General Discussion

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)

57. OK, to take those in order

Fri May 2, 2014, 09:40 PM

May 2014

Reliability is fair comment. Although, as the technology is refined, it should become less of an issue. I agree it's not suitable for every situation.

Palm-print scanners: I have seen prototypes of such scanners that can check and confirm an authorised print in a fraction of a second, literally less time than it takes to draw and aim. Granted, those are still a few years away from market though.

Finally, who is talking about mandating them? I certainly wasn't. In ten or twenty years, when the technology has been perfected and spread to many guns, maybe but not until then.

Incidently, I don't have a gun safe because I don't have any guns. My country (UK) banned all handguns in 1997 (in response to the Dunblane Massacre) and, even if I wanted to keep shooting with longarms, my license would have been revoked as soon as I was diagnosed mentally ill.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

95 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sorry, I have to start a gun thread. Only to call out lunatics. [View all] Recursion May 2014 OP

The same lunatics who are gun nuts are also heavily misogynistic. chrisa May 2014 #1

I agree. aikoaiko May 2014 #2

Hey, fair enough, not everyone wants one, but I do Recursion May 2014 #3

Again I agree. There are too many idiots among us. aikoaiko May 2014 #6

No one deserves these kind of threats. Even on-line threats Eleanors38 May 2014 #24

No excuse for stalking and harassment JJChambers May 2014 #4

it was unlocked Duckhunter935 May 2014 #11

so leaving a post unlocked means the host agrees with its point of view? CreekDog May 2014 #36

You whine a lot! nt Logical May 2014 #37

Well, the reason for the stalking and harassment is because gun advocates are afraid that DanTex May 2014 #18

Clearly, the "locking" technology is defective in GD! Eleanors38 May 2014 #25

LOL, so technology can land jets and soon will be driving cars but..... Logical May 2014 #32

Have you? JJChambers May 2014 #39

The main issue is extreme gun owners will not let anyone even try to create this technology.... Logical May 2014 #47

Exactly, this isn't about whether the technology is of use to a particular person. nomorenomore08 May 2014 #87

Granted, it wouldn't be suitable for every situation Prophet 451 May 2014 #43

Very thoughtful post, thanks Recursion ucrdem May 2014 #5

I agree that the NRA's extremism is the biggest threat to RKBA. The backlash ... Scuba May 2014 #7

I am glad to see at least one pro-gun advocate here call out NRA and LaPierre*. hlthe2b May 2014 #8

Two DashOneBravo May 2014 #19

And many more. Lizzie Poppet May 2014 #22

Three, I am pro guns and hate the NRA! Nt Logical May 2014 #34

four nt Duckhunter935 May 2014 #48

Lots - probably the vast majority - of pro-2A DUers have nothing to do Codeine May 2014 #38

The vast majority of the "Gungeon Gang" Jenoch May 2014 #41

I'm not sure why anyone would be threatened by this. . pipoman May 2014 #9

The S&W lock was a simple device that offered some advantage to certain handgun owners. ... spin May 2014 #16

I have one with a lock, pipoman May 2014 #31

I own several revolvers with the lock but use them for target shooting. ... spin May 2014 #44

Threats are too far and Duckhunter935 May 2014 #10

Guns in GD DashOneBravo May 2014 #51

not whining Duckhunter935 May 2014 #52

Well.... DashOneBravo May 2014 #77

No Duckhunter935 May 2014 #78

I read this morning that a gun shop owner in MD also..... Bonhomme Richard May 2014 #12

Fuckin' A, Recursion sofa king May 2014 #13

Yeah, there's really no way around that, is there? Recursion May 2014 #14

and mostly everyone here too is ignoring that part of the story. BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #53

"I realize there's a more-or-less-matorium on these," Lizzie Poppet May 2014 #15

Well, here's why it's happening. DanTex May 2014 #17

No.. it is because some states have a provision SQUEE May 2014 #91

reliability standards Make7 May 2014 #92

And again the determining factor... SQUEE May 2014 #93

You don't think an independent agency could prove the state's determination faulty? Make7 May 2014 #94

Independent agency? possible, yes SQUEE May 2014 #95

The issue is a study in hyperpartisan intransigence. rrneck May 2014 #20

"It's a novelty item that only serious gun enthusiasts with lots of cash will buy." uncle ray May 2014 #26

Nicely put. The UDT issue isn't a biggy in itself, but it can be Eleanors38 May 2014 #27

Of course! "Both sides" are to blame... DanTex May 2014 #33

Yes. ntt rrneck May 2014 #35

So... Democrats didn't spend tons of political capital creating the definition of "assault weapon".. krispos42 May 2014 #56

Great post with a lot of valid points. (n/t) spin May 2014 #45

Thanks, Recursion. Paladin May 2014 #21

Might want to take look at "your side," too, Paladin. Eleanors38 May 2014 #28

How many death threats have you ever received from "my side", Eleanors38? Paladin May 2014 #30

plenty of wishing for ill-fortune and rapid extinction... Eleanors38 May 2014 #64

As I thought. (nt) Paladin May 2014 #80

This message was self-deleted by its author LeftishBrit May 2014 #23

Very good post sarisataka May 2014 #29

Well said. WilliamPitt May 2014 #40

This baffles me Prophet 451 May 2014 #42

One downside is Murphy's Law ... spin May 2014 #46

lets hope the cops Duckhunter935 May 2014 #49

That's easy DashOneBravo May 2014 #50

Yes, that seems like a good testbed Prophet 451 May 2014 #58

There is a downside... reliability krispos42 May 2014 #54

OK, to take those in order Prophet 451 May 2014 #57

I expect that as the technology gets better, it will become less of an issue, too krispos42 May 2014 #66

Well, DashOneBravo May 2014 #59

That would be so sad that gun fanciers could not buy the "guns they are comfortable with." Hoyt May 2014 #82

*yawn* krispos42 May 2014 #83

How do you cheaply backfit it to existing guns hack89 May 2014 #71

Good question Prophet 451 May 2014 #74

It's threads like this ... Trajan May 2014 #55

Why don't you contact the Ads & ask them to close it? Eleanors38 May 2014 #65

Pretty unreasonable to broad brush millions of people for allegations of a handful of crimes Taitertots May 2014 #60

"...if you don�t want our gun, don�t buy it. It�s not for everyone." Make7 May 2014 #62

Two key points... Taitertots May 2014 #63

There is existing legislation mandating "smart guns"? ( n/t ) Make7 May 2014 #68

Yes Taitertots May 2014 #69

You do understand what the word "could" means, right? Make7 May 2014 #73

There is legislation. Regardless of your opinions about the matter. It effects millions of people. Taitertots May 2014 #75

A law that hasn't gone into effect to ban the sale of non-"smart guns" affects people how? ( n/t ) Make7 May 2014 #85

Stop being willfully obtuse Taitertots May 2014 #86

So you can't explain it? ( n/t ) Make7 May 2014 #88

I can. Why should I? It is obvious and you are being willfully obtuse (n/t) Taitertots May 2014 #89

Why do you want to deny millions of people the opportunity to buy safer guns? Make7 May 2014 #90

I'm for the second amendment being what it's actually written to be for AcertainLiz May 2014 #61

No where in the Bill of Rights is there any reference to Eleanors38 May 2014 #67

You are out of step with both the president and our party platform hack89 May 2014 #72

So I could keep my milspec Duckhunter935 May 2014 #76

This is not a war zone, believe it or not. Hoyt May 2014 #79

The only coherent post, up to this point. ronnie624 May 2014 #81

This message was self-deleted by its author oneofthe99 May 2014 #70

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #84