Slashdot Mirror
Smart Guns are Coming
wikinerd writes "Eurekalert reports that smart gun technology actually works. According to the press release, smart guns demonstrated by the NJIT, can recognise authorised users utilising "sixteen electronic computerized sensors embedded in the gun's grip" and "Under New Jersey law, passed in Dec. 2002, only smart guns can be purchased in the state three years after personalized handguns become commercially available. Lautenberg said New Jersey's legislative effort to introduce smart gun technology should be a national model for the country"."
...is smart users :)
One EMP pulse and you're disarmed. Thanks, but we're not interested.
Advice: on VPS providers
I for one welcome our sentient weapon overlords
... a cop's partner or even a private citizen needs to use the cop's gun to defend themselves and the wounded cop? Will the "smart" gun recognize someone trying to help the owner or will it not function?
Tongue: A variety of meat, rarely served because it crosses the line between a cut of beef and a piece of dead cow.
Wow I couldn't think of a stupider idea, luckily, you can! Because finger print readers always work every time..
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
"Sixteen electronic computerized sensors embedded in the gun's grip distinguished known from unknown users. "We've only just begun and we're pleased to say that we're getting 90 percent reliability when scanning users," said Sebastian." So either 1 in 10 times or 1 in 10 users can forget it. Sorry, but when you need a firearm in an emergency situation, the odds are going to have to be much, much better than that.
good grief that's offtopic
And the NRA will claim this is an infringement on the 2nd amendment because a State Law is superceding the Constitution on this key part " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Good idea, but you can just see the challenge coming.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Is the first lawsuit going to be about a smart gun firing when it should not, or a smart gun not firing when it should?
So I have to keep the gun in a charger if I want to ever use it? No thanks.
I'm not really that interested in something that requires energy on an item I could potentially use for self-defense and sensors that operate on how the holder uses the gun would be highly suspectible to stress related malfunction.
Won't it be wonderful when the first officer can't return fire to the suspect because the stress of holding the gun on a suspect changes his holding "pattern" and disables the gun?
This is a patently bad idea with regards to general usage. While this idea is great in theory, there is one major drawback:
More components mean more points of potential failure.
The problem in this is, should you need the firearm, at any time it may be unreliable no matter what you're using (even Kalashnikov recognized this in his design): when in a life-or-death situation, Murphy's law usually decides to rear its ugly head, and at that point you're playing the odds: I have x components, y components stand a chance of failing. If any one of y components fails, the firearm fails to function, and you may quickly wind up dead.
Now: that said, if we had a society where firearms weren't necessary for home protection or policing (I rarely ever see the latter in action where I live, so I require the former), then this would be great. On sport firearms, this would be great, because you don't need the reliability you would in a protection scenario. However, in any situation to where you have a life-or-death scenario, as many firearms are manufactured for in the first place, you do not EVER want extra complexity that may cause failure in function of your sidearm.
Read the "biometrics" that the article mentions. The way you squeeze the trigger and hold the weapon is used to drive the id mechanism. I'm pretty damn sure that I won't be holding a pistol the same way under life-or-death stress as I would under target shooting.
The sensors add orders of magnitude more complexity (pistols themselves don't have to be very complicated) bringing more cost and points of failure.
I certainly wouldn't stake my own life on one of these pieces of crap working. Why would anyone willingly buy one of these toy guns?
Smart guns would be great in a setting were kids are around, but I could see this actually being a hiderance in certain situation, like if someone is breaking into your house. Imagine trying to get your gun to recognize you are you when seconds count would defintely be a hinderance. Bad Idea
Depends on your definition of "works". From the article:
Sixteen electronic computerized sensors embedded in the gun's grip distinguished known from unknown users. "We've only just begun and we're pleased to say that we're getting 90 percent reliability when scanning users," said Sebastian.
There's no sane cop in this world that would carry a weapon for self-defense that worked reliably 9 out of 10 times.
Electronically locked bank vaults would be wedged. Even the little bill dispenser at 7-Eleven would die. You'd manage to get about thirty five dollars and 9 cents from the Salvation Army pail before cops with conventional guns ventilated your hide.
Trolling is a art,
This technology has very little merit. Since there are over 100 million weapons in North America, there will never be a problem for a criminal to find a gun that does not contain this "smart" technology. People that legitimately acquire weapons are not the ones that mis-use them.
.22 calibre hunting rifle. It is very likely the continued importation of illegal automatic assault weapons will be used for crimes though.
In Canada, there has been National debate over their new control registry that has legislated that all gun owners must now register their weapons. It's not very likely that legitimate gun owners are going to commit a crime with their
The only place this technology has any applicability is in the hands of police if they feel they may lose their firearm to a suspect and have it used against them. And you don't hear about that happening to often because police have training. Develop smart people, not smart weapons.
please... i'm trying to forget that horrible adaptation.
FYI MegaCity is effectively a fascist state, where the judges (which time and again have had their problems) can do pretty much as the deem necessary.
and that vain chucklehead Stallone actually removed his helmet!!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Still works flawlessly. I carry it everywhere. I wear a $2000 ceramic vest. I hope I never, ever have to draw this gun in anger. But god help anyone who forces me to do so.
/praying for the day when my fellow liberals understand that all civil rights are important.
In other news, let me be the first to say "fuck new jersey".
Once again, the same basic flaw in the argument.
Oh yeah, like criminals are going to rush out and buy smart guns...No, criminals will buy regular guns, and when these are no longer available in the US they will smuggle them in from countries that are not as restrictive.
It's another case of the law once again demonstrating that it is only effective if people CHOOSE to obey it. The criminal, however, has no respect for his fellow human, much less for the law.
What this technology will do is help prove that Johnny Average shot his wife/neighbor/gerbil/ whatever in the middle of a fit of temporary insanity/argument/sex or whatever (but not necessarily in that order!), stuff that is pretty easy to prove anyway in my not so expert opinion.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
why is it good for guns?
Maybe I'm cynical, but if every gun sold has to have electronic/computer receivers, might governments have keys to disable guns with those receivers? In some cases, that would negate the rights that gun ownership is supposed to secure, by removing checks on the ability of governments to take those rights. If government became despotic (as it often did when the words you quoted were written), the only mitigating factor was the ability of citizens to arm themselves against it. Negate that, and governments could do whatever they want, a state of affairs that the Constitution was designed to prevent.
The technology has good and safe uses, but it puts a lot of powers in the hands of people who can't be trusted with that much power - which is to say, anyone.
The article claims they have 90% reliability? MY gun shoots every single time I pull the trigger. So now we have:
* A gun I cannot loan to a friend on the range
* A gun which is going to be more expensive, due to all those fancy features, yet will be harder to SELL, even to another law-abiding citizen, because of the added difficulty in "transfering" the gun to the person so they can use it.
* A gun that is far less reliable
* A gun that is mandated by law (in New Jersey)as the only sort of gun I'm allowed to have
* A gun with complex electronic parts that will be much less durable, and will probably require some sort of energy source (such as batteries).
* A gun that will weigh more
* A gun that criminals WILL NOT USE. They will bypass the security of stolen guns, or just trade in "non-secure" guns. So, only law-abiding people will be stuck with these crappy things.
Why is it these lawmakers trust technology more than the people they represent?
--This sig is in beta. Please let us know abut any errors you find.
Good idea. Criminalize carrying a gun. That will stop the criminals -- they always obey the law. If this actually works, I say that we pass a law requiring all criminals to report to their nearest police station for arrest. That will clean up the streets.
People who fill out the paperwork for a conceled permit, take the manditory safely training course, pay the rather large fee, and get fingerprinted (I have been through this process) are the ones most likely to obey the law. A criminal will NOT go through all of this trouble, and a criminal would not be stopped by a law criminalizing concealed carry.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
If this technology worked perfectly, I would absolutely agree that it should be mandated, and I'm sure most everyone would agree with me. The fact, though, is that it won't. Previous technologies, relying on palmprints and the like, would likely fail if, for example, your hand was covered in blood. Whoops. This one, which claims to be "dynamic" and take into account things like grip pressure, succumb to a different problem; if I have trained my firearm to recognize my normal target-practice grip (already with a small, some would say unacceptable, false negative rate), it is likely that the rate of false negatives will rise precipitously if I am nervous/fearful for my life, because the character of my grip will completely change.
Quoth Lautenberg: "On any given day people across the country can turn on their TV news or read in their local paper the sad story of a child taking another child's life because they got their hands on a loaded gun."
In 2001, a total of 72 children (under 15) were accidentally killed by firearms. That includes self-inflicted wounds and those where someone else discharged the firearm. And the numbers declined quite convincingly on their own -- the 20-year average is over 200, and the 5-year average over 100. For comparison, in 2001, 11 children died in skateboard accidents.
No need- the 18 sensors record only pressure- but pressure in a specific pattern that only a living hand connected to a brain could reproduce. And a SPECIFIC combination of the two, at that.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Should we do the same thing with Automobiles, Computers, adult beverages and steak knives?
More people are killed by cars than guns...
No, it wouldn't:
http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-releases/CC-M aryland-boon.htm
In its progress report on the Integrated Ballistics Identification System (IBIS), the Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division recommends that "this program be suspended, a repeal of the collection of cartridge cases from current law be enacted and the Laboratory Technicians associated with the program be transferred to the DNA database unit." So far, Maryland has spent $2.5 million over the past four years, with nothing to show for it. The report admitted, "Guns found to be used in the commission of crime...are not the ones being entered into" the system.
A similar program in New York has had exactly the same results, after spending $4 million.
...New Jersey's police are not exempted from this law. IIRC, they currently are, reflecting their confidence in the functionality of these weapons.
When a gun has to work, it really has to work. This is true in the hands of private citizens or police officers. The two seconds it takes for the computer to boot up and you to find the right spot on the grip, or whatever, may be one second too long.
Most anyone who uses guns will tell you that the most important safety is the one in your head. This includes storing firearms appropriately and schooling your children in proper handling of them.
If New Jersey is so hell-bent on reducing accidental deaths, they'd be better off banning swimming pools or doctors, as they kill far many more people accidentally- or purposely, for that matter- than guns do.
We've all read how to get past biometric security- sometimes fingerprint pads wear so much they take any fingerprint, or pictures used for iris scanners, or rings can be taken from their owners.
On the other hand, Metal Storm's technology is incredibly cool. I just don't want anyone telling me I have to use it. (And in NH, I don't!)
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
That's actually a very interesting point. How would first time shooters ever get into the sport (assuming these kinds were all that were left), without actually buying their own guns? Maybe they'll have special liscenses for ranges to rent out "old style" arms? I bet the liability and hoops for that would be a little much, could this be the end of the sport?
The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
Either the cops will only be able to buy smart guns, too, and thus 10% of the time they get in to a gunfight, their gun won't work (and thus, the law will quietly disappear), or the cops will be able to buy real guns, and criminals will just steal them (or buy them) from the cops.
Let's not forget that the majority of guns used to commit crimes in DC went through the DC police deptartment first.
First of all, more points of failure makes for a less useable/reliable weapon. Second of all, it supposedly verifies you partially by the way you pull the trigger. This sounds like the worst poossible idea. Isn't that going to change appreciably when you're nervous, pursued, in an awkward situation, etc? I mean a person on the test range will fire it the same every time within measureable deltas, but in a real life-or-death situation? No thanks.
The criminals will still have non-smart guns, with the serial numbers filed off just like they do today. Citizens should be prepared to counter whatever they should expect to run into in a self defense situation.
The past forty or so years of data have shown us that an encounter with one gun is significantly more likely to result in a casualty than an encounter in which both parties are armed. Also keep in mind that most incidents that are terminated without shots fired go unreported.
Also keep in mind that when Florida changed their laws to allow concealed-carry their murder rates went down about as much a the rates in the rest of the country went up. If you're concerned with protecting children from the hazard of a gun in the house, keep in mind that many more children per year die in plastic buckets of water then due to a gunshot wound.
Can someone explain to me why this is a good idea?
By the way - anyone can twist statistics any way they want.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
it's freezing cold and you're wearing gloves
it's pouring down rain or snow
the gun gets dropped and/or the sensors get damaged
your hand and/or the gun is soaked in blood / sweat / sand / a mixture thereof, etc.
you're firing the gun from a compromised position (i.e. with one or two fingers)
your partner's gun jams and you're incapacitated and unable to fire your own
Huh. Doesn't seem to address any of the above issues....I read through the article, and I saw zero mention of any of that stuff. They state:
Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
As long as this stays in New Jersey and doesn't come to the United States, I think we're safe.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, so long as it's non-trivial to bypass, it will stop the problem of "I got shot with my own gun by an intruder" or "my kid shot his friend when they got into my sock drawer."
To be replaced by "I got shot/knifed/clubed/stomped by the intruder when my gun didn't recognize me." (A false-negative error.)
And by "My kid shot his friend when they got into my sock drawer after I trusted the new 'smart gun' and didn't lock it in the safe like I do the 'dumb' ones." (A false-positive error.)
Maybe once in eight average lifetimes only a gun will protect you from murder. Maybe several times in an average lifetime a gun will protect you and/or yours from death or serious bodily harm from criminal activity. (Your mileage WILL vary greatly.) In each of these situations, maybe nineteen times in twenty showing the gun is enough, one time in twenty your "bluff gets called" and you actually have to FIRE the gun.
For people in some locations (such as rural) and/or some occupations (such as stockraising), a gun may be needed as often as several times a year to defend livestock, family, or self against predators (which, even if they're after livestock, will often switch to being after the stockman once challenged). People who work on horseback may need to use a pistol to shoot the horse if they are being dragged.
When one of these things happens, if you need your gun to fire it MUST fire.
If, in such a situation, a "smart gun" decides, in its electronic wisdom, that you're really joe blow non-owner and refuses to fire, you're very likely to become a casualty.
While these incidents are rare, in a country of 300 million people they add up to very large number per year.
Uniformed police officers are the main victims of "gun taken away and used on owner". It happens to them a lot. They wear their guns in exposed holsters. They get into altercations with lawbreakers - sometimes with groups of them - where it's their job to maintain contact and subdue the wrongoers. When they're focused on one perpetrator, another may come up behind them, grab their gun, and perhaps fire it at them. Police have the MOST to be gained by making their guns refuse to fire in unauthorized hands.
Several "smart gun" systems have already been devised for them - systems much less likely to make mistakes than a biometric device. Typically these are enabled by something worn by the officer, such as a ring or bracelet containing a magnet or an ID chip.
But because of the risk of the gun refusing to fire when needed by the duly authorized officer, police departments have so far resisted enormous political pressure and refused to use such systems.
If even the police won't deploy an extremely reliable 'smart gun' device when its usefulness is so great, due to the risk from even a small number of misidentifications, why should a civillian purchase something less reliable?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If these guns are so great, why does the law exempt New Jersey Police? This is especially troublesome since gun assaults on police are most often with their own weapon. So lets get rid of the hipocrasy; lets make all the New Jersey police departments use the technology for three years before requiring it for everyone else. Let them debug it not the citizens of the state.
Time to post > Fr. Frog's gun safety lecture.</a>
Read it.
Here's the part that applies to this discussion, but you should read the rest, it's valuable.
"The current politically correct rage is "trigger locks" and "smart guns." Trigger locks have a place but they are not a cure-all. First, their use on a loaded firearm kept for self protection is dangerous as their installation or removable could cause an unintended discharge. Second, they are slow to remove. As to their preventing unauthorized use of a stolen firearm their protection is illusionary. At least one major brand name trigger lock can be be defeated simply by using a thin bladed screw driver through its rubber pads. If a firearm is properly stored under lock and key, the chances of an unauthorized individual getting to it is slim, and if it is gotten to locks can easily be removed by an individual with a drill or bolt cutters. The place of trigger locks in my mind is to provide temporary denial of use during unloaded transportation or temporary storage.
The "smart gun" idea is no where near a useful state, and probably will never be, especially for a firearm used for personal protection. A dead battery, a lost magnetic ring, or a loose connection can cause disastrous consequences as could a burst of high energy radio or magnetic energy. There have even been proposals that the government should have the means to remotely deactivate all civilian held "smart guns" in the event of a "national emergency."
(In NJ they recently passed a law which states that if/when "smart guns " come into use that the police will not be required to use them. Hmmmm! Great technology, eh? Good enough for the peons but not the government.) The claim that they would prevent someone from using a stolen gun is also a joke. If the firearm is stolen the device can be easily deactivated by just about anyone by disassembling (forcefully or otherwise) the firearm.
No, safety is not gadgets! It is common sense."
Not a sentence!
I think his concern is more that the sensors will fail to recognize the proper owner when the time comes to use the weapon, at least that's how i read it. And anyway, in the FA it indicates that the readings are from pressure sensors (at least partly), and that the "Embedded sensors in the experimental gun then can read and record the size and force of the users' hand during the first second when the trigger is squeezed." I guess I'd be worried that in a high-stress situation I don't hold the weapon with the same amount of force that I do while at the range.
Also, the idea of a gun needing electricity seems a little strange, I just picture a cop coming home at night and plugging in their pistol next to their cellphone charger...
Gun control laws don't work so there's no point discussing them.
Guns can be reliable. They can also fail miserably. I do an excellent job maintaining my guns and ammo. Still I've experienced many failures. Few however were the fault of the gun (the 336 and SKS problem certainly are though). Adding electronics to a gun won't make it more reliable though. It will undoubtedly make it more likely to fail. Suddenly we'll be faced with the prospect of guns that have to be serviced every 200 shots, or guns that only have a shelf-life of 5 years. That's absurd. I made a lot of other points about the "smart" gun in other threads. Check my profile if you want to read them. I think I asked some interesting questions though. With blood on your hand with the "smart" gun still recognize you, for example?
I'll stick with a gun that I know will fire if I follow some simple maintenance guidelines, thank you. Adding complexity to a life and death situation is a recipe for the second option.
Not all that unlikely. Think about it from another angle. If an individual or individuals enter a home when they know a person is likely to be there (at night for example) that person or those persons have a plan for dealing with the inhabitants of that home. It could be as simple as tieing them up while they rob the place, shooting them in cold blood, driving them to ATMs to empty their bank accounts and then killing them, or any combination of heinous things. About a month ago a few miles to my east a woman was the victim of a home invasion. She lived but will never be the same again (is any victim ever the same?). If a home invasion does happen to you, it's likely that you will be injured in some way or even killed. Maybe you've heard of our local serial killer, self-dubbed "BTK" for "Bind, Torture, Kill." It's been on CNN for some time now, America's Most Wanted too. He invades his victim's homes. Home invasions are not that uncommon. I heard testimony before the Kansas Senate FSA Committee last year from a Kansas House member on behalf of a woman in her district that had been the victim of a home invasion. This invasion wasn't for money. It was to rape the mother. The attacker told her he'd kill her children down the hall if she screamed or fought him. When you look at raw statistics take into account that home invasions are listed in many different categories including but not limited to burglary, violent offences, aggravated assault, forcible rape, and murder. There isn't a category in the FBI's UCR for home invasions.
I'm also sure that the people who have been the victim of a home invasion would also disagree with your sentiment that it doesn't happen very often. I have a good example from you from the town in which I currently live. Have you ever heard of the Wichita Massacre. Yes, the name is a bit on the Hollywood-side but once you read the story you'll feel the title is quite justified. Only one person survived that night raped by the attackers and by her friends forced to rape her at gun point and after being shot in the head. That happened in a well-to-do neighborhood. Want to hear about another person who was the victim of another home invasion? Have you heard about Bridget Kelly? Her attacker only shot her 3 times in the back after robbing and raping her. I think there are some people who would disagree with you when you trivialize the number of people that are the victims of home invasions.
ring... ring... BANG!
[20:36] wwwdot/.dotorg
From the article:
"This technology is similar to how electronic machines read an individual's signature upon completing a credit card transaction," said Sebastian.
Bullshit - I work as a cashier and half of the people "signing" their transaction either make a quick dash or scribble random lines. Hopefully these new smart guns aren't "similar", otherwise Police will have a false sense of security that their unsafe firearms can't be used against them.
BTW, I've been to several firearm training courses since I decided, relatively late in life, that learning to handle personal firearms was a worthwhile endeavor. ALL of them spent EXTENSIVE amounts of time discussing the various likely horrific legal and personal consequences of displaying, drawing, or firing a handgun. Nobody in those classes showed any disposition afterward to treat the situation frivolously.
KeS
I can see these being hacked and used for homocide, all while having the owner being pinned as the criminal because the gun obviously won't fire for anyone else, so who else could it be?
The 911 hijackers are taking over a plane. The president presses a button and all boxcutters in america retract their blades...
If the police aren't effective, lobby your representatives
How often does this actually have a positive effect? One man's note to his representative is basically worthless. A representative will only do something when he starts receiving many, many letters from his constituents. If you want to mobilize enough people to convince your representative to DO something, you're going to have to go on a campaign around your neighborhood and try to convince the masses that they aren't being effectively protected by their police force. Maybe they'll disagree, or just won't want to take the time to write a letter. Maybe there will be a force opposing you. (Like, say, the current police force, unhappy about your criticisms. See if they're will to protect you from criminals while you're lobbying against them.)
There are hundreds of obstacles in the way, and even if you were able to convince your representative in ONE DAY to mobilize, the police force wouldn't be changed for months. In the mean time, what do you do? Hope you're never attacked until the police are ready?
Granted, the odds of being attacked in your home are a thousand to one. But if the situation occurs where there is someone threatening me, I feel safer protecting myself, versus leaving my life in the hands of the police. Even if they have more training than me, it doesn't mean that I'm completely inept, I can defend myself.
This is where the gun control freaks start spitting flames, calling me a "gun nut" and that I think I'm Rambo because I would shoot someone that was trying to hurt me. Let's hear it guys, call me a psycho. I don't care what you say. The difference between me and you isn't that I'm some kind of sicko that gets off on playing cops and robbers with live ammo, the difference is that I'm not afraid to hold my life in my own hands. If the police happen to be helping defend me, that's great, I'd love to have someone else watching my ass too, but I'm sure as hell not going to sit and twiddle my thumbs, hoping that the good guys beat the bad guys.
Even in spite of everything I just said, I'm sure there will be several responses to this post, claiming that I think I'm John Wayne and I like to sling my gun around like a plaything. I really don't care what you believe about my gun habits, my mind is made up: A person's only SURE line of defense is to defend himself. Relying on other people is too uncertain. It's not a BAD thing to have police, I'd still call them if someone broke in, it's just not (in my opinion) safer to leave your life SOLELY in their hands.
Oh, and a couple more things.
Where do you think all those guns the "bad guys" have came from?
Well, did you ever think that perhaps they BOUGHT them? It's not impossible to buy a gun in this country. If your record is clean before you buy a gun, you just have to wait a couple weeks. Or, if you're a criminal and want a gun, you can have a friend who isn't a criminal go buy one for you. Not every homeowner who has a gun is stupid enough to let it get taken from him.
And to those who are about to tell their tales about homeowners hurting their own family members with their guns: The odds of being attacked in your own home are, let's say 1 in a 1000. (Not a factual number.) However, out of all the times that a criminal invaded someone's house, and a homeowner used a gun, how many times did he injure his own family? 1 in 100? That means that the average number of times a gun owner hurt his own family with his gun is 1 in 100000. Obviously, my numbers aren't exact, but anyone who would like to spend the time to look up the actual numbers would find that the odds of shooting your own family are on the same order of magnitude.
All that aside, if the situation were me in my home, protecting my family, I would have the good sense to make sure all my family was accounted for before I shot anyone. In fact, I wouldn't shoot anyone right away anyway; instead, I'd wait with my family in the basement, with my wife on the phone with the police. If someone came down and had a weapon in hand, then I'd shoot him. Is that crazy? Fair enough. But you, the sane one, are more likely to be killed than I am.
Bottom Line is that "There are simply too many points of failure in this technology for it to ever work 100% and when your life is on the line you aren't going to settle for anything less". Besides the "points of failure" I think that they are approaching the issue the wrong way. A very good article at http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0011/libsolutions.html explains a few of the problems with gun ownership in the United States and why as a supposed country of "gun owners" we still have such a rampant amount of violent crime. two quick excerpts from the article As a matter of fact, a view of gun ownership from an international perspective can be very enlightening about the efficacy of firearms as a crime-fighting tool when left in the hands of private citizens. In Switzerland every adult male is required, by law, to keep in his home a fully automatic assault rifle for militia service. Shooting is practically a national pastime, and a permit to carry a handgun is easily obtained. Far from attacking those it views as "stockpiling" weapons, surplus military rifles are made available by the Swiss government for around $50 each. Far from having blood running in the streets, crime in Switzerland is virtually non-existent -- putting even England's peaceful reputation to shame. And this in a country of gun-owners! and For example, a study by economist John Lott revealed that when laws are passed to give people the right to carry concealed handguns, murder rates go down by 8.5% and rape by 5%. If every state had such concealed-carry laws, reported Lott, there would be 1,600 fewer murders nationally and 4,200 fewer rapes each year. Jason
Jay Dale "If you're not living on the edge then you're taking up too much space!"