Either way, I'm guessing I better put in some OP guidelines, I'll edit the first post and link everyone back to it.

Very cool. Do keep in mind that whether or not someone gets action taken against them by site staff for violating OP guidelines is a judgment call for staff, not the thread originator.

Good luck!

<Snipped quote by Ruby>

Naw, they were (somewhat rightfully) responding to some almost-certainly-too-on-the-nose cheekiness from a very old member (this guy) who oughta know better, but that's just my read.

ointhatcase: quitit.

@mdk

I kind of agree with you there.

Getting upset about jingos is way more popular than it should be.

#twitterlockout

Where was this study when I needed it??

Or this one, @mdk. I mean it appears almost as if the truth was always out there and plain as day. I suppose they are only relevant or priority when convenient to the narrative. Speaking of, recall the CNN Town Hall last night? Seems there's plenty of proof it was all staged and scripted by the gun control opposition. So bad and dishonest are they, that they will not cover this this young man's story because it fails to fit the narrative. Here is a great example of scripting gone wrong, the exact event happens at timecode 50:30, but the lead in is pretty overt and is more or less shilling of tragedy through a select few students.

Here is a great example of scripting gone wrong, the exact event happens at timecode 50:30, but the lead in is pretty overt and is more or less shilling of tragedy through a select few students.

500:1 odds that that lady also watches Anita Sarkisian's Feminist Frequency. Is this related to gun control? Probably not.

Without assuming too much, @Mistiel, you might have a point. Either way I found the CNN Town Hall a complete waste of time and nothing short of a setup playing off of tragedy. Deeply disrespectful to anyone who had other view points and little more than anti-firearm propaganda, especially in some of the ways the guests were treated or how those posing questions were not just allowed to say whatever they had to say, woe and weal alike, and the moderator step in. Everything I noted about it came off as a show and pandering, especially appeals to emotion.

Not to say those involved haven't a right to be emotional, there was great suffering at the hands of a despicable person, but I feel very little sympathy for their solution, especially when the near entirety of their grievances consist of emotion. No less not just that they are impractical and irrational, but moreover that they stand to take more from lawful citizens than they would be giving back. As unfortunate as it is to say, shootings as this do not merit a further massive infringement upon the rights of firearms owners or prospective ones; the Second Amendment already receives enough great and egregious trampling as it is.

Moving on, I cannot be realistically swayed by the proposals, which do not really address the core issues at hand either. We now know that everyone from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the sheriffs to the school itself all miserably failed and that none of the protective measures put in place were acted on. What sense is there in inflicting more rules of the same vein when they already do not work? The most reasonable solution is approaching it from another angle, as the suggestions by the opposition have put forward.

I agree that their solution was impractically simple. As much as I love simple solutions, gun control has no easy, simple, quick fixes like, say, a travel ban might. If a country bans the use, sale and distribution of firearms, then it's going to be like America's Prohibition all over again and black markets will THRIVE. Not to say that black markets aren't handy in some ways, but a free market that finds itself with sudden restrictions placed on it is going to find a way to become a freer market again.

That is why Australia is such a hub of international gun running.

I'll recommend the award winning Mad Max documentaries.

That is why Australia is such a hub of international gun running.

I'll recommend the award winning Mad Max documentaries.

I'm so hyped on Mad Max 5: Brexit. I know it's early but I think this is gonna be the best installment in the series, possibly even better than Fury Road.

Mad Max on the M-25... I'm for it!

It may be the wine I had this evening but...I mean, I can't argue with you on most aspects of this discussion. I do, however, fully stand behind the biometric device. I believe it's a great idea to prevent illegal use of handguns which lead to incidents such as the one here. Your wife/friend/neighbor may not be able to play with it at the range, but maybe something can be done about finding a way to activate/deactivate the device. Only you as the owner would have the option to do so though.

And the argument where someone threatens you at knifepoint or whatever is a bit silly, but I was trying to look at every viable option to try to cover all grounds in favor of the biometric device.

I do have to admit that you're probably the first person with a different belief than mine who's successfully managed to get me to agree with some of their viewpoints.

One of the primary reasons people are opposed to mandatory biometrics, is really simple: Reliability.

A lot of people, in the US, have firearms for self defense (or partially for that reason). The problem with biometics is, is that it introduces a failure mode to the firearm. If it doesn't work, when you need it to? Well, you're shit out of luck.

Hell, some people still only carry revolvers for self defense, because they view the possibility of a semi-automatic pistol jamming, as too much of a risk, if their life were at stake; even though a quality pistol might only jam once in 10,000 rounds of ammunition fired through it. Because they don't know when that jam will occur, on the second round, or the very last round fired.

Biometrics, however, adds in electronics. Electronics have always had issues with vibration, impact, and need a power source.
Yes, lot of people use red dot sights on their rifles, some are switching to red dot sights on their pistols, or add laser designators. And yet regardless of what red dot sight is chosen? You might get one that works for a period, and then flakes out. Some fail sue to vibrations causing stress fractures in the mounting of SMDs (surface mount devices, like resistors and such), some fail because of faulty batteries.

But none of this stops the firearm from being used.

Biometrics? Does. Biometric locking also involves more complicated electronics than just a red dot, or a laser. It requires a sensor to read your finger print. It requires memory to store information. It requires a processor to...process information. It requires a servo or a linear actuator, an electromagnet. And it requires a battery. All of these can fail, at any given point. If/when they do? The gun is a metal brick. That's all it is. Hell, there's a company that is working on a biometrically locked gun, that uses electromagnets to lock it, but the lock can be bypassed, or engaged...by an outside magnet.

On top of all this, is the need for a battery. Now, I wish every single person who owns a firearm for self defense took defensive gun use classes, and took meticulous care of their chosen self defense armament. But that is a childish dream, because while some do? Many do not. Many walk into a gun store and buy a small pistol, and maybe put a magazine through it once every 2-6 years...if ever. What happens when these people need their chosen tool, but it is a brick because the battery is dead?

Another reason against biometrics...is cost. In 2014, Armatix released a pistol called the iP1. A .22 LR caliber handgun, that needed a matching wristwatch to unlock it. Cost for the set? $1800. For a .22 LR, blowback pistol. In 2014.
For comparison, a Ruger SR-22 costs $420, Walther P22 is $300. Around $420 for a Browning Buckmark .22. These are all high quality pistols, known for the their reliability. They are not cheap, off brand pistols. They are also known to be reliable, where the iP1, during a review, could not fire through its 10 round magazine, once, during testing.

In 2016, Armatix announced their new pistol, the iP9, which was set to release in 2017. I haven't heard about it since 2016 really. Advertised price then was $1356. Again, more than double the cost of currently available, quality, 9mm handguns.

Costs will come down. But to parity with "dumb" guns? I doubt it. They will always be less reliable than "dumb" guns as well, due to the inherent nature of the beast.

I personally am against the idea of making them mandatory.

Look AR-15s make us safe, therefore in order to make us safer, I'm advocating for a concealed carry m-60. Its the only way to be sure.

OFCOURSE! No one needs an AR-17. OFCOURSE! What's next people are going to assume arms in the 2nd amendment means access to nuclear arms? What about landmines!? WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION.

(Tips: Read in Cenk Uygur voice.)

Edit: (If I must be serious for a moment. Sorry.)

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. According to the National Safety Council.

Upwards of 200,000 women use a firearm to defend themselves from sexual abuse each year. From Kleck and Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime."

Among many actual stats I could use...

*awkward cough*

Look AR-15s make us safe, therefore in order to make us safer, I'm advocating for a concealed carry m-60. Its the only way to be sure.

M-60s? Clearly @Penny dosent love America enough. The founders wouldn't have wanted to limit ourselves to line of site weapons. We need 60mm mortars to protect our freedoms!

I mean....

Well after an exhaustive search I was unable to find a single case of an AR-15 being used to inflict harm...

@Penny I mean, let's just be clear. If we're only going under the assumption that guns, aren't that bad. But the AR-15 is the boogeyman. Like many claim it to be. It's not the biggest gun/cause of mass shootings. (most done with handguns.) And aside from it's look, it has no difference in capabilities of many other rifles of it's nature.

People only think that because (aside from not googling "What does the A in AR stand for?) it's because of bullshit pushing merchants like these folks...

twitter.com/Bmac0507/status/967545446…

If you can't instantly recognize the problem before the video clip above even finishes, that's most of the problem the average person who still uses cable has.