[quote=@Xandrya]
[@Goldmarble]

But realistically speaking, a legitimate incident where someone shoots their gun to defend themselves is not too common. If someone takes out a knife as they approach me, and I quickly take out my gun and point it at them, they're more than likely going to run. Just the mere sight of a weapon is enough to deter a number of criminals. I get what you're saying about reliability, but the "what if" argument, in my opinion, is not stronger than what has already happened: hundreds of kids and adults dying in an educational setting (not including other places as well, which dramatically increases the number).

Cost comes into play, sure, but the price for just about everything else is only skyrocketing even more. Look at healthcare, for example. Sure, it isn't a "right", but it's damn ridiculous. We're talking about people's lives here, not a damn gun. I'd first like to see affordable healthcare and then worry about getting everything else right, like reducing gun prices in the event that they'd all be more expensive due to the mandatory biometric feature. 

I'm arguing in favor of this because guns aren't going away, nothing anyone can do, it's a right. With that said, there better be  [b]effective[/b] alternatives in order to avoid, or more realistically, reduce the number of deaths in schools and other places as well.
[/quote]

If the mere sight of a gun reduces most criminals to flee, then why even carry a gun? Just carry a toy! Is this just something that you assume, or do you have actual data to support the idea that most criminals flee at the sight of a gun? And this biometric device can be built on new guns, sure, but what about all the guns currently on the market? Do you suggest forcing all the current owners to comply? 

And then there's this- almost all professionals use firearms while wearing gloves. The same would apply to hunters in the winter, as well as anyone that cares to protect their hands. But they can't use the gun if they have to wear gloves. Biometrics are nice as an option, but mandatory? Not reasonable. 

So, let's say we do get rid of guns, just hypothetically. We ban guns, we crush them all into dust, and they're gone. Now people are just going to commit mass murder with cars and bombs and knives. We haven't solved anything at this point except giving our government a citizenry that is completely at its mercy. If they say, "You have to join the military at age 18 and serve for at least four years," we can stop them from rounding people up and throwing them into the military. If the government doesn't like what someone is saying about them, there's nothing stopping them from crossing off the First Amendment and throwing them in jail.

Again, Venezuela is a current example in the hear and now. So are Iran, Russia, and North Korea.

You can't say, "it would never happen," because it's already happened other places. 

We are a government of the people, but the best way we retain that is by ensuring that our governing officials have a healthy respect for what we can do to protect our constitution without their assistance.