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).

35 of 1,013 comments (clear)

  1. Safe guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are kind of missing the point. If you actually need to use a gun, you don't want a ton of hardware that will prevent it from firing when you pull the trigger.

    Ask the Army if they really want their guns locked to only work when they pull the trigger, so when they pick up a fallen soldier's gun in the middle of a battle after running out of ammo it won't fire.

    1. Re:Safe guns by alen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      as someone who has spent 8 years in the army, the military is fanatical about firearms safety

      ammo is always kept separate from weapons. miles away in locked and guarded bunkers
      weapons are always locked in the arms room and inventoried any time the room is opened. by serial number
      heavy weapons like 50 caliber machine guns have their firing pins kept separate from the rest of the weapon

      at the firing range you only get ammo when its time to fire
      all weapons, even unloaded ones are considered loaded past a certain point close to the firing line
      all weapons always face down range. you never point a weapon at a person

      NO PERSONAL WEAPONS IN GOVERNMENT OWNED HOUSING

    2. Re:Safe guns by operagost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd also like to point out something that should be obvious even to a gamer who has never touched a real gun: not all gun manufacturers are in the USA. Why haven't European firearm manufacturers innovated these improvements? A grip safety might be an improvement on the Glock Safe Action. Legislating these changes in the USA is just another government power grab, because they know (and don't care) that the technology is not ready, so the end result is that law-abiding citizens will be kept from obtaining arms.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  2. Bias by sarysa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The author mostly had me with the first half of the article, then went overboard praising the Product Safety Commission and even worse, safety-related lawsuits. I'm glad guns are exempt -- many if not most product safety lawsuits are shining examples of why we need tort reform.

    --
    Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
  3. PLCAA by dywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is one of those obvious legalities that you would think you shouldnt have to have.

    It's like the family that sued Cessna after their father, with insufficient training, crashed and died. (I guess its not his fault he didnt know how to fly)
    Or the people who sue the bar for the drunk who rams their car. (i guess its not his fault he was too drunk to drive)
    Or the guy who cut off his finger on a table saw, and sued Sears for not including the tech that automagically stops the saw. (I guess its not his fault he put hs finger on a frigging saw blade)

    The MFR simply makes the product.
    The owner still carries full weight and responsibility for proper use and misuse.
    Shouldnt have to have a law to state that.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  4. Gun Safes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're basically talking about adding technology to made guns NOT WORK, which means you are just adding another potential layer of failure to prevent the weapon from working. You want to know what solves most of those problems?, gun safes, which won't add a single potential failure layer to the overall picture.

    Note: magazine safeties prevent you from clearing the firearm, which means you can't guarantee it's not loaded.

  5. Re:Missing the point. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I remember this old story on the news that a 3 year old picked up a gun, not knowing what it was, and shot his(?) mother when she tried to take it back. This would prevent stories like that.

    So would locking guns in a gun cabinet when not in use, as you're obligated to do.

    I know NOTHING about guns, being a Brit, but just from watching FPSRussia on YouTube I can tell you that you don't point a loaded gun at people EVER, you keep the safety catch on at all times except just before you fire, and after firing you check the chamber (receiver?) for a round before you do anything else, just in case you miscounted how many shots you fired. I'm sure there are plenty of other guidelines that morons don't follow, but these are obvious from watching a redneck shoot cans in his back yard.

    Unless you have a seizure, or someone else does something moronic (running in front of you, trying to wrestle the gun from you) I can't see any other reason for accidental deaths / injuries involving guns than user error. Please, do give me other examples if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  6. Reliability, reliability, reliability. Left hand? by raymorris · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article and especially the summary is completely wrong about their central claim "gunmakers have no incentive...". Of course that's typical - anti-gunners would never shoot, never handle a firearm, so they normally have no idea what they are talking about. The supreme requirement in a firearm is RELIABILITY. If you are in a situation where you actually have to fire your sidearm, you die if it doesn't work right that time. A defensive weapon has to work every single time. That's why the 1911 design is still the second most popular model over a hundred years later - because it's been proven reliable. That's why you keep firearms simple - complex things break. That's also why you definitely don't add a bunch of complexity designed to make the gun NOT WORK if something isn't perfect - it has to fire, or an innocent person dies. It's only people who don't know about firearms, or about dealing with bad guys in general, who think something like "fingerprinting" one persons particular grip sounds like a good idea. It does sound good, until you think about the fact that the user is UNDER ATTACK. They may very well have to fire with their other hand, after the BG smashes their right arms with a baseball bat, car, stabs them with a knife .... These "smart guns" look cool in movies, but anyone with any tactical experience or training knows they are only movie props. In real life, these ideas would get good guys killed every day. If you've never even been trained in USING a firearm, please don't pontificate about how they be be designed.

  7. Re:Missing the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know NOTHING about guns, being a Brit

    Congratulations, you know more about guns than most of the anti-gun crowd, as well as a disappointing number of gun owners. What you go on to describe is basically the first 3 pages of the NRA basic pistol safety manual - always treat a gun like it's loaded, always point it in a safe direction, and always keep it unloaded until you're actually using it. You're absolutely right - "accidental" shootings are virtually always negligent.

  8. Safety? What Safety?? by bickerdyke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Two reasons:

    1) How can you make something "safe" that has the explicit purpose of being fatal
    2) therefore a gun NOT firing when needed is seen as a DECLINE in safety.

    --
    bickerdyke
  9. what the hell is going on here? by sribe · · Score: 4, Funny

    The editor, timothy, corrected the egregious errors in the submission while letting the parts worthy of commentary and debate stand. He did what an editor is supposed to do! Maybe 12/22 will be the end of the world after all, and this is one of the first signs of the imminent apocalypse!

  10. Re:Missing the point. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In some other countries, the firing mechanism must be stored seperately from the gun at all times, except when the weapon is being used.
    And definitely not loaded.

    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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Re:Missing the point. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Accidental deaths occur in the US because people are morons. We have teenagers who find their dad's gun and wave it around trying to look cool, with their finger on the trigger. Never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot; keep your finger off the trigger until you intend to fire (resting it next to the trigger, not contacting, allows you to fire nearly as fast but prevents a twitch or bump from tugging your finger on the trigger). Waving your gun around at people with your finger on the trigger puts a lot of momentum in a heavy chunk of metal, which eventually leads to that heavy chunk slipping slightly, possibly toward your finger as your hand changes direction (see: waving the gun around), causing the trigger to pull, putting a bullet in your mate's head.

    There's the "Hey watch this" crowd who don't know how shit works. Load a magazine, pull the slide to cock the gun, so totally cool I got my dad's gun huh? Drop the clip out so it's now unloaded, put the gun in your mouth, pull the trigger, die. See, when you cock the gun, a bolt or a door moves out of the way and a spring in the magazine pushes the stack of bullets upwards. This leaves a vacated cavity in which a bullet moves into, which is then closed. Now you drop the clip, the bullet remains in the chamber, and you shoot yourself.

    Find a gun, assume it's not loaded, point it at your friend and pull the trigger. Because you didn't load it, so it must not be loaded. Guns aren't supposed to be kept unloaded because they can accidentally fire (that's impossible with i.e. a Glock, which has the hammer half-cocked so it can't detonate a bullet's primer, plus a bar in the way of the hammer, plus a retracted firing pin, plus a door between the hammer and the cartridge, all of which shifts out of the way and into place when you pull the trigger); they're supposed to be kept unloaded because morons find your gun and assume it's not loaded.

    People load a gun, cock it, and then stick it in their pocket or in their belt or something instead of an appropriate holster. Juggling it around that way eventually sets it off.

    People fail to realize that almost every firearm they're likely to find in the US is both automatic and repeating. They pull the trigger. It fires. They don't remember cocking it. Somebody gets shot.

    Americans are bigger pussies than Brits, and will get a gun just before some event--say the husband is going away for a two day trip, or they just moved to a black neighborhood and they're white. Yes this is how Americans think--black people mean crime, I get that lecture from my dumb parents every time I move to a black neighborhood. Someone comes home late at night, people freak out, grab the gun, go investigating, and shoot their kid who came home at 1 in the morning because he didn't turn the lights on and had a baseball cap so they couldn't see his face. Seriously, just 'cause someone's in your house and you can't identify them, that's terrifying to an American, so we shoot them. And you thought the British would stop their tough-guy talk and wet themselves the second they sense danger, huh? Americans fire off every round in the gun while screaming and crying, then continue to scream and cry and talk about how scared they are.

    Guns don't kill people. Murderers and idiots kill people. A gun does not pick itself up, make a dorky face, shout "hey watch this!", and then point itself at the nearest person's head and pull its own trigger. Everyone wants an SUV because they know they'll hit about 50 cars, bicycles, and telephone poles a year and they want some kind of tank to protect them. Naturally, we kill each other here quite regularly by driving vehicles at 80mph past elementary schools while kids are trying to cross the streets. That's when we're not trying to impress our friends by drinking Purell Hand Sanitizer, eating broken glass, swallowing marbles, trying to ingest more drugs in one sitting than the next guy (I TOLD U I WUZ HARDCORE), burning our arms with car cigarette lighters,setting our pants on fire trying to ignite our farts, and whatever the hell else we can come up with.

  12. Re:Reliability, reliability, reliability. Left han by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In fact, if you do even one day of actual defense training, one of the exercises you do is shooting with a two-handed grip in the "A" stance, then shooting left handed "side stance" and then right handed "side stance".

    This simple exercise would be impossible with some kind of electronic garbage that prevents firing based on grip signature. Also, I'd rather not have to worry about if the batteries are dead if I need the gun.

    Here's what we need: a 1911-style grip safety, and a Walther PPK-style indicator pin that pops out close to the rear sight if a round is in the chamber. Those two things are remarkably effective, and cost practically nothing. Oh, and they've been around for decades.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  13. We can make complex AND reliable things by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's why you keep firearms simple - complex things break.

    I find this to be an interesting sentiment coming from a technology oriented community like Slashdot.

    Of course complexity can increase error-proneness. But if this logic is always true, why aren't we still driving Model Ts? Maybe it really is up for debate, but it seems to me that cars have became vastly more complex over the decades, but reliability is on the rise, and cost of maintenance has gone down.

    Planes - planes are vastly more complex than in the past, but very reliable. And peoples' lives literally hang in the balance.

    My point is, we can in fact make complex AND reliable things when we want to, and when we spend the time and resources required. Why are guns exempt from this?

    FWIW, I know how to use (some) guns, and I agree with you... "grip recognition" sounds like something that at best, will work 99% of the time, which isn't enough. But surely we can do better than that.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    1. Re:We can make complex AND reliable things by greg1104 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Firearms are mechanically simple. You can't add electronics to a simple mechanical device and make it more reliable. Electronics are less reliable than simple mechanical things, so any such change is a step backward.

      Cars and planes are complicated mechanical and electrical devices. You can simplify the circuits and/or mechanical design by replacing some parts with computer control. But just the engine alone in either is well over an order of magnitude more complicated than a gun firing mechanism.

      Good try on the car analogy though, somebody had to do it.

    2. Re:We can make complex AND reliable things by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's why you keep firearms simple - complex things break.

      I find this to be an interesting sentiment coming from a technology oriented community like Slashdot.

      "The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to clog the drain." -- Scotty, Star Trek III

      There used to be an engineering strategy called the "KISS principle". KISS was an acronym for "keep it simple, stupid." Today's nerds, especially those who work for Microsoft and at most web sites, have thrown this concept out the window.

      But look at an iPhone or an Android -- their designers did what they could to make the sevice as simple as possible for the user. No good coder will write a thousand lines of code when fifty will do the same job.

      Maybe it really is up for debate, but it seems to me that cars have became vastly more complex over the decades, but reliability is on the rise, and cost of maintenance has gone down

      Yes, they're more complex and more reliable, but unlike firearms, automobiles were always complex. Firearms are simple machines requiring little maintenance... and BTW, cars are a hell of a lot more expensive to maintain these days. There was no such thing as a "brain box" or a "climate control module" in a 1970 Ford, and if one of these goes out it will cost you hundreds of dollars to replace. If your water pump went out you could fix it yourself in twenty minutes with a $20 part. Today? Good luck even finding the water pump, you're going to have to hire a mechanic. Gun owners don't want to take their gun to a gunsmith every damned hunting season.

      My point is, we can in fact make complex AND reliable things when we want to, and when we spend the time and resources required. Why are guns exempt from this?

      Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should. This topic is kind of a straw man anyway; none of these measures would have stopped the bloodshed last week; these measures mostly make the liklihood of it going off prematurely and killing the owner. And if a hunter's gun doesn't fire when that nine point buck is in his sights, you're going to have one pissed off hunter who will never buy that brand of gun again.

    3. Re:We can make complex AND reliable things by langelgjm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's no need to make things unnecessarily complex. The debate is really about what features we want.

      BTW, cars are a hell of a lot more expensive to maintain these days.

      I would actually like to see a historical dataset of automobile maintenance and operating costs (inflation adjusted), but I can't seem to find a decent source right now. However, even if that is true, again, there is a tradeoff. If there are gains in safety, efficiency, utility, and comfort, the added expense can be justified.

      Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should. This topic is kind of a straw man anyway; none of these measures would have stopped the bloodshed last week.

      I'm not saying we should do it because we can, I'm saying maybe there are in fact good reasons to do, AND we can (since so many people seem to argue that it's impossible). Why is there such defeatism and resignation about the potential of technology in this area? It's irrational.

      Second, the reason I was thinking about this RFID idea was specifically as a way to prevent what happened last week. If Lanza's mother had a key fob or implanted chip, Lanza would not have been able to use the guns without it. Could it still have happened? Sure. Maybe Lanza's mother would have given him his own fob. Maybe he would have taken her keys, or cut the chip out of her wrist. Maybe he would have cloned the fob himself. Any of those things are possible, but it would involve more time and effort, and introduce additional hurdles. If there is a process for obtaining a fob, maybe Lanza would not have met the burdens of the process. If he attacked his mother with a knife (because he couldn't use a gun), maybe she could have escaped and called the police.

      Or maybe it still would have happened. Is that a reason to not consider any policy change? No. Maybe new policies and technology can prevent or reduce the risk of OTHER tragedies.

      And if a hunter's gun doesn't fire when that nine point buck is in his sights, you're going to have one pissed off hunter who will never buy that brand of gun again.

      This is why I suggested limited the requirement of such technology to only certain weapons. E.g., we don't mandate it for bolt action rifles.

      But seriously, my main observation here is that so many people are spending lots of energy on inventing reasons for why nothing can be done.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Re:Missing the point. by fifedrum · · Score: 5, Informative

    NRA basic pistol, rifle, every single hunter's education course in the nation (and many other nations) as well as thousands of safety websites, videos, and general use books. Jeff Cooper put it this way, and this is the way it's taught in safety courses world wide.

    RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
    RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
    Rule III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

    And yes, the shouting is on purpose.

  16. Re:The one and only new gun law... by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...that should come out of the Connecticut school shooting tragedy should be this:

    If anyone is planning to begin legal proceedings to have a family member involuntarily committed for mental health issues, then they must remove all weapons out of their home first.

    That sounds even more than average stupid. If this was passed, the result would be that fewer would try to get their family members committed, and the white elephant hidden even more than it is now.

    Make it easier for people to get help (and I mean help), not harder. And work for conditions less conducive to people developing mental health problems in the first place. Undo Reagan's damage. It's late, but not too late.

  17. Re:Missing the point. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    Which part of the 1911 should I remove that I will be able to reinstall quicker than unlocking the box it's in? Inquiring minds want to know.

    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.

    Me too, but banning firearms won't solve that problem.

    It's little wonder that so many Americans go apeshit with all the insane worries they have which others don't.

    I agree.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. Re:Reliability, reliability, reliability. Left han by WillAdams · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The loudest sound in the world:

    ``Hearing `click', when you expected to hear `bang'.''

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  19. Computers in Guns? by sycodon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's probably safe to say that the vast majority of Slashdotters are programmers of some kind or are very familiar with computers and software.

    Which is why I am astounded that anyone with such a background would think putting a computer (microchip, etc) in a firearm is a good idea.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Computers in Guns? by YoungHack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's why I don't like magazine disconnects. They interfere with the safe consistent operation of the gun in other situations. For example, the Ruger Mark III pistol has a magazine disconnect. You have to "dry fire" the gun in several steps while cleaning. That means, rather than remove all magazines and ammunition from your work environment while cleaning, you need to keep a magazine (unloaded yes) to insert and remove at various points in the assembly and disassembly. It makes the whole process significantly more complex.

      It also means that you can't easily practice with that gun without ammunition. Although the gun is safe to dry fire, when you cock the hammer, the slide will lock back. Without the magazine disconnect, you would simply pull the slide back and let go an you'd be ready to dry fire. Dry fire activities are valuable, but they're also a place where people make mistakes. So it'd be better all around if you could remove all ammunition and magazines from your environment when doing it. Adding complexity to the process makes it more likely you'll commit an error.

      I prefer the simpler more consistent operation of guns without a magazine disconnect. But my very first lesson to new shooters is also that a gun with an empty magazine can still be loaded (and I use a dummy round for that lesson).

    2. Re:Computers in Guns? by Goetterdaemmerung · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why and when do you have to dry fire to clean? Why does the gun have to be assembled to do that? If not why are you not depressing the catch with another tool?

      The Ruger Mark III requires a magazine inserted and the trigger to be pulled to disassemble the pistol as per their published instructions.

      "Insert the empty magazine into the magazine well until it "clicks" and is fully in place.
      Disengage the internal lock, if necessary. (See p. 13.) Place the safety in the
      "off" (F) position. Point the pistol in a safe direction and pull the trigger to
      be sure the hammer has fallen. The hammer must be uncocked before the
      pistol can be disassembled. Remove the empty magazine."

      Page 22:
      http://ruger.com/products/_manuals/markIII.pdf

    3. Re:Computers in Guns? by Samalie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because some idiots can't be responsible, then those of us who can must suffer having our rights reduced?

      Yes.

      Look, I'm a gun nut myself. I grew up around guns, I know guns, I have guns, I use guns.

      Shit, I'm even smart enough to know that "freedom isn't free" - that our freedoms have been paid throughout history in blood.

      But shit...massacre after massacre...children, families, lives ruined...84 gun-related deaths a day. How much blood must be shed? How many innocent people have to die before we realize that our willingness to kill each other is the fucking problem?

      You said above you have no problem with an intruder dying. Honestly...think about this for a second. You come home, find someone robbing your home, and shoot the fucker. He's a 15 year old unarmed kid stealing shit. Or a 40-year-old unarmed asshole robbing your place. Yeah, he made some shitty choices obviously, but does he deserve to die? Are you really prepared to live with that choice? What about cases like Zimmerman - regardless of the circumstances and the actual facts surrounding it, he killed an unarmed teenager.

      I don't hate guns at all. As I said somewhere in this thread, if its him or me (or my family) about to die, I'll pull the trigger. I'll protect my family, and I'll kill or be killed to see them safe from harm. But honestly, if you see this as anything but a last resort, then you're a part of the problem, not the solution.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  20. Re:Missing the point. by bjdevil66 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I can tell you that you don't point a loaded gun at people EVER,

    Whether the gun is loaded or not doesn't matter at all. Just pointing a gun - loaded or not - at someone is considered "assault with a deadly weapon". It's a felony that can put the gun wielder in jail for a year or two (or more, depending on the circumstances), if convicted.

    Supporting anecdote: An old friend of mine caught his wife cheating with someone at his house, freaked out, went to get his gun, and pulled a gun on him - ordering him to get out of their house. He left (quickly), and the police showed up in short order. The net result: the friend did 2 years in jail - and the cheating wife and lover walked away.

    Moral(s) of the story:

    • * NEVER, EVER just brandish or wave a gun at someone. If you pull a gun out, you absolutely, positively must pull the trigger.
    • * When you do use it, you'd better kill your assailant/target to avoid civil lawsuits (Sidenote: Here in Arizona, a proposition just passed last month that takes away the right to sue if the plaintiff was in the act of committing a felony when they were harmed.)
  21. Re:Missing the point. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No, a semi-automatic weapon is an automatic weapon. There is also fully-automatic. Depending on who you ask (different regulatory boards, manufacturers, the military, in different countries), the definition floats around a bit--in America the standard term for "automatic" specifically requires that gas from firing the rifle eject the bullet, and largely that it also reload the chamber and fire again. Of course in America we legally term these "Machine Guns" as well, as a separate term--"machine gun" means "Fully Automatic". Weird.

    Some countries in Europe term semi-autos as "automatic". A bolt-action shotgun is not automatic, but repeating. A double-action revolver is both repeating and (semi)-automatic. An Uzi is fully-automatic. Depending on who you ask, in what agency, and in what country, someone will tell you a revolver is automatic. Depending on who you ask, someone will tell you a fully-auto pistol would be vastly inferior to a semi-auto.

    And those aren't uninformed stereotypes, those are real events. This is how teenagers get shot with guns. They shoot each other or their parents are morons. Brother Brittypants was unclear as to how anyone manages to "accidentally" get shot--the answer is by being morons. People who handle guns properly do not accidentally shoot themselves unless someone's dog bites them in the ass while they're reloading; that only leaves the stupid, of which America is full.

    Plenty of the stupid buy guns "for defense" and don't bother to learn to use them. It happens. I don't know why. My parents got guns without going through any kind of training course to use them--dad was military, mom has never handled a gun in her life but now owns two Rugers registered in her name with zero training. She wanted them so she can defend herself against home intruders. I have watched both these morons point them around the house with their fingers right on the triggers, not realizing bullets will go through interior walls and egress windows, claiming they're not loaded so it's okay to wave them around like that. Developing terrible habits.

    The last time I picked up a gun, I got yelled at because it was loaded and it was a real pistol... I was trying to elevate it from its position on the end of a table, about 3 feet away from direct reach of an 11 year old who thought guns were awesome and liked to point empty (real, by the way--his parents gave him real, unloaded firearms as toys) guns at people and pull the trigger and make pew-pew sounds while they went click click click.

    These are the people that you find around "accidental shootings." This is how they happen.

  22. Re:Missing the point. by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Informative

    The 2nd amendment was only for the purposes of the formation of a militia.

    Actually, it's purpose, like the rest of the "Bill of Rights," was to get the Constitution ratified. The public wanted assurances that a new, stronger federal government wouldn't be able to reinstate the abuses of the British (who would do things like quarter troops in private residences and confiscate guns). There is also the implied, though not explicitly stated, implication that citizens would maintain the means to revolt again, should the government abuse its new power. Of course, that didn't help out the Whiskey Rebellion revolutionaries, but what do you expect from Pennsylvanians?

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  23. Re:Missing the point. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2004/3/cpr-26n2-1.pdf

    A lot of people play games with statistics. Statistics in the US are pretty much meaningless, when it comes to an armed population. Anyone who manipulates numbers seems to have an agenda, so they manage to make the numbers say whatever their agenda demands.

    The fact is, most of our most dangerous cities are the very cities with the strictest gun control laws.

    Go ahead, read the report. Tell me how safe it is to live in a country with very strict gun control laws.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  24. Re:Missing the point. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I believe that disarming the general population causes criminals to feel safer while committing crimes. Did you read the PDF?

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  25. Re:Reliability, reliability, reliability. Left han by rhsanborn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Similarly, there are many documented cases of air bags killing people. We still use them though, because they save way more people than they kill.

  26. Re:Missing the point. by Dimensio · · Score: 4, Informative

    The term "assault weapon" is a nebulous term based upon the presence of features that do not affect actual firearm function. Most "assault weapons" are in fact civilian sporting rifles featuring a pistol grip and at least one other defining feature that are most commonly seen at target ranges and occasionally in the hands of hunters.

    The term is applied for the specific purpose of confusing those unfamiliar with firearms into believing that common civilian sporting firearms are actually military weapons.

  27. Re:Science Fiction examples of weapons-id-systems by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As long as it is a choice and not mandatory.

    I prefer t have my guns remain analog...

    I don't want to have some kind of freakin' gun ID malfunction if someone has broken into my house, and I need to shoot them.

    You know...guns actually are pretty safe. You rarely hear of one jumping off the shelf on its own and shooting someone.

    Maybe more gun safety is to be taught? Why not have that as an elective class in schools? Gun education?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........