Slashdot Mirror
Using Technology To Make Guns Safer
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Farhad Manjoo writes that there are a number of technologies that gunmakers could add to their products that might prevent hundreds or thousands of deaths per year. One area of active research is known as the 'smart gun' — a trigger-identification system that prevents a gun from being fired by anyone other than its authorized user. Researchers at New Jersey Institute of Technology created a working prototype of a gun that determines whether or not to fire based on a user's 'grip pattern.' Gunmakers have been slow to add other safety technologies as well, including indicators that show whether a gun is loaded, and 'magazine safeties' that prevent weapons from being fired when their ammunition magazine is removed (PDF). That could save 400 lives a year. So why aren't gunmakers making safer guns? Because guns are exempt from most of the consumer safety laws that have improved the rest of American life. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, charged with looking over thousands of different kinds of products, is explicitly prohibited from regulating firearms. In 2005, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which immunizes gun makers against lawsuits resulting from 'misuse' of the products. If they can't be sued and can't be regulated, gunmakers have no incentive to make smarter guns." Note that gun safety features (not universally loved) like loaded-chamber indicators, grip safeties, and magazine disconnects are constantly evolving and have been available in some form and in various combinations for many decades, so gun makers seem to have some incentive to produce and improve them, and that the PLCAA does not prevent consumer safety lawsuits, but does shield gun makers from suits based on criminal conduct by gun buyers (though imperfectly).
Most of those range from "nice" to "annoying" to "completely missing the point of firearms."
Better to limit all non-professional firearms to 3 rounds (shotgun, iirc, already are). I've never encountered a situation, and am at a loss for an actual, private-citizen, real-world situation, where more than 3 rounds would be necessary except in the case of an incompetent shooter (i.e. poor aim).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Which one of these two guns should be banned
Both of them?
and why?
Because they're guns?
Any other questions?
I would install Embedded Vista in all guns, which has a very strict safety algorithm built into its core. You lift the gun, and it says:
Are you sure you want to lift a loaded gun? If Yes, press the 3rd button under the barrel to continue.
You do that, and take aim; it says:
Are you sure you are aiming at the correct target?
If Yes, press the blue button to continue.
You manage to do that, and press the trigger, you hear a voice:
Do you really want to shoot?
If Yes, turn the gun around and aim at your head. And like all faithful, intelligent Vista users, the idiot blows his brains out. Very safe and foolproof design. And besides, you have to sign the EULA when you purchase it as well..
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Requiring that it be locked away securely accomplishes the same goal (keeping it out of the hands of children) without making it useless for self-defense. I am not interested in living in a country which makes it illegal to defend yourself.
If you take longer inserting the bolt than unlocking the gun cabinet, you're not familiar enough with your weapon that you should be allowed to keep it.
And I'd gladly live in a country where it's illegal to defend myself by lethal means if it also meant the possibility of having to defend oneself with lethal means wasn't something a normal person would have to worry about.
It's little wonder that so many Americans go apeshit with all the insane worries they have which others don't.
Kind of how problems solve themselves? She brought the kid into the world and allowed the kid to access a loaded weapon. Then she was shot by that child. There ya go! problem solved...
Unfortunately, the "gunshot detected, house locked down" didn't work, and he was free to go shoot others too.
It's sad that the mother died too, but quite frankly, she died a long time ago, when she picked up an assault weapon and thought "I need this!".
I am not interested in living in a country which makes it illegal to defend yourself.
The 2nd amendment was never meant to allow you to defend yourself.
Personal defense was never a right.
The 2nd amendment was only for the purposes of the formation of a militia.
What is it you think banning guns will do?
Prevent guns from being used in criminal acts.
Did banning illegal drugs actually stop them from being used and people over dosing on them?
I didn't know drugs were illegal.