New technology protects gun owners

[NotNow]

StephenDare!, BT answered your question in reply#15.  It is an option for those consumers that see some use in it.  Many firearms owners, including those here who are stating their opinion, won't want to use such a device for a variety of reasons. 

Firearms owners will point out the flaws in these devices quickly because the "anti gun culture" almost always attempts to legislate the mandatory use of such devices in attempts to circumvent the rights of America's citizens. 

[RiversideLoki]

you mean like the right to a trial by jury?

Or the right to not die by the hand of a home invader/robber/mugger who doesn't care about your rights or the laws.

[RiversideLoki]

you mean like the right to a trial by jury?

Or the right to not die by the hand of a home invader/robber/mugger who doesn't care about your rights or the laws.

because killing or being killed by that person is the only possibility.  Makes sense.

Wonder if that applies to unfair job promotions, botched travel arrangements, assholes in traffic, etc?

I cant imagine why we have anything like courts or laws really.  They seem so outdated with this new thinking.

So Riverside Loki, Im not sure what you are saying?

Is it your point that having a fingerprint sensor would prevent you from using your private gun in your private home to defend yourself from the murderous burglars?

I'm saying that it could possibly prevent me from being able to defend myself. This isn't like unlocking my smart phone, Stephen, and no amount of straw-man can draw that conclusion.

What it could do is malfunction, preventing me from defending myself when I need to most, ergo making me dead. Sure, the cops might catch the guy who did it afterwards, but a fat lot of good that will do me. What having a firearm is, is an option to defend myself. It's not the only choice, sure, the last thing a gun owner wants to do is use that gun to kill someone. But there you go putting words in people's mouths.

I swear, you're not even a good troll, Stephen.

[Apache]

So if killing someone is the last thing a gun owner wants to do, what on earth do they think a bullet speeding through someone's body can do?

Because all gun owners are just waiting around hoping for the opportunity to kill someone and claim SYG of course.

[coredumped]

So I suppose you are going to opt out of the iphone sensor and the password option, just in case you need to make an emergency phone call?

I hate to bring facts in to this, but to make emergency calls you don't need to unlock iphones and android phones. You really should drop the analogy, it's not helping.

because killing or being killed by that person is the only possibility.  Makes sense.

Are you going to reason with someone who's all cracked up and is breaking in to your house with THEIR gun? Maybe have them sit on your couch and ask them about their feelings?

Man, I knew this was going to be a good thread.

[avonjax]

Bottom line is that when a gun owner uses his/her weapon the only option is to kill. Period.
That always has been my argument with hand guns. Their purpose is to KILL not wound or warn but to kill. Hand gun owners are assuming that they will always have to kill. And if that's not the case it's the impression I get from EVERY hand gun owner I have ever talked to.
It seems to be the only option for them and it disturbs me. For my thinking if I were protecting myself it would be my LAST option to have to kill another human being not my first.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

are you sure its not for use in a game of canasta?

Anything's possible...

http://www.youtube.com/v/8RW1Yil7ZRk

[NotNow]

Diversion and falsehoods, diversion and falsehoods...doesn't this get old for everyone else as well?

[RiversideLoki]

Diversion and falsehoods, diversion and falsehoods...doesn't this get old for everyone else as well?

For once in my entire time on this board, I agree with NotNow... mark it on the calendar.

[vicupstate]

Diversion and falsehoods, diversion and falsehoods...doesn't this get old for everyone else as well?

For once in my entire time on this board, I agree with NotNow... mark it on the calendar.

Does that mean you will be making a kayak launch soon?

[spuwho]

Diversion and falsehoods, diversion and falsehoods...doesn't this get old for everyone else as well?

For once in my entire time on this board, I agree with NotNow... mark it on the calendar.

Does that mean you will be making a kayak launch soon?

That is Noone. In this case you are responding to NotNow.

[fsquid]

this won't work for me.  I'm right handed and my wife is left handed.

[RiversideLoki]

The Kellerman study was revised by himself, Stephen.

A subsequent study, again by Kellermann, of fatal and non-fatal gunshot woundings, showed that only 14.2% of the shootings involving a gun whose origins were known, involved a gun kept in the home where the shooting occurred. (Kellermann, et. al. 1998. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." Journal of Trauma 45:263-267) ("The authors reported that among those 438 assaultive gunshot woundings, 49 involved a gun 'kept in the home where the shooting occurred,' 295 involved a gun brought to the scene from elsewhere, and another 94 involved a gun whose origins were not noted by the police.") (Kleck, Gary. "Can Owning a Gun Really Triple the Owner's Chances of Being Murdered?" Homicide Studies 5 <2001>.)

Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

[RiversideLoki]

Annnnd your point being?

[NotNow]

I'll repeat myself again for StephenDare!.   BT answered your question waaaaayyyy back in reply #15.  I have nothing to add to what he said.