On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 15:33:40 -0500, Jim wrote:

BAR wrote:
In article , says...
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:33:11 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...
You're going to use darwin to explain the death of a 3 year old?

Should the parents of a 3 year old who is not in a car seat be thrown in
jail if the child is killed in an accident?

Again, just like the gun, they would charge the parent in Florida for
a child not in a car seat. I suppose that is OK too.
In the infamous "moral equivalency" business, what is the difference?

We have decided there are no accidents, only criminal offenses, if a
kid is killed.
I suppose you know, the National Electrical Code now requires all
receptacles are child proof (shuttered).
What a load of BS.
You're qualifying as a gun-nut real fast.
You and the others talking about rocks, knives and cars are just full of
****. Probably just don't like jps.
Got nothing to do "moral equivalency."
Got nothing to do with rocks, cars, knives or electricity.
They ain't designed to kill.
Guns are designed to kill.
The purpose of a gun is to kill.
And for daddy, it worked as designed on his 3 year-old.
There was no ****ing "accident."
The gun worked perfectly and did its job.

Daddy did no different than if he ushered a lion or grizzly bear into
his 3 year-old's bedroom and shut the door.
I don't care one way or another about guns.
Outlaw them or make everybody carry. Probably won't make difference.
But it really takes a gun nut to defend this prick daddy.
I don't say throw him in jail, because he killed his own blood.
If it was neighbors kid he should get 20 years in the clink.
But he should never be allowed to possess a firearm again.
You're either for "personal responsibility" or you ain't.

Jim - Lame arguments are still better than name-calling I say.

Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are
designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of
the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to
implement his intent.

Stone-age thoughts from a stone-age mind.
Bring that **** to a gun fight. Don't forget your sling and javelin.
If you don't know the difference between leaving that stone-age crap
or a loaded firearm where your 3 year-old kid can get to it, you'll
never understand the concept of personal responsibility.
Probably don't even know a 3 year-old kid can't blow his brains clear
out with a finger squeeze on that stone-age crap either.
Others here were talking about the 3 year-old grabbing the car keys and
taking a spin.
Then they start talking about rocks and baby seats and the ****ing
National Electric Code.
Now here you are saying a 3 year-old will blow his brains out with an
arrow or hari-kari his brains out with a sword anyway.
So hell, a loaded gun is no worse. It's all the same.

Jim - Figured I'd hear this kind of nonsense. It's rec.boats.

Oh man, that's priceless. Bertie, oh Bertie, where are you Bertie???

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:41:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever growing gun
problem we have in this country.


The real question is how you would actually do that.

Education, regulation, biometric trigger locks...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:04:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:41:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever growing
gun
problem we have in this country.


The real question is how you would actually do that.

Education, regulation, biometric trigger locks...


That wouldn't reduce the number of guns and trigger locks are a stupid
idea. It doesn't keep the gun from being stolen. a thief can defeat it
easily and it only gives a kid a puzzle.
Education is probably the best solution.
That used to be what the NRA did. I was an instructor for a while
myself, before it all became a "them vs us" thing.

A biometric trigger lock is not easy to defeat. Please tell us how. I'd be
curious to know.

Education and regulation would reduce the number of guns. People should be
required to take a class before purchasing a gun. Regulations should be
enforced and expanded to improve gun quality/safety, and special permits
should be required for certain types of weapons (some are already).

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:04:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:41:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever growing
gun
problem we have in this country.


The real question is how you would actually do that.

Education, regulation, biometric trigger locks...


That wouldn't reduce the number of guns and trigger locks are a stupid
idea. It doesn't keep the gun from being stolen. a thief can defeat it
easily and it only gives a kid a puzzle.
Education is probably the best solution.
That used to be what the NRA did. I was an instructor for a while
myself, before it all became a "them vs us" thing.

A biometric trigger lock is not easy to defeat. Please tell us how. I'd be
curious to know.

Education and regulation would reduce the number of guns. People should be
required to take a class before purchasing a gun. Regulations should be
enforced and expanded to improve gun quality/safety, and special permits
should be required for certain types of weapons (some are already).

Can you share some information on these biometrics trigger locks.
I found something on fingerprint gun safes but that's not what you are talking about

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/13/t...t-any-caliber/

On 9/20/10 8:16 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:38:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

A biometric trigger lock is not easy to defeat. Please tell us how. I'd be
curious to know.

There are dozens of designs but they all culminate in a solenoid that
allows the sear to move. Once you take the gun apart it is trivial to
figure out which way you need to make that go and just wedge it that
way. (super glue, remove and replace with a paper clip, whatever)
These things are really designed for cops who are worried about losing
their gun in a fight and being shot by it right then, not for someone
who has the time to take the gun apart and defeat it.
The problem is most cops I know value reliability far beyond the
chance they might drop their gun and they want it as simple as they
can get it. They do not want to trust their life on a complicated
electronic circuit and a more complicated action. That is why most
cops like the Glock double action trigger design with NO safety. My
Ruger KP90 is the same way, no safety. (The P in KP is for Police).
You carry the gun, hammer down on a live cylinder and the first round
is fired "double action".


Last time I read up on Glocks, the factory was installing the typical
semi-auto mechanical safety on request on firearms to be issued to some
domestic and overseas police departments. The one thing I did not like
about my Glock 34 was the lack of a mechanical safety.

My CZ SP-01 Shadow Custom has ambi safeties and is single acton, with a
straight trigger with a 2.5 pound pull. It's significantly more accurate
for me than my old Glock 34, seems to fire faster, and is safer in my
carry holster. It's also steel, so there's even less muzzle flip.

"Harry ?" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:04:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:41:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever growing
gun
problem we have in this country.


The real question is how you would actually do that.

Education, regulation, biometric trigger locks...


That wouldn't reduce the number of guns and trigger locks are a stupid
idea. It doesn't keep the gun from being stolen. a thief can defeat it
easily and it only gives a kid a puzzle.
Education is probably the best solution.
That used to be what the NRA did. I was an instructor for a while
myself, before it all became a "them vs us" thing.

A biometric trigger lock is not easy to defeat. Please tell us how. I'd
be
curious to know.

Education and regulation would reduce the number of guns. People should
be
required to take a class before purchasing a gun. Regulations should be
enforced and expanded to improve gun quality/safety, and special permits
should be required for certain types of weapons (some are already).

Can you share some information on these biometrics trigger locks.
I found something on fingerprint gun safes but that's not what you are
talking about

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/13/t...t-any-caliber/




That's correct. That's not what I'm talking about. There are inventions in
the works, and I don't have the details.

While it's probably true that no trigger lock is 100% foolproof, it's also
true that most criminals who want to use a gun aren't bright enough to do
the disassembly, etc., to get it to work.

On Sep 20, 10:03*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harry * ?" wrote in ...



"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:04:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:41:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever growing
gun
problem we have in this country.

The real question is how you would actually do that.

Education, regulation, biometric trigger locks...

That wouldn't reduce the number of guns and trigger locks are a stupid
idea. It doesn't keep the gun from being stolen. a thief can defeat it
easily and it only gives a kid a puzzle.
Education is probably the best solution.
That used to be what the NRA did. I was an instructor for a while
myself, before it all became a "them vs us" thing.

A biometric trigger lock is not easy to defeat. Please tell us how. I'd
be
curious to know.

Education and regulation would reduce the number of guns. People should
be
required to take a class before purchasing a gun. Regulations should be
enforced and expanded to improve gun quality/safety, and special permits
should be required for certain types of weapons (some are already).

Can you share some information on these biometrics trigger locks.
I found something on fingerprint gun safes but that's not what you are
talking about

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/13/t...ks-unsafe-at-a...

That's correct. That's not what I'm talking about. There are inventions in
the works, and I don't have the details.



Yes, D'Plume. There are always inventions in the works that you arn't
privy of, however your statement at face value appears that you don't
have much of a clue about anything, which is also compatible with
your nature.

"TopBassDog" wrote in message
...
On Sep 20, 10:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harry ?" wrote in
...



"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:04:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:41:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever
growing
gun
problem we have in this country.

The real question is how you would actually do that.

Education, regulation, biometric trigger locks...

That wouldn't reduce the number of guns and trigger locks are a
stupid
idea. It doesn't keep the gun from being stolen. a thief can defeat
it
easily and it only gives a kid a puzzle.
Education is probably the best solution.
That used to be what the NRA did. I was an instructor for a while
myself, before it all became a "them vs us" thing.

A biometric trigger lock is not easy to defeat. Please tell us how.
I'd
be
curious to know.

Education and regulation would reduce the number of guns. People
should
be
required to take a class before purchasing a gun. Regulations should
be
enforced and expanded to improve gun quality/safety, and special
permits
should be required for certain types of weapons (some are already).

Can you share some information on these biometrics trigger locks.
I found something on fingerprint gun safes but that's not what you are
talking about

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/13/t...ks-unsafe-at-a...

That's correct. That's not what I'm talking about. There are inventions
in
the works, and I don't have the details.



Yes, D'Plume. There are always inventions in the works that you arn't
privy of, however your statement at face value appears that you don't
have much of a clue about anything, which is also compatible with
your nature.

I said I didn't have the details, not that I wasn't "privy" to them. Sorry,
but I don't dance to your tune.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:41:02 -0700 (PDT), TopBassDog
wrote:

On Sep 20, 10:03 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Harry ?" wrote in
...



"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 12:04:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 10:41:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever
growing
gun
problem we have in this country.

The real question is how you would actually do that.

Education, regulation, biometric trigger locks...

That wouldn't reduce the number of guns and trigger locks are a
stupid
idea. It doesn't keep the gun from being stolen. a thief can defeat
it
easily and it only gives a kid a puzzle.
Education is probably the best solution.
That used to be what the NRA did. I was an instructor for a while
myself, before it all became a "them vs us" thing.

A biometric trigger lock is not easy to defeat. Please tell us how.
I'd
be
curious to know.

Education and regulation would reduce the number of guns. People
should
be
required to take a class before purchasing a gun. Regulations should
be
enforced and expanded to improve gun quality/safety, and special
permits
should be required for certain types of weapons (some are already).

Can you share some information on these biometrics trigger locks.
I found something on fingerprint gun safes but that's not what you are
talking about

http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/13/t...ks-unsafe-at-a...

That's correct. That's not what I'm talking about. There are inventions
in
the works, and I don't have the details.



Yes, D'Plume. There are always inventions in the works that you arn't
privy of, however your statement at face value appears that you don't
have much of a clue about anything, which is also compatible with
your nature.

This is just Plume changing the subject again. The open question was
how she would reduce the number of guns and she took off on a
biometric trigger lock that doesn't even exist yet. Do you think
anyone would actually buy that gun? They do make some that respond to
an RFID tag in a ring or watch but they didn't sell either.

Which I responded to. No subject was changed. Sounds like you don't believe
there are technical as well as societal solutions to our problems. That
doesn't leave you much except maybe God?

I believe the founder of IBM had somewhat similar words about computers.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:03:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

While it's probably true that no trigger lock is 100% foolproof, it's also
true that most criminals who want to use a gun aren't bright enough to do
the disassembly, etc., to get it to work.

That would be a bad assumption. Every criminal on the street may not
know how to take a gun apart and fix it but it really only takes a few
to turn useless "locked" guns into an unlocked ones and sell it. These
are the same ones who know how to unlock cell phones, make credit card
skimmers and build a very good silencer from a half dozen .5l water
bottles or a piece of PVC pipe and a hand full of milk bottle caps.

The biggest problem with engineers is they assume the person defeating
their next big thing will have to work as hard and defeat it the same
way they built it. They get embarrassed when a very simple trick gets
around a very complicated device.
Just think about that high tech bicycle lock that you could open with
the barrel of a BIC pen. Most locks can be picked with a paper clip
and something to put tension on the lock (Ball point pen ?) Kids
learn how to do this in elementary or middle school these days. I
didn't learn until my sophomore year of high school. ;-)

You just pretty much confirmed it that it is a valid assumption. You're
claiming equivalency of high tech kids unlocking phones to criminals
disabling trigger locks?? Talk about false equivalency. Also, unlocking a
phone isn't a criminal act typically.