam into the other car. Just as while you are cursing and shaking your hand you did not intend to smash your thumb with the hammer.
Accidents happen, we can reduce, but never eliminate them. That’s the sad truth.
Yet the NRA fights every effort to reduce the potential danger from guns. I'm not aware of any credible effort to eliminate guns, and I would oppose anyone who supports that, but why do gun nuts oppose efforts to reduce the very real danger of so many guns on the street?
Which tools are the most dangerous? Chainsaws are dangerous, and there are millions of them out there. Are we going to start restricting the types of chainsaws people can have? How about cars? The legal speed limit is 70. Yet on the showrooms of every manufacturer are cars that can do twice that or more. Why aren’t we going to limit these dangerous cars to something approaching a sane number?
The only dangerous firearm is one which is poorly designed. The Taurus PT series may qualify. This pistol had a flaw that would allow it to fire even if the safety was on. They were sued successfully several times before they fixed it in the new models, but still have not recalled the older ones to correct it. My Toyota van was recalled and fixed because there was a one in a million chance the automatic sliding doors would open while the vehicle was in motion.
The FN-P90 was designed to penetrate body armor, the soft vests that cops wear. The specific ammunition that can penetrate this armor is limited to government agencies. But is that a dangerous weapon? One designed specifically to penetrate body armor? Isn’t that the literal definition of cop killer rounds and guns? Is it dangerous only with the steel core penetration rounds? Or is it dangerous just because it can fire those rounds?
It looks like a prop for a science fiction movie. It looks like a toy doesn’t it?
View attachment 207426
Is this a dangerous weapon?
Is it more or less dangerous than this?
View attachment 207428
Should we all be limited to bolt action rifles like this?
View attachment 207427
Or is it dangerous even though it is a single shot rifle because it looks scary in black?
Which of those would scare you the most? The designed to kill cops science fiction toy? The AR? Or the bolt action single shot rifle? Which is the most dangerous that we need to limit?
We already restrict what kind of chain saws can be sold. New saws have to have chain clutches and brakes, as well as some sort of anti-kickback device, as well as other safety requirements that I'm too lazy to look up. Cars are continuously being evaluated and design changes are mandated to make them safer. Gun nuts think there can be nothing done to reduce the potential danger posed by a gun. They are wrong. However, this discussion isn't just about safety modifications for guns. It is about the NRA and their pool of gun nuts opposing anything being done to reduce the potential danger, whether it is a trigger lock, or required training, or background checks to reduce the number of armed crazies, or anything else. That is just stupid.
Us kids always knew right where the guns were, and not to touch them unless authorized.
Too bad all those dead kids didn't know the same thing.
Too bad all those kids were driving in cars.....considering cars are deadlier to kids than guns are...not to mention the other accidental deaths....drowning for one,
Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:
2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261
Suffocation: 1,215
Drowning: 713
Poisoning: 84
Traffic: 1,261
Guns: 74
<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23
Under age drinking:
Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?
Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).
Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
2016:
2016: Kids ( <1 to age 14)
Total guns: ......74
Total Cars: 1,261
Suffocation: 1,215
<1.....1,023
1-4..... 118
5-9..... 35
10-14.... 39
Drowning: 713
<1.....38
1-4....425
5-9.....147
10-14..103
Poisoning: 84
<1.....9
1-4....34
5-9....13
10-14....28
Traffic: 1,261
<1........88
1-4.......334
5-9........384
10-14.....455
Guns: 74
<1......1
1-4.....34
5-9.....16
10-14....23
Under age drinking:
Underage Drinking-Why Do Adolescents Drink, What Are the Risks, and How Can Underage Drinking Be Prevented?
Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings (1–5).
Try to change the subject much? I guess that's all you can do after all your arguments have been shot down.
I give the truth, you guys hide the truth......you don't care about dead children, you need dead kids. They are propaganda gold to you guys..... that is why you keep gun free zones in schools.....you can't get dead kids if mass shooters don't show up.
Every single child is at some point burned. Either from a pot of water, or an iron, or water from the faucet that is too hot. This is how we learn what “hot” is. It is an accident, the problem is that the children do not know what hot is until it happens. Every day automobile accidents happen. Every single day firemen peel metal away to recover the body of the now deceased teenager. Every single day.
People take the wrong medication, thinking they are grabbing one and instead get the other. They add the wrong ingredient to a recipe by accident. They trip, fall, stumble, stub their toes. Accidents happen, it is why we call them accidents.
Guns are no different. If everyone followed the rules of the road, proper following distance, obeyed speed laws, did not drive too fast for conditions, we would reduce but not eliminate accidents. Cars would still hit some debris on the road, slide on a patch of wet pavement, or oil on the pavement. If people followed every single rule of safety with a gun, then accidents would be reduced, but not eliminated.
The people who argue we should ban cars do so because of the environmental impact of the internal combustion engine. They do not argue that so many people are injured or killed in cars. They don’t argue that Motorcycles are inherently more dangerous, so we should ban them. This despite the fact that Doctors call Motorcyles Donorcycles.
Private planes fall out of the sky, and kill the people inside, and occasionally someone on the ground. But we still allow people to fly planes don’t we?
A gun is a tool, like a hammer. Even when it is used properly there is a chance you can be injured. It is why they advise you to wear safety glasses and gloves when using a hammer. People cut their limbs off with chain saws, because they aren’t careful enough, and because there is some danger involved. Yet we don’t argue that chainsaws, hammers, or pry bars should be banned.
Only with Guns do we argue that we should get rid of the tool. Why? Why is it that guns occupy a special place in our language? Guns are useful, and if used properly can provide a great service to the one wielding it. But like a hammer, you can make a mistake even if you have been using one for years, or decades, and smash your thumb.
Some argue, with some merit, that accidental discharges should be called negligent discharges. They have a point. But accidental discharge does not mean you did something stupid, or you did not make a mistake. It means you did not intend for the result to happen. Just as when you are driving around listening to loud music with friends going a little fast, you did not intend to slam into the other car. Just as while you are cursing and shaking your hand you did not intend to smash your thumb with the hammer.
Accidents happen, we can reduce, but never eliminate them. That’s the sad truth.
Yet the NRA fights every effort to reduce the potential danger from guns. I'm not aware of any credible effort to eliminate guns, and I would oppose anyone who supports that, but why do gun nuts oppose efforts to reduce the very real danger of so many guns on the street?
Which tools are the most dangerous? Chainsaws are dangerous, and there are millions of them out there. Are we going to start restricting the types of chainsaws people can have? How about cars? The legal speed limit is 70. Yet on the showrooms of every manufacturer are cars that can do twice that or more. Why aren’t we going to limit these dangerous cars to something approaching a sane number?
The only dangerous firearm is one which is poorly designed. The Taurus PT series may qualify. This pistol had a flaw that would allow it to fire even if the safety was on. They were sued successfully several times before they fixed it in the new models, but still have not recalled the older ones to correct it. My Toyota van was recalled and fixed because there was a one in a million chance the automatic sliding doors would open while the vehicle was in motion.
The FN-P90 was designed to penetrate body armor, the soft vests that cops wear. The specific ammunition that can penetrate this armor is limited to government agencies. But is that a dangerous weapon? One designed specifically to penetrate body armor? Isn’t that the literal definition of cop killer rounds and guns? Is it dangerous only with the steel core penetration rounds? Or is it dangerous just because it can fire those rounds?
It looks like a prop for a science fiction movie. It looks like a toy doesn’t it?
View attachment 207426
Is this a dangerous weapon?
Is it more or less dangerous than this?
View attachment 207428
Should we all be limited to bolt action rifles like this?
View attachment 207427
Or is it dangerous even though it is a single shot rifle because it looks scary in black?
Which of those would scare you the most? The designed to kill cops science fiction toy? The AR? Or the bolt action single shot rifle? Which is the most dangerous that we need to limit?
We already restrict what kind of chain saws can be sold. New saws have to have chain clutches and brakes, as well as some sort of anti-kickback device, as well as other safety requirements that I'm too lazy to look up. Cars are continuously being evaluated and design changes are mandated to make them safer. Gun nuts think there can be nothing done to reduce the potential danger posed by a gun. They are wrong. However, this discussion isn't just about safety modifications for guns. It is about the NRA and their pool of gun nuts opposing anything being done to reduce the potential danger, whether it is a trigger lock, or required training, or background checks to reduce the number of armed crazies, or anything else. That is just stupid.
Every single child is at some point burned. Either from a pot of water, or an iron, or water from the faucet that is too hot. This is how we learn what “hot” is. It is an accident, the problem is that the children do not know what hot is until it happens. Every day automobile accidents happen. Every single day firemen peel metal away to recover the body of the now deceased teenager. Every single day.
People take the wrong medication, thinking they are grabbing one and instead get the other. They add the wrong ingredient to a recipe by accident. They trip, fall, stumble, stub their toes. Accidents happen, it is why we call them accidents.
Guns are no different. If everyone followed the rules of the road, proper following distance, obeyed speed laws, did not drive too fast for conditions, we would reduce but not eliminate accidents. Cars would still hit some debris on the road, slide on a patch of wet pavement, or oil on the pavement. If people followed every single rule of safety with a gun, then accidents would be reduced, but not eliminated.
The people who argue we should ban cars do so because of the environmental impact of the internal combustion engine. They do not argue that so many people are injured or killed in cars. They don’t argue that Motorcycles are inherently more dangerous, so we should ban them. This despite the fact that Doctors call Motorcyles Donorcycles.
Private planes fall out of the sky, and kill the people inside, and occasionally someone on the ground. But we still allow people to fly planes don’t we?
A gun is a tool, like a hammer. Even when it is used properly there is a chance you can be injured. It is why they advise you to wear safety glasses and gloves when using a hammer. People cut their limbs off with chain saws, because they aren’t careful enough, and because there is some danger involved. Yet we don’t argue that chainsaws, hammers, or pry bars should be banned.
Only with Guns do we argue that we should get rid of the tool. Why? Why is it that guns occupy a special place in our language? Guns are useful, and if used properly can provide a great service to the one wielding it. But like a hammer, you can make a mistake even if you have been using one for years, or decades, and smash your thumb.
Some argue, with some merit, that accidental discharges should be called negligent discharges. They have a point. But accidental discharge does not mean you did something stupid, or you did not make a mistake. It means you did not intend for the result to happen. Just as when you are driving around listening to loud music with friends going a little fast, you did not intend to slam into the other car. Just as while you are cursing and shaking your hand you did not intend to smash your thumb with the hammer.
Accidents happen, we can reduce, but never eliminate them. That’s the sad truth.
Yet the NRA fights every effort to reduce the potential danger from guns. I'm not aware of any credible effort to eliminate guns, and I would oppose anyone who supports that, but why do gun nuts oppose efforts to reduce the very real danger of so many guns on the street?
Which tools are the most dangerous? Chainsaws are dangerous, and there are millions of them out there. Are we going to start restricting the types of chainsaws people can have? How about cars? The legal speed limit is 70. Yet on the showrooms of every manufacturer are cars that can do twice that or more. Why aren’t we going to limit these dangerous cars to something approaching a sane number?
The only dangerous firearm is one which is poorly designed. The Taurus PT series may qualify. This pistol had a flaw that would allow it to fire even if the safety was on. They were sued successfully several times before they fixed it in the new models, but still have not recalled the older ones to correct it. My Toyota van was recalled and fixed because there was a one in a million chance the automatic sliding doors would open while the vehicle was in motion.
The FN-P90 was designed to penetrate body armor, the soft vests that cops wear. The specific ammunition that can penetrate this armor is limited to government agencies. But is that a dangerous weapon? One designed specifically to penetrate body armor? Isn’t that the literal definition of cop killer rounds and guns? Is it dangerous only with the steel core penetration rounds? Or is it dangerous just because it can fire those rounds?
It looks like a prop for a science fiction movie. It looks like a toy doesn’t it?
View attachment 207426
Is this a dangerous weapon?
Is it more or less dangerous than this?
View attachment 207428
Should we all be limited to bolt action rifles like this?
View attachment 207427
Or is it dangerous even though it is a single shot rifle because it looks scary in black?
Which of those would scare you the most? The designed to kill cops science fiction toy? The AR? Or the bolt action single shot rifle? Which is the most dangerous that we need to limit?
We already restrict what kind of chain saws can be sold. New saws have to have chain clutches and brakes, as well as some sort of anti-kickback device, as well as other safety requirements that I'm too lazy to look up. Cars are continuously being evaluated and design changes are mandated to make them safer. Gun nuts think there can be nothing done to reduce the potential danger posed by a gun. They are wrong. However, this discussion isn't just about safety modifications for guns. It is about the NRA and their pool of gun nuts opposing anything being done to reduce the potential danger, whether it is a trigger lock, or required training, or background checks to reduce the number of armed crazies, or anything else. That is just stupid.
Every single child is at some point burned. Either from a pot of water, or an iron, or water from the faucet that is too hot. This is how we learn what “hot” is. It is an accident, the problem is that the children do not know what hot is until it happens. Every day automobile accidents happen. Every single day firemen peel metal away to recover the body of the now deceased teenager. Every single day.
People take the wrong medication, thinking they are grabbing one and instead get the other. They add the wrong ingredient to a recipe by accident. They trip, fall, stumble, stub their toes. Accidents happen, it is why we call them accidents.
Guns are no different. If everyone followed the rules of the road, proper following distance, obeyed speed laws, did not drive too fast for conditions, we would reduce but not eliminate accidents. Cars would still hit some debris on the road, slide on a patch of wet pavement, or oil on the pavement. If people followed every single rule of safety with a gun, then accidents would be reduced, but not eliminated.
The people who argue we should ban cars do so because of the environmental impact of the internal combustion engine. They do not argue that so many people are injured or killed in cars. They don’t argue that Motorcycles are inherently more dangerous, so we should ban them. This despite the fact that Doctors call Motorcyles Donorcycles.
Private planes fall out of the sky, and kill the people inside, and occasionally someone on the ground. But we still allow people to fly planes don’t we?
A gun is a tool, like a hammer. Even when it is used properly there is a chance you can be injured. It is why they advise you to wear safety glasses and gloves when using a hammer. People cut their limbs off with chain saws, because they aren’t careful enough, and because there is some danger involved. Yet we don’t argue that chainsaws, hammers, or pry bars should be banned.
Only with Guns do we argue that we should get rid of the tool. Why? Why is it that guns occupy a special place in our language? Guns are useful, and if used properly can provide a great service to the one wielding it. But like a hammer, you can make a mistake even if you have been using one for years, or decades, and smash your thumb.
Some argue, with some merit, that accidental discharges should be called negligent discharges. They have a point. But accidental discharge does not mean you did something stupid, or you did not make a mistake. It means you did not intend for the result to happen. Just as when you are driving around listening to loud music with friends going a little fast, you did not intend to slam into the other car. Just as while you are cursing and shaking your hand you did not intend to smash your thumb with the hammer.
Accidents happen, we can reduce, but never eliminate them. That’s the sad truth.
Yet the NRA fights every effort to reduce the potential danger from guns. I'm not aware of any credible effort to eliminate guns, and I would oppose anyone who supports that, but why do gun nuts oppose efforts to reduce the very real danger of so many guns on the street?
Which tools are the most dangerous? Chainsaws are dangerous, and there are millions of them out there. Are we going to start restricting the types of chainsaws people can have? How about cars? The legal speed limit is 70. Yet on the showrooms of every manufacturer are cars that can do twice that or more. Why aren’t we going to limit these dangerous cars to something approaching a sane number?
The only dangerous firearm is one which is poorly designed. The Taurus PT series may qualify. This pistol had a flaw that would allow it to fire even if the safety was on. They were sued successfully several times before they fixed it in the new models, but still have not recalled the older ones to correct it. My Toyota van was recalled and fixed because there was a one in a million chance the automatic sliding doors would open while the vehicle was in motion.
The FN-P90 was designed to penetrate body armor, the soft vests that cops wear. The specific ammunition that can penetrate this armor is limited to government agencies. But is that a dangerous weapon? One designed specifically to penetrate body armor? Isn’t that the literal definition of cop killer rounds and guns? Is it dangerous only with the steel core penetration rounds? Or is it dangerous just because it can fire those rounds?
It looks like a prop for a science fiction movie. It looks like a toy doesn’t it?
View attachment 207426
Is this a dangerous weapon?
Is it more or less dangerous than this?
View attachment 207428
Should we all be limited to bolt action rifles like this?
View attachment 207427
Or is it dangerous even though it is a single shot rifle because it looks scary in black?
Which of those would scare you the most? The designed to kill cops science fiction toy? The AR? Or the bolt action single shot rifle? Which is the most dangerous that we need to limit?
We already restrict what kind of chain saws can be sold. New saws have to have chain clutches and brakes, as well as some sort of anti-kickback device, as well as other safety requirements that I'm too lazy to look up. Cars are continuously being evaluated and design changes are mandated to make them safer. Gun nuts think there can be nothing done to reduce the potential danger posed by a gun. They are wrong. However, this discussion isn't just about safety modifications for guns. It is about the NRA and their pool of gun nuts opposing anything being done to reduce the potential danger, whether it is a trigger lock, or required training, or background checks to reduce the number of armed crazies, or anything else. That is just stupid.
Ah yes. This Hollywood safety technology. The gun user rings and fingerprint scanners. The James Bond signature guns. Nonsense. Yes. I know they have worked on .22 pistols. But not on larger caliber weapons. Why? The jarring from the recoil destroys the electronics. Let me demonstrate. Take the computer you are reading this on and throw it to the ground a few times. Then see if it works.
If you are reading this you didn’t do it.
Complex systems designed to be child proof. Nonsense. The only people who can open medicine bottles are kids.
Safes? And the five minutes it takes to break into one, is that sufficient or what limit will we mandate? If it takes too long, why wouldn’t the baddies just drag the safe off?
Haven’t you seen those videos of baddies driving a car through the security bars on windows to steal things like guns, booze, and cigarettes. Electronics too.
If I said that studies had shown that wearing a red MAGA hat while driving would reduce the likelihood of an at fault accident you would say it was stupid. Basically all of the nonsense about gun safety technology is the same.
Every single child is at some point burned. Either from a pot of water, or an iron, or water from the faucet that is too hot. This is how we learn what “hot” is. It is an accident, the problem is that the children do not know what hot is until it happens. Every day automobile accidents happen. Every single day firemen peel metal away to recover the body of the now deceased teenager. Every single day.
People take the wrong medication, thinking they are grabbing one and instead get the other. They add the wrong ingredient to a recipe by accident. They trip, fall, stumble, stub their toes. Accidents happen, it is why we call them accidents.
Guns are no different. If everyone followed the rules of the road, proper following distance, obeyed speed laws, did not drive too fast for conditions, we would reduce but not eliminate accidents. Cars would still hit some debris on the road, slide on a patch of wet pavement, or oil on the pavement. If people followed every single rule of safety with a gun, then accidents would be reduced, but not eliminated.
The people who argue we should ban cars do so because of the environmental impact of the internal combustion engine. They do not argue that so many people are injured or killed in cars. They don’t argue that Motorcycles are inherently more dangerous, so we should ban them. This despite the fact that Doctors call Motorcyles Donorcycles.
Private planes fall out of the sky, and kill the people inside, and occasionally someone on the ground. But we still allow people to fly planes don’t we?
A gun is a tool, like a hammer. Even when it is used properly there is a chance you can be injured. It is why they advise you to wear safety glasses and gloves when using a hammer. People cut their limbs off with chain saws, because they aren’t careful enough, and because there is some danger involved. Yet we don’t argue that chainsaws, hammers, or pry bars should be banned.
Only with Guns do we argue that we should get rid of the tool. Why? Why is it that guns occupy a special place in our language? Guns are useful, and if used properly can provide a great service to the one wielding it. But like a hammer, you can make a mistake even if you have been using one for years, or decades, and smash your thumb.
Some argue, with some merit, that accidental discharges should be called negligent discharges. They have a point. But accidental discharge does not mean you did something stupid, or you did not make a mistake. It means you did not intend for the result to happen. Just as when you are driving around listening to loud music with friends going a little fast, you did not intend to slam into the other car. Just as while you are cursing and shaking your hand you did not intend to smash your thumb with the hammer.
Accidents happen, we can reduce, but never eliminate them. That’s the sad truth.
Yet the NRA fights every effort to reduce the potential danger from guns. I'm not aware of any credible effort to eliminate guns, and I would oppose anyone who supports that, but why do gun nuts oppose efforts to reduce the very real danger of so many guns on the street?
Which tools are the most dangerous? Chainsaws are dangerous, and there are millions of them out there. Are we going to start restricting the types of chainsaws people can have? How about cars? The legal speed limit is 70. Yet on the showrooms of every manufacturer are cars that can do twice that or more. Why aren’t we going to limit these dangerous cars to something approaching a sane number?
The only dangerous firearm is one which is poorly designed. The Taurus PT series may qualify. This pistol had a flaw that would allow it to fire even if the safety was on. They were sued successfully several times before they fixed it in the new models, but still have not recalled the older ones to correct it. My Toyota van was recalled and fixed because there was a one in a million chance the automatic sliding doors would open while the vehicle was in motion.
The FN-P90 was designed to penetrate body armor, the soft vests that cops wear. The specific ammunition that can penetrate this armor is limited to government agencies. But is that a dangerous weapon? One designed specifically to penetrate body armor? Isn’t that the literal definition of cop killer rounds and guns? Is it dangerous only with the steel core penetration rounds? Or is it dangerous just because it can fire those rounds?
It looks like a prop for a science fiction movie. It looks like a toy doesn’t it?
View attachment 207426
Is this a dangerous weapon?
Is it more or less dangerous than this?
View attachment 207428
Should we all be limited to bolt action rifles like this?
View attachment 207427
Or is it dangerous even though it is a single shot rifle because it looks scary in black?
Which of those would scare you the most? The designed to kill cops science fiction toy? The AR? Or the bolt action single shot rifle? Which is the most dangerous that we need to limit?
We already restrict what kind of chain saws can be sold. New saws have to have chain clutches and brakes, as well as some sort of anti-kickback device, as well as other safety requirements that I'm too lazy to look up. Cars are continuously being evaluated and design changes are mandated to make them safer. Gun nuts think there can be nothing done to reduce the potential danger posed by a gun. They are wrong. However, this discussion isn't just about safety modifications for guns. It is about the NRA and their pool of gun nuts opposing anything being done to reduce the potential danger, whether it is a trigger lock, or required training, or background checks to reduce the number of armed crazies, or anything else. That is just stupid.
Ah yes. This Hollywood safety technology. The gun user rings and fingerprint scanners. The James Bond signature guns. Nonsense. Yes. I know they have worked on .22 pistols. But not on larger caliber weapons. Why? The jarring from the recoil destroys the electronics. Let me demonstrate. Take the computer you are reading this on and throw it to the ground a few times. Then see if it works.
If you are reading this you didn’t do it.
Complex systems designed to be child proof. Nonsense. The only people who can open medicine bottles are kids.
Safes? And the five minutes it takes to break into one, is that sufficient or what limit will we mandate? If it takes too long, why wouldn’t the baddies just drag the safe off?
Haven’t you seen those videos of baddies driving a car through the security bars on windows to steal things like guns, booze, and cigarettes. Electronics too.
If I said that studies had shown that wearing a red MAGA hat while driving would reduce the likelihood of an at fault accident you would say it was stupid. Basically all of the nonsense about gun safety technology is the same.
Don't be ridiculous. A consumer computer isn't designed to be thrown on the ground. Obviously you know nothing about the capabilities of solid state electronics.
Yet the NRA fights every effort to reduce the potential danger from guns. I'm not aware of any credible effort to eliminate guns, and I would oppose anyone who supports that, but why do gun nuts oppose efforts to reduce the very real danger of so many guns on the street?
Which tools are the most dangerous? Chainsaws are dangerous, and there are millions of them out there. Are we going to start restricting the types of chainsaws people can have? How about cars? The legal speed limit is 70. Yet on the showrooms of every manufacturer are cars that can do twice that or more. Why aren’t we going to limit these dangerous cars to something approaching a sane number?
The only dangerous firearm is one which is poorly designed. The Taurus PT series may qualify. This pistol had a flaw that would allow it to fire even if the safety was on. They were sued successfully several times before they fixed it in the new models, but still have not recalled the older ones to correct it. My Toyota van was recalled and fixed because there was a one in a million chance the automatic sliding doors would open while the vehicle was in motion.
The FN-P90 was designed to penetrate body armor, the soft vests that cops wear. The specific ammunition that can penetrate this armor is limited to government agencies. But is that a dangerous weapon? One designed specifically to penetrate body armor? Isn’t that the literal definition of cop killer rounds and guns? Is it dangerous only with the steel core penetration rounds? Or is it dangerous just because it can fire those rounds?
It looks like a prop for a science fiction movie. It looks like a toy doesn’t it?
View attachment 207426
Is this a dangerous weapon?
Is it more or less dangerous than this?
View attachment 207428
Should we all be limited to bolt action rifles like this?
View attachment 207427
Or is it dangerous even though it is a single shot rifle because it looks scary in black?
Which of those would scare you the most? The designed to kill cops science fiction toy? The AR? Or the bolt action single shot rifle? Which is the most dangerous that we need to limit?
We already restrict what kind of chain saws can be sold. New saws have to have chain clutches and brakes, as well as some sort of anti-kickback device, as well as other safety requirements that I'm too lazy to look up. Cars are continuously being evaluated and design changes are mandated to make them safer. Gun nuts think there can be nothing done to reduce the potential danger posed by a gun. They are wrong. However, this discussion isn't just about safety modifications for guns. It is about the NRA and their pool of gun nuts opposing anything being done to reduce the potential danger, whether it is a trigger lock, or required training, or background checks to reduce the number of armed crazies, or anything else. That is just stupid.
Ah yes. This Hollywood safety technology. The gun user rings and fingerprint scanners. The James Bond signature guns. Nonsense. Yes. I know they have worked on .22 pistols. But not on larger caliber weapons. Why? The jarring from the recoil destroys the electronics. Let me demonstrate. Take the computer you are reading this on and throw it to the ground a few times. Then see if it works.
If you are reading this you didn’t do it.
Complex systems designed to be child proof. Nonsense. The only people who can open medicine bottles are kids.
Safes? And the five minutes it takes to break into one, is that sufficient or what limit will we mandate? If it takes too long, why wouldn’t the baddies just drag the safe off?
Haven’t you seen those videos of baddies driving a car through the security bars on windows to steal things like guns, booze, and cigarettes. Electronics too.
If I said that studies had shown that wearing a red MAGA hat while driving would reduce the likelihood of an at fault accident you would say it was stupid. Basically all of the nonsense about gun safety technology is the same.
Don't be ridiculous. A consumer computer isn't designed to be thrown on the ground. Obviously you know nothing about the capabilities of solid state electronics.
I know quite a bit more than you might think. I work in heavy transportation. Cargos that weigh fifty tons are not unusual. You would be surprised how often the electronics that are used to manage the equipment break. If they can not reliably manage a truck engine on smooth roads what makes you think they will reliably manage the recoil of a .357 Magnum? The jarring and stresses of even medium handgun cartridges is incredible. If a bullet has some 350 foot pounds of force going out the barrel, then the pistol, and shooter, must absorb an equal amount of force. A momentary jarring violent application of kinetic energy.
Look at the flexing of the frame of the pistol. Look at the shock that pushes the pistol up and back. This is not a large caliber. It is a 9MM. Medium caliber.
Tell me you don’t really believe that any electronics embedded in that frame would work after even a handful of shots. Please tell me you aren’t that ignorant of physics and shock forces.
Yet the NRA fights every effort to reduce the potential danger from guns. I'm not aware of any credible effort to eliminate guns, and I would oppose anyone who supports that, but why do gun nuts oppose efforts to reduce the very real danger of so many guns on the street?
Which tools are the most dangerous? Chainsaws are dangerous, and there are millions of them out there. Are we going to start restricting the types of chainsaws people can have? How about cars? The legal speed limit is 70. Yet on the showrooms of every manufacturer are cars that can do twice that or more. Why aren’t we going to limit these dangerous cars to something approaching a sane number?
The only dangerous firearm is one which is poorly designed. The Taurus PT series may qualify. This pistol had a flaw that would allow it to fire even if the safety was on. They were sued successfully several times before they fixed it in the new models, but still have not recalled the older ones to correct it. My Toyota van was recalled and fixed because there was a one in a million chance the automatic sliding doors would open while the vehicle was in motion.
The FN-P90 was designed to penetrate body armor, the soft vests that cops wear. The specific ammunition that can penetrate this armor is limited to government agencies. But is that a dangerous weapon? One designed specifically to penetrate body armor? Isn’t that the literal definition of cop killer rounds and guns? Is it dangerous only with the steel core penetration rounds? Or is it dangerous just because it can fire those rounds?
It looks like a prop for a science fiction movie. It looks like a toy doesn’t it?
View attachment 207426
Is this a dangerous weapon?
Is it more or less dangerous than this?
View attachment 207428
Should we all be limited to bolt action rifles like this?
View attachment 207427
Or is it dangerous even though it is a single shot rifle because it looks scary in black?
Which of those would scare you the most? The designed to kill cops science fiction toy? The AR? Or the bolt action single shot rifle? Which is the most dangerous that we need to limit?
We already restrict what kind of chain saws can be sold. New saws have to have chain clutches and brakes, as well as some sort of anti-kickback device, as well as other safety requirements that I'm too lazy to look up. Cars are continuously being evaluated and design changes are mandated to make them safer. Gun nuts think there can be nothing done to reduce the potential danger posed by a gun. They are wrong. However, this discussion isn't just about safety modifications for guns. It is about the NRA and their pool of gun nuts opposing anything being done to reduce the potential danger, whether it is a trigger lock, or required training, or background checks to reduce the number of armed crazies, or anything else. That is just stupid.
Ah yes. This Hollywood safety technology. The gun user rings and fingerprint scanners. The James Bond signature guns. Nonsense. Yes. I know they have worked on .22 pistols. But not on larger caliber weapons. Why? The jarring from the recoil destroys the electronics. Let me demonstrate. Take the computer you are reading this on and throw it to the ground a few times. Then see if it works.
If you are reading this you didn’t do it.
Complex systems designed to be child proof. Nonsense. The only people who can open medicine bottles are kids.
Safes? And the five minutes it takes to break into one, is that sufficient or what limit will we mandate? If it takes too long, why wouldn’t the baddies just drag the safe off?
Haven’t you seen those videos of baddies driving a car through the security bars on windows to steal things like guns, booze, and cigarettes. Electronics too.
If I said that studies had shown that wearing a red MAGA hat while driving would reduce the likelihood of an at fault accident you would say it was stupid. Basically all of the nonsense about gun safety technology is the same.
Don't be ridiculous. A consumer computer isn't designed to be thrown on the ground. Obviously you know nothing about the capabilities of solid state electronics.
I know quite a bit more than you might think. I work in heavy transportation. Cargos that weigh fifty tons are not unusual. You would be surprised how often the electronics that are used to manage the equipment break. If they can not reliably manage a truck engine on smooth roads what makes you think they will reliably manage the recoil of a .357 Magnum? The jarring and stresses of even medium handgun cartridges is incredible. If a bullet has some 350 foot pounds of force going out the barrel, then the pistol, and shooter, must absorb an equal amount of force. A momentary jarring violent application of kinetic energy.
Look at the flexing of the frame of the pistol. Look at the shock that pushes the pistol up and back. This is not a large caliber. It is a 9MM. Medium caliber.
Tell me you don’t really believe that any electronics embedded in that frame would work after even a handful of shots. Please tell me you aren’t that ignorant of physics and shock forces.
They do. They shoot a defensive projectile out towards the offender. It goes there and it politely asks them to stop with 368 ft/lbs of force applied to a mole on their cranium.
