Summations Only

http://www.addictinginfo.org/...ears-after-losing-guns-video

quote:

---

‘Responsible Gun Owner’ Who Shot Wildly At Shoplifter In Tears After Losing Guns (VIDEO)

​

I hope you have your tissues ready, because you may need to loan them to Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez, the Michigan woman who fired wildly at a crowd in the parking lot of an Auburn Hills Home Depot. This good gal with a gun was everything the NRA says will save us: Her weapon was legal, she had a concealed carry permit, and she was ready to leap into action at the first sign of danger or shoplifters, whatever.

​

Duva-Rodriguez pleaded no contest to one count of reckless discharge and was sentenced to 18 months of probation Wednesday after she fired wildly at the getaway car of suspected shoplifters as they fled the Home Depot. I made a decision in a split second, she told the judge. Maybe it was not the right one, but I was trying to help. Both men were later arrested.

​

It’s exactly those split-second decisions that the NRA encourages its acolytes to make, though it often does not turn out well. In September, for instance, a man attempted to stop a carjacking by firing at the criminals as they were getting away. He missed his target, but managed to shoot the victim of the crime in the head. Fortunately, no one was harmed when Duva-Rodriguez opened fire in the parking lot of a popular home improvement store.

---

Death to Shoplifters! (and anyone that just happens to be in the area being peppered with bullets) ... vigilante justice ...

I suppose we can fix this with a small change to the 'stand and defend your block' laws in Texas.

Page not found | USUNCUT - US News | Breaking News | Latest News Today

Page not found | USUNCUT - US News | Breaking News | Latest News Today

quote:

---

2 men are dead and another two were seriously injured in Pearl River County, Mississippi, after a dispute over a $25 service feeescalated into a gunfight. As of this writing, local law enforcement officials are still trying to piece together what happened between the argument over the minor fee and four bullet-ridden bodies in the Henleyfield gun store.

---

The nuts OK corral ...

If everyone has a gun we'll all be safer. Hmmmm... maybe notMan shot, killed while stopping to help driver stranded in snowstorm: Sheriff | CTV News

Man shot in Dorchester over parking dispute - The Boston Globe

quote:

---

Man shot over dispute about parking space

​

A dispute over a parking spot on a snowy Dorchester street on Monday afternoon escalated into one man being shot and police searching for the alleged gunman, a 27-year-old male who is known to authorities.

​

The victim, a 34-year-old male who was not identified, was shot in the abdomen at around 2:35 p.m. in front of 69 Nightingale St. He was taken to Brigham and Women’s Hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

​

Fortunately, he’s going to be fine, Evans said.

​

The suspect sped down the block in a black BMW before abandoning it near 9 Nightingale St. Police were seeking a search warrant for the BMW.

---

Not really thinking this thing through there, bucko.

In an isolated incident, an eight-year-old boy shot his seven-year-old brother to death when their Responsible Gun Owner Parents left them in the car with a loaded gun.In another isolated incident, an intoxicated Responsible Gun Owner opened fire because he was stuck in traffic ... behind a snow plow In a blizzard. Damn fools should have let him pass, I guess.

Continuum, Season 1, Episode 3 ("Wasting Time"). A criminal manages to take the gun from a cop from 2076. He fires the gun at the cop, but the gun detects the unauthorized user and instead stuns the criminal with an electrical shock. Neat! (The gun raised a big display reading "UNAUTHORIZED USER", but the criminal either ignored it or didn't see it.)Adding electrical shock capability to a reasonably-sized handgun may be a bit advanced for current technology, but detection of unauthorized users is already possible and getting better. Any objections out there to guns that only fire for authorized users?--Percy

That idea is actually borrowed from Judge Dredd comics. For those that don't know, Judge Dredd is a futuristic law enforcement officer in a dystopian future. In a similar fashion, his gun is coded genetically to only him and other 'judges'. i.e. other cops. If a criminal tries to use his gun against him, it won't fire and will incapacitate the criminal. Sometimes its electric shocks; sometimes the gun actually just detonates and kills the criminal. A little overboard, but hey, its the comics. Not from me. But the NRA is opposed to this type of technology as they feel it is a 'slippery slope' to having the government mandate that all guns behave this way.

In more modern times, there have been some attempts to create a ring that the authorized user wears that corresponds with the firearm assigned to it. The gun cannot be fired unless it is in close proximity of the ring. But this is a flawed design. Presumably you could kill someone with their own weapon at point-blank range or simply take the ring. However, the basic concept behind it is pretty interesting so that, while the ring concept might be flawed, a better design might work based off that basic premise.Could evolve from science fiction to science fact

Only that more than one person can potentially be authorized to access it. Example: a husband may want to give his wife the ability to use it when he's at work if there's an intruder in their home. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Apparently some 'gun enthusiasts find such technology extremely objectionable. What is a 'smart gun' and why don't we have one? - nj.com

quote:

---

In 2014, gun shops in California and Maryland agreed to sell the Armatix iP1, a gun made by a German company that only fires if the user is wearing a special watch. The shops' owners said they thought the gun would attract buyers who were looking for a way to ensure their kids would not accidentally fire the weapon.

​

But the shops quickly backed out of offering the smart gun amid angry protests and death threats.

---

The NRA called these death threats a 'market response'. Apparently some gun nuts are afraid that the use of these weapons will become mandated if the technology works. Also there was a poster in these forums who was afraid that the government could disarm such guns remotely.

Yes, I mentioned this a few months back, but apparently gun nuts object to anything that might reduce gun deaths, whether it involves legislation, gun design, or just the application of basic common sense. Perhaps they'd be willing to consider a gun that can only be fired by drunks and toddlers.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sadly, the sheer, blinding common sense of well designed guns like these, clashes with the ridiculous fantasy claptrap the gun lobby peddles of the Gubmint coming to enforce something or other through military action.Hard statistics work against the gun lobby on their other justifications for gun ownership, but this fantasy has the advantage of being a pipe dream they can sell to their gun loving supporters, without having to fight the statistics (other than the one that recites that it's never happened - but that's easier to dismiss).As a result, they can't approve of anything which threatens that fantasy - and the idea that the Gubmint could turn off guns remotely is an answer to the prayers of those who seek to stoke paranoia.I hope I'm proved wrong though.

Hi, Hyroglyphx. It's amazing to me that negative reactions can be invoked by obscure hypothetical scenarios like this, but not by actual, harrowing statistics like "4277 gun-related incidents so far in 2016 (excluding police-involved incidents)."