Is It Time To Put Chips In Guns?

[bossy22]

39. you didn't answer anything

Can't control mechanical devices with electronics? I knocked that one out of the park.

no you didn't. you just showed examples of complicated machinery with electrical components. Not once did you explain how you could put it in a gun and make it hard to tamper with.

Don't mandate it if it isn't perfect! We do that all the time and fix it as we go along

Straw Man. when did I ever say it had to be perfect? Being perfect and being untested are two different things. All I ask if for it to be rigorously tested, not perfect. You have yet explained why you are so against testing this technology before mandating it. All you inferred was that this was "impossible" without mandating it. Why doesn't the government finance some of these tests?

What about the failures? Ah, you didn't cite any that weren't easily refuted

Exactly- because there has been relatively no testing. Every electronic device has some failure at sometime, if you haven't found it its because you haven't tried it enough times

ON EDIT: If you were referring to my Thalidomide reference you hardly refuted the main point. In fact you supported it by noting the FDA did not approve its use in the U.S. Its harm prevented in this country by our testing regime. It's a perfect example of why it's important to test before mass use. And you want more examples? Just go down the list of Aircraft Disasters.

So now it's 'get somebody else to do it first and I'll embrace it.' In a pig's eye

Umm...what's so wrong with that? Isn't that the whole purpose to testing and R&D? All I said was that If you want to prove me wrong, have police and military adopt it first. It would throw cold water on many of our objections- that it isn't reliable, doesn't work, and that the proposal is disingenuous? Still, you haven't answered why it shouldn't apply to the police and military? My belief is that you don't answer it because you can't without supporting some of my objections.

Please re-read your last post and tell me with a straight face that you aren't reflexively opposed to any and all gun violence legislation.

Where am I reflexively opposed to anti-gun legislation? I don't see it, can you show me an example? Oh, wait, that would require an example to exist first. Last time I checked I said I wasn't opposed to the idea of an owner authorized handgun, just opposed with the current technology- and I explained why. Many times I have made policy suggestions and explained why I support them.

You have avoided most of the questions I have asked and the ones you have answered, you answer with nothing more than a modified "there ya go again". It worked for Reagan so why not try it, huh?

and so there is no confusion here is my position:
I am opposed to MANDATING this technology on new firearms as it stands with today's technology. I am opposed because I question the reliability of such a device. I question its reliability because I don't feel it's been tested thoroughly or in real world conditions. I question how effective this device will be in preventing or significantly reducing firearm related injury. I see that this gun might prevent some accidents I don't see how it would greatly effect the problem of stolen guns. I see it as an easy work around for any criminal.
None of these issues have been addressed with any effort by you or any other proponent of such devices/legislation.