Obama: What will solve America's gun problem? What could it be? *snaps fingers* Technology!

Re: Huh?

How often do people have this problem in America where an assailant is attacking them in such a way that lethal force is necessary?

Is it really so frequent an event?

Dunno, I don't live there. But a friend's mother lives there and the small town she lives in apparently mandated carrying a gun. Crime in the township declined dramatically, albeit at the expense of an increase in nearby townships. Criminals, by and large, dislike being shot at. Many law-abiding citizens in the USA, UKLand and Oz apparently approve the disarming of law-abiding citizens under the assumption that they are unlikely to be shot at by the police, or criminals.

A new investigation into the police shooting of Joe Gilewicz in 1991 has been ordered by the state government, after new evidence and further allegations of a police cover-up were presented in the manuscript of a forthcoming book. The book, by former journalist Paul Tapp, is based on extensive examination of the evidence and on allegations by former police ballistics expert Stan Hanuszewicz.

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/18829

Declaration: a mutual friend was refused permission by police to talk to Joe who, as a Vietnam war veteran, had regular psychotic episodes of the nature he was experiencing when the police decided to execute him.

Re: Huh?

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I've already had to use a firearm to protect my family and myself in my home. Of course, in other countries (do I have to name names?), such an action would be considered not just illegal, but rude and anti-social.

Re: Huh?

How often do people have this problem in America where an assailant is attacking them in such a way that lethal force is necessary?

I don't know about what happens outside the house, but certainly the stats show a greater risk of being murdered by a firearm if you have a gun in the house than if you don't. The leading causes are the escalation of a domestic argument and the gun-owner struggling with or being disarmed by a burglar. Fortunately, death by toddler is still comparatively rare...

Re: Huh?

>How often do people have this problem in America where an assailant

>is attacking them in such a way that lethal force is necessary?

If lethal force isn't needed, then they shouldn't be pulling a gun. Don't point a gun unless you plan to shoot. Don't shoot unless you plan to kill. But if a gun IS necessary, it needs to work every time. How often do you need your fire extinguisher? Would it be useful if it had electronic locks to determine if it was going to work? People just need to take some personal responsibility and properly store and handle a dangerous tool.

>Is it really so frequent an event?

A long, long time ago, Time Magazine ran an article covering 1 day's worth of guns deaths.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/16/a-history-of-violence-gun-control-in-the-pages-of-time/slide/july-1989-death-by-gun/

IIRC, it went something like this:

72 deaths - total. Due to accidents, suicides, criminals killing someone, suicide, murder of acquaintances, etc... And self-defense.

4 (out of 72) - number of deaths where criminals were killed by citizens defending themselves. Even assuming those self-defense kills were all justified, the numbers did not really point to guns improving things much.

I really can't see Time ever doing this again. Too hot a topic.

Obama is doing what he can, which is to say, not much. Biometrics are not a bad idea, if they can be made to work, but most of the recent mass shootings have been carried out by the rightful owners of the firearms AFAIK.

Re: Huh?

Have an upvote for "booger hook."

Re: they can't own a nuclear missile for instance.

> Serious question; where is the line drawn and which amendment or law covers this?

It's a supreme court decision that emphasises that the limit is that of the reasonable needs of a militia.

I think it's further limited by acts that make it hard to own certain types of weapons through sheer quantity of paperwork.

Sorry don't have time to hunt references.

Re: they can't own a nuclear missile for instance.

The limitations are generally left to the states and to local administrations within the states. What is legal in one area may not be legal in another. For example, in California a "modern" .50 caliber rifle (such as the Barrett) is illegal. In other states, it is legal. In some states, a muzzle-loading black powder firearm is treated the same as a modern, fixed-cartridge firearm. In other states, it is not.

Certain firearms, such as machineguns, short-barrelled rifles, short-barrelled shotguns, suppressors, and several others, are regulated by the BATF, which is a Federal agency. Further regulation of these "NFA" weapons resides at the state and local level.