Can we force an evolution in gun manufacturing to enable a more safe weapon (like cars have been und

In a recent thread I've been posting on, the topic came up on the comparison of cars to guns in fatality statistics.

If you want to ban guns then I propose we ban automobiles

As a side comment, someone jokingly mentioned the car safety evolution due to past deaths (seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, etc...). As a response, I posted some thoughts on the matter. I realized, this might be a good and acceptable compromise between the anti-gun and pro-gun advocates.

So, the automotive industry has been forced by TPTB to continually improve the safety of automobiles for decades.....at great cost to the industry....but none-the-less or the betterment of safety of the occupant and others in an accident (which has been accepted as a risk that cannot be lowered to zero). Instead of banning autos, they were made safer, incrementally over time. Perhaps we are at a similar crossroads for the gun industry now.

Possible discussion points:
- Guns could be made safer if they were "keyed" to function by the registered owner only. Transfer of ownership would require you also re-key the gun to the new owner. Only one user per gun. Would that limit its use, yes. But then, so are seat belts IMO (I was OK with lap belts, but HATE shoulder belts due to a choking phobia I have).

- Perhaps the "key" is a physical key that allows the gun to operate (like a car key) that controls the safety mechanism? You could keep the key with you or lock it in a separate location when the gun s no in use. This way, if the gun is stolen, it is not as easy to use. Without breaking even more laws or having the lock-picking skills to overcome the disarming mechanism, the gun would simply be a piece of metal/wood/plastic.

- Perhaps the loading mechanism could be keyed instead? In order to reload, you need a key to release the spent magazine?


Anyone else have any ideas? Lets brainstorm here and maybe someone somewhere will take it an run with the idea. instead of an outright ban, we can force an evolution in gun design and ownership?

I've thought about that before - using some sort of non-lethal weapon for protection, non-lethal rounds or something. But the problem is that when you are being attacked, your attacker is not thinking about exercising restraint so that their actions don't cause your death. They don't care. That's only considering guns for protection against other citizens who you might need protecting from.

Then you have the Second Amendment, where it provides for citizens to be armed against tyranny. Do you think that government thugs would use any sort of "safer" weapon? Nope.

Weapons are not for disabling, frightening, changing minds, or coercing. They are for killing. Sometimes that is a good thing.

Safety features have already been implemented into most currently manufactured firearms. Take the Glock series of pistols for example. It is considered one of the safest handguns made today, so much so that other manufacturers have adopted their safety features. The Glock pistol cannot fire without pulling the trigger, it just doesn't get much more safe than that. No possibility of accidental discharge unless the trigger is actually pulled.

The idea of a key for a safety feature looks good on paper, but if a criminal got possession of your weapon they would do the same thing they do to every other keyed device, which is simply by pass it.

reply to post by Krakatoa


FingerprInt scanner in the grip. Could have POSSIBLY 100% stopped SHES. It was his moms weapons. Technology is there. But that still doesn't address that gun violence in the world is a mental and not physical problem. If we can prevent people from deteriorating mentally so far they want kill then any money regulating guns is wasted.

But it's too little to late. Too many guns already WITHOUT any of those things.

Originally posted by Krakatoa
- Guns could be made safer if they were "keyed" ...

Like all good ideas, this one already exists.
Taurus

This system renders a firearm inoperable by use of a special key.

But thats not really the answer. To use the car analogy, seatbelts, ABS brakes and airbags dont assist if a murderer wants to run you down deliberatly.

Reply to post by Krakatoa

This is a stupid idea. If someone buys a gun they would have the key therefore they can still shoot and kill with it. Plus a key lock on a gun would be easily compromised once people learned about them. Zero would be changed. We need better screening of people who want to purchase guns. Comparing guns and cars is like comparing a missile to an airplane. One was designed to kill one for transportation its an asinine comparison.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by SpaDe_
Safety features have already been implemented into most currently manufactured firearms. Take the Glock series of pistols for example. It is considered one of the safest handguns made today, so much so that other manufacturers have adopted their safety features. The Glock pistol cannot fire without pulling the trigger, it just doesn't get much more safe than that. No possibility of accidental discharge unless the trigger is actually pulled.

The idea of a key for a safety feature looks good on paper, but if a criminal got possession of your weapon they would do the same thing they do to every other keyed device, which is simply by pass it.

edit on 12/30/2012 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)

Yes, perhaps they would by pass it....as I already stated. Car keys don't stop car thieves do they now. However, in the heat of the moment, you wouldn't be killed by your own weapon, a child playing with a poorly secured weapon could not kill themselves or anyone else if you have the key on you. There are no 100% safety measures where guns are concerned....with that risk, we need to find more ways to mitigate that risk. or we face the potential of banning. The Glock you mentioned may be the most secure today, but then, so were auto lap-belts of the 60's...right? Then, shoulder belts arrived as a safer alternative, then airbags, then crumple zones (please don't ding me on the timeline here. I'm guessing based upon my experience as an auto owner for any more years than I care to admit).


It's all about risk analysis and mitigation. IF the gun can be made safer or less easy to just pick up and use with no experience, etc... in the heat of the moment, isn't that worth discussion the possibilities? Like anything in life we need to evolve or risk extinction. why would gun ownership be any different?

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by Krakatoa

 

This is a stupid idea. If someone buys a gun they would have the key therefore they can still shoot and kill with it. Plus a key lock on a gun would be easily compromised once people learned about them. Zero would be changed. We need better screening of people who want to purchase guns. Comparing guns and cars is like comparing a missile to an airplane. One was designed to kill one for transportation its an asinine comparison.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Thanks for the intelligent and insightful response there. I am asking for thoughtful discussion, from thoughtful people, if you do not think the idea has merit, then name calling and personal insults will not advance your position at all.

Care to restate your position with a thoughtful and respectful response? If not, I ask you to please refrain from commenting in this discussion, please, let's keep it civil.

reply to post by Krakatoa


good post this is what people need to be debating, not whether we should ban them outright but how to prevent isolated incedents with our kids and people who have mental illnesses. when will people understand fear?
may i remind you of FDR's first inaugural speech on fear.

This is textbook assimilation by fear whether it be controlled or circumstantial is and probably for ever remain to be seen.

history tells a very useful tale to the ones who are 'awake'

Reply to post by Krakatoa

Name calling? I called the idea stupid as it was. I provided my solution as well thus have contributed to the discussion. C





Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by acmpnsfal


Riddle me this.. Just because a car wasn't meant to kill people and it ends up killing millions it's ok because it wasn't specifically built to kill people? Make sense? But the missle is the devil even if it sits in a silo and is never fired taking no lives.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Krakatoa
- Guns could be made safer if they were "keyed" ...

Like all good ideas, this one already exists.
Taurus

This system renders a firearm inoperable by use of a special key.

But thats not really the answer. To use the car analogy, seatbelts, ABS brakes and airbags dont assist if a murderer wants to run you down deliberatly.

I agree. But auto deaths still happen every day when these safety mechanisms are either easily bypassed, not used, malfunction. etc. This factdoes not negate their effectiveness entirely. does it?

As for your murderer running you down. yes. that is still a possibility. But, doe these devices prevent kids from doing it (or at least reduce the possibility). If the typical kid (with no car theft experience) wants to steal a car but has no key, it will likely not happen.

And, I wonder why everything has to be a 100% solution or nothing these days???? If it reduces the risk today, then, isn't it worth something if it saves a life (or reduces the statistics further) while keeping our 2nd Amendment rights intact?

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by Krakatoa

 

Name calling? I called the idea stupid as it was. I provided my solution as well thus have contributed to the discussion. C

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Ok, duly noted. Then in my opinion, they idea that we need a 100% solution or nothing is stupid. Look at the US congress today! Nobody wants to compromise, everyone wants it 100% my way or nothing. Without compromise we get no action....and the killings continue until the groundswell during an election year is such to tip the balance on repealing the 2nd Amendment. Frankly, I'd like to avoid that possibility.

Originally posted by marbles87
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

FingerprInt scanner in the grip. Could have POSSIBLY 100% stopped SHES. It was his moms weapons. Technology is there. But that still doesn't address that gun violence in the world is a mental and not physical problem. If we can prevent people from deteriorating mentally so far they want kill then any money regulating guns is wasted.

But it's too little to late. Too many guns already WITHOUT any of those things.

edit on 30-12-2012 by marbles87 because: (no reason given)

Understood. However, when seat belts and the other items were added to autos there were MILLIONS of them in use at that time too. I also agree that we have a mental health issue to deal with in the US (of not the world)...that still needs to be addressed.

In my opinion the best way to solve this is to use a multiple front approach, better gun education, better mental health management, better safety features to prevent/limit unintended use, etc...

There is no single "silver bullet" (sorry for the pun, couldn't help it) as the only solution to this mess. Somewhere we need to compromise on a comprehensive set of solutions.

Here's an out of the box idea. Perhapes an electro-mechanical device could be installed into the weapon to prevent it from firing in the presense of a specific radio freq. field. Once the weapon is in range of this field, the mechanisim activates and renders the weapon into a "safety" condition.

Such radio fields could be set up in schools, government buildings, hospitals, and retail areas. It could be set up like the theft detectors in Wal Marts, or something like that. The device would then have to be manually reset once out of the range of the scanners. Of course this technology would have to be implimented across the board somehow, maybe as a tax encentive, I dont know.

Just brainstorming.

Hers's another idea, reverse the action of the mechanism. Perhapes the gun owner has a RFID transmitter on a necklace with the signal extending out to about six feet. This signal would disengage the electro-mech device, but the physical safety could be manually placed on or off. Once the weapon is away from the field, the device reactivates and "safety's" the gun. If the necklace is lost or stolen, the weapon would have to be sent back to the manufacture to be recalibrated with a new transmitter.

Why don’t they do what Australia does with absolutely everything from alcohol, cigarettes and now utilities; tax them through the roof? Mind you, the whole basis of simply taxing something is flawed. But if the prices of a handgun went from say $500 to $5,000... Who could afford them? Criminals and you open a black market so that doesn’t work... Back to square one. With a lock system how practical is that in a life or death gun battle?

I personally don’t think there’s a big problem with guns. As has been pointed out, gun deaths were at around 8,500 in 2011. That’s tiny. Take guns away from law abiding citizens and only criminals and law enforcement will possess them... Surely the two groups responsible from the vast majority of the gun violence. If someone wants a gun bad enough, just like illicit substances, they will get one... Somehow. Guns are more or less illegal in Australia yet people get their hands on them. Education and stricter backgrounds are probably the answer, but even background checks can be circumvented.

No, there is no problem. As for assault rifles, only about 1% of gun crime use these style of weapons.

Originally posted by Krakatoa

Originally posted by SpaDe_
Safety features have already been implemented into most currently manufactured firearms. Take the Glock series of pistols for example. It is considered one of the safest handguns made today, so much so that other manufacturers have adopted their safety features. The Glock pistol cannot fire without pulling the trigger, it just doesn't get much more safe than that. No possibility of accidental discharge unless the trigger is actually pulled.

The idea of a key for a safety feature looks good on paper, but if a criminal got possession of your weapon they would do the same thing they do to every other keyed device, which is simply by pass it.

edit on 12/30/2012 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)

Yes, perhaps they would by pass it....as I already stated. Car keys don't stop car thieves do they now. However, in the heat of the moment, you wouldn't be killed by your own weapon, a child playing with a poorly secured weapon could not kill themselves or anyone else if you have the key on you. There are no 100% safety measures where guns are concerned....with that risk, we need to find more ways to mitigate that risk. or we face the potential of banning. The Glock you mentioned may be the most secure today, but then, so were auto lap-belts of the 60's...right? Then, shoulder belts arrived as a safer alternative, then airbags, then crumple zones (please don't ding me on the timeline here. I'm guessing based upon my experience as an auto owner for any more years than I care to admit).


It's all about risk analysis and mitigation. IF the gun can be made safer or less easy to just pick up and use with no experience, etc... in the heat of the moment, isn't that worth discussion the possibilities? Like anything in life we need to evolve or risk extinction. why would gun ownership be any different?

This falls back to responsible gun ownership, not safety features on the weapons themselves. A child should not be able to get possession of a firearm in the first place, let alone a loaded one. Any responsible gun owner should have their non personal defense weapons locked and secured in a combination or a keyed safe with a cylinder style key not a regular flat key. Personal defense weapons should be stored in a combination safe similar to a gun vault or any other biometric style safe.

The bottom line is all of these things fall back on the owner and regardless of how many safety features a firearm does or doesn't have. If handgun is the safest firearm in the world and the person who owns it chooses to do so irresponsibly there is nothing that safety features will prevent.

Scotus decided that forcing someone to disable their gun violates the 2nd Amendment. Besides it is very easy to disable a firearm if you want to.

Originally posted by anton74
Scotus decided that forcing someone to disable their gun violates the 2nd Amendment. Besides it is very easy to disable a firearm if you want to.

Other than law enforcement, firearms are forbidden in schools, hospitals, and government buildings as is. So, carrying a firearm into these areas would be illegal anyway. Not covered by the 2nd ammendment if you are already breaking the law. With what I propose, the firearm would deactivate in these areas.

This falls back to responsible gun ownership, not safety features on the weapons themselves. A child should not be able to get possession of a firearm in the first place, let alone a loaded one. Any responsible gun owner should have their non personal defense weapons locked and secured in a combination or a keyed safe with a cylinder style key not a regular flat key. Personal defense weapons should be stored in a combination safe similar to a gun vault or any other biometric style safe.

The bottom line is all of these things fall back on the owner and regardless of how many safety features a firearm does or doesn't have. If handgun is the safest firearm in the world and the person who owns it chooses to do so irresponsibly there is nothing that safety features will prevent.

I agree, it is a responsibility of the owner to do all of those things (which I do, and was taught to do by my father). However, if we allow anyone. without training, to own a gun. we are being incredibly naive to think everyone will be a responsible gun owner. How many people won and operate an automobile that are irresponsible?? Ownership will never guarantee responsibility. And, with the level of risk associated with a gun, (any type of weapon really), I think the time for the irresponsible to be held accountable more. However. that approach is after-the-fact, after someone has lost a friend, family member, etc...

If there is something we can do to augment the risk mitigation, at a reasonable cost to the consumer, are we not being irresponsible ourselves if we do not address the issue short of the crazy "ban it all" or alternatively, "do nothing" crowd?

I would like to thank everyone for contributing to this thread with thoughts and ideas. Please keep the discussion going. As soon as we responsible owners shut ourselves off to the possibility of evolving ,we are no better than the "ban it" crowd....IMO.