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.
Errrrrrr, NO (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
My gun is designed to be carried 'cocked and locked', you insensitive clod!
It does have more safeties than are actually even necessary, though, and one of them is a common point of failure, so the rush towards additional safeties has already made my firearm less reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to deliberately misunderstand the statement.
Re: (Score:3)
How about microstamping the four rules on every slide? :)
1. Treat every firearm as if it is loaded
2. Don't point at anything you're not willing to destroy
3. Don't put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire
4. Be aware of what is in front of and behind your target
That's smart :)
Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score:4, Funny)
"Can't drive a car without wearing seat belts, ..."
That is an act of oppression. The nanny state is protecting you from yourself, which it should not do.
Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score:4, Interesting)
Because so many snowflakes feel it's necessary to legislate regret by making the inspiration for their poor decisions illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
"The nanny state is also providing the roads and underwriting the health"
So wait, are you suggesting that because taxes are extracted from us to pay for roads & the socialized health care system, we should therefore be considered subjects of the state, so we don't burden it too much, and don't take advantage of all that "universal" service?
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to see what kind of safeties the Ministry of Magic tries to legislate for Wands that might fall into innocent or not so innocent muggle hands.
Re: (Score:2)
There are "hammerless" revolvers that have no exposed hammer, and I believe there is at least one striker-fired revolver design.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And where does it say that "Anything not mentioned as a right in the constitution is not a right"?
Oh, right... IT SAYS THE EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE! GOLLY GEE WHIZ! Looky here, another deluded authoritarian statist douchebag. Go die in a fire you twat.
Re: Errrrrrr, NO (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you cite where the founding fathers believed it was every man's right to own a horse? No you cannot.
As for freedom of travel, you are free to travel, not owning a car does not stop you from traveling.
Not owning a firearm does preclude you from being part of a "well regulated militia" Now being part of the militia is not a requirement admittedly, being part of one, however, is a right.
See the difference?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the kind of reaction that is generated by placing ideological thought ahead of reality. I'm not bashing you, but I am bashing your idea that "smart" tech on a gun is or should be required. There are multitudes of ways for overengineering to fail and that is the last thing you want in a firearm.
Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score:5, Interesting)
The gun homicide rate in America is half of what it was 25 years ago. That reduction is most strongly correlated with lower levels of exposures to lead. Some urban areas continue to have high lead exposure, and continue to have high gun homicide rates. Flint, Michigan has a murder rate NINE TIMES the national average. If the politicians want to lower gun violence, they should forget the gimmicks, and focus on what has actually worked: reducing exposure to lead. On average, black kids in America have twice the blood lead levels of white kids. That is a national disgrace. We can fix that problem for a fraction of what we will otherwise spend on prisons.
Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If you had said that the idea that the 2nd Amendment should not be repealed was an "ideological thought", you would have been correct.
Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score:5, Insightful)
Those avenues have been heavily investigated, largely to the point of exhaustion, some methods going back over 100 years. Most major handgun manufacturers already incorporate mechanical safeties that prevent discharges from dropping (Glock and others), inadvertent snagging on the trigger (Glock, Springfield, Walther, others), and pressure on the trigger without deliberate grip on the weapon (John Browning in 1911). There are also transfer bar safeties for hammer-fired weapons, disconnectors for striker-fired weapons that only disengage when the trigger is deliberately pressed, and others.
The bottom line is that firearms have been an extraordinarily iterative product for over a century and their use has always demanded reliability as an absolute design factor, which has driven development to perfect elegant mechanical simplicity and dependability. There is no widespread desire by their actual users to introduce the kind of added complexity and "usage blockade" functions that are being advocated by this political effort. The impetus for that functionality is entirely political from people who genuinely loathe firearms and intend to make them as difficult, cumbersome, and unreliable to use, because in their warped impression of firearm usage, making guns that way will somehow decrease "gun violence". It's an irrational and fallacious notion with no basis in fact or evidence, but the people who hew to it are powerful, well-financed, and zealous, so it continues despite having no basis in the real world.
Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score:5, Insightful)
...because in their warped impression of firearm usage, making guns that way will somehow decrease "gun violence". It's an irrational and fallacious notion with no basis in fact or evidence, but the people who hew to it are powerful, well-financed, and zealous, so it continues despite having no basis in the real world.
...and in Michael Bloomberg's case, armed bodyguards.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong. Most users shoot nobody, for the same reason that most fire insurance policies don't result in fire insurance payments.
Also, when the person being shot is a criminal being shot in self-defense, I don't care to give them a say.
Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score:5, Interesting)
You're wrong. Most users shoot nobody, for the same reason that most fire insurance policies don't result in fire insurance payments.
Also, when the person being shot is a criminal being shot in self-defense, I don't care to give them a say.
That's the thing. MOST people shot are criminals. (Something like 60% have a criminal history, and around 80% of those know the person that shoots them.)
So called "gun violence" is really "crime violence." Or more specifically, "inner city (run by democrats) black and hispanic gang violence."
If you aren't doing stuff that includes all of those groups (just being black isn't enough to increase your risk) you magically, somehow, mysteriously are very unlikely to get shot.
It's pretty clear the folks pushing this stuff actually WANT those criminals to be shooting each other because they can then be used as tools and voting livestock to further their agenda of _control_.
If you don't believe me, go find one of the many charts that outlines what happens when the data is filtered for criminal activity. The easiest way is to take out Detroit, LA, DC, and Chicago (you don't even have to take you NY anymore) and the numbers drop precipitously... resulting in the USA dropping down to the lower middle of the pack for gun violence for industrialized developed countries.
Not only is the "we can make smart guns to solve this" a goddamn fucking lie, but the narrative democrats push about WHO and WHY there are shootings is also a goddamn fucking lie.
Lastly, there are already 400 million guns (notice, the number is up, people are not falling for this shit and buying them like crazy) and already 20 million of them have been stolen in decades prior so they will continue to float around in the inner city democratically run gang-n-violence centers for decades... where the people that have them are already forbidden by law to have them, where they regularly get caught with them and are simply released (by again, the democratically run justice system in charge of those cities). Where the "folks" there will continue to use them to shoot each other for decades to come.
Smart guns will do nothing to fix what the democrats lie about when they say there is a problem.
There IS a problem. The problem is democrats. democrats that don't give a shit when their kept and fed inner city voting livestock kill each other.
Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up - smart guns won't change the real problem of stupid gangbangers and clever criminals.
The problem is culture - culture that glorifies misogyny, violence, lack of education, and a victimhood agenda. We need inner city gangbangers to be ashamed that they can't speak proper english, or hold down humble minimum wage jobs, or have kids only when they're married.
It's Cosby time.
Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score:5, Insightful)
The basic point is that firearms are simple, generally well designed, reliable mechanisms.
Adding all this "smart gun" crap is just going to make them less reliable.
And, again, this will do NOTHING to stop criminals from illegally obtaining firearms that don't have these sort of stupid mechanisms in there to inhibit them.
So, again, you're implementing this to punish law-abiding citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
No, no, no, we don't want to 'punish' law-abiding citizens. We just want them to have less than reliable firearms as it seems we can't stop them from having them.
You know, just in case the sheep... erm, the citizens wake up.
Re: Errrrrrr, NO (Score:2)
How do you think a mechanical one is going to work to prevent someone else from using them. A key ?
Or go to electronic where you run into battery problems and electronics and wireing connections not standing up to the recoil ?
So how do you figgure it will help ?
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine electronic, with the identification system failing, causing the gun not to fire and allowing the criminal to overpower the cop. The criminal will then leave the gun because it didn't even work for the person for whom it was supposed to work.
Re: (Score:3)
Until criminals realize that a screwdriver and hammer allow them to tear the gun down to the point the electromechanical "lockout" can be removed so that the smart gun is now an ordinary dumb gun and usable by anyone. Seriously, how stupid are people to not understand how easy it will be to circumvent the technology?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the deal with smart phones.
They have yet to make one that also works as a phone.
Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score:5, Insightful)
"the small increase in risk that the gun may not work seems to be outweighed by the benefits"
Spoken like someone who's never required self-defence, and someone who confuses aggregate population statistics for individualized risk self-assessment.
Re: (Score:3)
Spoken like someone who's never required self-defence, and someone who confuses aggregate population statistics for individualized risk self-assessment.
Exactly. I love how those who don't carry or even own a firearm always feel compelled to pontificate on the subject self-defense as if they were experts.
Re: (Score:2)
"I prefer to defend myself with gun control and a more equal, fair society."
Where is this bastion of equality and fairness where violent crime does not occur?
Re: (Score:3)
Where is this bastion of equality and fairness where violent crime does not occur?
It's between Happy Unicorn Land and Rainbow City. You know, just across the River of Love & Sunshine, right next to Free Candyville.
Re: (Score:2)
The stats are really clear. If you try to use your own weapon for self defence your likelihood of being shot dramatically increases.
The actual question is whether it increases your risk of injury or death. People who are attacked are more likely to use their weapon for self-defense. If they had a knife, they'd be more likely to have it taken away from them and used against them than if they didn't have a knife, too. But that's not really interesting, because if you don't have a knife, you're also likely to get beaten instead of stabbed, and you can certainly beat someone to death. The same is true of a gun... if you have a gun, you may
Re: (Score:2)
If you try to use your own weapon for self defence your likelihood of being shot dramatically increases.
So begging, "Please don't kill me or rape my wife" works better than shooting your attacker? How does that work, exactly?
Correlation is not causality (Score:3)
You've confused cause and effect.
It's not that you get a gun, and are therefore more likely to get shot.
It's that you are already at higher risk, and you get a gun to mitigate that risk.
Even if you don't choose to arm yourself, others who do act as a vaccination for you, making the calculus of criminals less likely to confront victims because of the chance they might be armed. If even just 5% of law abiding citizens carried concealed, the average criminal is going to make a very different decision when the
Re:Correlation is not causality (Score:5, Insightful)
So...you think that people who own firearms randomly draw them in public?
Let's educate you for a moment - four rules:
1) treat every firearm as if loaded
2) never point at anything you're not willing to destroy
3) keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot
4) be aware of what is in front of and behind your target
Your fanciful scenario is a violation of #2.
That being said, if a criminal signals their intent to kill someone by drawing a weapon, it is a *good* thing if an armed, law abiding citizen can draw her weapon, take careful aim, be aware of what is in front of and behind her target, and gently squeeze the trigger, placing her shot in center body mass.
Re:Correlation is not causality (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, it's just a question of if the worst happens do you want to take your chances on the quick draw like some cowboy, or play the odds and lose a wallet but almost certainly live.
You forgot option 3: Letting him have your wallet, then shooting him the back as he runs away. ;)
Or if you're squeamish about shooting someone in the back, wait till he starts to leave, exclaim, "Hey, you forgot my Rolex!", and then shoot him in the face when he turns around.
Re:Errrrrrr, NO (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't because it's safer not to. The stats are really clear. If you try to use your own weapon for self defence your likelihood of being shot dramatically increases.
That's not true at all.
There are two main ways of looking at the statistics. Both have their error rates. The first is to look at people who died by a gun who own a gun. This tends to lead to false positives, as it includes (for example) people who buy a gun but don't use it, as well as people who buy a gun because someone threatened them - they were going to end up shot anyway.
The second approach is to look at people who die by their own gun. This leads to false negatives, as there are indeed cases where drawing a firearm escalates a situation where there would not have been a homicide.
In addition to going with data gathering that includes false positives, the anti-gun crowd tends to lump in suicides in the "firearm deaths" statistics, which leads to more false positives (cases where people were going to kill themselves anyway). They also like to compare only "odds of dying from a firearm" between owners and non-owners, which is of course higher, for exactly the same reason that "odds of dying from a car" is higher when you own a car. The problem with this approach, is that it does not include the chance of self-defence, so it's impossible to have any other outcome. Even though the odds of dying may be lower, the odds of dying from a gun go up.
Recognizing that, even using the pessimistic numbers, you're still almost certainly safer with a firearm than without. Here's why:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/med... [brookings.edu]
In the US, if you are not a 18-25 year old black male, you are actually safer with a firearm than without. That single segment is responsible for a huge portion of both homicide victims and perpetrators.
In addition, there's also the matter of training. Parents who own pools are more likely to have their kids drown (unsurprisingly). Parents who teach their kids to swim are less likely than those who don't, even if they own a pool (also unsurprisingly). Likewise, the firearm statistics include people who carry that are stupid and untrained. Don't be one of those people, and your odds get even better still.
Likewise, if you have children who don't know how to use firearms, keeping loaded guns around the house makes negligent deaths far more likely. If you don't have kids, you're much safer.
On top of that, whether or not you are safer depends on whether you are likely to be a victim, and how strong you are. My 85 year old grandmother (for example) is not in a position to defend herself from a violent attacker. She has no children in the house whatsoever. For her, a bedside firearm is far, far, far more likely to defend her than to be used against her, as she's already in a position of weakness to any likely attacker.
I prefer to defend myself with gun control and a more equal, fair society
So, you prefer rule of the strong and the many. Good for you. Some of us have been assaulted (and have family members that have been, too). What would you say to rape victims - "just sit back and let it happen"? Scream, and hope he gives up? Guess what, he didn't.
On balance, that seems to work better than the American model.
If you subtract the black population, the firearms homicide rate is on the higher end of Europe. If you subtract the Hispanic population, the rate is closer to the low end of Europe.
The US doesn't have a gun problem. It has a minorities with guns problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The stats are really clear.
They really are, over the last three decades: Violent crime has fallen while handgun ownership has risen. Tell us all - how do you manage to reconcile your worldview when the facts are in direct opposition to your position on any subject?
Re: (Score:3)
> If you try to use your own weapon for self defence your likelihood of being shot dramatically increases.
If you think you need one, chances are that you are going to be a victim of violent crime with or without the gun.
> with gun control and a more equal, fair society.
Good luck with that as you seem intent on importing large numbers of people unwilling or unable to assimilate into your society.
Re: (Score:2)
I knew YOU would show up.
No.
There is NOT a statistically significant chance you could be shot in a situation "like a toddler" where a smart gun would save you.
Go get those numbers, and come back here. And I'll point out where you are lying.
Incidentally, those "toddler shoots parent" stories are in the news because they are NOT usual.
Meanwhile, in Chicago, convicted criminals shot one another at a rate of tens per day. Don't you care about black criminals AimiMoo?
Racist.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than rejecting it outright, why not look at the stats and think about how this could actually work for a moment.
I'm not rejecting it outright. I've carried every day for over 30 years, and I've thought about this sort of thing far more than you know. Where do you come up with the notion that I've never considered this idea?
-
So on balance, the small increase in risk that the gun may not work seems to be outweighed by the benefits.
No offense, but what part of "I do not want a gun that relies on a battery" seemed unclear?
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you. I hope you never have had to draw, and I hope you never will, but thank you for being ready to.
As someone who doesn't live in a free state, my personal options have been limited, but I'm hoping things change with Peruta.
Thank you again.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you. I hope you never have had to draw, and I hope you never will, but thank you for being ready to.
As someone who doesn't live in a free state, my personal options have been limited, but I'm hoping things change with Peruta.
Thank you again.
Thank you for understanding what personal carry is all about.
I've only had to display my firearm once in 30+ years, and fortunately I've never had to fire it. To be honest, shooting someone is the very last thing I ever want to do.
It's not just for my safety- I would definitely come to the aid of anyone who needed help, and sadly that's the thing that so many people simply do not understand. Most people think it's some macho kind of dick-waving or tough-guy thing, but it's just the opposite. I avoid troubl
LOL WTF no. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:LOL WTF no. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
PANIC! (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And boy did that lady and that child get punished good!
And I read (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:LOL WTF no. (Score:5, Insightful)
We learned that you ghouls have no shame and that there is absolutely no tragedy that you are unwilling to gleefully spin to your political aims. That count?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We learned that you ghouls have no shame and that there is absolutely no tragedy that you are unwilling to gleefully spin to your political aims. That count?
People are responsible for their own choices and actions. The fact that some people are irresponsible is not justification for the abrogation of our constitutional rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Please, tell me, why do you support irresponsibility? I thought gun owners were supposed to be responsible? Why are they not held to any kind of responsibility when they leave loaded unlocked weapons lying around and people die as a result?
If I leave the keys in the ignition of my c
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? What stupid country do you live in? USA? How can you be held liable for the actions of the thief?
Because you failed to take even basic actions to prevent them. You don't have to go to extreme measures, like improving the security of the vehicle to the point that it cannot be stolen, because there is no such point. But you do have to use the features which are included with the vehicle, up to a point. I don't think anyone has been convicted for not setting their car alarm.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple:oranges.
Cars are for transportation and therefor need to be safe. Guns are for killing and therefor need to be deadly.
You weaken your argument by using invalid analogies.
Idiots + cars kill people.
idiots + guns kill people.
Consider that Switzerland has about the same gun ownership rate as the USA but less than half the gun homicide rate. Why? Partly its the culture, the rest is because they have, and enforce, laws about gun training, gun and ammo storage. Don't store your gun/ammo correctly or fail
Re:LOL WTF no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your analogy would be valid if somebody was reacting to street racing deaths (human behavior) by shouting for speed governors that prevented speeds above the speed limit, tiny gas tank sizes (to require more frequent fuel stops), and convoluted electronic interlocks that had to be painstakingly disabled every time you wanted to use the full performance of a "unregulated racing car" (aka, anything more powerful and sporty than a Nissan Leaf).
There absolutely have been deep investigations of defective and faulty firearm designs. Look at the investigation that was done following the disastrous budget-oriented changes to the M-16 technical data package after the DoD adopted the initial Eugene Stoner design from Armalite (later Colt). The M1911, Browning's masterpiece, was almost entirely a response to the performance and technical failures of existing US Army handguns in the Philippines against the Islamic Moros. The list goes on.
Firearms designers have been very rapid to iterate on failures that are legitimately because of design or technical flaws. They'll even incorporate human factor issues in the designs. But they have absolutely no obligation to purposefully hobble and mangle a sound design based on logical fallacies that claim the changes will somehow (we're not sure how) reduce human negligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy would be valid if somebody was reacting to street racing deaths (human behavior) by shouting for speed governors that prevented speeds above the speed limit, tiny gas tank sizes (to require more frequent fuel stops), and convoluted electronic interlocks that had to be painstakingly disabled every time you wanted to use the full performance of a "unregulated racing car" (aka, anything more powerful and sporty than a Nissan Leaf).
Analogy does not hold because most street racing deaths are generally just people involved.
Re: (Score:2)
The M1911, Browning's masterpiece, was almost entirely a response to the performance and technical failures of existing US Army handguns in the Philippines against the Islamic Moros.
And the BHP in turn was almost entirely a response to the performance and technical failures of the 1911. Some would say that's his masterpiece, even if he didn't finish it; it seems like more firearms are based on the BHP than the 1911 today.
ObDisclaimer: I own a 1911
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy would be valid if somebody was reacting to street racing deaths (human behavior) by shouting for speed governors that prevented speeds above the speed limit, tiny gas tank sizes (to require more frequent fuel stops), and convoluted electronic interlocks that had to be painstakingly disabled every time you wanted to use the full performance of a "unregulated racing car"
Actually, The EPA is attempting to do that [wattsupwiththat.com], or at least, the first stages.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like sick fuckers who spin the tragedy of terrorism into a crackdown on Constitutional rights in the name of stopping terrorism.
Which of course is a real thing, and one that I hope you're opposed to.
Re: (Score:2)
Around once a day in this country, a child gets their hands on the unsecured and loaded weapon of mom/dad/brother/uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc and kills or wounds someone (or themselves) with it.
And I'll ask: Have you noticed how often the relative turns out to be a police officer and the weapon his or her service pistol? That's way too high as well.
That being said, wanting 'smart' guns to take care of this problem is a bit like wanting an automatic robot arm to snatch any children out of the pool if an adult isn't present. While cool, there are cost, reliability, and implementation issues. For the pool, just get a good cover, alarm, or lock for the fence. For the firearm, there are numerous o
Re: (Score:2)
Around once a day in this country, a child gets their hands on the unsecured and loaded weapon of mom/dad/brother/uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc and kills or wounds someone (or themselves) with it.
And I'll ask: Have you noticed how often the relative turns out to be a police officer and the weapon his or her service pistol? That's way too high as well.
I have noticed that is a fair portion of it. I would like to see them lose their job and their license to carry, then be prosecuted for what happened when their unsecured weapon was used. If they can't be responsible with their weapon - whether it is for work or otherwise - they shouldn't be allowed to carry it and should be liable for what happens when it is left unsecured.
That being said, wanting 'smart' guns to take care of this problem is a bit like wanting an automatic robot arm to snatch any children out of the pool if an adult isn't present. While cool, there are cost, reliability, and implementation issues. For the pool, just get a good cover, alarm, or lock for the fence. For the firearm, there are numerous options to secure any weapon, ranging from 'free' on up.
I know the article here is about smart guns. However I am talking about personal responsibility. I don't oppose gun ownership, an
Re: (Score:2)
All of articles I was able to find stated that, in the U.S., we have NO idea how often a child accidentally shoots someone because the data is not collected and the data which is collected is so subjective that attempting to find the answer is impossible (basical
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, we need rules in place to prosecute them while they're still in office.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
I'm curious who gets to define what Mental Health issues are and what disqualifies you...
Re:Mental Health (Score:4, Insightful)
It's simple. If you want to own a gun you will be classified as suffering from mental health issues and institutionalized.
Mmm hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than private bodyguards that should be Secret Service agents, unless you think we should also stop using them to protect former Presidents.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Backwards politicians as usual (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Popular culture feels eugenics is wrong tho... So making a weapon that can easily be disabled remotely by authority sounds much easier and acceptable. Make no mistake thats the real ultimate aim..
"Oh Thufir, I see they installed your heart-plug already. Don't be angry, everyone gets one here!"
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Social engineering is still alive and well though.
Re: (Score:2)
Popular culture feels eugenics is wrong tho...
Nobody said you had to breed better people. It's probably not necessary. People absorb the environment they live in. Is it any wonder that when you take away blacks' (or whoever's) opportunities, they create new ones whether they are beneficial to society or not? Ongoing racism and the war on drugs combine to produce much if not most of the violence in our nation.
Take off the pressure and you'll see people improve themselves.
Just like crypto (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Lousy Idea (Score:2)
Obious Question (Score:2)
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.
Here's a smart gun they can fund... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Do police and military use them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Per TFA,
The technology was initially developed to prevent police officers' weapons from being grabbed in struggles and used against them.
And how many police officers are using "smart guns," exactly? I might consider trading in my handgun for a "smart" one just as soon as all police officers are willing to do the same. In other words, never going to happen.
Re:Do police and military use them? (Score:4, Insightful)
While police officers would be a good start, I'd wait for the Secret Service to switch over. I look forward to the President putting his money where his mouth is.
Re: (Score:3)
And how many police officers are using "smart guns," exactly?
It depends on whether you'd consider the 'Magna-trigger' system to be a 'smart gun'. If not, 0%. If so, under 0.01%. I put the criteria in there because the only deployed 'authentication' system for firearms is a modification to some S&W revolvers, and maybe a few 1911s.
The trick is though, is that the safety is about as much of an authentication as the keys to paper towel dispensers. All it consists of is a magnetic ring worn on the hand - and that ring will unlock every single magna-trigger out th
Re:We STILL haven't solved that one? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who defined the list of things which constitute "mental illness" anyway? 40-50 years ago we were calling LBGTs a "mental illness" (heck, many places still do). People with Parkinson or MS were considered "mentially ill" back 60-70 years ago as well. Go back a little more and any strong willed woman was also "mentally ill" ("hysterical"... ever look up the root of that word?).
So my point being, as we gain more knowledge, we have found that more and more of these "mental illnesses" are more societal problems with fears of the "not normal" or have actual physical underlying issues (and as such, a physical illness is then just that, physical, not "mental").
Re: (Score:2)
Who defined the list of things which constitute "mental illness" anyway?
Yep. If you even hint that you might be suicidal then you can very well be held... and right then lose your rights under the second amendment. When you add to that the fact that psychology is around half psuedoscience, it's very uncomfortable to let the government decide who is sane.
Re: (Score:2)
And now go a step further.
Suppose you were treated for depression years ago. So now you're on The List.
What is there to stop employers from using that list for "background checks" on potential employees?
Now you are also unemployable.
And yes, The List WOULD be abused in exactly that fashion.
Re:We STILL haven't solved that one? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which other rights do you support letting these "professionals" veto? Free speech? Voting? Security against unwarranted search and seizure? Fair trial?
Re: (Score:3)
Was this before or after he invented the carburetor that runs on water?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was when the senators that commissioned the study found out that they succeeded, they decided to bury the report and changed the definition so that a gun had to be able to determine the intent of the shooter (an impossible task). The gun industry was also totally against this.
I'm with Orgasmatron, I think this system probably had major problems beyond your description. I know plenty of gun owners that would be fine with 'smart guns' if the threat of them being mandatory wasn't there. Consider that the most popular firearms today are both over 50, and one is over 100 years old, design wise. Conservative doesn't cover it. But they're also fairly live and let live, and if a parent wants a firearm that their kid can't fire even if it's left out while loaded, that's their choice.