Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Republicans Security The Almighty Buck The Military News Politics Technology

White House Releases Report On How To Spur Smart-Gun Technology (computerworld.com) 313

Lucas123 writes: A report commissioned by the White House involving the Defense, Justice and Homeland Security Departments has begun a process to define, for the first time, the requirements that manufacturers would need to meet for federal, state, and municipal law enforcement agencies to consider purchasing firearms with "smart" safety technology. They've committed to completing that process by October, and will also identify agencies interested in taking part in a pilot program to develop the smart gun technology. The DoD will help manufacturers test smart guns under "real-world conditions" at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center in Maryland. Manufacturers would be eligible to win cash prizes through that program as well. In addition to spurring the adoption of smart gun technology, the report stated that the Social Security Administration has published a proposed rule that would require individuals prohibited from buying a gun due to mental health issues to be included in a background check system.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

White House Releases Report On How To Spur Smart-Gun Technology

Comments Filter:
  • Errrrrrr, NO (Score:5, Informative)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Friday April 29, 2016 @09:25PM (#52016743)

    NO, I do not want a gun that relies on a battery.

    When I pull the trigger I want it to go "bang" instead of displaying a "low battery" message.

    No thanks.

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      Speaking as a someone who's actually developed products that were successful in the market, this is not the right way to think about a technology. A technology has to meet some identifiable group's self-identified needs, not necessarily what everyone needs, or especially not what you think they should need.

      At one end of the spectrum there are people who could use a handgun but don't because the danger of having a handgun taken from them and used against them. For example, prison guards. At the other end

  • LOL WTF no. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by He Who Has No Name ( 768306 ) on Friday April 29, 2016 @09:35PM (#52016775)

    This administration is about to get a very rude lesson in the difference between their imagination of the market desires for firearms, and the actual expectation of those who use them in the real world.

    Firearms as devices have been deliberately pressing for mechanical simplicity and minimal failure points for over 150 years. Adding complex electronics that are potentially vulnerable to deliberate subversion from a distance is a non-starter.

    The only police forces that might even consider this are highly politicized ones like NYPD, CHiPS, and the New Jersey State Police. The military will not touch these. They've already done experiments and research on this tech and didn't want to touch it with a 40 foot pole that belonged to somebody they didn't like.

    If this tech can't get funded and become mandatory for private citizens even in nations with hideously civilian-disarmament fixated politics like Germany, England, and France, it's going to be a non-starter in the US.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      I've read a few recent stories about kids firing their parents' gun while they were in the back of the car (a couple of them shooting their mothers at least). I would think that incidents like that should weigh on the matter. Then there's legislation and litigation - if your kid shoots someone, did you take reasonable steps to prevent it...
      • Re:LOL WTF no. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by He Who Has No Name ( 768306 ) on Friday April 29, 2016 @09:50PM (#52016827)

        I don't think those incidents are anything except illustrations of criminal adult negligence. Their use is to forcefully instruct firearms owners how to secure their weapons in a way appropriate to the circumstances.

        What do we do when kids drown in a pool, walk out in traffic, ingest something toxic, or otherwise injure or kill themselves with other inanimate objects due to adult negligence?

        We punish the negligent adult.

        What is it about the emotional derangement with gun control ideology that somehow imbues franchise to that specific inanimate object and demands IT be changed from an already perfectly functional form, to compensate for blatant human negligence?

        You wouldn't be making these suggestions if the kids had stabbed themselves with a loose utility knife, brained themselves with a tire iron, or drank a mouthful of brake fluid.

      • I've read a few recent stories about kids firing their parents' gun while they were in the back of the car (a couple of them shooting their mothers at least). I would think that incidents like that should weigh on the matter.

        It already does weigh on the matter. Store your gun irresponsibly and you or your loved one might get shot (and even killed) by your own child, there's your punishment. In the most recent case I believe the lady's boyfriend left his firearm under his car seat and the child found it while the girlfriend was driving. The boyfriend should and most likely will be charged. No new laws or technology needed.

        • It already does weigh on the matter. Store your gun irresponsibly and you or your loved one might get shot (and even killed) by your own child, there's your punishment.

          Yes, but alas, sometimes they kill someone who is not a member of the family, and shouldn't have to bear responsibility for their parents' stupidity. So-called 'smart guns' are not a great idea anyway, but there's still a problem with your argument.

          • But alas sometimes people are struck and killed by lightning. That does not mean we can't claim "it's safe to walk around with metal in your hands", and does not make it wrong when we do. You are simply nit picking.

        • by SirSlud ( 67381 )

          And boy did that lady and that child get punished good!

      • And I read (Score:4, Insightful)

        by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Friday April 29, 2016 @11:01PM (#52017091)

        A whole lot of history where Governments have used fear mongering tactics and propaganda to frighten their populace into submission giving up all their means of defense. It's really amazing how many Chinese said "Mao will never turn on his own people.", and how many said "Stalin has the Russian people's needs as a top priority.", and how many Cambodians said "Pol Pot is nothing like that Mao guy", and how many Cubans said "Castro is in favor of the people of Cuba".

        Take anything you are told by our current establishment controlled media with a grain of salt, and even then I'd consider it arsenic. You are lied to every day all day by the media. It is really easy to prove, just learn a foreign language and read their news.

    • Except in the US you have a lying {b,w}itch that's quite certain to be the next president, and she's hell-bent on making this mandatory even if the tech doesn't work -- especially if it doesn't work, as long as it fails the "gun doesn't fire" way.

      • Re:LOL WTF no. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by He Who Has No Name ( 768306 ) on Friday April 29, 2016 @09:52PM (#52016837)

        Hopefully she'll be indicted here shortly for high crimes with national intelligence, and we can finally watch all her decades of prior crimes catch up with her in karmic glory.

        The alternative is having a female version of George W with a slightly different set of political connections at the helm for 8 years... Yecchh.

        • Hopefully she'll be indicted here shortly for high crimes with national intelligence, and we can finally watch all her decades of prior crimes catch up with her in karmic glory.

          The DoJ is essentially controlled by the president. The current president is not about to do that. She is not going to do it to herself. So... don't hold your breath. I'd like to see it too, but I'm not expecting to.

          • One of the signs of the end in Rome was that the stakes in politics became so high. Someone losing their office could expect to be prosecuted by their successor for crimes imaginary or real, stripped of their assets and possibly even their life, making it vital that they stay in power by all means possible.

            I don't want the US to take even a baby step in that direction, and a prosecution of Hillary, or even Bill, will certainly be interpreted in that way, if it comes after January 20th. I think Ford knew t

            • by Imrik ( 148191 )

              In other words, we need rules in place to prosecute them while they're still in office.

            • by swb ( 14022 )

              I, for one, welcome our four next Presidents in one year [wikipedia.org].

              I think we're already at the place where we pursue political prosecutions. Tom Delay, Scooter Libby, Jim Wright (although not specifically prosecuted in court) and even Bill Clinton. And likely many more lower level sacrificial lambs whose prosecutions were merely proxies for bigger fish whose power base prevented prosecution.

              And it's not that these people didn't commit crimes or weren't involved in some kind of ethically dubious behavior, but that

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Firearms as devices have been deliberately pressing for mechanical simplicity and minimal failure points for over 150 years. Adding complex electronics that are potentially vulnerable to deliberate subversion from a distance is a non-starter.

      That doesn't seem to be the case in other real-world situations. Take car brakes, for example.

      Most modern cars use electronics to control braking, a critical function that can kill you if it fails. There are a number of safety features built in which have been demonstrated to save lives. In this case the electronic system is very clearly superior to the simpler mechanical one, and no less reliable.

      Sure, someone could set of an EMP near your car and you would lose effective braking, but in practice few crimi

      • Most modern cars use electronics to control braking, a critical function that can kill you if it fails.

        No. Stop saying this, because it is wrong. Modern cars use electronics to moderate braking. The underlying system is still the same old hydraulic mechanical arrangement that has persisted for decades.

        It's possible for ABS to get confused, and confuse you, and get you into an accident. Older ABS in particular was often confused by potholes. Of course, this neglects the fact that you're supposed to dodge potholes, or decelerate sufficiently before hitting them that you do not lose traction as you drive throug

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The brakes on my Leaf are fly by wire most of the time, it's only if you push them really far down before the mechanical part is forced to engage. Most breaking force is provided by regen.

          Just to be clear, the regen is electronically controlled. I can adjust it via the gear stick. The action has been software updated by Nissan in the past. It's proven reliable.

  • Mental Health (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29, 2016 @09:44PM (#52016803)

    I'm curious who gets to define what Mental Health issues are and what disqualifies you...

  • Mmm hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rick Zeman ( 15628 ) on Friday April 29, 2016 @10:00PM (#52016855)

    I'll rely on a smart gun AFTER the Secret Service, FBI, and all other Federal cops are required to carry them as their primary and backup weapons.

    • It would be simple to make a constitutional amendment that specifies that former Presidents can only be guarded by private bodyguards armed according to the most restrictive gun control bill or regulation signed by that president, or, if that president doesn't sign any, by the most restrictive law in effect on his last day in office that wasn't passed by overriding his veto.

      That would mean semi automatic pistols and hunting rifles for Bill Clinton. Add semi automatic black rifles and normal sized magazines

      • by Imrik ( 148191 )

        Rather than private bodyguards that should be Secret Service agents, unless you think we should also stop using them to protect former Presidents.

    • by Alumoi ( 1321661 )

      Then you'll have a long wait. The armed forces have to be better equipped than the citizens so they could better respond in case of citizens uprising. Did you skip your history class? Each and every rulling class had to resort to the armed forces to subdue its citizens in order to preserve their reign. It will hapen even to the goold, old US in the near future, don't worry.

  • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Friday April 29, 2016 @10:07PM (#52016877)
    You don't need to improve the weapon - you need to improve the people.
  • These are the same people that think we can create cryptography backdoors that can't be abused. In spite of every expert in the field telling them it's impossible.

    Firearms have evolved to be amazingly simple, reliable devices. If you add anything to one, even another mechanical safety, you make it more complex and, therefore, less reliable. History has proven that over and over again. They are this way because if you pull one, bodily harm is a given. Either you shoot someone, or they injure or kill you atte

  • Again, anything that diminishes reliability does not belong on a firearm. The thing that makes them reliable is the fact that they have no "smart" technology. BTW, "smart" technology is just another liberal misnomer backed by hopes and dreams and not grounded in facts. Just when you think you've developed foolproof "smart" technology, the universe will have developed a better fool.
  • There is quite a bit of real art in the design of a good gun. Part of the basic art is simplicity of design and appearance. In some cases even having a common safety on a pistol creates more danger than it eliminates. The greatest safety any gun has is in the skill of the user. In a way it is very much like driving a car. Some people violate laws and get tickets. Others can go a lifetime without a ticket. Gun handling is the same way. If you constantly follow safe practices, under all moods and cond
  • Perhaps I missed it, but how often are people killed by guns that they would not have been authorized to use?
    How often do law enforcement officials get shot with their own guns?

    These are the problems, right? That's what this is supposed to solve. Where is the data?

    The only data I saw was: "A recent Johns Hopkins survey found that six in 10 Americans want safer guns.", which speaks volumes.
  • by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) on Saturday April 30, 2016 @11:32AM (#52018859)

    http://tracking-point.com/ [tracking-point.com]

    Helps you with distance, windage, and operator error. Make it easy for even a novice to take accurate, long shots.

    Not something I'd put on a pistol, but if the administration wants to work on tools for improved accuracy, I'm all for it.

    Test it with the military and LEO first, and if it works out, civilians will want to emulate it.

The reward for working hard is more hard work.

Working...