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."
Everyone take a deep breath. The manufacturers do know they aren't going to be big sellers. Some people are interested in the technology developed. Like Android with the face-recognition for unlocking your phone, it's kind of an advertising gimmick that no one actually uses. Or you could put a physical Yale lock on a phone, make it very secure, right? But it's not really that useful. No need to get angry over it, just not working right now.
You seem to have left Europe out of it. Little fact, Switzerland and Finland have close or higher rates of gun ownership than the USA.
Trigger locks are a joke by the way...
Instead of a nice 15 second clip of someone defeating a trigger lock (you could have found hundreds of them - Hell, your link had three linked from it), you posted 40 minutes of anti-gun FUD propagandist bullshit? Classy.
And as for locks - some trigger locks count as a joke. That amounts to a straw-man, however; some balcony rails count as a joke, but we don't scream bloody murder that we need to ban balconies - We buy functional rather than purely decorative rails instead.
You want an effective cheap gun lock? If you can Fire this with the lock in place, I'll buy you a beer (or a wine spritzer with some foofoo garnish, if you prefer). Five seconds on and off, and you can't even seat the magazine, much less rack it.
The answer is: pretty often.
Numbers are argued over constantly, so I won't bother quoting any, but this subreddit is relevant: http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
Your link is to a reddit run by gun nuts that links to various right-wing news agencies. How did it get modded "insightful"?
Well, let's take a look at these right-wing news agencies from the current front page of dgu.
myfox8.com, 9news.com, wbir.com, abc57.com, wsbt.com, abclocal.go.com, live5news.com, salisburypost.com, newyork.cbslocal.com, wsoctv.com.
Those look an awful lot like a bunch of links to local news station stories to me. The point of that subreddit is to bring those local news stories in one place because defensive gun use never makes national media.
But there was ONE link to freep.com, is that the only one you looked at then decided you had done enough research?
Asking why someone wouldn't want to buy a gun based on unreliable, unproven technology is like asking someone on a boat if they would rather have a cutting-edge life vest that hasn't been tested and may or may not work in the water or a proven, simple vest that been in use for decades.
If you need a gun, you want one that you KNOW is going to work when you need it. And if you don't need a gun--well you're not going to be buying ANY kind of gun. So there is simply no market for a smart gun.
The only way these things will ever sell is if some well-meaning legislature steps in and makes non-smart guns illegal. And that legislation will be overturned the first time some cop gets shot because his "smart" gun misread his fingerprint.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Good site is the FBI. They keep stats on homicides and their means. Guns are not number one. So wait, it *does* prove they're dangerous even without guns.
Would it surprise you to know that, well, you're wrong?
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
I'll save you time: while you would be correct to say that firearms are responsible for more murders than any other cause, the number of non-firearms murders is very nearly half that of firearms... roughly 8k to roughly 4k.
The point being: yes, granted, guns are used more often in murders... but it seems like those without guns are managing just fine without them too. Besides, I'm pretty sure those getting killed with fists and feet don't feel any better about it than those shot with a gun.
Now, a little thought experiment: if there were no guns, what do you think would happen? Would the TOTAL number of murders go down by roughly 8k? Or, would the number of murders not using guns GO UP? I hope you wouldn't try and say the former because if so, sir, you're retarded. Would non-firearms murders go up 8k? No, I very much doubt it... but the number WOULD go up.
And why is that? Simple: violent people are violent people. Yes, guns might make it easier for them to kill... but a good percentage of them are going to murder WITHOUT a gun just the same... and hey, to use the anti-gun argument against them: isn't ONE murder with a boxcutter too much? Better ban them! If we can save just ONE LIFE by banning baseball bats, shouldn't we?
I'm not saying that if we removed guns from the equation that we wouldn't save a few lives. I think we would. There's no doubt some murders that wouldn't occur at all if there were no guns. The problem is that guns UNDENIABLY save lives, nearly every day. Are those lives saved somehow less important than those saved if there were no guns? I'm not even claiming the number of lives saved by guns is greater than those taken by murder with guns (although I believe that's the case, but I don't have a reference so I won't claim it)... I'm just saying if it's all about saving lives (hint: IT'S NOT) then a life saved with a gun is just as valuable as one taken with a gun.
People who want to kill will, by and large, find a way. That's the bottom line and that's the fundamental problem in our society, the fact that people WANT to kill (putting self-defense aside of course). The fact that guns might make it easier is tangential to the root cause and while banning guns might save a few lives, the impact won't be nearly as large as you want to think it might be and we'll be talking about banning the NEXT inanimate object quickly. Stop trying to attack something that's a proximal cause AT BEST and get to the root of the problem. That's the way we might actually make a difference in this country. We don't have a "gun violence" problem, we have a VIOLENCE problem. Any time you see "gun violence", that just shows there's an agenda at play and that person actually cares very little for saving lives and is more interesting in exerting and extending control (Oh, did our president say that? Hmm, point proven!)
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa