60 Minutes Sunday

[theiacowtipper]

Once again shows why it is the best show on television. Outstanding segment on smart guns, or guns that recognize their owner and will not fire unless teh weapon is in the owners hands. In theory would eliminate many accidental shootings.

I can understand why people would choose to purchase a gun with these safety mechanisms, and I can understand why some would choose not to for other reasons. Let the market decide, right? Wrong. The NRA has decided that no one in America can purchase one of these weapons and have subjected manufacturers and dealers to unending harassment and boycott. Why anyone would choose to be a member of this organization is beyond me.

 

[lucas80]

You F with the NRA you've made an enemy for life. It's stunning how they will come down on anyone who says they would love to buy a gun with smart technology. That's when they show their true agenda.

 

[aflachawk]

You F with the NRA you've made an enemy for life. It's stunning how they will come down on anyone who says they would love to buy a gun with smart technology. That's when they show their true agenda.

What happened to the gun dealer was not right but libs are the masters at messing with people. Your side has openly talked of sending to jail for speaking out against GW. You have derailed careers in Hollywood and academia for decades just because people committed the sin of having different opinions

 

[naturalmwa]

What happened to the gun dealer was not right but libs are the masters at messing with people. Your side has openly talked of sending to jail for speaking out against GW. You have derailed careers in Hollywood and academia for decades just because people committed the sin of having different opinions

Your mirror needs cleaning.

 

[HawkAttackDial911]

I didn't watch it. Seems like a good idea. Was the technology capable of recognizing multiple hand prints for my spouse and I?

 

[INXS83]

Once again shows why it is the best show on television. Outstanding segment on smart guns, or guns that recognize their owner and will not fire unless teh weapon is in the owners hands. In theory would eliminate many accidental shootings.

I can understand why people would choose to purchase a gun with these safety mechanisms, and I can understand why some would choose not to for other reasons. Let the market decide, right? Wrong. The NRA has decided that no one in America can purchase one of these weapons and have subjected manufacturers and dealers to unending harassment and boycott. Why anyone would choose to be a member of this organization is beyond me.

I agree that was one of 60 Minutes finest stories. Exactly the type of subject they should be examining and perfectly relevant to the times in our culture.

I do not agree with your assessment of the NRA.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

sixty minutes is pure bs communist propaganda at all times. Their finest story would be considered treasonous at any other point in history.

 

[Run&Blade]

The mechanical act of a pin hitting a bullet is not complicated. I am sure a nice black market of people taking the "smarts" out of guns would appear instantly.


Not to mention 3-d printing will get cheaper and cheaper and probably include metal fabrication at some point.

 

[Joes Place]

I didn't watch it. Seems like a good idea. Was the technology capable of recognizing multiple hand prints for my spouse and I?

Seems like a solution looking for a problem.

The last thing someone who actually NEEDS to use a gun wants is a hand-grip that is preventing it from firing....because they had blood or other grime on themselves from being in an altercation.

Let's be clear on the gun deaths that are getting all the press: they are the mass-shootings of people by individuals with mental issues, who probably should never have obtained a gun in the first place.

I liked the post by WWJD (I think) that had the photo caption about: 'Republicans want to require welfare recipients to be drug tested to obtain their checks - why don't we require gun owners to pass the same drug tests?'. That actually makes a bit of sense.

And that, along with a way to 'flag' people who have had past medical/mental issues, would actually go a lot further in preventing these mass shootings than a gun w/ a handgrip 'lockout'. (You don't need to divulge any HIPAA protected information, just that they are 'flagged' for extra scrutiny).

Extra 'background checks' do nothing for people who have no criminal records (as practically NONE of the mass shooters had at the time of their crimes). But most of them have been shown to have some form of mental instability, and I'd guess that one or more were also drug users; drugs aren't a sufficient condition alone to deny someone gun ownership, but in combination with other factors, and certain types of drug use might be....

We don't need 'more' background checks on people who obtain guns, we need 'effective' background checks and methods, which are able to combine information to flag people who may be 'at risk'. If you WANT to do heroin and LSD, fine, but if that's on your criminal or health record, it's going to make it lots more complicated to go hunting....

 

[theiacowtipper]

I didn't watch it. Seems like a good idea. Was the technology capable of recognizing multiple hand prints for my spouse and I?

The technology is evolving and varied depending on the manufacturer. For instance, one included a ring or watch that had to be worn. Others were fingerprints.

The true story was not that the technology was available, but that the NRA was suppressing that technology as they view it a form of gun control. Never mind that people should have the right to choose their guns being protected. The NRA doesn't want that choice available.

There was a significant amount of the piece dedicated to New Jersey. Apparently, once one of these safe guns are available commercially, every gun (maybe every handgun) sold in New Jersey must meet these safety requirements. However, lawmakers have offered to repeal that section for a mandatory consumer choice for New Jersey residents. Nothing from the NRA.

 

[theiacowtipper]

Seems like a solution looking for a problem.

The last thing someone who actually NEEDS to use a gun wants is a hand-grip that is preventing it from firing....because they had blood or other grime on themselves from being in an altercation.

Let's be clear on the gun deaths that are getting all the press: they are the mass-shootings of people by individuals with mental issues, who probably should never have obtained a gun in the first place.

I liked the post by WWJD (I think) that had the photo caption about: 'Republicans want to require welfare recipients to be drug tested to obtain their checks - why don't we require gun owners to pass the same drug tests?'. That actually makes a bit of sense.

And that, along with a way to 'flag' people who have had past medical/mental issues, would actually go a lot further in preventing these mass shootings than a gun w/ a handgrip 'lockout'. (You don't need to divulge any HIPAA protected information, just that they are 'flagged' for extra scrutiny).

Extra 'background checks' do nothing for people who have no criminal records (as practically NONE of the mass shooters had at the time of their crimes). But most of them have been shown to have some form of mental instability, and I'd guess that one or more were also drug users; drugs aren't a sufficient condition alone to deny someone gun ownership, but in combination with other factors, and certain types of drug use might be....

We don't need 'more' background checks on people who obtain guns, we need 'effective' background checks and methods, which are able to combine information to flag people who may be 'at risk'. If you WANT to do heroin and LSD, fine, but if that's on your criminal or health record, it's going to make it lots more complicated to go hunting....

Your post is all over the map and kind of irrelevant. Remember, this is about consumer choice. It is irrelevant about blood on the grips. If you want to debate background checks fine, but again outside the scope of the piece from Sunday night.

 

[Joes Place]

Your post is all over the map and kind of irrelevant. Remember, this is about consumer choice. It is irrelevant about blood on the grips. If you want to debate background checks fine, but again outside the scope of the piece from Sunday night.

That piece was a rerun of something they did on the same tech.
And from what I remember, it ran more like an 'ad' for the company who made the tech, than a hard-nosed story....

 

[Vroom_C14]

Your mirror needs cleaning.