Toddler kills himself with mother's gun

[CoPhotoGuy]

I hope you're right. Many others thought the same though.

I am right. These "others" - how did it happen? Negligence? I'm not negligent with guns. Like with jlee I've had access to guns since a young age (used to reload shotgun shells in grade school with my dad) and none of our guns has ever hurt anyone.

 

[echo4747]

I'm not a gun owner but,I remember hearing about hand guns that now have some type of fingerprint recognition system. Unless they are super expensive...why wouldn't anyone with a child even consider a gun without it.? Seems it would also be good in the event an attacker tried to use your weapon against you

 

[CoPhotoGuy]

I'm not a gun owner but,I remember hearing about hand guns that now have some type of fingerprint recognition system. Unless they are super expensive...why wouldn't anyone with a child even consider a gun without it.? Seems it would also be good in the event an attacker tried to use your weapon against you

Because I'm not going to allow electronics that could fail to come between me and someone who wants to do me or my family harm, when the mechanical versions are extremely reliable.

 

[echo4747]

Because I'm not going to allow electronics that could fail to come between me and someone who wants to do me or my family harm, when the mechanical versions are extremely reliable.

Has any testing been done to show how reliable/unreliable the recognition system is?

 

[ThisIsMyUsrname]

Has any testing been done to show how reliable/unreliable the recognition system is?

I imagine it wouldn't be incredibly high speed. It would take a few seconds to scan and that few seconds could be the difference between life and death. Not a gun owner, but I wouldn't want to take a chance on electronic guns getting me and my family killed. Plus, what if you can't get to it and you need your spouse or even (god forbid) your child to protect you? Seems very inefficient.

 

[sandorski]

Funny, I've owned guns since I was 12 and none of them have shot anyone.

Manipulate statistics all you like, but stupidity is the problem.

No need to manipulate.

 

[sandorski]

100% of people who drink water die. Ban water. If you're a responsible gun owner who knows how to use a safe, your kid won't get a hold of your gun.

Like I said, I hope you're right. edit: oops, wrong person

Every Gun Owner is a "Responsible" gun owner, until something stupid happens.

 

[irishScott]

I'm not a gun owner but,I remember hearing about hand guns that now have some type of fingerprint recognition system. Unless they are super expensive...why wouldn't anyone with a child even consider a gun without it.? Seems it would also be good in the event an attacker tried to use your weapon against you

I've never seen fingerprint recognition on a gun, but its implementation on gun safes is incredibly poor in my experience. I bought a premium handgun safe (https://www.thegunbox.com/cart/products/the-gun-box-premier) for my bedside gun that includes a fingerprint reader as an option, and after trying it out it took on average 6 attempts to actually work, and my finger had to be at precisely the same angle as it was when I recorded the print. This was me calmly testing my system, I'd hate to have to try it under stress when time is of the essence. I can't imagine the tech is much better for guns.

There's also the issue of what happens if someone gets a cut or scratch on their finger, not to mention exposing a fingerprint reader to the same long-term wear-and-tear that guns endure. I can see just riding in a holster for a few years causing terminal damage to the sensor.

Smart guns at present are like the failed "every student gets a tablet/laptop, so our students will all be modern and tech-oriented!" initiatives. People throw technology at the problem without accounting for real-world circumstances.


Make me a smart gun whose battery can last for years, doesn't require me to wear a goddamn bracelet and who's electronics can last for 10,000 rounds without failing, and I'll buy it. Anything else is a pointless and potentially dangerous downgrade from current mechanical designs.

 

[echo4747]

I imagine it wouldn't be incredibly high speed. It would take a few seconds to scan and that few seconds could be the difference between life and death. Not a gun owner, but I wouldn't want to take a chance on electronic guns getting me and my family killed. Plus, what if you can't get to it and you need your spouse or even (god forbid) your child to protect you? Seems very inefficient.

I suppose these firearms have advantages/drawbacks. But in the case of this woman or anyone who plans on carrying it in a purse. I think but time you reached in your purse an pulled the gun out the electronics would be plenty quick to work properly. I think its far more likely to be walking along and have someone come up behind you and snatch your purse and then have your own gun be used against you... than have the electronics fail

edited to add: you would think that it should be easy enough to add other users (such as a spouse)if one wishes.

 

[blankslate]

I'm not a gun owner but,I remember hearing about hand guns that now have some type of fingerprint recognition system. Unless they are super expensive...why wouldn't anyone with a child even consider a gun without it.? Seems it would also be good in the event an attacker tried to use your weapon against you

Oddly enough it's not for sale in the U.S. or at least hard to find because the NRA is opposed to it or firearms with other smart trigger systems.

Christian Science Monitor - Death threats stop gun store from selling 'smart' gun. Why?

ATLANTA — Andy Raymond, a Rockland, Md., firearms dealer, found out how much some people who love guns and the Second Amendment really hate some guns, causing the owner of Engage Armament this week to reverse his plan to sell the Armatix iP1, the nation’s first “smart” gun.

The German-made Armatix iP1 won’t fire unless it’s in proximity of a special watch, thus making it useless if stolen. Gun control advocates, including Attorney General Eric Holder, have cited such technology as potential life savers.

But the NRA and many gun owners say it’s a government Trojan horse intended to open the door for laws that will mandate “smart” technology in new guns in order to identify gun owners – a notion that’s widely seen by gun owners as a threat to Second Amendment rights.

When Mr. Raymond said he’d sell the Armatix, he was deluged with complaints and threats against his life, even the life of his dog. Before relenting on Thursday, Raymond lashed out against his critics in a YouTube video.

Sure the extra mechanism is another point of failure on a firearm but it is also a way to mitigate risk if you're carrying your firearm near children.


.....

 

[echo4747]

Oddly enough it's not for sale in the U.S. or at least hard to find because the NRA is opposed to it or firearms with other smart trigger systems.

Christian Science Monitor - Death threats stop gun store from selling 'smart' gun. Why?



Sure the extra mechanism is another point of failure on a firearm but it is also a way to mitigate risk if you're carrying your firearm near children.


.....

very interesting ... My thinking is with todays technology a reliable smart trigger system can and should be available

 

[irishScott]

Oddly enough it's not for sale in the U.S. or at least hard to find because the NRA is opposed to it or firearms with other smart trigger systems.

Christian Science Monitor - Death threats stop gun store from selling 'smart' gun. Why?



Sure the extra mechanism is another point of failure on a firearm but it is also a way to mitigate risk if you're carrying your firearm near children.


.....

Perhaps if gun control advocates in congress and some state houses weren't foaming at the mouth to make me pay out the ass and wear a stupid watch all night if I wanted a bedside gun, we wouldn't have this issue. New Jersey in particular has a long-standing law that all guns sold in the state must be smart-guns within 3 years if such tech becomes available on the market. It's like saying all cars must be Teslas within 3 years of them becoming available. Because reasons.

As for carrying my firearm near children, how would this help that? If I'm carrying my firearm I'm carrying my firearm. Nothing is going to spontaneously pull it out of my pocket, let alone flip off the safety and pull the trigger.

The death threats are stupid, but we're living in the age where video game journalists get more death threats over much less. No one from Armatix has been attacked.

 

[CoPhotoGuy]

Every Gun Owner is a "Responsible" gun owner, until something stupid happens.

Uhh...no not every gun owner is a responsible gun owner. The mom that this thread was started over is not a responsible gun owner.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Oddly enough it's not for sale in the U.S. or at least hard to find because the NRA is opposed to it or firearms with other smart trigger systems.

Christian Science Monitor - Death threats stop gun store from selling 'smart' gun. Why?



Sure the extra mechanism is another point of failure on a firearm but it is also a way to mitigate risk if you're carrying your firearm near children.


.....

many states do have such laws on the books that would mandate all firearms to adopt a given technology once it is produced. as a push back, many manufacturers are refusing to produce new models with that technology.

in california, for example, microstamping is/was required as of like 1-2 years ago. i believe ruger or glock came out and straight up refused to use the technology, and simply will not sell their handguns. if manufacturers cannot or will not integrate the technology, this effectively results in a ban on handguns.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...judge-ruling-on-california-microstamping-law/

 

[blankslate]

As for carrying my firearm near children, how would this help that? If I'm carrying my firearm I'm carrying my firearm. Nothing is going to spontaneously pull it out of my pocket, let alone flip off the safety and pull the trigger.

I doubt that you're also lugging a toddler around while you're carrying your firearm. While the mandating of firearms with "smart triggers" is understandably an infringement for some...

It should be an option for those who want such a firearm and you yourself said that death threats toward a shop owner who wanted to sell such firearms is stupid.

And they limited that shop owner's freedom to provide another option for potential customers.


....

 

[MongGrel]

I'm not a gun owner but,I remember hearing about hand guns that now have some type of fingerprint recognition system. Unless they are super expensive...why wouldn't anyone with a child even consider a gun without it.? Seems it would also be good in the event an attacker tried to use your weapon against you

Would currently be slow and prone to failures it's not worth having one I'd think from any kind of ID things I've seen.

Haven't even looked at anything like that myself.

 

[sandorski]

Uhh...no not every gun owner is a responsible gun owner. The mom that this thread was started over is not a responsible gun owner.

That just proves my point.

 

[ThisIsMyUsrname]

That just proves my point.

So you're basing your whole argument on on a small sample of gun owners, and not the majority?

 

[Craig234]

So you're suggesting that we gloss over the extreme negligence because of the nature of the relationship between the victim and his mother

That's not what I said. You can argue for prosecuting her or not.

I made other points, such as looking at what might better help prevent this by others.

 

[SlowSpyder]

To me this isn't about guns. This is about negligence just the same had she let him wander into the street and got hit by a car, or the child drank some Draino while mom wasn't paying attention that she didn't have locked up, etc.

 

[blankslate]

I made other points, such as looking at what might better help prevent this by others.

While prosecuting her may not get more than a few who might get into the same situation to mitigate and prevent that situation in their lives from here on out...

If it does prevent at least one tragedy I say prosecute the crap out of her.

....

 

[highland145]

While prosecuting her may not get more than a few who might get into the same situation to mitigate and prevent that situation in their lives from here on out...

If it does prevent at least one tragedy I say prosecute the crap out of her.

....

Would you say that if you were in her shoes? Gun aside, you let your kid drown in your pool, you let your dog kill your child. Your child snuck out of the house and you ran over her....

Safety first.

 

[blankslate]

If I did any of those things I'd be a shit parent and worthy of prosecution.


....

 

[highland145]

If I did any of those things I'd be a shit parent and worthy of prosecution.


....

No, you wouldn't. Friend's 4 yo swallowed a screw that came loose from a crib. Should the mother be prosecuted because the child died?

 

[blankslate]

No, you wouldn't. Friend's 4 yo swallowed a screw that came loose from a crib. Should the mother be prosecuted because the child died?

That is an example of negligence on the part of the manufacturer and not the parent. Assuming they followed the assembly instructions to the letter or hired someone to put it together....

Not exactly the subject of the thread, imo.


...