(February 21, 2014 at 10:27 pm)KUSA Wrote: I really don't give a rats ass if some pantywaist wants to own this garbage. However making it required is not cool.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to make things safer. After all, other things are unsafe too, so we can't possibly concentrate on improving any one thing!

Progress can't happen unless it happens over all facets simultaneously, in an instant!

(February 21, 2014 at 10:27 pm)KUSA Wrote: This thread stinks of leftist agenda. Read the thread title. It says "making this a REQUIRED safety feature".

I really don't give a rats ass if some pantywaist wants to own this garbage. However making it required is not cool.

Worried that being safe makes you look like less of a badass?

Don't worry - your brutish mewling takes care of it.

If this is going to be a required safety feature, why don't we make it required that all scissors be safety scissors? How about all knives are required to be too blunt to hurt anyone?

If my knives became sharp in my and only my hands, I'd feel good.

(February 21, 2014 at 10:27 pm)KUSA Wrote: I really don't give a rats ass if some pantywaist wants to own this garbage. However making it required is not cool.

I don't care about what you think is 'cool'. I care about people who are irresponsible and leave their guns where kids can find them, or who are responsible and have their guns stolen by somebody. Unlike all of the other tired, old comparisons you've made (and a million others have already made), guns have no purpose other than to kill, or present the threat of death to whoever's on the other end, and people who are careless about owning them recklessly endanger other people. You know, that's why cars are required to have safety features like headlights, turn signals, seatbelts, safety glass, windshield wipers, horns and functional brakes, among the dozens of other garbage that pantywaists insist that cars have so that they are less likely to be the cause of someone else's death or injury.

People's lives are more important than your apparent compensation issues.

(February 22, 2014 at 3:46 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I don't care about what you think is 'cool'. I care about people who are irresponsible and leave their guns where kids can find them, or who are responsible and have their guns stolen by somebody. Unlike all of the other tired, old comparisons you've made (and a million others have already made), guns have no purpose other than to kill, or present the threat of death to whoever's on the other end, and people who are careless about owning them recklessly endanger other people. People's lives are more important than your apparent compensation issues.

But how do we correct these possibilities?

Greater technology to improve safety I'm all for. Believe me, I am.

I usually sit on the fence about gun control debates and hold my tongue.

Because I grew up with guns EVERYWHERE in my parent's house. Everywhere. Every kind of gun you can think of, non military that is.

I also experienced, as a child, my grandfather's last remaining brother get gunned down in a church of a mass shooting. I wasn't there. But I was at his Wake and funeral. His body was the first dead person I ever laid eyes on.

So I'm conflicted in many ways.

I've seen what an angry, deranged person can inflict with guns. I've also seen how responsible gun owners can behave with regards to guns.

But most, almost all, of the debates coming from people that are against guns, centers around giving our government the ability to take away our rights to own guns.

Now, of course, you will all think, "Fuck, yeah, take away those rights!"

I am very, very, very hesitant to condone our government taking away any of our rights. Because the old saying, give them an inch...

And it's always held true. Abuse of power is the one and only consistent quality you can ever expect from any government.

If you give them this additional power over us they will abuse the fuck out of it. History promises that.

That gives me pause. So I usually just sit and ruminate over these discussions without really saying anything.

(February 22, 2014 at 3:59 am)Rahul Wrote: But most, almost all, of the debates coming from people that are against guns, centers around giving our government the ability to take away our rights to own guns.

Now, of course, you will all think, "Fuck, yeah, take away those rights!"

I am very, very, very hesitant to condone our government taking away any of our rights. Because the old saying, give them an inch...

And it's always held true. Abuse of power is the one and only consistent quality you can ever expect from any government.

I'm just not really getting what rights would be violated by making safety features mandatory. Going back to the car comparison, is it a violation of your rights that you have to have certain safety features on cars? Maybe. Is this less a violation of your rights than requiring certain safety features on a gun? Not in any way that I can tell.

I mean, as far as I can see, adding safety features like this would give less ammo, pun intended, to those who seek to ban guns. If a gun owner doesn't care about his or her own personal safety, or that of his or her family, certainly they should care about that.

(February 22, 2014 at 4:09 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I'm just not really getting what rights would be violated by making safety features mandatory. Going back to the car comparison, is it a violation of your rights that you have to have certain safety features on cars? Maybe. Is this less a violation of your rights than requiring certain safety features on a gun? Not in any way that I can tell.

I mean, as far as I can see, adding safety features like this would give less ammo, pun intended, to those who seek to ban guns. If a gun owner doesn't care about his or her own personal safety, or that of his or her family, certainly they should care about that.

I'm great with safety features. I thought I clearly said that in my post.

But we have to be very clear here. Does implementing safety features on guns, like having a high tech gun that requires an electronic bracelet or whatever be within a certain proximity to the gun, give our government the power to remove all guns that don't have that feature?

Which means every gun my parents own? Which means 99.99999% of every gun in the US?

I believe that certain cars in the US, if they fit the criteria of being antiques, are not subject to the same safety laws in regards to seatbelts or other features as currently produced cars are, am I correct?

We could do something like that.

(February 22, 2014 at 4:19 am)Rahul Wrote: I'm great with safety features. I thought I clearly said that in my post.

But we have to be very clear here. Does implementing safety features on guns, like having a high tech gun that requires an electronic bracelet or whatever be within a certain proximity to the gun, give our government the power to remove all guns that don't have that feature?

Which means every gun my parents own? Which means 99.99999% of every gun in the US?

I believe that certain cars in the US, if they fit the criteria of being antiques, are not subject to the same safety laws in regards to seatbelts or other features as currently produced cars are, am I correct?

We could do something like that.

I can't imagine it would even be possible to require every gun in America to be retrofitted for this. Certainly, all newly-manufactured guns should have it.

(February 22, 2014 at 4:22 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I can't imagine it would even be possible to require every gun in America to be retrofitted for this. Certainly, all newly-manufactured guns should have it.

That sounds perfectly reasonable. We can give gun manufacturers until 2017 to meet this criteria:

"All guns manufactured, sold, or distributed to the public in the US after January 1st, 2017 must meet the following safety features..."