Obama Orders Feds To Study Smart Gun Technology (cnet.com) 935
An anonymous reader writes: Today U.S. President Barack Obama rolled out a set of executive actions aimed at reducing gun violence. The most controversial of the provisions requires licenses for those who sell guns at gun shows and on the internet, and forces background checks on buyers. There are also a number of measures dedicated to making background checks more foolproof and universal. Less controversial but more on-topic for Slashdot is that Obama is requiring the departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to investigate smart gun technology. This can include RFID chips, fingerprint scanners, and other bits of technology. Their goal will be to "explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety." The new gun measures include a proposal for a $500 million investment into providing care for people with serious mental illnesses.
RF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Give me the frequencies. I'll have jammers made in China within a month.
Re: RF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly, this will simply waste tax payer dollars and add complexity to a safety device adding to the likelyhood it will fail to perform when needed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly, this will simply waste tax payer dollars and add complexity to a safety device adding to the likelyhood it will fail to perform when needed.
So instead let's just not have safety devices because they might fail.
Re: RF? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are already safety devices on guns. Its called a safety, or 3 piece trigger, or you know the mother of all safety features... KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE FUCKING TRIGGER.
Unless the police and military adopt smart gun technology, then you arent going to get civilians to adopt it.
Safety is about training (Score:5, Interesting)
Obligatory 4 rules
1) treat every firearm as if it is loaded
2) never point the firearm at anything you're not willing to destroy
3) keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot (target clearly identified, good sight picture)
4) be aware of what is in front of and behind your target
#4, of course, is the "good guy" rule - if you're a terrorist, generally you don't care about that one.
Frankly, firearms safety should be a required course in kindergarten (stop/don't touch/leave the area/tell and adult), with another course in high school or junior high.
Re:Safety is about training (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Safety is about training (Score:5, Interesting)
Firearms safety and marksmanship should be a section every year through high school.
It used to be. My dad was living in the US in the 60's and 70's finishing both high school and university respectively, it was taught as part of a high school education then in Michigan, Kansas and in SoCal, until people started whining about "guns being in schools." It was also a standard here in Canada until the laws became so restrictive it was stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
The usual requirement is make the police do it first give it a decade or more to work out the bugs. Right now they are failing 3 and 4 far to often.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know we're all talking about mass shootings here (which makes a change), but the overwhelmingly more likely scenario is that they will kill themselves. If you own a gun, the most likely person that it will kill is yourself, statistically speaking.
Smart gun types (Score:5, Informative)
Unless the police and military adopt smart gun technology, then you arent going to get civilians to adopt it.
This is my stand on it. Thus far every 'smart gun' proposal has had even the most anti-gun police department lobby incredibly hard to make sure they were completely exempt from it. Despite police officers having a known rate for being killed by their own firearms taken away from them. It's something like 3 a year.
Personally, I figure that any criminal who manages to gain a firearm will also manage to unlock or rekey it to himself given time, if not bypass the system completely, so it's only useful in the 'immediate' time frame.
Anyways, I've done some research on this. Thus far, I'm familiar with 3 types of 'smart gun'. .22LR, and that kicks a pistol that should cost under $400 up over $2,000, plus the watch is another $800 or something crazy like that. Upside - still generally reliable, you get a pimping watch. Downsides - from the description, if you're struggling for control of the firearm you've likely activated it. IE the criminal who has taken it from you can still shoot you with it as long as he or you doesn't move away quickly enough. If you're instinctively trying to grab the gun, your hand/wrist is likely close enough to arm the pistol. .22lr. Can't be used while wearing gloves, or when it's too cold/hot out.
First, the oldest. Known as 'Magna-Trigger' [tarnhelm.com], this system uses a magnetic ring worn on a finger as a safety. Advantages: Non-electronic, reliable, fairly cheap(~$500 for complete setup), works through gloves and such. Has actually saved officer lives. Disadvantages: Only available for a few makes of firearm, it's a retrofit. The 'keys' are actually universal - if you have a magna-trigger ring, you can fire any magna-trigger firearm. So if a criminal manages to disable an officer, take the firearm AND the ring, he can fire the gun. If you want to be able to fire with either hand without moving the ring, you need to buy 2 rings($60 each).
Second, RFID - either a ring or a watch. Substantially more expensive, I only know of models that fire
Third - fingerprint. Just as expensive as RFID. Has the advantage that it doesn't require other equipment. On the other hand, the finger scanners tend to be fiddly - work about half the time per read even when clean, and if they're dirty, good luck. The reader generally mucks with the ergonomics of the pistol - it's no longer as comfortable to hold. Also only available in
A note on the .22lr thing: When I did some math, I figured that going to 9mm, the most common self-defense round, and about the lightest of the 'most common 5', I figured that the electronics of any 'smart' gun are likely to experience about an order of magnitude more shock with each firing - shock being a rapid change in acceleration. Combine this with a demand that the device would have to withstand tens of thousands of these shocks, and I wouldn't be surprised if the main reason they're only offered in .22lr wasn't that the maker has to start somewhere - but because anything heavier rapidly killed the electronics.
Summary: No way in hell are the police, or anybody else interested in protecting things, voluntarily taking them anytime soon.
Re: RF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, this will simply waste tax payer dollars and add complexity to a safety device adding to the likelyhood it will fail to perform when needed.
So instead let's just not have safety devices because they might fail.
Nod. Ok, let's field test them with patrol officers, (because officers having their gun taken and used against them is apparently a real thing) and then gradually make them a requirement for all branches of government. When the secret service adopts them, (according to the news, a secret service agent lost his gun just recently) I'll be right behind.
I cherish the day I left America (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's start by saying that I'm generally up for a day at a shooting range... I also like shooting pool... same principle but one is less noisy and I've never had cuts inflicted by mishandling a pool cue filled with GSR and oil which burns for hours.
So, you honestly think that companies like Colt, S&W, H&K, Glock, etc... given the incentive could not, within a few years develop a smart trigger lock that would equal the reliability of the rest of their firearm? Are these com
Re:I cherish the day I left America (Score:4, Insightful)
Handguns are the typical home defense weapon. They are unsuitable for several reasons.
- accuracy is limited to non-existent. Shooting on a range has nothing whatsoever to do with shooting in a stressful situation. Any firearm is bad, but the only thing worse than a handgun is a derringer.
- threat to the environment. Every missed shot still goes somewhere and most calibers considered useful for home defense have significant penetration in a domestic environment. It is vanishingly unlikely to hit another person, but it is still possible.
- lethality is insufficient. I've been an aficionado of firearms for over thirty years so I am very familiar with all of the mythology that goes around gun circles as well as the belief system that justifies firearms as home defense.[1] The reality is that the trauma of a gunshot may temporarily "drop" someone (who will ultimately die from the wound), but adrenaline permits continued functioning.
- unsafe if available. In order to be useful during a midnight home invasion the firearm must be ready to hand and ready to use. Which means it is not locked in a gun safe with ammunition locked separately. Most deaths from "home defense" firearms come from accidental discharge where these rules are not followed.
If I was going to advocate for a firearm for home defense I would argue for a "shot pistol" -- you want a short enough barrel to not constrain the pellets to maximize spread. This helps to offset the accuracy issue. The rapid energy loss associated with pellets helps to reduce threat to the environment. Of course, you still have the issues of lethality and safety.
Shooting firearms is fun (I've put a *lot* of rounds down range and fired a pretty wide variety -- everything from a buffalo rifle to a derringer to various handguns, rifles, shotguns, submachine guns, assault rifles and machine guns. So I *know* it is fun to shoot. I also don't pretend that a handgun is good for home defense.
1) The funny thing is that many of these are contradictory -- like the urban mythology about criminals high on PCP ignoring tens (or even hundreds) of shots, and then believing that you are at risk from someone like that *and* believing you can shoot them fifty to a hundred times (with a weapon unlikely to hold more than eighteen rounds) before "they get you".
Re: (Score:3)
Are you making an argument that tech doesn't work anywhere or is it only in the magical realm of guns that tech doesn't work "because it can be circumvented"?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you making an argument that tech doesn't work anywhere or is it only in the magical realm of guns that tech doesn't work "because it can be circumvented"?
He's saying DRM doesn't work, even when you apply it to guns, because of the same principles that apply in every other situation. Don't be disingenuous, it's boring and does nothing to move the debate forwards.
Re: RF? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called a gun lock... every responsible owner has one for each gun or rifle they have. Gun lockers/safes are good options, too.
One of the major points in the Supreme Court's decision in DC v. Heller was over trigger-locks - Heller, the allegedly "responsible gun owner" didn't want to use a trigger lock, which DC required. SCOTUS held by a narrow majority that the requirement was unconstitutional because it made it "impossible" to use the gun for self-defense.
Re: (Score:3)
"I've not once backed up my data and have never had a problem"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But if there is a home invasion do you want to present them with a nice open cabinet full of loaded firearms?
Re: (Score:3)
You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, but you can force it down the drain.
Re: Safety Device? (Score:4, Insightful)
I really don't care if my gun is safe. What I care about is ME being safe.
As a result, I much prefer guns that work.
Re: Safety Device? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mechanical reliability (Score:4, Insightful)
When you create a smart gun that will only fire when I'm personally holding it, without any sort of electrical bits, I'll bite. Until then, comparing the reliability of say, a purely mechanical vertical mill built in the 1800s and *still* working today, vs say, any imaginable bit of electrical technology, is like comparing the speed of light to the speed of sound - they're orders of magnitude apart.
Ever try using "TouchID" on an iPhone? Ever have it not work? Yes, smart is "cool", but if I want reliable, I want a mechanical device, not an electromechanical one.
Re: RF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: RF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Many suicides are impulse actions, and the person often regrets the action very quickly and never tries again. Given that, having a handy reliable way to kill oneself is going to increase the number of actual suicides. Razor blades at least normally don't kill that fast, giving time for changing one's mind or intervention from others.
Now, if a person is determined, having a gun is good because it's fast and, if done right, relatively painless.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:RF? (Score:5, Insightful)
TFS says "explore". Importantly, it also says "other". Rather than hysterical shrieking designed to encourage doing nothing, maybe you could suggest alternative approaches.
Because "nothing" is no longer an option.
Re: (Score:3)
Because "nothing" is no longer an option.
Gun ownership is up, gun crime is down in spite of the popularization of mass shootings in the media. Nothing seems to be working, albeit slowly. Maybe we should do nothing. It would be better than doing the wrong thing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1) It's likely the methods we used for measuring gun crimes has changed.
2) Law enforcement has in fact gotten much better
3) The US has placed a measurable percentage of their population into prisons during this time.
4) The criminals are more afraid of getting caught because of mass surve
Re:RF? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:RF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't really tally with history though, does it? Democracy often comes either when the common people rise up with overwhelming numbers, like the French Revolution, or when they form an army, or when they convince the existing army to turn against the government.
If what this guy says were true then countries like China are screwed, since the people will never get better weapons than the state. Yet China seems to be getting more democratic...
Re: (Score:3)
I really dont think your founding fathers had pictured a time when American society was so dysfunctional that you have a situation where gun ownership is akin to worship, people collecting guns as if they were beanie babies, gangs turning inner cities into essentially war zones, and that each and every year there are the more than twice the number of homicides from gun violence than the US lost during the entire American Revolution.
Comma, comma, comma (Score:4, Insightful)
That's easy - it's necessary to the security of a free State. Prefatory.
Thank you, comma.
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
"shall not be infringed." Operative.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Regulated" as in well trained. Not as in governed by laws. A "well trained militia".
The 4th definition of "Regulated".
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
"Militia" = All able bodied males 18 to 45 years of age.
How do you think the Selective Service and Draft are legal? Every male 18 to 45 IS the militia.
SO this is how the law sees it.
"Males aged 18 to 45 well trained in using guns, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
Strict scrutiny (Score:5, Insightful)
The 2nd amendment already has limits: can't murder people, or rob people, or kidnap them, or threaten them.
Now, are we going to have background checks on all newspaper editors? Require training to prove they aren't incompetent or a threat to others? Will you apply the same laws to speech, religion and assembly as you would to self defense?
The 2nd Amendment *isn't* any different than the others - and if you want to limit it, please, let's apply strict scrutiny, shall we?
* compelling government interest
* narrowly tailored
* least restrictive means
Re: (Score:3)
Why not just agree the 2nd amendment is out-of-date and wrong, and just get rid of it?
There's little left of the Magna Carta recognised in English and Welsh law due to most of it being repealed or superseded. Do you really want to continue for another 600 years arguing that the US Constitution and it's amendments are even relevant? To most of us in the rest of the world, the arguments put forward by American gun advocates don't sound much different to religious fundamentalists using the bible or Koran to
Re: RF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you want to guess who else minds likely work that way? I'll give you a hint. They might be the victims of previous mass shootings. I can only guess but i would wager that most of the dead in France's terrorist attacks and at the mass shootings all around the world wished they had the means to save their own life shortly before being killed by the shooters. Do you think they sat there and said I'm anti gun so kill me and get it over with? Of course you don't. But outside of wishing the killers would leave them alone, don't you think they wished for anything that could help them? Even anti gun people wish someone with a gun (likely the cops ) would show up in time to save their lives.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like a law that wasn't enforced? Like the navy yard and Georgia tech shooters who were diagnosed with mental illnesses but no one reported it so they could go ahead and purchase guns? Or the Newtown guy who killed his mother and stole her guns? Or the staw puchase for Santa Barbara? All of which is and was illegal.
But i see you limited your comments to in America. Is that because it was already hard to get the gun in both of France's terrorist attacks, Denmark, the Philippines, China and the m
Re: (Score:3)
Thus far active shooters in schools and public places have become an actual problem.
You are confusing "evening news material" and "an actual problem".
Mental Illness Reporting (Score:3, Interesting)
One point not made above is that health care providers are now able to report to the FBI the names of patients who are mentally ill. Considering the other new actions are for the most part redundant this is really the most concerning point.
Re:Mental Illness Reporting (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Worse still will be when companies run checks on prospective employees using that database.
And yes, it will happen.
Ever sought medical help for depression? You're flagged. Good luck getting a decent job after that.
Re:Mental Illness Reporting (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is exactly the reason why these new rules will only serve to aggravate the situation. They provide strong incentive for people who need mental health treatment to avoid seeking it.
If the goal was really to save lives (it's not), then what you would do is make privacy in regards to mental health treatment iron-clad and airtight.
If the goal is to simply circumvent the constitution (it is), then you do exactly what Obama is doing.
Re: (Score:3)
This guy agrees:
http://img03.abroad.imgcdc.com... [imgcdc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If true, it means someone with mental illness conditions will be much more reluctant than before to seek for health care provided his/her file can be transfer to the FBI. That is a silly measure that will cause more harm than good on the long term.
About two thirds of the fatalities by firearms are suicids. If the goal is to protect the population against mass killings, it will have some effects on the people needing help if they are suicidals.
This seems to me like a lot of bullshit and not well designed mea
Re: Mental Illness Reporting (Score:4, Informative)
How about if we give people due process before we start taking away their civil rights?
Re: Mental Illness Reporting (Score:4, Interesting)
If this isn't checked it'll go beyond loons with guns. I think we, as a country, gun-friendly or not, just lost a great deal of protection with this connection between the medical profession and FBI.
What's next? Getting a knock on the door at 3 am because they found THC in a lab sample taken for something entirely medical in nature? (As opposed to a deliberate drug screen)
Re: (Score:3)
What will they put in there for mental illness ?
"Anonymous informant reported odd behavior"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to decrease "gun deaths" - Yes.
If he is severely depressed, owning a gun makes suicide too easy. If you want to have a significant impact on "gun deaths", one of the largest % groups is suicide.
Will they still find another way? Possibly, but if you make it harder they are more likely to reconsider (especially if there is a long setup period for final method chosen or final method is not "clean").
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it is. Privately-owned guns are more likely to be used to commit suicide, kill a spouse or accidentally shoot someone than to prevent a crime or defend a family.
Re: (Score:3)
Go set your straw man on fire...
Which straw man? The one that's telling the truth?
When you buy a gun, you assert on the federal paperwork that you're not under psychiatric care, on meds - the usual stuff. It doesn't ask if you are suicidal or thinking of hurting someone. You understand that, right? So Obama wants doctors to report psychiatric care/medication to the FBI pre-emptively. So that when a person is thinking of a purchase, it's no longer the honor system when they're filling out the paperwork. Their doctor's government report
Only good guys should shoot guns (Score:4, Insightful)
The regulations would hope to create a firearm that only is
a) Shot by good people, and
b) Is only able to shoot at bad people
That way nobody ever needs to worry about guns.
This is as misguided as "encryption that only good people can break"
or "cars that can only hit bad pedestrians" etc.
Smarter guns in the hands of equally stupid bad guys will do equally
stupid bad things.
E
Re: (Score:2)
as long there is a back door to the smart gun that law-enforcement can use to disable the smart gun when appropriate i am all for it...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your summary of the situation is your own. It's also unnecessarily defeatist, and more than a bit reductionist. Perhaps you'd be willing to engage in an actual intelligent conversation on the topic, rather than just stupid rhetoric?
Re: (Score:2)
Best case scenario: :
Gun that doesn't shoot you when it's taken from you.
Worst case scenario (most likely)
Gun that doesn't shoot when you need it to.
Still yet I like the idea. I just don't think I will like the implementation.
In gun's defense most of the time you don't need to shoot all someone has to do is see it to de-escalate the problem.
Still you wouldn't carry around a toy pistol and just hope you could could scare an off an attacker before they realised would you?
smart gun technology (Score:5, Funny)
my gun is stuck on "Please do not power off or unplug your gun. Installing update 1 of 106"
Re: (Score:2)
All usage events are logged with gps and phoned home.
Sure! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bet my life on a smart gun working as soon as law enforcement (and, for that matter, the Secret Service) is confident enough in them to use them too.
Re: (Score:2)
We should get smart shooters too. Most of them seem to keep hitting stop signs and electricity transformers.
Re: (Score:2)
Shadowrun has taught me a different definition of the term 'smart gun'. You know, link up to my cyber-eyes, mind-triggered, auto-aim-adjust...
Where did this new definition come from? It does not seem nearly as cool.
That will stop the cartels & thugs (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone will be finally safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Sarcasm duly noted. So I take it you would be in favor of doing nothing, rather than something, on the grounds that you think nothing will work?
How defeatist.
But will it work (Score:2)
Re:That will stop the cartels & thugs (Score:5, Insightful)
So I take it you would be in favor of doing nothing, rather than something,
Yes. Doing nothing is always preferable to doing something harmful just to be able to say "we did something".
Brouhaha. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all bullshit. Those on the right hype it as an unconstitutional overreach. Obama hypes it as a significant change which will help close the "gun show loophole."
They're both exaggerating, extremely. The only thing Obama did was to emphasize already existing law/regulation. It has long been the case that anyone who is "in the business" of selling guns (i.e. regularly for profit) must have a Federal Firearms License, and do background checks on those they sell to. It's never mattered where the guns were sold, it's based solely on whether the seller is doing it as a business. What Obama did changes nothing, except perhaps serve notice that they'll be paying more attention to enforcing existing law/regulation.
Legislating from the oval office (Score:3)
It's all bullshit. Those on the right hype it as an unconstitutional overreach. Obama hypes it as a significant change which will help close the "gun show loophole."
I think you're missing the point.
The point you're trying to make will be lost on just about everyone. He's not adding much (if anything), but it will be seen by people as "the president can make up new gun laws".
The net result will be to set a precedent in the minds of most Americans that the president can make up whatever laws he wants when it applies to guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on. The left wing will be mollified because "look, the president made up new gun laws all by his widdle self!", and the right wing will be incensed because, "look, the president made up new gun laws all by his widdle self!".
Obviously, this guy is a uniter, not a divider :) /sarc
Re: (Score:2)
So if his action was (as you seem to indicate) a no-op, then you've got nothing to complain about. Right?
Right?
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, Obama does have a history of unconstitutional overreach. Notably in delaying implementation (i.e. enforcement) of some sections of the health care bill he pushed. That was in direct
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, what Obama SAYS he's doing and what is ACTUALLY going to happen are likely to be totally different things.
What this really was all about was poking the democratic base in the butts so they will vote next time around by making some grand promises about doing something to appeal to the emotion that "something has got to be done!" AND Poking the Republicans in the eye in an effort to discredit them for "not doing anything" about the "problem" of gun violence (and divert attention from the Obamacare repe
license (Score:2, Insightful)
The most controversial of the provisions requires licenses for those who sell guns at gun shows and on the internet, and forces background checks on buyers.
Not true. Licenses are already required for those "engaged in the business of selling firearms" and background checks are required for those purchasing from said licensees and this executive action doesn't change that.
Re: (Score:3)
The most controversial of the provisions requires licenses for those who sell guns at gun shows and on the internet, and forces background checks on buyers.
Not true. Licenses are already required for those "engaged in the business of selling firearms" and background checks are required for those purchasing from said licensees and this executive action doesn't change that.
No, but the treat is clearly that the Executive branch wishes to expand the definition of "being in business" to include a whole lot more than what it is understood to mean today. When pressed on this, Josh Earnest CLEARLY indicated that selling as few as ONE firearm, if conducted in some yet to be specified conditions, could make you a dealer in the eyes of the law. I don't know what those conditions are, but the threat is this could be onerous and if pressed in the courts found to be illegal.
The proble
Executive orders? Like the NSA scandals? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stigma needs to go away (Score:4, Insightful)
There's still a marked stigma associated with mental illness in the US. It has been eroding over many years now.
The more the stigma erodes, the more people will seek treatment.
It's not as easy as the vast majority of people think it is, seeking treatment. It's a very deliberate move. Akin to pulling the trigger when the sight's on something alive. That's how heavy making that first call is.
Just sayin'. Chip away at that stigma, chip away at the violence.
Looking for ideas - what's the answer? (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone who is not a citizen of the USA I have to ask, what do Americans think is the answer?
How do you allow normal, not-crazy, law abiding citizens reasonable access to firearms and keep crazy people and criminals from getting them?
As far as I can tell, the answer is - "You can't do both" and the mass shootings are therefor acceptable because they can't be avoided.
Arm the first responders... (Score:4, Insightful)
...who in this case, are law abiding civilians.
You can't possibly stop crazy people from getting weapons - be it butter knives, glocks, or automobiles. What you can do is give innocent, law abiding civilians the opportunity to defend themselves in case of an emergency, while they wait for the swat team to arrive.
This kind of setup won't stop jihadis or the mentally ill from attacking in the first place, but it will limit the damage they can do. Normal criminals, on the other hand, will likely adjust their behavior to non-confrontational types of property crime, than robberies, rapes, etc, as they adjust to the new risk/reward ratio.
Mexico, which has exactly one government owned gun store, where it is highly illegal to own all kinds of firearms, still sees massive amounts of violence because criminals don't follow gun laws. They bribe cops, pay off smugglers, or just wait for the US federal government to come on down and sell them "Fast and Furious"ly.
So, since mass shootings can't be avoided by any laws, the best thing you can really do is make sure that those willing to train and carry, have the opportunity to defend themselves and others.
Re:Arm the first responders... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
So, if you wanted to stop prostitutes from transmitting diseases, would you outlaw all unprotected sex?
Criminals are a way bigger problem than the mentally ill. Trying to develop policy based on incredibly rare incidents is silly.
The issue here is self defense. Either it is a right we have, or it isn't.
I prefer freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
Human problems don't generally have something that's "the answer". You can't just turn a person off and back on. All of the "solutions" are usually bad in some way.
No one is even trying to avoid mass shootings. These gun restrictions don't work and everyone knows it. But playing the game brings in the political contributions.
If the President wanted to help, he could try to have empathy for the half of America who didn't vote for him. He could try to compromise, meet people halfway, and solve some probl
A License to Sell Firearms? (Score:2)
You mean like an FFL, a Federal Firearms License?
Tell me more about your novel ideas.
The argument is over (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Its over. Guns are out there. Accept it. The notion of "but if the guns weren't there" is meaningless. They're there. They're not going away.
Come up with a different idea... if you're able... and if not... maybe you're not an "idea person" and should just be quiet.
Forget the "smart" safety (Score:2)
What we'll end up with is a plastic projectile able to change course mid-flight, in rifle caliber.. maybe even in pistol.
*sigh* and then the old-schoolers will bitch and retch that these newfangled 'lectronic steerable plastic bullits are nowhere near as elegant as the JHPs of the past, guided by the eyeball and the rifled barrel.
There's no winning!
Would be fine for my use case (Score:3)
I use my gun exclusively at the target range. It's a fun, if expensive, pastime. I don't really have an interest in using it for self defense; I think that would encourage me towards unsafe behaviors and make me more likely to get killed (compared to fleeing the area / hiding / giving the mugger my money). Staying alive is more important than ego. Also, they tend to get stolen by unstable family members or robbers or otherwise used against you, and I'm not willing to invest the $$$$$ in a super ultra fancy foolproof safe (though we do take lesser precautions).
Therefore, for my use case, having a gun that fails "off" instead of failing "on" is great. Lock it to me, and if it stops working--guess I'm renting a gun that day. Maybe find some way to lock it to certain locations like ranges if the tech can do that. I wouldn't count on the protections being perfect of course, but if they stopped 9 out of 10 accidents, that's a big plus.
Mandatory joke about the smart gun (Score:3)
Only in the States (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me see - something like 90% of the American population want tighte controls on guns - certainly a solid majority. The President wants to do the right thing, morally and democratically, by introducing some really quite moderate steps to control gun availability. But somehow this is impossible, because one industry, the arms manufaturers, holds the whole country to ransom by paying politicians to oppose anything, however minor, reasonable or even symbolic, that looks like it was against their financial interests. And the really, really amazing thing is - these people and their bought politicians are not rounded up and put on trial for corruption. In all other industrialised countries in the world, what Americans call lobbying, would be called by its right name: corruption.
I won't ask why, and I won't try to argue with people; I know my comments will be attacked wildly and irrationally and I will be called 'troll' and other nice things. It doesn't matter, but I think it is important that people - in this case Americans - with sane, moderate views let their opinions be heards and felt, and that they don't allow the gun extremists to bully them into silence.
Re: (Score:3)
The Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited, absolute right any more than does the First Amendment.
uhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
if you call requiring a license to sell guns the most controversial, then there is something really wrong with you americans.. Any normal thinking person would think requiring a license to sell guns is a good thing, hell even requiring a license to buy a gun is normal thinking...
Don't be silly? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any new gun law needs to be confiscatory, no exception. Nobody in the 21st century needs to own a gun.
The 2nd needs to be repealed, and the police need to go door-to-door to round up all the guns.
You have that BACKWARDS (in more ways than one)... Before you can go round up all those guns, you are going to have to repeal the 2nd amendment (Not to mention the 4th). Good luck on doing either of those.
Until you manage to change the constitution and get the 2nd amendment repealed, folks will get to keep their guns. And until you repeal the 4th there will be no "door to door" searching to round up firearms by the police.
So stop with this crazy idea that you can get some law passed that allows the pol
Re: (Score:3)
Molon labe (Score:2)
Self defense.
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do so many Americans like guns so much? it's so bizarre.
America is a violent country, a country born in violence, and continues to this day to perpetuate the "coolness" of violence. Possessing arms is just a "my dick is bigger than yours" contest type thing.
Although all gun nuts cite the second amendment, what they don't understand is that this supreme court (as of 2015) has intepreted the amendment in a specific way (which is favorable to their views for now). Another supreme court in the future (with a different political composition) could decide to interpret
Re: (Score:3)
They lived under the tyranny of British occupation for years. All that taxation induced a fear of the UK returning one day.
At any time the UN could give the UK the role of rebuilding, rehabilitating and caring for its crumbling former US possession.
Free health care, government run prisons, MI5/6 and the GCHQ watching every move of the millions in the returned dominion, government works rebuilding local infrastructure, a massi
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to point out that if you look at "Violent Deaths per Capita" the USA is pretty darned safe place, even with guns everywhere. In fact, Gun violence rates have been in steady DECLINE over the last decade or so...
Re:America Doesn't Have a Gun Problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:America Doesn't Have a Gun Problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Chigaco is not, and never has been, the murder capital of the country.
That is a myth.
That FBI releases the numbers every year.
Chicago is not even close to being the most dangerous city in the US [mediamatters.org].
In fact, the 3 most dangerous cities actually have lows against passing ANY gun control ordinances, whatsoever [mediamatters.org]
6 cities have held the title 'murder capital' since 1985. None was Chicago. [mediamatters.org]
In fact the city most often claiming the title, is New Orleans.
And it's one of those that is barred from crafting any firearms ordinances by state law.
What state is that? Why, Louisiana, the 2nd most dangerous state I the nation, with some of the weakest gun laws in the nation. [mediamatters.org]
And at the other end of the spectrum, one of the safest cities in the country is, repeatedly, New York City, replete with its very strict gun control.
Located in New York state, one of the safest states in the nation, a state with tough gun control, and already closed the gun show loophole among other things. [mediamatters.org]
Funny how you types always leave that out.
And some more reading:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... [pewresearch.org]
http://www.kansascity.com/opin... [kansascity.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re:And where's the money coming from? (Score:4, Insightful)
no.
as usual you're wrong and ignorant.
these initiatives all operate through existing mandates for existing government agencies and those agencies' jurisdictions.
they are neither unfunded, no 'rule by decree'.
in fact, most of the things Obama stated were things that Republicans used to support...until Obama supported it too.
According to reporting by the Huffington Post, in January 2013 Ryan called closing the so-called gun-show loophole in background checks "reasonable" and "obvious."
In fact, Ryan told the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that he recalled thinking the loophole was a problem when he first arrived in Congress. "There is a loophole here. We should address that," Ryan told the board in the 2013 interview.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/... [cnn.com]
As usual, they'd self-asphyxiate out of spite if Obama declared Oxygen important.
Re: (Score:3)
Because guns are responsible for 2/3 of all homicides, easy to obtain, more reliably fatal than pretty much any other method of homicide, and because nearly every other civilized nation on Earth has shown that it's a fixable problem .