There was a proposal in NJ that said every gun sold had to be smart teched once the tech became available. It was a really bad idea.
Printable View
There was a proposal in NJ that said every gun sold had to be smart teched once the tech became available. It was a really bad idea.
It still is..........
I say this in all due respect to the opinions in this post but I would like to know how many gun crimes are committed by people who have legally obtained weapons and have been permitted. I know many crimes are committed with legally obtained weapons I just wonder how many have permits to carry the weapon understanding of course that Most states do not require permits for long guns. I'm just trying to determine how big the problem is if people follow the current legal process.
I suspect a very small percentage of the crimes committed with firearms.
I agree 100%!
As a shorthand way of identifying people of similar ideology, that statement works fine. As a legislative prescription, it is a great bumper sticker.
It sounds more meaningful than it is.
What is a 'safer new gun'?
I find it to be a very succinct statement.
Mike, it is meaningless apart from signaling identity with a group. It is way too ambiguous. It can mean all sorts of things.
Does it mean literally that only outlaws will have guns? Obviously not, since we still have an armed law enforcement at a LOT of levels.
Does it mean that somehow, if we disarm the populace, that criminals will run amok, threatening everyone? Well, that hasn't happened in other countries where there are strict limits on possession of firearms.
Does it mean that gun owners will refuse to obey a gun confiscation, thereby becoming outlaws? Probably not the message that one wants to send in the same breath as describing "law-abiding gun owners".
The basic assumptions in the statement are questionable as well.
First, no candidate for office that has any chance of appealing to anyone but a few cranks is suggesting this as a serious proposal, so it is a straw man.
Second, the assumption is that being armed is somehow necessary now, and that being armed is what keeps criminals from overrunning everyone. That's nonsense.
Third, it is circular logic to believe that somehow, if guns are made illegal, that criminals will still have unfettered access to them. The reason criminals have guns NOW is because there are so many floating around and attempts to keep them from getting these guns are opposed by maximalists opposed to ANYTHING regarding limitations on guns. So the attitude being expressed in the slogan is partly the reason for the criminal's access in the first place. This creates the condition, then negates the solution.
Perhaps most importantly, when this slogan is trotted out, people stop listening. That's what I mean when I say it is signaling, nothing more. No one on the gun restriction side of the argument listens and considers the point other than to dismiss it as more gun advocate sloganeering. As such, it is serving no real purpose other than to signal that one is a gun advocate. Beyond that, it is pointless. It exists for group cohesion. Nothing more. It isn't persuading anyone not already convinced of its logic, so it is pointless beyond identifying one's self as a gun advocate.
I know you keep addressing Mike so maybe that is who you want to limit the discussion with. Right? If so I will butt out.
I've known Mike for 20 years, so he puts up with me more than others do. For whatever reason, I rub you the wrong way no matter what I say so I'm just trying to get along here.