Tierney Files "Safe-Gun" Legislation

[Robb]

Source: Ipswich Chronicle

Congressman John Tierney, D-Salem, hopes legislation he filed today, Wednesday, May 15, the Personalized Handgun Safety Act of 2013, will slash the death toll.

(snip)

Within two years of passage, the legislation would require handgun manufacturers to equip all their weapons with a personal identification system that only allows the gun owner to fire the gun.

Within in three years of enactment the bill would require any used handgun sold to be retrofitted with a personal identification system.

Tierney estimated such systems would add about $20 to the price of a handgun.

The legislation would also provide research and development grants to further develop the technology and to defray the cost of the personalized identification or smart technology.

Read more: http://www.wickedlocal.com/ipswich/topstories/x372821102/Tierney-files-safe-gun-legislation#axzz2TP8vYOrg

[hack89]

1. Only if the requirement applies to the police.

If the police are willing to put their lives in the hands of such technology then so will I.

The backfitting requirement is most likely pure fantasy - certainly at $20.

[Hoyt]

2. Obviously, you like rest of Gungeoneers, are against it.

It doesn't matter if it would save lives like kids shooting themselves, stolen guns being used in crimes, gun accumulators from selling weapons without background checks, etc.

Yet, you come up with a silly argument against it.

Although, police might be more receptive than you think. Then, you'll have to come up with equally inane opposition.

[hack89]

3. I will use it if the police use it.

why wouldn't the police use it - it will be 100% reliable correct?

[Hoyt]

4. I'm sure you view yourself part of law enforcement, most gunners do, but

you are far from it no matter how many guns you have.

I think the legislation would save a bunch of lives, and minimally inconvenience the poor oppressed gun culture.

[hack89]

5. No - I do not.

why shouldn't the police be made to use it? It would be 100% reliable, right?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. That's not how it works If it's the law then suck it up.....

This isn't a case of "Why do I have to eat my vegetables when Jimmy gets to go out and play?" Gun nuts aren't a supplement nor have parity with the police nor should they.

BTW: There is no reason why anyone should feel they can take on the cops and win.

Do those who dream of that consider the reality at all? I mean, really. It's like the stereotypical hoodlum screaming out, "You'll never take me alive ya dirty rotten coppers!"

Just add crap about the UN and free health care.

[hack89]

16. So the police should have the only 100% reliable guns?

does the law protect gun manufacturers for law suits if someone gets killed because the gun wouldn't work when it should?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. I suppose it makes it less "potent" to some of the real fondlers....

BTW: By "should" does that include the range?

[hack89]

23. Not a big deal. It is pure fantasy on Tierney's part anyway. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

44. We can't even get trigger locks.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. Lots of manufacturers include them with new guns. New ones can be had for $5...

...or less. What you can't do, of course, is force idiots not to act like idiots...

[AtheistCrusader]

53. Trigger locks are required with the sale of all new guns in 9 states.

And most dealers will include them in the rest of the states even without the law.

Want to make that law universal? I'd support that. And I'm sure I'm not alone.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. This isn't about competing with the cops.

The only thing worse than needing a gun is needing a gun, having one, and finding out it doesn't work.

The police are held to a HIGHER standard to deploy lethal force in self defense, than joe/jane citizen. In any instance where a person is motivated to carry a firearm, they will seek RELIABLE firearms. This vaporware isn't even here, let alone reliable.

That a police department might use it is a good litmus test for the technology's adoption, and with that, people will actually start buying it even without a legal requirement.

Especially if it only costs 20 bucks as was claimed herein.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. If it can be retrofitted onto an existing gun, it can be removed from a stolen gun.

This has nothing to do with background checks. (Background checks would be nice however)

The police have resisted the technology so far for obvious reliability issues. The police WILL jump at it when it works, because weapons retention is a big deal, and officers are often injured with their own firearms in close quarters fights.

[Hoyt]

10. Maybe so, but technology would improve quickly. More importantly those guns irresponsible gunners

leave around are much less likely to end up in a three year old's grasp.

Can't understand opposition. But, then, gun cultists seldom care about impact of their lethal hobby or paranoia.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. Of course you can't understand- you're no different than the people that ban bongs...

...and think they're striking a blow against drug culture.

[Hoyt]

20. And apparently you are no different that those who believe their guns don't stink.

Restricting guns will help our society.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. "Restricting guns will help our society" Hadn't you noticed that they already are?

[Hoyt]

28. No, they help some folks get through the day, but society would be better off

with a lot less guns and gun cultists.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. "society would be better off with a lot less guns and gun cultists."

And you lot wonder why you get pegged as culture warriors- it's because you are.

[Hoyt]

31. Culture warrior? Why do you guys always think in terms of war, guns,

and similar crud?

But, yeah, we'd all be better off with less gun culture junk.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. Perhaps because *you* guys act like it's a War on Guns...

...little different in tone from the War on (Some) Drugs.

Harry J. Anslinger was also quick to inform all that he was acting for the good of society,
and why certain groups should not be allowed to have certain things:

[Hoyt]

34. Quit acting dense, we are simply encouraging gun culture to act responsibly,

rather than just talking about being responsible.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. And gun culture is encouraging you to not embrace techno-hokum...

...,even if you really, reaaaly, want what it purports to do- because bullshit is bullshit, no matter
what the peddler of same tells you.

[Hoyt]

37. Well maybe gun manufacturers should stop production until technology is to your satisfaction.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. Umm, don't you mean "to mine and the other gun Prohibitionists' satisfaction"?

FTFY

[Hoyt]

39. No, I mean that until that technology is available, no more gun sales.

Then, we'll see how fast you guys accept what's available. Maybe some lives will be saved while you guys act responsibly.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. That's what we love about you, Hoyt...

..you never let the beautiful perfection of you dreams get muddied by reality.

[Hoyt]

41. I still have hopes for you guys. I'm sure you are lovely without your guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. Undoubtedly the reign of tears will be over, and the slums will be a memory.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/11/AR2010061102868.html

On Jan. 16, 1920 -- the day before Prohibition became the law of the land -- America's triumphant "drys" were supremely optimistic about the future: "The reign of tears is over," evangelist Billy Sunday told a revival meeting in Norfolk, Va. "Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and the children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent."...

[primavera]

43. And what alternative is gun culture encouraging to promote gun safety/responsibility?

Trigger locks? No, that's right, you guys don't like those, do you? Mandatory gun safety training in order to obtain a license? No, I don't hear any gun owners standing up for that. Expanded background checks to keep fewer guns from getting into the hands of criminals and lunatics? Huh, yeah, well, we've seen how well that went over with the gun crowd. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever heard a gun nut offer up so much as a single suggestion for how to reduce gun accidents or violence, all they ever seem to offer are rationalizations why any effort to reduce gun violence is doomed to fail and/or meaningless. So, really you don't have anything even remotely helpful to contribute to the discussion, do you?

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. You seem not to have heard the people like me that advocated for these things here.

Congratulations, you've made the NRA's day: They've got you believing they speak for
all gun owners, when they quite obviously do not.

You know, we could have had things like expanded background checks if you lot hadn't
decided that now was the time to pass the assault weapon ban that you couldn't get renewed
in 2004. But the gun Prohibitionists couldn't help giving away the game:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172122597#post61

61. Fair enough, even seven rounds is bad.

But we've got to start somewhere.

Someday it will be one round.

So, naturally enough you got pushback even from people that realize that 'NRA' might
as well stand for "National Republican Arsenal"

When politicians like Tierney (who really should start acting like he's smarter than
an average Republican) propose a technological fraud like this, they deserve to get every
bit of ridicule they receive-right alongside those that think it's a great idea.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Maybe if you actually came into the gungeon and read a couple threads

you'd see many of us are in favor of safe storage requirements, licensure, and even registration. (Registration is not universally loved in the gungeon though, but it does have several proponents, including myself)

If you followed any related threads in that sub forum, you'd know that.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. When the technology is actually available, we will probably buy it.

There are advantages to the idea. However, it is currently vaporware.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. You don't understand because for a firearm to WORK is not your top priority.

I expect my firearms to work, first time, every time. Pull trigger, it goes bang. Period. If it doesn't my training can get it to go bang, in short order.

That is its primary purpose. That is WHY I OWN THEM.

You are advocating for a feature that can easily lead to a gun NOT going bang WHEN I INTEND FOR IT TO.

I get why. I do. And I don't blame you if I look at it from your vantage point. I really don't. Hopefully you can try seeing things from mine.

*I* do not leave my guns lying around. I secure them. I maintain a list of serial numbers that I am perfectly willing to share with the police should some ninja master thief somehow break into my home and abscond with the entire safes, or turn out to be some master safe cracker or some other unlikely scenario. I control access to my firearms like anyone should control access to a device that can produce deaths. I do not require this technology to keep my guns safe.

It represents, to me, an intentional introduction of a failure point in my firearms. The absolute last thing I could possibly want to do to my guns.

For me to be willing to intentionally adopt this technology, I need to see it attain favored status with police officers, AND the military. That ensures a standard of reliability that I have sought in my firearms from day one. My pistols are also used by police departments as service weapons. My shotguns and several rifles are also used by the military, and I selected them precisely for that reason. Pull trigger, goes bang, every time without fail.

If you're not willing to require police departments to deploy this today, then don't ask me to, because I'm not buying.

[Hoyt]

56. I feel sad for you.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Your pity is misplaced.

I don't need it any more than the fundies that 'pray for my soul' because they are such nice people and care about my welfare so much.

I am 100% content without their, or your support/sympathy.

[Marrah_G]

54. It would still reduce deaths from accidental shootings

Especially involving children.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Yes, so would requiring all firearms be melted down into steel bricks.

I like for my firearms to work, thanks.

[Marrah_G]

59. I'm not in favor of melting them down

I am in favor of finding ways to keep kids from killing themselves or others with their parents unsecured firearms.

Edit to add: If this works I think it's great, if it doesn't work then I hope they keep looking for a way to make it work.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Someday this technology might work for that.

Today it does not, and it is highly unlikely to reach that level in 2 years.

If it could, the Police departments would be rolling it out already, because one of the most common ways for a police officer to be killed, is with their own service weapon after losing retention of the weapon in a struggle.

When they go for it, I will seriously consider it.

[krispos42]

21. I'm for it, but it doesn't exist.

If it doesn't exist, it can't save lives. And that's not a silly argument, that is a rock-solid, iron-clad argument for which there is no dismissal or avoidance.

What this likely is is an attempt to outlaw sales of new guns by putting in an impossible requirement.

Might as well put in a requirement that the guns have a GPS with a mapping system so it won't fire if it's on a school campus, and that's powered by a battery with a 30-year lifespan. Oh, and maybe it can send a GPS fix with a date and time stamp to the FBI each time it's fired. And it won't work if it leaves the state it's sold in. And it's got a built-in DNA analyzer, so it can send the DNA of who fired each shot to the FBI. And a forward-facing camera, so it can take a picture a half-second before the gun fires and a half-second afterwards and we can see what was really happening. And it sends those pictures to the FBI as well.




It's the typical playbook... if you can't directly outlaw something, make the requirements difficult or impossible to achieve. It's how the red states handle things like abortion.



Now, the police buy huge quanitities of guns. The NYPD has something like 35,000 officers, and that's a hell of a lot of guns. If the NYPD put that requirement in a RFQ (request for quote), somebody besides Glock would seriously look into it in order to corner the NYPD market, and with it many other municipal departments.

And once it become police-standard, the technology will rather quickly move into the civilian market. As it is, nobody trusts the technology because it doesn't exist past the prototype stage and it has operational limitations. A large police department can MAKE their officers use a certain gun with certain features, and the buying power of a PD can move gun makers far more than you or I with our purchases.

[baldguy]

11. Is that what your overlords at the NRA are saying?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=480165&mesg_id=480667

[Robb]

32. ...

“What you’ll hear from the National Rifle Association is this is space-age technology and decades away from being used,” said Rosenthal.

[Dr. Strange]

67. I don't think any reasonable person would disagree with that.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/06/us-usa-shooting-mississippi-idUSBRE9340ZZ20130406

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-07-07/news/ct-met-officer-shot-20100707_1_police-officer-officer-alejandro-alex-valadez-police-training-academy

[Mojorabbit]

6. This sucks unless you can put at least two

names on it. My husband and I share ours when we shoot at the range. They belong to the both of us.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. What's funny is some people would find that romantic.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. It's the reason my AR has an adjustable stock. You know, one of the 'evil features'.

My wife's arms are shorter. It's safer for all concerned if the rifle fit us properly when used. It's actually a safety feature.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

63. Glad you explained that because we librulz iz skeered of gunz.

[Ted Brown]

7. So in a household with two parents and kids, each parent would

have to have their own gun in order to have a usable gun available when one parent is away?

I don't see a way this is reasonable, unless all two-parent households want to buy two guns when they only need one to feel protected.

This bill will go nowhere.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. He's full of crap, this tech doesn't work.

Fun as the Bond movie 'Skyfall' was, this is garbage, for now. (Note they didn't give one of these nifty 'sensor' guns to the guard outside the cell of the bad guy, lol)

I'll adopt it AFTER every major metro police department in the country adopts it, AND the military adopts it.

20 bucks my ass.

[baldguy]

12. Maybe the NRA can cough up some of thier extremist RW loony dough to help make it work.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. Or maybe Michael Bloomberg can cough up some of *his* billions to help make it work.

Let the King of New York put his money where his mouth is.

FSM knows you lot are generally a bunch of cheapskates when it comes to spending your
own money to promote gun safety.

[baldguy]

27. How does Michael Bloomberg come into this?

Is it just some extremist RW weirdo knee-jerk Bloomberg hate, or some kind of NRA Tourette syndrome that forces you to bring Michael Bloomberg into EVERY GUN THREAD THAT EVER EXISTS ANYWHERE?

But really, it doesn't matter. Bloomberg doesn't have a vested financial interest in selling millions of guns to people who don't need them for the corporate gun traffickers like the NRA does.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. You know what? You're right; Bloomie (like the NRA) is too smart to fall for vaporware.

So what's the rest of y'alls excuse?

I think you lot, like Tierney, are so bedazzled by the idea of restricting guns that you either
haven't noticed or don't care that the technology doesn't actually exist.

Or is this just another case of wanting to 'stick it to The (gun-owning) Man'?

One of your fellow 'improvers' gave it away upthread:
http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=484500

"...society would be better off with a lot less guns and gun cultists."

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Maybe. Why don't you ask them?

You could also pass a law adding the requirement that the seller provide a real live unicorn with the gun, in addition to the gun lock.

As things stand today, the two concepts (Live unicorn and 'smart gun' tech) are just as readily available to the market.

[Lurks Often]

13. Unlikely to even make it out of committee n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. True, but as we've seen it plays well with the dogmatic and willfully ignorant

Hence the support for it in certain quarters

[socialsecurityisAAA]

24. A safe gun?????

Something designed to kill can't be safe. Legislation like this is pointless if we don't address the educational and economic inequality that exists. People will find other ways to project their inner pain in hateful ways.

[Xithras]

26. "add about $20" They forgot a zero. And maybe a multiplier.

It might cost $20 for a manufacturer to mass produce them, but the law will apply to the sale of USED guns in 3 years as well. A gunsmith is going to charge at least a couple hundred bucks to retrofit one of these into an existing handgun, which will never be recouped by the seller and in many cases may equal the value of the firearm itself.

This is a backdoor way to kill the secondhand firearm market.

[Hoyt]

46. So. You get stuck with a bunch of worthless guns that you never should have bought.

Maybe you can recoup a few bucks at one of those buy backs you gunners like to criticize.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. You're basically a poster child for the NRA, you know that right?

Way to play into their hyperbolic fear mongering hands. Your 'ha ha your guns will be worthless' nonsense is precisely what the NRA uses to motivate their base.

[Hoyt]

64. Well, that and a bunch of right wing, bigoted crud that the base loves.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

36. Does Congressman John Tierney ever offer any serious proposals?

[Hoyt]

48. Yes, but the republicans shoot him down because he's actually concerned about innocent lives.

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. It's more likely that his faith-based proposals interfere with theirs...

[One_Life_To_Give]

66. How does this work on a Black Powder Revolver?

Reproductions would be fine. But the Historical Arms like a Lemat Cavalry Pistol should be exempt.