Slashdot Mirror
Hardly Anyone Is Buying 'Smart Guns'
Daniel_Stuckey writes "The technology is here. So-called 'smart guns' are being programmed to recognize a gun owner's identity and lock up if the weapon ends up in the wrong hands. Entrepreneurs and engineers have been developing technology to make safer guns since the early '90s, and by now we've got working prototypes of guns that read fingerprints, hand grips or even sensors embedded under the skin. But after 15 years of innovation, personalized guns still haven't penetrated the marketplace."
They can't figure out why? The guns are obviously smarter than their inventors.
No sig today...
Any technology that prevents the accidental death of irresponsible gun owners' children is simply interfering with natural selection.
The idea of having your kids not be able to blow their brains out with your gun seems like quite a good one...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
1: Don't need another point of failure introduced, if the reader doesn't recognize it's owner at the worst possible moment when he needs to fire a gun.
2: Price hike. I expect there would be a hefty price jump with these newfangled electronic gizmos.
3: Remote killswitch? The police can kill your car's engine and disable your gun with a simple command. So can hackers.
Also, are batteries included? I don't think people want to charge up their guns, unless they're shooting plasma bolts.
Smart guns need smart owners, that's the problem.
False positive = you die
False negative = you die
The stakes are extremely high, and the recognizer has to be 100% accurate, which is impossible.
Why would anyone buy this? Its a horrible product idea. Take a reliable device and fuck with it. All I want is to know that when I point and click it goes off. Not, my hand isn't held right, the battery is dead, i'm in a fight and its covered in mud, or its just dusty and it malfunctions. Or even worse and a delay, which could cause you to be off target or allow someone else to enter the sight picture. It is a self defeating idea. If you are worried about child protection, buy a safe, teach your kid gun safety. Carry it with you. I could go on for ever.
They are a stupid fucking idea that are the answer to a question nobody asked. Well nobody other than those who ultimately wish to take all guns from people not employed by the government.
For those who think I'm wrong and that these should be mandatory, why don't you go lobby the government (at any level from local to federal) and have some of these technologies mandated for LEO fire arms use. Report back with your results.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
For those who aren't in the gun culture it may come as a surprise that gun owners tend to be a somewhat conservative lot when it comes to new technologies. They prefer things that are reliable and proven to gimmicks, especially for their go-to guns, because at the end of the day they want to be absolutely sure that their guns will fire reliably and immediately whenever the safety is off and they pull the trigger. Anything that might possibly interfere with that, like smart guns or RFID bracelets and rings or crap like that, is most unwelcome indeed. Oh sure, you'll find the occasional gadget fetishist at the gun shows, but they're the exception rather than the rule in my experience.
I'm not a gun guy, but what is your recognition system is out-of-battery ? I doudt there is passiv user recognition that doesn't need energy.
This isn't a surprise to me, at least for enthusiasts. A gun that can only be fired by one person wouldn't sit well with the enthusiast crowd because it would eliminate the sharing factor. I don't belong to a gun club myself but my Dad does. Part of what he likes about going to the range is interacting with people that bring different guns and they trade off for a few rounds. It gives him a chance to try out a range of guns without necessarily having to buy them himself. Smart guns would put an end to that.
I would think that smart gun technology would be best directed toward professionals like law enforcement but even their embracing the technology would be limited by cost.
Cost is always the issue with things like this. Once military and gov't contracts for such devices create massive production volumes they'll be cheap to consumer but no ones going to pay a likely huge premium on something that new and not exciting, fun or much more effective than safe storage and responsible ownership
Of course, what we actually need is not a gun that responds only to its original owner, but on that can determine whether said owner is mentally sound enough to own said gun or not. In fact, what we need is for there to be a system in place that does exactly that. Changing the way the tool works is irrelevant. If someone is unhinged enough, they'll go and pick up another gun for $20 behind a dumpster somewhere.
For those who think I'm wrong and that these should be mandatory, why don't you go lobby the government (at any level from local to federal) and have some of these technologies mandated for LEO fire arms use. Report back with your results.
A remote kill switch on firearms used by rogue law enforcement or rogue military types would be interesting:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/12/rogue-cop-manhunt-ends-in-shootout.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/fort-hood.html
Maybe they could make a "smart gun" that couldn't fire on unarmed target instead?
You're in a firefight, and your gun gets damaged, so you pick up the gun of your dead/wounded buddy to stay in the action, pull the trigger and go f**k as it doesn't fire at the advancing enemy hordes....
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The problem is there are two sides of stupid who feel if they meet on a middle ground they are loosing something.
The gun control debate and the abortion debate are in essence part of a core debate.
Is life and safety more important than liberity.
Both issues have seemed to become so polarized that logical debate has broken down.
There are thing like the parent post who say "I disagree with your views, so you must have a mental problem" but the problem it is on both sides. We are no longer considering the humanity of both sides.
Gun right advocates don't want this because if it becomes popular it could be law and reduce their rights to own gun as well fear tracking gun owners, which could slide down the scale even further. Liberity is more important thansafety.
Similar debate on abortion, small laws such as the doctor should have admitting privileges at an hosipital, means there could be less dr. Who can perform anortions make it harder for a woman to choose. Liberity over safety.
The core debate is too abstract for most people. So they link up with their political parties and regurgitate what they say, thinking they are so smart and informed.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
>False positive = you die
Well with regular guns, you die too in this case with a far higher probability!
>False negative = you die
Only in the case that firing the gun will save you but threatening someone with a gun (which looks to be functional even if it isn't) won't. Possible but far from 100% of the case.
LIfe and death situations are rare. Given that a gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member accidentally than an intruder on purpose, a 90% effective smart gun would save more than nine lives for every one it wastes. The only reliability numbers I found with a quick search were for BIOMAC that claims a goal of 99.99%. This would save more than 10 000 lives for every one wasted.
While handing one rifle to every pair of men: The first man takes the rifle and shoot. When he gets shot, the second man picks up the rifle and shoot. 'Nuf sed.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
a gun is a large responsibility. smart guns are an attempt to remove that responsibility. if you are irresponsible then you should not have a gun. if you dont know if you are responsible enough to own a gun then you are not.
before someone tries to compare it to owning a car, i would like to point out that a gun is specifically for killing. it has no other function, it's literally a killing machine.
i have yet to hear an argument for making crossbows safer yet it serves the same purpose as a gun. if it is somehow intrinsically safer then why aren't people advocating crossbows over guns?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Children are not as dumb as you think. This will work as well at keeping children safe as child proof caps and parental internet filters. The one and only thing a firearm must do is absolutely, positively go bang every time you pull the trigger. Anything contrary to this principle will be rejected by the market. If you want to keep your child safe, 1. Teach them firearms safety. 2. store firearms in a secure and safe manner.
Well, we're talking types who think they absolutely need a loaded gun everywhere they might be in the house, including racks by the bed and whatnot. And that their life WILL depend on it any day now, when squads of evil government black muslim communist ninjas will burst into their home to confiscate their bible and replace their medicare with an evil socialized one. And their kids who think that playing cops and robbers with daddy's gun, presumbaly in between eating paint chips and being homeschooled in how many dinosaurs fit on Noah's arc, is a good idea.
I dunno, it certainly is tragic, but their noble sacrifice to improve the species' gene pool will be remembered.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Get yourself a browser that does spell-checking for gods sakes. It's "liberty", not "liberity", as you've written several times in your post.
...what happens when the Zombie Apocalypse occurs, and a zombie is chewing on the brainzzz of your buddy, so you pick his gun up, train it on the red eyed fiend and pull the trigger. As nothing happens, the zombie breaks from his meal and stares at you hungrily....
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Argh! Not stupid Americans and their stupid guns again.
No matter what industry it is, something "smart" is usually something unreliable. Would I like to own one? Yes, if it were very high-tech and was automatic and would look like it's from a sci-fi flick then yes, I would buy one ONLY for novelty use. I'd go fire it at a range but it wouldn't be the first gun I'd try to grab to save my life from an intruder.
They saved Bond, James Bond's life!
rewriting history since 2109
They cost more, and have lower reliability. Why would they sell well?
The only people buying "smart" guns fall into the "I fear/hate guns and want them banned and only own that one to show all my friends as a proof of concept". Anyone actually interested in owning a firearm for self defense, or hell, even just for hunting, will stick to something that doesn't beep in error and ask you to re-authenticate right when you have that deer - or soon-to-be rapist - in your sights.
There are also those who argue that you shouldn't wear your seat-belt because it may prevent you from getting out if your car in on fire. (I'm not making this up!) Both arguments are equally stupid, and for the same reasons.
Of course they do. But does a seatbelt ONLY work if the battery is connected or charged? Does it only work for the owner of the car?
Not if they made mandatory. I'd expect the price-hikes will be comparable to what happended when the FCC announced that emergency GPS location will be mandatory in cell-phones (I.e. no price-hike at all. Electronics is cheap to mass-produce.)
Probably true. And who gives s shit. Considering what gun owners are paying now any electronics will be chump change compared to the original price. And price has never stopped gun owners before. Just look at the ridiculous prices they're paying for AR-15s.
I don't think anybody is proposing to include a remote killswitch.
Hackers, baby! Dirt bag who wants to rob house and rape the little girls goes and buys the remote kill switch and you're dead and your women raped.
Guns need to be dissassembled and cleaned on a regular basis. Charging or replacing a battery does not add much to that procedure.
And if the battery dies in between cleanings and you need it??
I've read plenty of comments here and it seems people are very concerned with a "single point of failure" and "what if...I needed to use someone else's gun" (you know, to defend against the "attackers")
So let's not blow this out of proportions. There are plenty of viable uses for owner identification systems. IMO the US needs more gun control so this idea appeals to me.
Here's my vision of it:
1. Let's say there is a mechanism, that is roughly as reliable as the mechanical trigger mechanism in place to lock the gun should the person handling it not be an owner. I know, this is not yet the case but it could very well be in X time. (Because this "single point of failure" argument that seems to concern so many...for that crucial moment that so many of us actually encounter.)
2. Police and military will have "master access" or a shared key that will allow their soldiers to share weapons with each other. (You know, for those would be real life combat situations so many of you warriors describe.)
3. This will help prevent gun theft, illegal gun sales and make sure children don't accidentally blow a hole in something because they found Daddy's gun and he did not keep it behind two locked doors. (Because he needs quick access to his gun, for when the enemies attack)
That's how I see these smart guns working. I'm certain we'll have some sort of implementation of the sort, eventually.
And on gun control in America...it's high time owners will have to pay for psychological evaluation, mandatory handling training and be limited to one firearm per person. A handgun should be the maximum any person should be able to buy.
Not sure how America is better with so many gun owners...I certainly think it needs less guns, less gun owners and less guns per owner. -I know call me a commie conspirator.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
...and "lose", not "loose" ( http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling ), which is a mistake a simple spelling checker won't catch. For that you need to actually know how to spell.
And that kinda sums up the problem with this sort of technology. No technology will make a gun magically safe, for that you need to take personal responsibility for the education of gun owners (and parenting).
No sig today...
We have the technical capability to build cars that refuse to be operated by a drunk driver. Guess how many people would buy it.
Most people are asocial assholes and aren't willing to pay a premium for something that mostly benefits the safety of other people. If they gave a shit about their surroundings, they wouldn't be owning guns in the first place.
That can get you 20 years in Florida. Better to just kill someone and call it self defence. Don't forget to scream "help" right before you pull the trigger - it'll both confuse your target as well as bolster your self-defense case.
If there is even a 0.1% chance the gun will refuse to fire at that critical time when I need it to, it is not a safer gun.
Well, everybody wants the others to use smart guns and his be proven technology.
Police departments have adopted holsters that require 2 or 3 distinct actions to draw the pistol because this technology has been proven durable, reliable and effective at preventing officers from having their own pistol used against them.
Police departments are not adopting smart guns because they have not been proven durable, reliable or effective. The reason for this is the "smart gun" technology is still at the gadget level.
People aren't that fond of DRM....
The problem here is that we, as humans, are very bad at working with probabilities. When asked "how likely is ... ?" we mentally substitute the question "how easily can I think of examples of ... ?"
Try it yourself. Which of the below do you think is more likely:
* A child or teenager in the U.S. is kidnapped by a stranger (not a family member or aquaintance.)
* A child or teenager in the U.S. is killed or injured in an accident involving a gun.
If you're an average American, and unless you googled the statistics first, you probably said that stereotypical kidnappings are more common than gun accidents. After all, we hear about it in the news all the time, and you can probably name a few children that were abducted. Therefore you'd worry if our child goes out by himself, but feel quite safe leaving him unsupervised at home with a gun in the house.
In fact, gun accidents are much more common. There are about a hundred stereotypical kidnapppings a year in the U.S. but about a thousand gun accidents involving children and teenagers. (If we only look at fataiities, there are also more children killed in gun accidents than by non-family, non-aquaintance kinappers.)
When it comes to guns, we can very easily think of scenarios where we pulls out our gun and save the day. This happens all the time in movies, and although it happens rarely in reality it gets much publicity when it does, so in our minds it is a common occurence.
We have a much harder time imagining the statistically more likely scenario that someone else gets hold of our gun and hurts somebody with it.
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide (11 times more likely), a criminal assault or homicide (seven times more likely), or unintentional shooting death or injury (four times more likely) than in a self-defense shooting. (Source)
Statistically speaking, a gun with a personalization system that is so bad that it never allows the gun to fire would still be safer for the gun-owner and his family than a gun with no personalization. Still people worry about the remote possibility that "the gun might not fire in that critical moment."
Yoda: "Gun owners not buy smart guns because gun owner not smart."
So you're saying I can pay more to increase the chance of failure of my device that I'll likely only need in an emergency? Where do I sign up?
well duh — nobody wants a gun that crashes when the other guy is there with a gun that doesnt have software to keep it from functioning.
2cents
jp
If the police, who would benefit greatly from this technology, don't trust it why should anyone else?
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Theres a good reason why its such a failure. Guns and electronics can make bad bedfellows. I remember a light/laser combo that I put on a shotgun, it literally shook itself apart after a few outings. The shock from firing can be pretty brutal, firearms manufacturers have taken centuries to figure out little tricks to keep the guns from literally shaking themselves apart. Thats not to say that electronics cant be integrated into firearms, I have a couple dot scopes that prove that. But they have to be built very robust, and the manufacturer cant skimp on their materials. I don't particularly trust electronics as part of the firing mechanism at present, maybe down the road, far down the road.
I think they should be forced, if you have an "dumb gun" then you should have to trade up or get rid.
hearing ``click'' when you expect to hear ``bang''.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
...Similar debate on abortion, small laws
Your comment is nothing but a sneaky way to insert anti abortion propaganda into this conversation.
I agree, let's be civilized people and compromise. For example: allow guns with no restrictions, but completely ban ammo. As for abortion ... let's abort only upper or lower half of a fetus. There, two big debates solved.
To illustrate how quickly firearms can be stripped, I just timed myself as I field stripped my AK47. Including magazine removal and clearing the rifle, it took 19 seconds. I guess I'm rusty, this is *not* considered quick for an AK.
That's an oxymoron. Guns are inherently dangerous. They are supposed to be. The only way to make them safer is to disable them.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I had a brief look at the stats - i live in the uk, where pistols are completely illegal to own, and shotgun and rifle possession is rare and heavily regulated. Policemen carry a truncheon! Murder rates in the uk are 1.2(per 100k population per year) Murder rates in the US are 4.7(ditto) Simple?
If you can measure it, you can track it. No one wants electronics too close to their firepower.
I would never want to own a gun that cannot be fired by others. There are too many stories of self-defense (particularly home defense) using someone else's gun. If my girlfriend/wife/child/friend needs to defend themselves with my gun, I want that gun to work as perfectly for them as it would for me.
Nukes have never been raised from their silos in self defense. Guns are drawn in self defense daily. One of the safest places in the world is a gun range, because you don't start a fight knowing that everyone is armed.
* bonus fact - 80% of the time they are presented in self defense, they are not fired.
The fact they are ungodly expensive.
The article is stupid, it might as well say, "BMW 725i is a failure because far more Ford Festivas are sold each year."
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
[citation needed]
Let's get some citations on your stats of smart gun reliability and on gun deaths. It gets rather tiring to see people make up and spout off numbers to support their preconceived notions. Provide support, and think about the quality of your source.
An armed society is a polite society.
This is a variation of the 'better fences make better neighbors' concept.
The only two possible scenarios disregarding this are:
1. An authoritarian/totalitarian police state, or...
2. Anarchy
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
The reason they're failing in the market is the demand for them comes from people who do not, and have no desire to, own guns. The vast majority of gun owners simply do not want smart guns, largely due to reliability concerns.
It could lead to LESS safety with guns. So with a smart gun people could say "I don't have to worry, it is a smart gun!" and not handle it as safely.
Guns are NOT dangerous devices, what they are is powerful and unforgiving. Dangerous would imply something like a lion, that might just attack for no perceivable reason. A gun only goes off when the right set of circumstances are met.
For example, want to have no chance of a gun firing? Simply remove the ammunition. If there's not a round in the chamber then there is no way it can fire, period, without that being changed.
As someone else mentioned exact figures are hard to come by. Studies vary. What is clear is it guns are drawn but not fired in self defense daily.
It us also clear from studies in Texas after they introduced concealed carry and advertised the fact the civilians maybe armed, criminals reported they reduced criminal activity. Those studies suggest that letting criminals know "citizens may be armed" was almost as important as the licensing law itself - fear of armed "victims" matters as much as actual armed citizens.
Murder rates in the uk are 1.2(per 100k population per year) Murder rates in the US are 4.7(ditto) Simple?
Are you alleging that the difference (3.5 murders per 100k) in the US are solely attributable to the presence of firearms? This really isn't a simple comparison.
Much like firearm suicide rates, which some studies disingenuously include in firearm homicides, etc... if you take away the guns then people find a way to do it anyway. For example, I believe you have much more in the way of "man under train" than we do in the US. Oh, and far more Tylenol/paracetamol suicides (never do this).
Okay, I guess I am on a rant now. For gods' sakes, people, if you are determined to kill yourself then you should know that nitrogen asphyxiation is painless, mess-free, and doesn't create a hazard for the first responders if you make proper arrangements. No need to splatter yourselves over the rails in front of kids or die in agony over days or weeks with a paracetamol-killed liver.
Wasn't a gun range the scene of a killing of a veteran recently..
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/justice/texas-sniper-killed
Yea, even the gun ranges are not safe. But then again, no where is really 100% safe.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
When a cop says "this is reliable enough to trust my life to it" - then I might consider it.
If I am reaching for my gun, it's already the very, very, very last resort. It may in fact be already too late.
I want it to work when I use it, as close to 100% of the time as humanly possible to manufacture.
Any layer of delay, any layer of doubt, any additional point of failure between me and the function of that tool I've reached for may cost me or a loved on their life.
-Styopa
Freedom and Democracy are not necessarily good things, some people just suck.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
If these things were so amazing, you'd think the police would use them. After all, they aren't in a situation like the military, where you might need to use somebody else's weapon, and it IS an occasional problem where the police have their own weapons taken and used against them. Plus it sets a good example.
So they should be all over them, right?
Ya well, not so much for the reasons the original poster detailed. Reliability is a big one. You'd have to prove the reliability of the system, in a bunch of trials and demos before people would be convinced. It would need to be real reliable too, around the same reliability as the mechanical systems (guns do jam sometimes). If a given weapon has a reliability of 1 problem in 5000 rounds and your smart system causes problems at a rate of about 1 in 50, there's going to be little interest.
Remote issues would be another one. The system would need to be demonstrated to be hardened against remote interference. The last thing the police would want is some electrical system that could disable guns remotely, and even worse, silently. You can harden against that, but it would need to be done and demonstrated effective.
Price is another real concern. How much is something like this going to add to the cost of a gun? I could easily see it being a few hundred dollars. For example have a look at something like an EOTech weapon sight. That's an electronic sight, runs on batteries, that is designed to survive the rigors of battle (the US military uses them). They are $400-700 roughly, depending on options. So, not hard to believe an electronic safety gadget might cost the same. That can double, or more, the cost of many firearms. That is going to be a rather hard sell to people.
If someone can demonstrate a cheap, reliable, solution, well then I can see there being interest in it, at least in some cases. However I've yet to hear of one. As such, no surprise nobody is buying.
One of the safest places in the world is a gun range
And yet people do get murdered at gun ranges. Do you have any evidence to back up your proposition that gun ranges are actually safer than average? I couldn't find any actual statistics as to whether you were more or less likely to be shot at the gun range, but my gut instinct says it's probably slightly higher than average because besides the occasional murders and suicides, there's also accidents to account for. It's simple mathematics, since the gun range has a much higher concentration of guns than most other places, the per-gun murder, suicide, and accident rates would have be substantially lower than other locations to balance out the higher concentration.
because you don't start a fight knowing that everyone is armed.
Often enough people do because they're angry, stupid and/or crazy. The problem when everyone is waving a gun around, how do you know which one to shoot?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I'm no user of physical guns, but perhaps that it would take to get future smart guns to actually remotely sell would be if it added other functionality to it - especially if the downsides of the lock were legitimately linked to non-smart-lock features. Say for example, electronic aiming assistance like the auto-aim of the Linux Rifle featured a while back, it offers a reason to want a gun that requires batteries.
When it is good enough for our noble protectors to use, Ill consider buying one.
You mad
I reside in Georgia, and I have in fact carried my sidearm in plain view on MARTA and in the public areas of Hartsfield-Jackson.
I'm somewhat dubious that you carried openly in an airport unless you were wearing a uniform at the time or this was a LONG time ago. However even if you did I have to ask, WHY? Nobody is going to attack you in an airport that you are going to be able to defend against and it's about as secure a location as you are likely to be in. Your sidearm at best is NO help at all and at worst could cause a huge problem. I don't have any problem at all with people transporting their unloaded firearms though airports but if you brought a loaded firearm into an airport in the current security environment we should have heard your arrest report on the evening news. I say this even if what you did was perfectly legal. Actions like that are what gives thugs like the TSA the excuse they need to behave badly.
A disarmed populace is just a crop of victims waiting to be harvested.
Really? India seemed to do pretty well with passive resistance against the UK. The Soviet Union collapsed and it wasn't because of personal firearms. Your little personal firearms don't stand a chance against the military or even the police really. The notion that your personal firearms are what preserves your liberty is a cute little sound bite that doesn't really stand up to serious scrutiny. I have no illusions whatsoever that my own guns (yes I have some) are what is keeping our government at bay. What keeps them at bay is our collective behavior and our willingness to speak up courageously in the face of power. The government can overwhelm some of us for a time but it can't handle all of us forever. As the saying goes, "vox populi, vox Dei".
Contrary to popular belief, most folks who legally carry a firearm are not cowboys out looking for a reason to go shoot somebody up.
I think you are mistaken on what constitutes popular belief. I very much agree that most firearms owners are quite responsible and most Americans understand this. That's never really been the issue. The problem is how do you identify the people who are crazy? How do you identify the irresponsible ones? How do you identify the criminals? It only takes a small number of people with guns to cause a big problem.
In all likelihood you are not the one I'm really worried about. (Although if you actually brought a loaded gun to the airport maybe you are...) I'm a supporter of gun rights but the the gun lobby (aka the NRA) has really gotten out of hand. There ARE crazy people out there looking to shoot up schools and movie theaters and public gatherings. They exist but as a society we seem unwilling to have an adult conversation about what to do about them. I'm not for a moment proposing that we take away everyone's guns but I don't think it is unreasonable to register firearms, *require* safety and competency training, and to conduct background checks. I don't think it is unreasonable to require precautions when handing someone a weapon whose primary purpose is to kill.
I also sometimes focus too much on the spelling and grammar of a post. You are correct to point out the spelling error but it does not invalidate the point the author is making. Please Jellomizer, continue.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
These products are designed to sell to gun owners. Any product with "Smart" in the name is going to scare them off.
"Oh, what sad times these are when passing ruffians can say 'ni' to helpless old ladies."
You are correct in that the author was using his post to insert abortion into the conversation in a sneaky way. But, I think you should re-read his post. It seems apparent to me that he is actually a pro-choice supporter.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
Perhaps nobody is buying them because they are an over priced product with no market among the buyers. In a free market things like this flail.
Even when there was only 4 people on the planet there was still murder.
I'm pretty sure you were joking but there never has been only 4 people on the planet. That's not a viable breeding population and evolution doesn't work that way.
We are fortunate that we are allowed to protect ourselves and not have to totally rely on the government to be safe.
There are many ways to protect yourself and carrying a firearm isn't the best among them. Frankly if it gets to the point where you truly need a firearm, you probably screwed up somewhere along the way. (Not saying you shouldn't have the right to carry, just that it should be a very last resort)
Did you really fire a gun in your living room?
Sounds idiotic, YMMV. Earmuffs can help, but you really want for brains.
I started my kid out with unloading lessons, showed him how to remove the magazine and clear the chamber.
Safety first.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Actually, mass murders in schools date back to the Greeks, and one Greek philosopher noted an instance of the students of a school being murdered by the schoolmaster's slave by knocking out the central pillar, collapsing the school.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Shooting someone doesn't always mean you kill. You could shoot them in the foot for example. If it stops that person knifing an innocent in the heart, then that's a life saved.
If you draw a gun on someone you had best be prepared to kill them. You might wound them as per your example but that should not be your expectation. If you draw a lethal weapon on someone, your expectation should be that you are going to kill them and you should be prepared to possibly go to jail for your actions. You are NOT going to shoot the gun out of the guys hand. The real world isn't like a 1950s western. There is nothing wrong with drawing a weapon in self defense but be realistic about the consequences and likely outcomes of doing so.
Consider the scenario when the gun owner himself is the criminal and he's holding someone at gunpoint. The victim heroically manages to wrestle the gun out of his hands and then holds the perpetrator at gunpoint. The perpetrator laughs his ass off and smashes the victim over the head with a tire iron as the victim is helplessly trying to pull the trigger..... hmmm? That would suck!!
I know people will try to make this an issue about gun regulation, but ultimately this just boils downs to market economics.
People who are in favour of gun regulation, and who would be for this type of device, by and large simply don't buy guns.
People who do buy guns - sportsmen, hunters, and other gun enthusiasts - tend to be against greater regulation, especially if it will additional costs in the purchase of their firearm.
The type of person who would buy these "smart guns" - a gun enthusiast who's willing to pay more to have more control on their firearms - is going to be very small at best. It shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone that these guns weren't going to sell...
First, a correction. Most "gun deaths" are not caused by "legal weapons" but by criminals shooting victims. The police and armed citizens rarely shoot people by comparison. The problems isn't "illegal guns" but instead criminals using weapons. Criminals also use weapons other than firearms. "Smart guns" haven't caught on because of a failure of the inventors to understand the role that firearms play for police and armed citizens. Firearms are safety equipment, similar in many respects to a fire extinguisher. In an emergency they are needed RIGHT NOW and must function WITHOUT FAIL, because if they do not function then human life is threatened. So far none of the biometric gizmos can provide that 100% guarantee. Simple as that.
Probably because if you hold the gun the cool way on its side, it doesn't work even for the owner. Also I guess these guns haven't hit the black market yet, just wait, I am sure sales will pick up.
However, I have a computer that uses a fingerprint scan to unlock, and I have to drag my finger over it about a dozen times before it recognizes me and lets me in. I am not going to be in a position to draw my gun a dozen times while my assailant waits patiently before the gun unlocks.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Or you can just give them to your kids like some gun nuts do, and expect responsibility to follow automatically.
It's a stupid thing to do, but it does apply some selection pressure against gun ownership.
Cops are trained to handle their weapon properly, including responsible use (hopefully) and storage of that weapon. A cop that loses their gun, or lets their gun fall into the wrong hands does not last very long as a cop. If there was a huge issue where cops were losing or allowing their gust to be used by the wrong people, this speaks to a need to revamp the entire law enforcement industry, NOT adopt a safe weapon.
There is ABSOLUTELY no market for this "safe gun" for law enforcement. Any technology that might cause a gun to fail in a situation that requires split second decision making is not going to be a product tolerated by law enforcement.
Anyone saying that law enforcement is already adopting this technology OR that the market for this technology is law agencies are lying and/or woefully out of touch with reality.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Sometimes people do because they're angry, stupid and/or crazy. The problem when everyone is waving a gun around, how do you know which one to shoot?
There .. fixed that for you. You can change it back to often when more than a fourth of gun owners have done so.
Who do you know who to shoot?? Probably the guy that is doing the shooting and killing would be my guess. During the Tucson shooting, several people in the crowd had guns, but didn't shoot because they couldn't identify the shooter (this is Arizona, many people carry guns. I've even carried a gun on my hip into Chase bank without any incident.) The shooter was disarmed later by unarmed people, and a guy who had a gun mistakenly thought the person who took the gun was the shooter. However, he didn't shoot because the person with the gun WASN'T SHOOTING AT ANYONE.
Just because a few people are ignorant (mostly people who don't shoot guns) in how guns work doesn't mean everyone is.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
You also live on an island that doesn't have a third world country half in civil revolt due to drug cartels. Not to say we don't have some retarded laws, an inadequate safety net/welfare, and a prison system that favors recidivism (for profit) over rehabilitation. Frankly just ending the drug war would make the violent crime drop like a rock. For lack of a better term, significant gun control in any Euro or UK style is a ship that sailed a long time ago, especially given current gun politics climate and supreme court decisions. Frankly what Switzerland has is largely similar, out side of ammo purchasing and possession, is fairly similar to what some of the stricter US states have. Their murder rate is very similar to the UKs and they have a high number of firearms per capita. I'd prefer to fix the social issues and keep the guns. It seems to largely have worked for Switzerland.
A system that restricts access control isn't voluntarily adopted by the marketplace? You don't say! Clearly what we need to do is mandate that this technology be included in all market devices so that even lawful owners must be hindered by the access restrictions since we can't distinguish lawful owners from unlawful ones. It's not like the determined criminals will ever disable the access restrictions, but if they do we just need to make them sufficiently complicated that it's really hard to circumvent. So maybe the complexities will cause a few points of failure for law abiding citizens... let's be realistic; people who own guns are probably all future criminals. Besides, we can criminalize circumvention with some kind of... anticircumvention clause. Better yet, how about we only lease funds so that you can never actually own a gun at all? Then we could know who's firing the weapon by checking it against the access database. We could even restrict firing to only authorized targets. We should call it firearms rights management. If only some kind of marketplace restriction attempted to be forced upon customers already existed, I could prove to you how great and effective a system this would be!
They use technology to enable a device to work under certain circumstances. This wording is more accurate and helps to make the issue more clear. It's more evident that if the technology should fail, it won't enable the device to work when needed. This could be anything from a misread fingerprint to a dead battery.
I'm surprised slashdot doesn't regularly make the analogy to DRM which upon failure (or server shutdown) prevents people from using their own media.
The pistol and rifle industry and their customers move very very slowly, particularly with new innovations.
How many .45 cal 1911 style semi-auto guns are still being sold? thousands upon thousands, I should think.
Revolvers, the design of which hasn't changed substantially in the last 150 years, are still extremely popular.
I remember when the Glock came out and everyone was freaking because it had a new kind of safety and it wasn't entirely made of cold hard steel. Had there not been bunches of sales to law enforcement, it would probably still be a curiosity weapon.
You learn to shoot with a particular style of weapon and that's what you tend to stay with.
Here on Slashdot, a car analogy is appropriate. Joystick controlled cars have been around since the 50s, but darn it, those manufacturers still keep building cars with steering wheels and pedals on the floor. We did move beyond the early tiller controlled schemes, though.
And I notice that we still use separate fork and spoon, rather than the spork.
Maybe they need to follow the way games are going, have DLC, apps,etc
Buy 1 bullet for $3 or 10 bullets for $20
You can rent a cartridge for $5 per week!
Laser Scope is only $20 a day!
Buy auto targeting app for 99 cents!
Or a starter bundle of 5 bullets, a cartridge for a week, and a night vision scope for $30
Don't forget about the leaderboards, kill more people than your friends! Make sure to link your twitter account so you can live tweet every kill, or post on the victims facebook wall "Haha you're dead bitch!"
The vast number of people killed by handguns are suicides. Smart gun wouldn't do anything for that.
But if you do entertain suicidal thoughts, DON'T keep a gun in your house! People that don't own guns are less likely to kill themselves.
That sounds stupid, but it follows the logic that Americans are really lazy and like convenience. So if they don't have an easy way to kill themselves they won't.
Japan is a major exception to that rule though, I assume because they are a culture immersed in ritual. The Japanese carry out long complicated means of suicide or travel to special places.
Disposal BBQs were (are?) popular. People would seal up their windows and doors and light a bunch of them and asphyxiate themselves.
I myself, if I needed to do it, would plan a trip to Home Depot to find the perfect hanging rope. I think nylon or cotton braid would be nice. Nylon is a bit stretchy though.
Definitely not polypropylene, that would chaff like a son of a bitch.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
The device IS a remote kill switch. You use an EMP to disable the electronics and the gun will not work.
If these are so great, why don't the police and other law enforcement people start using them?
This is a tech site. Its not hard to understand why people don't want this: its basically DRM, which exposes its core flaw:
- It makes the content/device less likely to operate when the legitimate users wants it to, and the security will be bypassed/cracked by an illegitimate user if they want it.
Guns are simple mechanical devices that are a mature tech. As a matter of fact simplicity is a major selling factor on the quality of a design. Designs like the recently introduced Caracal pistol actually brag about low parts counts. Introducing into that simple design anything with a battery and/or a circuit board is not a welcomed addition.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I had a brief look at the stats - i live in the uk, where pistols are completely illegal to own, and shotgun and rifle possession is rare and heavily regulated. Policemen carry a truncheon! Murder rates in the uk are 1.2(per 100k population per year) Murder rates in the US are 4.7(ditto) Simple?
You left out the fact that after 1997, when the UK implemented its handgun ban, murders with handguns doubled over the next 5 years (not that they were all that high to begin with). Violent crime doubled and violent crime with firearms (not including air-weapons) quadrupled. (Home Office Statistical Bulletin Jan 2002). The UK has *always* had low murder rates both prior to and after your ban, but it took close to 12 years after your ban was put in place to get your murder rates back down to where they started prior to 1997. That is not exactly a shining example of gun control done right. That is also not mentioning the fact that the UK press estimates 4-5 million illegal guns on the streets in the UK as well as the fact that they did a survey and 1 in 5 Brits know where to get a gun if they need one. Again, not the shining example of working gun control.
Police officers are constantly in environments where their pistol could be taken by a criminal. Why are the proponents of this technology not requiring cops to use it? And why are cops refusing to even consider these kinds of mechanisms?
Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
I really wasn't trying to insert abortion into the conversation. Except for the fact it another deeply polarizing issue about safety vs liberty. And the debates about it go on shooting stereotypes and other stuff, instead of actually looking at the issue at hand. I am actually quite happy you figured my comment was suppose to be about pro-choice, because I am actually pro-life, but I try hard to understand why good people choose pro-choice. But I didn't want to bring the abortion debate into the post but express similarities in the two debates, about Safety vs. Liberty. Where the political spectrum splits these core ideas.
The arguments the the Right use for Gun Control is the same the Left does for Pro-Choice.
These debates is what gets people really riled up and stand behind their politician... However they are too polarized to get anything done on either side. Other than pissing off the other 50% That is why they talk big during the elections then often do little afterwards. Sometimes the most passionate speeches will be about blocking the bill so it doesn't pass.
We are wasting too much resources on this and should focus on better topic.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So, we went from a point of having 0 people, to having 1000 people, with no intermediate stage? Please explain the science of that.
You're presuming that humans came into their current form all at once. Could not possibly have happened that way. There were a series of incremental mutations within the breeding population that over time became what we presently think of as homo sapiens. Think of it this way. If you took 4 people and dropped them on an island, they would die out from inbreeding even if nothing else killed them. Adam and Eve is a cute story but from a biology standpoint it is quite impossible.
Put the battery in the magazine.
I played Metal Gear Solid 4. I know where this leads. PMCs taking over the worldddd.
just because it cant currently be used by someone other than the registered owner doesnt mean that noone can hack it so that it will work with anyone. where there is technology, there are hackers. any law that makes these guns the only ones usable wont change anything because bad people will still get a hold of guns not registered to them.
Uh, yeah, that wasn't exactly an alleyway mugging gone wrong...
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
If someone has taken away your gun and points it at you to kill you and it does not go off, do you think that:
a) they will run away when they realize it wont fire
b) realize you are now unarmed and will crush your skull in with that big piece of steel they just took from you
c) throw the gun away and crush your sorry unarmed ass with their bare hands.
Think about it. :-D
Then carry two guns.
When they take the first one shoot them with the second one.
... the fuck would I buy a gun in the first place?
Americans fucktards...
The 'smart gun' is just the latest round. In the '70s it was guns that only fired if you were wearing a magnetic ring. IIRC they wetre actually available but nobody bought one.
Imagine a handgun that used SELinux to prevent unauthorized use.
It would do a great job of preventing unauthorized use, but it would frequently get in the way of the authorized user using it like they had for years, so everyone would disable it except for a few gurus who would tell the rest of us how stupid we are.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Typical desperate statistician - take ONE incident and twist that to mean they are right... WHO's he moron in this discussion?
Who do you know who to shoot?? Probably the guy that is doing the shooting and killing would be my guess. During the Tucson shooting, several people in the crowd had guns, but didn't shoot because they couldn't identify the shooter (this is Arizona, many people carry guns. I've even carried a gun on my hip into Chase bank without any incident.) The shooter was disarmed later by unarmed people, and a guy who had a gun mistakenly thought the person who took the gun was the shooter. However, he didn't shoot because the person with the gun WASN'T SHOOTING AT ANYONE.
Of course, the fact that the legally-armed private citizens in the crowd didn't pull their guns and shoot because they made the rational decision not to shoot without a clearly-identified target isn't sensational, so the media didn't flog it every chance it got for the next two weeks. If the media gave rational use of guns by private citizens the same exposure that they give to kids who get expelled from school for having a transparent-plastic squirt gun in their backpack, much less people who actually use guns in the commission of a crime, it would be a lot harder to justify the "guns are an unparalleled threat to society" argument. But that wouldn't sell advertising, and we all know that the purpose of news reporting isn't to inform the public; it's to collect viewers for the commercial time between the stories.
...so? His murderer used a gun, did he not?
If you intended to say "That happens surprisingly rarely", you should have put "That happens surprisingly rarely".
(How common it actually is, I don't know.)
The UK handgun ban is largely irrelevant given how rare UK handgun ownership was to begin with. Even if it was then looking at how gun crime stats change immediately after a ban rather than over a longer period and in context of other events is pointless.
Is life and safety more important than liberty.
I would say, based on the fact that, over the millennia, millions, billions, even trillions of people have given up their lives and safety in the mere pursuit of liberty pretty much gives you your answer: No.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Have you ever used a fingerprint scanner for a PC? It takes 3 tries often enough, and you have to move slowly and press at an exact angle and pressure.
Pretty sure a common problem with these guns is people don't feel safe if their gun takes 20 seconds to recognize you are yourself. If you buy a gun to shoot a badguy who pops out of the shadows, or a deer that suddenly appears from behind a bush, I bet 20 seconds is a lifetime too long.
Until smart guns are just as reliable and usefull as the not so smart ones, they will be a very DUMB idea.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
You seem to be thinking seriously, and come to some wise conclusions, such as the importance of training. I supported (and the NRA supported) the training requirements in Texas.
You seem to have forgotten, though, tha the US military has never been defeated by another military. It's always been by an armed populace. We defeated the Iraqi military in something like 30 hours. Many years later we hadn't stopped the ordinary Iraqis with ordinary guns - they chasing us out of the country.
It wasn't Afghan tanks that defeated the Soviet Union, it was shopkeepers with rifles.
You could debate either way if you were just thinking in the abstract. To know, you'd need to try it. We did. The UK banned guns, violent crime DOUBLED. Look at Detroit, Washington DC, Australia. Gun bans are always followed by a huge increase in crime. It happens every time. Even when you make small "gun free zones" (helpless victim zones) you quickly see more crime in those places.
Compare Texas. They passed their CHL law, crime dropped. So we don't have to imagine "what would happen if". We can look at "what did happen when".
The UK handgun ban is largely irrelevant given how rare UK handgun ownership was to begin with. Even if it was then looking at how gun crime stats change immediately after a ban rather than over a longer period and in context of other events is pointless.
I went back 30 years prior to the ban (when the Home Office still had those records). The only drastic increase both prior and since was in 1997-2002. Their violent crime literally doubled in 5 years. Prior to '97 their crime increase was marginal to nonexistent, pretty much in line with population increase. There was no reason for the explosion of crime in that period. It was pretty much unprecedented.
They have since brought their crime back down to at or below 1997 levels (as a percentage of pop), but the gun ban did not work as intended. There were numerous MPs that were absolutely livid about the statistical numbers when they came out in 2002, but nothing ever came of it and any attempts to reverse the ban were defeated.
Yes, UK gun ownership was always low and gun murder (actually murder in general) low as well. The fact that it doubled immediately after the ban, while I cannot claim causation, cannot be dismissed lightly and putting the UK as a good example of gun control at work is disingenuous at best. To this day they are still dealing with massive numbers of illegal guns in the hands of criminals.
Any technology that enhances the likelihood of the owner being killed will die in the market due to natural selection by rational gun owners.
You don't point a gun at someone unless you are in serious trouble. At that point you do not want a non-zero chance that technology will prevent it from firing beyond something as obvious and simple as a safety interlock (and not all guns even have those)...
Similarly if you trust the gun not to fire because of some technology and are stupid enough to leave guns where kids (or a criminal) can reach them, THAT would also be darwinism in action.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Except that the ownership of a gun only sometimes results in someone's death. Abortions, particularly when "safely" and properly executed, always result in someone's death.
I'm not a big fan of the gun lobby, but I guess you could say the Right actually has the slightly higher ground on this comparison. Abortion tends to rile people up because PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY BEING KILLED ON PURPOSE. A "safe" abortion always leaves someone dead, whereas a "safe" weapon usually does not.
Considering that I frequently find the gun lobby to be full of shit, you can only imagine what I think of the "Keep Abortion Safe and Legal" crowd.
Guns are simple tools that must work 100% reliably in a life saving situation. Anything that gets in the way of that is a problem.
Failing to understanding why some electronic device is not popular means you just don't grok gun ownership and the reasons for it at all.
There are also those who argue that you shouldn't wear your seat-belt
Would you use a seat-belt that instead of using mechanical latches used a powerful electro-magnet to hold the fastener secure?
That's what you are asking gun owners to do (metaphorically).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Broken scope" correctly pointed out that you wouldn't attempt a trick shot in a life-or-death situation, but your overall point is true. Most criminals who are shot in self-defense don't die, which was your point. Also, 80% of the time a gun is presented in self-defense, it's not fired. So st least 90% of the time, noone dies.
I once had an intruder intending violence climb through a window into my home. As they did,they found themselves looking down the twin barrels of my shotgun. They left very quickly. I've never fired at anyone, but I have defended my family. That's statistically the most common scenario.
As a trained firearm owner, I agree there is no need to be rude to people who don't know in this kind of exchange. I think it is wise to educate people as Broken scope did, you do not shoot if you don't have to, and if you have to shoot, you shoot at the center of the threat. No need to be rude about it, though.
Maybe because when someone breaks into your house and you need it you don't want the batteries in your guns fingerprint print scanner to be dead or have time for it to boot up.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
You're right, this singular example completely invalidates his point. Well done. You should be a lawyer.
I'll buy one of those four years after the FBI, DHS and the Secret Service Agents that protect the President have been using them as Standard Issue! Until it is good enough for them to use, forget about it!
...no where is really 100% safe.
Yes, I live here, and it's true
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The point is that having a gun does not necessarily make you safe,
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
The point is that having a gun does not necessarily make you safe,
Yes I am posting this reply again, just want to make sure you see it.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Oops, seems I responded to the wrong comment (I assumed I hit a comment-depth limit) - I was aiming for godefroi's comment.
*Sigh* Oh, so I had hit the depth-limit. Bah.
Ahh ok, that completely changes the reading of that comment. I was a bit lost there, thanks for clearing it up!
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
You know, it actually might. I recall reading part of an official police study/report on an incident. An individual was being handcuffed, he was non-resistive, an office was holding him down, and was in the process of being handcuffed. Suddenly the gun of an officer standing about ~5' away from the suspect fired. Surprised, the officer acts confused for a short time, then puts her gun back into her holster as several other officers approach the scene presumably asking what happened. Luckily the suspect was only grazed. The report, mentioned earlier, was of course long and drawn out. Statistics and analyses, probability and forensic studies. But what it all boiled down to, the reason for this near tragedy ? "When the officer pulled the trigger the gun fired", literally the crux of the document was that the the trigger weight was too lite. Despite the fact that this model had one of the heavier trigger pulls of any gun on the market, not only that but her specific gun was tested and it had a significantly heavier trigger pull than the specs! So you're right, a police firearm that doesn't fire when an officer pulls the trigger would be an "benefit". Preventing numerous accidental shootings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOI9ahGxMfk
Interesting viewpoint and way at looking at the debates. I would tend to phrase it more along the lines of "to what degree are life and the increased chance of safety more important than what amount of liberty?" but even that phrasing could, I admit, be starting the debate, not 'just' framing it.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Another thing to look at is police hiring. After the gun ban was in place, and crime shot up (so to speak), there was a massive increase in the hiring of police. That no doubt helped tamp things down again, but there was a cost in more than one sense.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
My point was, that guy was obviously mentally unhinged, and what happened at that range could have (would have?) happened anywhere. Obviously, a rational person would consider that a range is more likely than elsewhere to have a high concentration of people prepared, able, and willing to defend themselves and others.
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
@ godefroi:
what happened at that range could have (would have?) happened anywhere
The pro-gun-control response to this is obvious.
Obviously, a rational person would consider that a range is more likely than elsewhere to have a high concentration of people prepared, able, and willing to defend themselves and others.
What matters is reality, not the behaviour we would expect of perfect rational actors.
raymorris claimed
One of the safest places in the world is a gun range, because you don't start a fight knowing that everyone is armed
but this claim was unsubstanciated, and the fact is the murder at the shooting range did happen.
I want my family to have access, but I also see it as another chance for something to go wrong. If you shoot a lot, sooner or later you will have a misfire. and although very slim that is always a chance in self defense. No thanks, I'll take the plain variety
Hand prints, fingerprints and other biometrics would be useless for most soldiers who wear gloves in combat or police officers in the northern latitudes, again gloves.
Except it isn't *suprisingly* rarely, it's just rare. Like he said, "one of the safest." You are statistically much less likely to lose your life at the range than in the average American's home (or about equally as safe if your not married.)
@computererds: I'll cut to the chase: {{citation needed}}.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but gun 'facts', on both sides, are a dime a dozen.
What matters is reality, not the behaviour we would expect of perfect rational actors.
raymorris claimed
One of the safest places in the world is a gun range, because you don't start a fight knowing that everyone is armed
but this claim was unsubstanciated, and the fact is the murder at the shooting range did happen.
The fact that a murder happened at a range doesn't refute the claim that "one of the safest places in the world is a gun range" in the least. You might have noticed that murders occasionally happen *NOT* at a gun range as well...
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
The fact that a murder happened at a range doesn't refute the claim that "one of the safest places in the world is a gun range" in the least. You might have noticed that murders occasionally happen *NOT* at a gun range as well...
Fair enough - we're both talking crap. Citation still needed.
Seriously, I don't think I could buy one if I wanted to. The gadgetophile in me loves the idea, but there's only one company making 'em, it's only a 10-round .22LR, and there's that infamous video of the salesman handing the gun to the customer to test - instead of going silent, he pulls the trigger and it clicks - the hammer fell on an empty chamber, in spite of the smart electronic safety being engaged at the time. After the first dry-firing, it stops going but if that's their idea of a promo video, I'm worried.
.22LR for a couple hundred bucks, and if I shop around I could get a really nice European gun made by people better known for making Olympic target pistols at that price. If I'm in a hurry, I can find a used Ruger Mk.3 for about that price just about anywhere. And that Triggersmart thing - that lump's so big I probably couldn't holster a retrofitted gun. I certainly can't use it alongside a Radtec round counter, which sits in the same spot but is a much smaller box. Additionally, I doubt most people could effectively conceal a handgun with an inch-thick block sticking out of the side; the trend is toward small, slim, and round-edged these days for a very good reason.
Maybe I'll look into smart guns again in a decade or so, that should be enough time for them to 1: actually reach market, and 2: implement some worthwhile features. Let's say you've got a smartwatch, like the Armatix gun. It's got electrodes on the back. Make my wrist tingle when I'm getting low, and itch outright when the magazine's empty. Hell, this is 2023. Google Glass is out, and we've already got pica tinny "action cams". Let's make a camera under the barrel feed video to my Glass. If you gave me Land Warrior on a handgun, I'd be inclined to overlook the new points of failure; the ability to fight from behind cover without exposing yourself to return fire is pretty revolutionary. Set it up so my smartphone dials 911, feeds the operator my Glass-eye view, my words, and speakerphone audio - odds are if I'm drawing a weapon on short notice, I want the police to show up, know exactly where I am, and who I've been shooting at.
If domestic law-enforcement drones end up legal, automatically task one to my location, and let the 911 operator work with me to tag the bad guy so I know if I'm pinned down, or I can get away safely. Some of this is also going to involve a smart holster, but Viridian has developed the prototype for that already.
The problem is right now, smartguns are all stick, no carrot. I get a low-capacity, small-calibre, weapon that has glowing TRON lines (maybe they should have put the indicator in the front sight? The thing that's supposed to be easy to see while you're shooting?) to give away my position, an unreliable safety mechanism that'll only let me get shot with my own gun once, and all this for the price of "If you have to ask, you can't afford it". I could get a very nice used, 10-round
Seriously, right now there is no benefit to smartguns.
Do you add complexity to a system when it isn't necessary? Do you introduce more things that can fail when you don't have to? Most people are resistant to those propositions with good reason ..... experience.
Many times, gun owners have been asked to meet in the middle, and many times they have. First they came for machine-guns and grenades, and that seemed reasonable at the time.
Then they came for short-barreled weapons; only a last minute rebellion didn't have every handgun in America rounded up.
Then they came for "assault weapons" - old fashioned rifles with ergonomic grips made of black plastic. Amusingly enough, bayonet mounts were gone after, even though Uncle Sam thinks bayonets are no longer militarily relevant.
Now most gun owners are sick of compromise. Can you blame 'em? They've been asked to compromise over and over again, and they have been pretty willing to it until about 2000. If America's big gun companies don't seem as innovative as any random Pakistani gunsmith with an anvil and a campfire there's a pretty good reason for that. Everything that's legal and technically feasible has been done, at least once, and much of it just isn't financially feasible.
Also, on your second example, I think you actually meant "safety over liberty".