For decades, it has been technologically possible to build ‘smart guns’: guns that use fingerprint recognition or other technology to ensure that only the legal, original buyer of the gun can fire it.
It always amazes me how incredibly stupid liberals can be. I grew up in a gun household and from a very young age we were taught how to respect them and how dangerous they were. In high school every student with a truck had a rifle or shotgun in the gun rack and there were never school shootings.
Liberals have destroyed so many systems and created much of the violence we see today. From creating minority entitlement communities who live off taxpayers to a failed mental health system they liberalized and released dangerous individuals into the public they have failed.
And like so many other issues liberals always have to blame someone else and in this case they blame guns and not the criminals. It is no surprise liberals usually hover in cities that under liberal control turn into high crime areas. In Portland liberals have stood by for over a year while their chosen have nightly looted, burnt, and destroyed the downtown.
Interesting you would use France when they have 48% more crimes per 1000 population than the US. I can also show you rape stats where many European countries are double the US.
So why is it that we have more violent crime than European countries with much more liberal policies (universal health care, free child care, etc.) but fewer guns? You’re basically saying Americans are worse people than Europeans. I’m a patriot, so I refuse to believe that. I think we kill each other more often because guns make it easy to do so.
A couple of things. If you take out the top six high crime cities n the US, all run by liberal Democrats, the US is ranked lower than most countries. Second, more people are killed by knives than rifles which liberals want to ban. And gee look at Portland. Liberals disbanded the gun unit and crime is out of site, all by bangers and felons who do not care what laws you pass. Get liberals to clean up their crime problems cities instead of trying to impact citizen rights.
You know perfectly well that most gun deaths are inflicted by handguns, and liberals do not want to ban rifles. As the stats show, France has a third the homicide rate of the United States. And the mayor of Paris is a socialist.
Still not sure why you selected France unless you are really embarrassed by your failures on the council and a crime city that has become the laugh of most Oregonians who a)understand liberal failure, b)want Portland removed from the state or c) want the state boundaries changed. Like other liberal run cities take Portland out of Oregon crime stats and things look really good.
I selected France because it has fewer murders and fewer guns. A fact you can't explain away unless you admit that you think French people are just morally superior to Americans.
Thinking back to WW II and the unarmed French people no. But - maybe yes compared to Portlanders who handcuffed their police, stood by as criminals looted and burned innocent businesses, and could even call them criminals as the DA released them and liberals applauded them.
Looking at what might be perverse consequences if smart guns only interact with the owner and have no electronic tracking of the owner except possibly for police issue or strict government use I would be in favor. Otherwise, just the possession of the gun might put one at risk.
I could pose several scenarios which are dependent on the specific way smartness is added. Consider how electronics are added to relatively ordinary products that allow surveillance and control (IoT tech) both by legal and illegal means. In particular, when something electronic is hacked the owner no longer has unique control. In the past someone could take control of the webcam on your laptop without your knowledge and take photos as an example. If a person purchased a gun for protection but now can be tracked they are less safe if others are able to use that information to know where they are and if hacked prevent the gun from firing at the critical moment when most needed. That is just one of many possibilities. For those with concealed carry permits the concealment is no longer a certainty if a gun can be tracked which puts them at more risk. I like the idea of preventing an unauthorized person from using a gun but the details of how are critical.
I'm not scared of guns but people can be very scary whether they have a gun or not. Maybe you misunderstood. The issue of who or what controls a smart gun should cause apprehension if ambiguous in any way. Most smart devices are controllable both locally and remotely. If that is true of the smart gun you have much more of a problem than you started with.
It always amazes me how incredibly stupid liberals can be. I grew up in a gun household and from a very young age we were taught how to respect them and how dangerous they were. In high school every student with a truck had a rifle or shotgun in the gun rack and there were never school shootings.
Liberals have destroyed so many systems and created much of the violence we see today. From creating minority entitlement communities who live off taxpayers to a failed mental health system they liberalized and released dangerous individuals into the public they have failed.
And like so many other issues liberals always have to blame someone else and in this case they blame guns and not the criminals. It is no surprise liberals usually hover in cities that under liberal control turn into high crime areas. In Portland liberals have stood by for over a year while their chosen have nightly looted, burnt, and destroyed the downtown.
So when liberals talk it is best to not listen.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime
Interesting you would use France when they have 48% more crimes per 1000 population than the US. I can also show you rape stats where many European countries are double the US.
So why is it that we have more violent crime than European countries with much more liberal policies (universal health care, free child care, etc.) but fewer guns? You’re basically saying Americans are worse people than Europeans. I’m a patriot, so I refuse to believe that. I think we kill each other more often because guns make it easy to do so.
A couple of things. If you take out the top six high crime cities n the US, all run by liberal Democrats, the US is ranked lower than most countries. Second, more people are killed by knives than rifles which liberals want to ban. And gee look at Portland. Liberals disbanded the gun unit and crime is out of site, all by bangers and felons who do not care what laws you pass. Get liberals to clean up their crime problems cities instead of trying to impact citizen rights.
You know perfectly well that most gun deaths are inflicted by handguns, and liberals do not want to ban rifles. As the stats show, France has a third the homicide rate of the United States. And the mayor of Paris is a socialist.
Still not sure why you selected France unless you are really embarrassed by your failures on the council and a crime city that has become the laugh of most Oregonians who a)understand liberal failure, b)want Portland removed from the state or c) want the state boundaries changed. Like other liberal run cities take Portland out of Oregon crime stats and things look really good.
I selected France because it has fewer murders and fewer guns. A fact you can't explain away unless you admit that you think French people are just morally superior to Americans.
Thinking back to WW II and the unarmed French people no. But - maybe yes compared to Portlanders who handcuffed their police, stood by as criminals looted and burned innocent businesses, and could even call them criminals as the DA released them and liberals applauded them.
Looking at what might be perverse consequences if smart guns only interact with the owner and have no electronic tracking of the owner except possibly for police issue or strict government use I would be in favor. Otherwise, just the possession of the gun might put one at risk.
? Why would it?
I could pose several scenarios which are dependent on the specific way smartness is added. Consider how electronics are added to relatively ordinary products that allow surveillance and control (IoT tech) both by legal and illegal means. In particular, when something electronic is hacked the owner no longer has unique control. In the past someone could take control of the webcam on your laptop without your knowledge and take photos as an example. If a person purchased a gun for protection but now can be tracked they are less safe if others are able to use that information to know where they are and if hacked prevent the gun from firing at the critical moment when most needed. That is just one of many possibilities. For those with concealed carry permits the concealment is no longer a certainty if a gun can be tracked which puts them at more risk. I like the idea of preventing an unauthorized person from using a gun but the details of how are critical.
I'm not scared of guns but people can be very scary whether they have a gun or not. Maybe you misunderstood. The issue of who or what controls a smart gun should cause apprehension if ambiguous in any way. Most smart devices are controllable both locally and remotely. If that is true of the smart gun you have much more of a problem than you started with.
I misunderstood. Thanks.