"Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention

R3d M3rcury (871886) writes "How's this for a good idea? A gun that won't fire unless it's within 10 inches of a watch? That's the iP1 from Armatrix. Of course, don't try to sell it here in the United States." From the NY Times article linked: "[Armatrix employee] Belinda Padilla does not pick up unknown calls anymore, not since someone posted her cellphone number on an online forum for gun enthusiasts. Then someone snapped pictures of the address where she has a P.O. box and put those online, too. In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. 'Belinda?" the person wrote. "Is that you?" ... "I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote." The article paints a fairly rosy picture of the particular technology that Armatrix is pushing, but their ID-checking gun seems to default to an unfireable state, which might not always be an attractive feature. And given that at least one state — New Jersey — has hinged a gun law on the commercial availability of these ID-linked guns, it's not surprising that some gun owners dislike a company that advertises this kind of system as "the future of the firearm."

Comments

And cue..

[Anonymous Coward]

the fireworks

Because sociopaths don't wear watches?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I don't quite understand the point. Perhaps my own gun couldn't be used against me? That would be nifty for burglars who do not BYOG. However, for ones that do, it might spell trouble for me when I realize that my battery has died...

Re:Because sociopaths don't wear watches?

[generic_screenname]

Couldn't the criminal just hit you with the gun?

Re:Because sociopaths don't wear watches?

[i kan reed]

It's because half-measures are all that's constitutional to enforce, thus you can't actually contain the problem at a societal level, so people grasp at straws for limiting abuse of firearms.

Re:Because sociopaths don't wear watches?

[Anonymous Coward]

This, being an infringment on the right to keep and bear arms, is unconstitutional. Who told you otherwise?

Re:Because sociopaths don't wear watches?

[nine-times]

Well for one thing, it would probably help accidental shootings, kids playing with guns, etc. Also, lots of the guns that criminals have are stolen from legitimate owners. This countermeasure increases the difficulty of theft, since you'd have to either steal the watch as well or else have the expertise to hack/circumvent the lock.

It's not a cure-all, but it generally makes unauthorized use more difficult, which is often what security is about.

Re:Because sociopaths don't wear watches?

[i kan reed]

Selling guns is an infringement of rights to guns? That's just crazy.

Re:Because sociopaths don't wear watches?

[Stargoat]

heh. When cops start using it, then I will consider it.

Re:Because sociopaths don't wear watches?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apologies I misread that post, I took it to mean mandated restrictions on the types of guns being sold. My bad.

When the 2a was written the founders wanted to insure that the people had the ability to have the same arms that the invaders were bringing to bear against them. Now to take this to it's logical conclusion in the modern day... restrictions on full auto weapons would clearly fall in the unconstitutional side.

Now one can argue as to the original intent (and I'm not interested in that debate right now), but I think one thing is clear

1st amendment - freedom of religeon, and the press, speech, freedom to associate. You can think whatever you want and you can communicate same to anyone who wants to hear. This all is aimed at a political target, or to put it in shorthand, you have the right to challenge your government in your thoughts, writings and those of your associates.
2nd amendment - given the above, you alse have the right to be armed.

Put it that way and you can see pretty easily that the founders damned well weren't thinking about deer hunting!

Re:Because sociopaths don't wear watches?

[i kan reed]

No, they weren't but their logic doesn't hold up in the modern era. I hold that it was a constitutional mistake(and not even the biggest one).

Re:Because sociopaths don't wear watches?

[Anonymous Coward]

"but their logic doesn't hold up in the modern era"

How so?

I think human nature is a kind of constant, so the conditions back then remain today,

I am curious what you think has changed.

Re:Because sociopaths don't wear watches?

[TechyImmigrant]

>>"but their logic doesn't hold up in the modern era"
>How so?

Invading armies have bigger guns than the population can reasonably keep in their homes. As a means of maintain a well armed militia, protecting the rights of individuals to own pop guns to fight back against tanks and guided missiles is not going to work.

That wasn't so true back in the day.

Re:Because sociopaths don't wear watches?

[i kan reed]

I think human nature is a kind of constant,

Kind of. But even given that premise, military technology has changed substantially and in incredibly important ways.

I mean, I feel like we could debate the nature of tactics far beyond my ability to do so, without there being any notable points to change my mind. But even ignoring the small arms conflict, the nature of air support and intelligence asymmetry in warfare, I feel like one word could settle that question.

A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Count me out. No way would I rely on this technology, or the electronics, or the battery.

When I pull the trigger I don't want to hear a "beep" that's the equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death.

Thanks, but NO FUCKING THANKS.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be right, but none of that is a reason to threaten the people who make them.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Grishnakh]

Then don't buy one.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then don't buy one.

And if that's the only kind that's legally available?

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[koan]

Depends on the threat, a legal threat sure it is, threaten away with litigation or protest or any of the legal means.

A death threat? Well that's just stupid no matter what the case.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

...Then don't buy one.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Grishnakh]

Then take it up with your elected officials. You elected them, if you don't like the laws they make for you, then it's your responsibility to do a better job at the voting booth. Or move to someplace where your fellow citizens vote the way you like.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[MikeDataLink]

A pacemaker that depends on a battery? No way I would rely on such a device!

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may be right, but none of that is a reason to threaten the people who make them.

Sure it is, as in legal action, grass roots, publicizing them, blacklisting them, vilifying them, attempting to financially destroy them; those are all valid tactics.

All of these things the gun control folks have done to 2nd Amendment supporters.

Threatening them physically? Hell no.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[jythie]

I always find the rhetoric of people claiming to represent 'the people' complaining about 'the government' to be rather fascinating since if their views actually did represent the full population then it would be reflected in their elected officials.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not even a justification for a legal threat. Fix the NJ law is your option.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Grishnakh]

Not necessarily. When you live in a country like the USA which isn't democratic, but is rather an oligarchy (see the Princeton University publication proving this), then you can't expect the views of the general population to be reflected in elected officials and policy.

However, even in our not-very-democratic country, there is a certain amount of democracy to keep people fat and happy and believing that it is a democracy. You can see this in gun laws; some states have very strict regulations on firearms, others don't. If having lax firearms regulation is important to you, then don't move to New York or New Jersey or Illinois, it's as simple as that. Move instead to Texas, Arizona, or Vermont. If you move to New Jersey and don't like the gun laws there, that's your own stupid fault.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Kilo Kilo]

I see what you're getting at, but they're not really the same thing, although in either case if the battery dies, you might too. The difference is that the pacemaker is on all the time and the gun isn't. When the battery dies in the pacemaker, you know right away. If the battery dies in the gun, you might not notice it until you go to use it.

And most people aren't very good about checking the condition of their batteries. There's a good story from the next town over where the Fire Dept went to a heart attack and grabbed the AED only to find out that the battery died. These events might only happen once in a lifetime, but people would prefer to avoid taking the chance by simply removing the electronics from the equation.

I'm sorry, I forgot that we were talking about guns. This is no place for logical arguments.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to?

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're being illogical. Of course, that's why you own one of those things in the first place, but anyway...

That thing is just as likely to fail for you as it is the bad guy so there IS NO FUNCTION DIFFERENCE. These locks have no downside. Only an upside.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Orphis]

People aren't very good about checking the condition of their gun either.
Or if the safety is off.
Or if it's loaded.
Or if the kid didn't move it from the usual place when he showed it to his friends.

There's already a lot of uncertainty. You can't be sure of anything if you don't take care of it.
So no, a battery isn't an issue, it's another safety.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[MightyYar]

So long as we have corporations with free speech, they are completely legitimate targets as they are completely tied up in the political process. A "safety gun" company is absolutely going to encourage us towards requirement for their weapons.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[MikeDataLink]

I'd venture to say people are just as unlikely to clean and oil their gun and install fresh ammunition. Ammunition has a finite shelf life, and much shorter than you might think if left in humid locations.

If you're using your gun regularly (as you should be) to stay well versed with it. You should have zero problem keeping an eye on the battery.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[MightyYar]

They should just do something analogous to what smoke detectors do. Like every few minutes when the battery gets low, automatically fire off a round.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if it doesn't depend on a battery but a magnet?

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Agent0013]

People aren't very good about checking the condition of their gun either. Or if the safety is off.

That's why it is nice to have a revolver with no safety.

Or if it's loaded.

That's why I keep it loaded. It isn't much use in a home invasion if it isn't loaded.

Or if the kid didn't move it from the usual place when he showed it to his friends.

That's why you teach your children how to use guns at a young enough age that they understand it isn't a toy and they don't touch it.

There's already a lot of uncertainty. You can't be sure of anything if you don't take care of it. So no, a battery isn't an issue, it's another safety.

Electronics fail, batteries die, the more complicated you make something, the less reliable it is. That's why a revolver makes a better home defense gun than one with a clip and a slide and a safety. Those guns jam and misfire much more often when left there untouched for a year or more than the much more simple mechanism in a plain revolver.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[AC-x]

How about if an intruder is pointing that gun at you? Or if your depressed son is pointing it at his own head? In those situations you'd wish the gun had just gone beep.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Orphis]

You should consider a sword and shield to defend yourself, they are less likely to fail. Or a small dagger eventually if your place is not big enough to swing a sword around.
If you need to fight long distance, consider a bow and arrow. According to the Predator documentary, it even works against aliens with superior technology.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[PvtVoid]

They should just do something analogous to what smoke detectors do. Like every few minutes when the battery gets low, automatically fire off a round.

Somebody please mod parent "Funny".

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[sjames]

How many people like SOPA and CISPA? Why if the representatives only support laws that have popular support, do they sometimes sneak things in as a rider at the last minute? If it's so popular, surely it should be able to breeze right through as a standalone bill.

The 55MPH speed limit was so 'popular' it resulted in several very successful movies that were primarily about people violating the speed limit and evading law enforcement (and a bunch of smashed up cop cars).

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Jane Q. Public]

This is the inherent problems with all such schemes so far (and probably for the foreseeable future).

I could put this in terms of false positives, true negatives, etc. but that takes up too much space. Suffice it to say:

In just about all of these "safe gun" systems that have been built to date, the part about rejecting unauthorized users -- the whole point of the system -- has been shown to be at acceptable levels. Maybe after a little design tweaking, but that's to be expected.

The problem is NOT that they don't reject unauthorized users reliably. That's the easy part. The problem is that in order to do that part properly, they reject authorized users at far too high a level. When they make that part reliable the other part becomes unreliable, and vice versa.

The real problem here is that an effective self-defense or military arm has to be reliable at the 99.999% level. (Yes, I know some people will balk at that figure but there are solid and genuine statistical reasons behind it.)

When the probability of incorrectly detecting an unauthorized user (or failure to detect an authorized user) are too high, the weapon is useless for its primary purpose. When those numbers are too low, the "safety" system is useless for ITS primary purpose.

So far, nobody has some close to getting an acceptable balance, making these safety mechanisms work while still maintaining sufficient reliability. And I don't see that changing any time soon. It may be that the entire concept is little more than tilting at windmills.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[JeffOwl]

You mean like people on Slashdot who complain about CISPA, the Patriot Act, DMCA, Trans Pacific Partnership, FISA, etc, etc...

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[JeffOwl]

1. You put the same requirements on the electronics in this device that you put on pacemakers and nobody will buy it because it will be too expensive. 2. Pacemakers require a battery to work. If you need a pacemaker you don't really have a choice. A gun works just fine without a battery.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[shadowrat]

Depends on the threat, a legal threat sure it is, threaten away with litigation or protest or any of the legal means.

A death threat? Well that's just stupid no matter what the case.

you think simply not liking a product is a good grounds for legal threats? When you decide not to buy an iphone are you also laying the groundwork for a lawsuit simply because it exists but isn't what you want?

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Then take it up with your elected officials. You elected them, if you don't like the laws they make for you, then it's your responsibility to do a better job at the voting booth.

Have you already forgotten? The voting of individuals tends to have insignificant impact on any policy in the US. His proper paying membership dues in the NRA is bound to be much more important than that.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

A fallacy, if I've ever seen any. An unreliable pacemaker is better than no pacemaker, but only because we can't make a completely reliable one. With guns, though, the old adage that the cheapest and the most reliable components are those that aren't there is spectacularly valid, probably more than with anything else - just look how weapons have historically always been targets of attempts to make things simple (replacing milled parts with stamped ones, reducing number of parts requiring precise tolerances, reducing number of parts in general etc.) Oh, and jamming sounds like an interesting proposition.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

People aren't very good about checking the condition of their gun either. Or if the safety is off. Or if it's loaded.

A good self-defense weapon can be safely carried loaded even with its safety off. In fact, that's how they are carried. I'm not a gun person but I vaguely recall that many DAO pistols don't even have any external safeties. You always carry these loaded.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

A sling is much more pocketable than a bow and arrow. (You can even bring it on an airplane without the TSA noticing, for that matter. Not that it's of any reasonable use in an airplane, but there it is.)

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[misexistentialist]

You'd rather have one that didn't need a battery or radio programmability

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[NoKaOi]

Count me out. No way would I rely on this technology, or the electronics, or the battery.

And yet, you probably have no problem flying in a heavier-than-air aluminum can that is totally dependent on electronics, and where you will die if the electronics all suddenly fail. And you have no problem locking yourself in a steel cage nearly every single day that is controlled by electronics and hurtling down the freeway at 65+ mph.

I assume you own firearms now, how often do you maintain them? If the battery life is longer than the maintenance cycle, then why is battery life an issue?

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[koan]

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument, ("knock down a straw man,") instead of the original proposition.[3][4]

Grow the fuck up.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

They contribute to the problem.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

They said they would not do that, but they clearly lied.

No matter who the politicians are, they are legally obligated to obey the U.S. Constitution and they have sworn an oath to that. Any restriction on arms is an infringement.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Trailer Trash]

I can only hope you're trying for a "+1 funny" mod. A large amount of legislation gets passed that would easily fail a popular vote, and it's not always because we elected the "wrong party".

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

People aren't very good about ... is applicable to all aspects in life.

Not all guns have manual safety.

Even if you do keep constant and vigilant care how does that protect against wireless interference.

To sum up with all the safety you try to develop a finger is and always will be the final safety.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what's funny is I made a post in the past saying all death threats were bad, including death threats made by gay rights groups against that cake decorating business, but the responses I received were to the effect of it being "fair" and I got downmodded and all.

I hate politics in this country.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Trachman]

Not trying to be a flamebaiter, but one constitution, which is the basis for the laws applies in all of the 50 US states. Missouri basically said, 2nd amendment applies, any laws that try to limit anything are basically void. Again, when Roe Vs Wade law or Gay marriage law became federal laws applicable to any state, even the state that does not consent. So how fucking come one federal law is applied and pushed through the throats, while some other laws are just optional. By the way, encouraging debate opponents who do not agree with one's position to move to different state, country or planet is essentially claiming moral superiority and saying that unless you think the same way I think, your opponent does not deserve to live in your neighborhood.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[bigpat]

A pacemaker that depends on a battery? No way I would rely on such a device!

Well, I certainly wouldn't install one if I already had a perfectly good heart.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[KhabaLox]

That's why a revolver makes a better home defense gun than one with a clip and a slide and a safety. Those guns jam and misfire much more often when left there untouched for a year or more than the much more simple mechanism in a plain revolver.

You probably shouldn't be using a gun for home protection if you're going to let it sit untouched for a year or more.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Agent0013]

I won't argue that you shouldn't just leave a gun unattended and unused for a long time. The point isn't what you should or shouldn't do. The point is whether the gun will work or not when you need it. If you left it unattended and it jammed or the battery died or you can't even find where you put the watch (because keeping the watch in the same case as the gun would defeat the point), then you might as well not have had a gun in your house.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Grishnakh]

Good luck with pursuing a case against them for that. The Constitution (specifically the 4A) also prohibits search and seizure without a warrant. Try carrying around a bunch of cash with you and see what happens when a cop finds it in a traffic stop.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

When I pull the trigger I don't want to hear a "beep" that's the equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death.

What about a click? It's possible for a gun to run out of ammo, but no one uses that as an argument against guns in general. Gun owners take preventative measures to prevent such a situation. I'm not sure why a battery would be any different.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Grishnakh]

Encouraging people to move is not "claiming moral superiority", it's telling people that maybe they'd be happier someplace where people think more like them. Why do you want to live in a place where you don't agree with anyone and the local laws aren't to your liking, when there's other places where you'll fit in better?

As for the 2A, it doesn't say anything about batteries in guns, nor does it say that guns can't be regulated somehow. There's been various laws on firearms for ages; you can't buy a full-auto gun without a particular license, for instance, and various other restrictions have been upheld by courts for many decades. If some anti-gun state wants to require this technology, they probably can, legally. If that's a problem for you, then why not just move to a state where that's extremely unlikely, instead of sitting around and whining about it? As much as it might bother you, New Jersey is never going to be like Texas. If you like the culture of Texas (or whatever state) better, why not just move there? It's not like you need a visa to move within the US.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[MouseR]

What if it ran Linux?

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[TangoMargarine]

You mean the completely irrelevant second quote that was shoehorned into the middle of the summary?

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Fringe]

Completely wrong. Fight it. With everything you've got. Because otherwise gun-hating pacifists will soon force only those "safe" (meaning non-functioning) guns to be legal.

Grishnakh, are you generally anti-gun? Is there any reason a gun-owner or a supporter of the 2nd Amendment should consider you relevant?

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[kyrsjo]

Then don't buy one :)

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is why so many police officers and soldiers carry revolvers these days.

That "auto's fail" crap is just that: crap. If you clean your pistol, make sure to feed it ammo that it likes, and don't start off buying a $300 pistol; you'll almost never have to deal with a malfunction.

Look at the m9. Do you think that thing's gonna stovepipe any time soon? no. You know what else it won't do? Run out of ammunition after the first 6 shots...

Autos carry hotter loads (yeah, sure, there's the .454, .44. and .50 stuff, but no sane person carries those. 99% of the revolvers people carry are .38 special and that's just weaksauce. The .38 has similar power to a .9mm and I can carry a lot more 9mm than .38.

Revolvers are much less concealable due to their thickness and many come with such tiny barrels that they're just not accurate enough to trust.

Yeah, they never* fail, are easier to learn to operate, and generally have nicer triggers; but revolvers are a dying breed. Autos with magazines and slim frames are here to stay.

*almost never

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[KhabaLox]

Hmm. It sounded like you were recommending revolvers over automatics because they were more reliable when left unattended for long periods.

My point was that the question of the battery is not too relevant, as it shouldn't be an issue if you are properly maintaining your gun.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is America, where guns are so important that they're not left unfired for more than a couple of minutes anyway.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[laird]

Perhaps you're an awesome gun owner. Statistically, however, guns in the home are 5x more likely to be used to kill someone in the home (suicide, murder) than to stop an intruder. So if nothing else an electronic gun lock will save lives by making the gun a bit harder to use.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's funny :) I hate when the battery runs low at 3am -- would be much louder with a gun

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Agent0013]

Revolvers are more reliable if unmaintained. It does not matter what you should do. It matter what actually happens. And if you did not do the maintenance that you should have done, the revolver would be more reliable. It's pretty simple and the guys at the gun store made this point to my wife when she was looking for a gun. The simpler it is then the less things that can go wrong when you need it.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Agent0013]

I like the auto myself, but my wife went with the revolver in part because it is simpler and there is less stuff to go wrong. And 7 rounds is probably more than you need in a normal home defense situation. Plus hers is 357 magnum so it's got quite a lot of power, but for practice you can shoot the 38 special. It also has a seven inch barrel, so all the things you are complaining about are not even problems with hers. It even has a pretty cool day-glo orange site that is easy to line up.

And I have seen an auto 9mm that would jam up at least once for each clip we ran through it. My step-dad didn't keep that gun very long. So yeah, it happens, but probably less with a good brand.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[SJester]

I These events might only happen once in a lifetime, but people would prefer to avoid taking the chance by simply removing the electronics from the equation.

These things only happen once in a lifetime pretty much by definition.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Belial6]

That is stupid anit-gun logic. By that logic, you would be happier to have no police force than to have a bunch of cops gang raping you. Or you would be happier to have no job at all than be stuck in your office while the building burns down. Or, you would rather that a grocery store not exist in your neighborhood than to get botulismfrom one of their products.

On the other hand, if your son is depressed enough to shoot himself, having a length of rop and rafters, or even kitchen knives is just about as dangerous. And, burglers as a rule don't burgle armed with a gun. If someone is entering your house with a gun, they are doing it to do you bodily harm. If you happen to be a huge man well versed in martial arts, then you likely don't want anyone armed. Otherwise, the gun becomes more than an equalizer, because in sane states, the intruder who shoots a homeowner goes to prison for murder, while the homeowner that shoots the intruder does not.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be really good if those who like guns would start proposing measures to reduce accidental and unwanted gun firings, then. In any reasonable world, you would expect gun owners to be promoting safety features, responsible ownership (by which I mean taking responsibility when things go wrong), safe storage, training, care and maintenance. Only in the USA does one expect to find people who want anyone to buy and leave lying around any old rusty object for anyone to fire at anyone without any expectation of recourse.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it is.

Sometimes direct action is the ONLY way to get their attention. We the servants of the US of A certainly have no voice in government anymore so . . . . you use the means you have at your disposal.

Forget litigation. That's for the rich and powerful who can afford it. Rule of lawsuits #1: He who has the most money available for Team Lawyer usually wins as they can just bankrupt you over the long term.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. When you live in a country like the USA which isn't democratic, but is rather an oligarchy (see the Princeton University publication proving this), then you can't expect the views of the general population to be reflected in elected officials and policy.

However, even in our not-very-democratic country, there is a certain amount of democracy to keep people fat and happy and believing that it is a democracy. You can see this in gun laws; some states have very strict regulations on firearms, others don't. If having lax firearms regulation is important to you, then don't move to New York or New Jersey or Illinois, it's as simple as that. Move instead to Texas, Arizona, or Vermont. If you move to New Jersey and don't like the gun laws there, that's your own stupid fault.

I thought Plutocracy was the more accurate way to describe the USA rather than Oligarchy?

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[NicBenjamin]

The thing about democracy that's really really hard for most people to understand is that calling it rule "by the people" is a major over-simplification. "By the people" implies that almost every policy has majority support from those people. that doesn't happen for a variety of reasons:

1) The people don't really know what they want on a massive variety of issues. For example if you ask a poll about whether we should be a) reducing the deficit or b) cutting taxes the people always always always choose c) both. They do this because they are convinced we spend $150 Billion on NASA, $400 Billion on foreign aid, etc.; which means we could do that shit simply by firing NASA and insisting all future Pakistani aid only be silver-plated (rather then gold). The only "solution" to this problem is elect a bunch of people (aka: Congress) who base their number on the actual budget figures, rather then what a moderately intelligent amateur would infer from watching news reports.

2) Issue saliance also matters. If 10% of your population are crazy assholes who'd start a civil war if you imposed an income tax, and 55% kinda wants an income tax (but would be ok with a VAT), then the democratic thing to do is a VAT.

3) In a system with checks and balances, powerful Congressman (in Canada you can;t run for re-election to the House without a piece of paper signed by your party leader, and party leaders have been known to tell their local party organizations "You will nominate Ruby Dhalla because she's really pretty and Indian which makes her a STAR CANDIDATE;" which tends to reduce the amount of power an individual MP wields without his leader's permission) passionate minorities don't have to run to the hills. They have a lot of powers they can use beyond that.

Parliamentary maneuvers the majority allows because the majority likes individual Congressman to have the right to those maneuvers? Things like those riders sneaked on? Perfectly Democratic if everyone has access to the same riders?

Treaties that have to be repeatedly killed by mass protest movements because the minority that supports them has been maneuvered into various important positions in the State Department? If the Majority wanted a State Department that responded directly to protests that way it should have a) insisted that all CISPA/SOPA people be fired, or b) gone for Unity of Powers and Responsible Government rather then Seperation of Powers and Checks and Balances.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[AC-x]

That is stupid anit-gun logic. By that logic, you would be happier to have no police force than to have a bunch of cops gang raping you. Or you would be happier to have no job at all than be stuck in your office while the building burns down. Or, you would rather that a grocery store not exist in your neighborhood than to get botulismfrom one of their products.

That makes absolutely no sense. How does having a gun that only shoots for you but has a small chance of failing equate to any of those things? That's some asinine pro-gun logic right there.

On the other hand, if your son is depressed enough to shoot himself, having a length of rop and rafters, or even kitchen knives is just about as dangerous.

That's simply not true. Gun suicide attempts are vastly more successful than other methods.

If someone is entering your house with a gun, they are doing it to do you bodily harm. If you happen to be a huge man well versed in martial arts, then you likely don't want anyone armed.

Having a gun in your home makes you statistically less safe.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Grishnakh]

Grishnakh, are you generally anti-gun?

No, but that's irrelevant here. I'm just making a free-market argument here. I thought pro-gun people were generally libertarian-leaning, but here you guys are saying that this company shouldn't be allowed to sell its wares on the free market. It's weird how hypocritical people are, no matter their political leanings. Reminds me of all the "free market" Republicans who think carmakers shouldn't be allowed to sell cars directly to consumers.

Is there any reason a gun-owner or a supporter of the 2nd Amendment should consider you relevant?

If you mean, should gun-owners consider anti-gun peoples' arguments relevant, the answer is yes: there's lots of those people in this country, whether you like it or not, and they vote. They've been pretty successful, too: just look at the laws in states like New Jersey and New York (most recently with its SAFE act). If you want to ignore them, go right ahead.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Grishnakh]

I'm pretty sure that "plutocracy" is merely a subset of "oligarchy", so "oligarchy" is still correct (it's the term used in the Princeton University study recently), while "plutocracy" may be a little more accurate.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Simplicity in a hand gun is unusually important. Even a simple safety can be a critical flaw in a firearm. And yes, some fool can drop a loaded revolver on its hammer and cause a discharge. There is simply no way to idiot proof guns and still have them be dependable and useful.
                  I suspect that many voters are not aware that the bullies and criminal types love gun laws that restrict guns or make it impossible to defend yourself by considering every shooting a tragedy. I say thank God that bad people get shot. i hope more bad people get shot. And I do not give a hoot if the creep who crawls through my window is on his very first, youthful burglary or is sixty years old and on his three hundredth burglary. either way he is dead meat if i can off him.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Jeremi]

And most people aren't very good about checking the condition of their batteries.

Since the gun is (mostly) only dangerous when it is picked up, you could probably have the electronics in the gun include an accelerometer, and have the electronics shut themselves off after a few minutes of no-acceleration-detected. Then design an extremely-low-power (or even no-power) mechanism such that the electronics are powered back on as soon as the accelerometer detects movement again -- et voila, a gun whose batteries won't go dead for years (if ever).

Add to that an intermittent beep, or persistent display change, or some other obvious indication when the batteries finally do get low, and I think low batteries wouldn't be a problem in practice.

Getting potential purchasers to have confidence that it really won't be a problem, OTOH⦠that might be harder.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably shouldn't get involved in a discussion where you cannot understand the difference between a device's reliability and an individual's use of a device.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[sjames]

All true. It well explains how a citizen can actually be speaking for a majority of the people while complaining about a law passed in the legislature.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welp, that's naive.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[graphius]

people are worried about home invasions once a year? Maybe it is time to move...

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh God just fuck off. Nobody but you wants you to have a fucking gun in the first place.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Shakrai]

Encouraging people to move is not "claiming moral superiority", it's telling people that maybe they'd be happier someplace where people think more like them.

Would you deem it acceptable to apply the same idea to other civil rights? Maybe African-Americans should have just left the South instead of using the Federal Government to compel their home states to honor their civil rights?

Love it or hate it, the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the States. Actions taken with an eye towards restricting that right will not be looked kindly upon by the Federal Courts or Congress.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

"And I have seen an auto 9mm that would jam up at least once for each clip we ran through it"

Was that one an old Mauser Broomhandle? That's the only pistol I can think of offhand that uses clips and is automatic (actually it's selective fire) - all modern pistols use magazines.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Statistically, however, " yadda, yadda, yadda.

Line up ten girls, nine virgins, one pregnant. Statistically, each of the virgins is 10 percent pregnant, and the pregnant girl is 90 percent virgin! Do those statistics really mean anything? No, not really.

You don't seem to believe in people's right to self defense, or you would not have made the comment about making a gun that is harder to use.

The solution to most of the "gun problem" in the US is to actually punish those who commit crimes with a gun, and education for all.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what guns are REALLY good for? Fighting a tyrannical government! (the kind we could NEVER have here).

Or do you firmly believe that the BLM thugs in Nevada would have backed off, had it not been for all those "domestic terrorists" with guns?

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I pull the trigger I don't want to hear a "beep" that's the equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death.

What about a click? It's possible for a gun to run out of ammo, but no one uses that as an argument against guns in general. Gun owners take preventative measures to prevent such a situation. I'm not sure why a battery would be any different.

Gun owners know that there are many things that can prevent their gun from going "BANG" when it's supposed to. What we are opposed to is introducing something completely unnecessary that will only add to all those OTHER things that can already keep it from going "BANG".

ALL my guns are loaded. Most are locked in a safe. The rest? On my person, where it belongs - except at night, when it's right next to me in a holster. When I grab one of my guns, it's ready to go "BANG". That is their job, and they do it well.

Of course, if you go by most gun-fearing folks, my guns are defective, as none of them have EVER killed, or even injured anyone, and I sincerely hope that they remain that way as long as I own them.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're being illogical. Of course, that's why you own one of those things in the first place, but anyway...

That thing is just as likely to fail for you as it is the bad guy so there IS NO FUNCTION DIFFERENCE. These locks have no downside. Only an upside.

"These locks have no downside" - So, let's get the police to be the first to adopt them! After all, a lot of cops are killed with their own guns, so they should be chomping at the bit to get such guns!

Yeah - go suggest that to your local police department, see what kind of reception that gets you.

I know there's no point in trying to convince you with facts, you've already made up your mind that "guns are ebil". But answer me this - during the Watts riots in LA (you might have to Google that, but trust me, it's there - there's also youtube videos), why were the Korean shop owners the only ones whose shops weren't vandalized? I'll give you a hint - they had high-caliber semi-automatic rifles with 30-round standard-capacity magazines, and the rioters knew that, could see them up on the roof with them. Did the shop owners shoot anyone? No need - looters aren't quite THAT stupid.
Also, how does a 90-pound woman EFFECTIVELY defend herself against a 250-pound attacker? Pepper spray? Maybe it doesn't work on everyone, though - some people are hardly affected by it, then there's always the regiment of multiple attackers - pepper spray doesn't work very well against more than one target. How about a frail 80-year-old man against a 20-year-old gang-banger? Pepper spray again? Maybe say "wait a minute, let me call 911, then please wait 5 (or is it 10, or 20, or maybe 60!) minutes for them to show up, THEN you can attack me!". Great idea!

Someone said it best - "God made all men, but Sam Colt made them equal". You have police chiefs telling folks to get a gun AND TRAINING if they really are concerned about their safety. Why? Because they know they can't protect you, and besides, their job is not to protect you. It is to protect society and generally try to preserve the peace, but mostly they just investigate crimes - AFTER the fact. Oh, and where do I get such a ridiculous idea? SCOTUS said so. It's not the job of police to protect the individual. Read 'em and weep.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the anti-gun crowd (and I'm guessing from this post that it includes you) does not really understand the problem, and doesn't seem to want to.

The problem is NOT a lack of "safety features". The problem is not really "responsible ownership", or "safe storage", or "care and maintenance".

The bulk of the problem is criminals. No, not your average gun owner at all. The solution is fairly simple, but it will never be implemented. I'll tell you right now how we can fix it in the next year or two. You commit a crime and use a gun, you go to prison - FOREVER. No possibility of parole, EVER. What kind of crime? Well, not something innocuous like speeding, or jaywalking, but if you commit a crime against a person, like robbery, assault, kidnapping, you're done. For good.

Most shootings happen in Chicago, New York City, other large urban areas, among gang members. Round them up. In illegal possession of a gun? Lock 'em up - FOREVER. I guarantee that will stop it, but it'll never happen. We don't have enough prisons. And besides, at that point, who would be left to elect any Democrats? But I digress.

I think we should try my method, and see how much gun crime drops. Of course, then they'll just turn to knives, or clubs - by the way, that's what they used before there were any guns, don't think that there was no crime before guns came about. Criminals will find a way. But see, if a criminal waves a knife in my face, I can just pull out my legally-carried gun and hold him until the police arrive to haul him off to jail. See? Guns DO have a good use!

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh God just fuck off. Nobody but you wants you to have a fucking gun in the first place.

No, sorry, you're quite mistaken. If he's a responsible gun owner, and especially if he's a concealed handgun license holder, who has passed an FBI background check and a training regimen, I WANT him to own a gun. Maybe even several. He is an asset to society, someone out there to help us all stay safe, who may have the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but by virtue of that, he may just avert the next mass shooting by some nut-case, by being able to stop him at the very start. People use guns to stop crime EVERY DAY. Why don't you hear about it? Because if there's no large body count, it's not news. I'm not saying this scenario plays out every day, but on a day it does, you won't hear of it.

Look up the statistics on the FBI's website - licensed citizen carriers are a LOT safer than police. You are much more apt to be shot by a stray bullet from police than from a licensed citizen. And cops miss their intended target WAY more than licensed citizens, as well, and fire WAY more rounds to hit their target. I'm not making it up, it's all in the FBI's website on crime statistics. Sad but true.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[amxcoder]

The reason guns are preferred for self-defense isn't long distance reasons, most real life gun encounters happen is less than 15ft. proximity.

The main reason guns are preferred for self-defense has everything to do with the fact that they are the great "equalizer" when it comes to dealing with attackers. If you're a 5ft. 110lb female and are getting attacked by a 6'2" 250lb man, is it a fair fight even if you have a knife (or sword)? Many would agree that it still wouldn't be a fair fight, and that woman would still be at a disadvantage. Same with an 70 year old elderly person, who doesn't have the strength or stamina to get in a physical altercation with or without a knife or sword.

Guns are an equalizer, they put everyone on a level playing field -- it doesn't matter if you are elderly, crippled, weaker or not physically fit, if you have use a firearm for self defense, you are on an equal playing field with your attacker (or maybe have an advantage if they aren't armed).

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[amxcoder]

Removing the battery argument, which is valid for many gun owners. I know gun owners who don't put battery power scopes on their rifles (ie: red dot or holographics), due to the fact that the battery will go dead when you need it the most, and make it useless.

But ignoring the battery, the watch part of it has many drawbacks as well for self defense use. What happens when you get woken up in the middle of the night, and not only do you have to react, and find your gun, but now you have to put this watch on as well before it will be usable. Technically, if you follow what the anti-gunners want, you would need to unlock your gun safe, and get your gun, then unlock your ammo locker and get your ammo, then load your low-capacity magazine up, then put your watch on. All after being woken in the night from a dead sleep from the sound of breaking glass in another part of the house. Does that not seem like a problem?

Ok, so you decide to wear the watch all the time, so your ready to go with it, you also ignore the other stupid laws about "safe-storage" so the gun is right next to you within arms reach while you sleep. Great! Right??? Well for you it is. But not you've gotten up at 5:30am for work and leave the house at 6am to head into the office, leaving your wife and kids at home still asleep. Then a bad guy breaks into your house after seeing you leaving for work. You're wife hears the sound, wakes up, and grabs the gun from the nightstand, but it goes "beep" and won't work, because you have the watch on still and aren't home.

Ok, so you buy extra watches and whatever the extra cost is, so you and your wife have one now (making this gun one expensive firearm by now). Great! Right??? Well, maybe not, what happens if you and your wife are at work, and your teenage daughter gets home from school and is home alone. Same situation, bad guy knows adults aren't home (cars missing from drive), and saw your daughter there by herself, so decides to do what bad guys do. Your daughter, having been trained by you to be responsible with guns and also proficient with them, has all the skills to protect herself from this dirt-bag, and knows you keep one in the nightstand, races into your room and grabs it, except for one thing, she doesn't have a watch cause she wouldn't 'normally' need access to the firearm.

Ok, so you buy a watch for everyone in your family, adults, kids, everyone, to avoid these scenarios, then what is the different, other than price, than a regular firearm that just works?

Or how about when you get a second firearm, do you now have to wear 2 watches all the time, so you don't end up in a situation where you grabs one gun, but the watch you are wearing is for your other one that is not convenient to get to in whatever situation you find yourself in? What happens if you own 4,5, or 6 handguns (many, many people own several, it's common). Are you going to want to wear a watch for all of them all the time, and buy all the spare watches for other members of your household to have them too? I'm sure the watches won't be cheap, I know how much it costs if you need to buy a new wireless keyfob for most cars now days, and it's usually over $100 per unit. This would make the cost of ownership several times higher per firearm. The gun itself, is about 3 times more expensive than a 'normal handgun' of similar type as it is.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

How was this in any way implied in the comment?

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

One has no real alternative regarding a pacemaker. The real alternative to the battery-dependent gun, called "the gun", has been around for some time.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you have special interest groups, lobbyists, monopolistic corporations that own government and politicians ect... This whole idiotic idea of 'The People' being the ones in control of their future becomes null and void.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[KingSkippus]

That's why you teach your children how to use guns at a young enough age that they understand it isn't a toy and they don't touch it.

Right, and we all know that kids never do anything stupid or immature, especially at a young age. Everyone knows that the penalty for young children being childish instead of acting like miniature perfect adults, paragons of responsibility who always make the right choice, should be death. If more people would just teach their children at a young enough age that cars aren't toys, we could start issuing driver licenses to six-year-olds.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[MichaelSmith]

This device is clearly aimed at organisations which need to control who uses their tools. When they hand out a vehicle, it needs a key to operate it. Thats a safer way to go than just allowing anybody to get in and go. Similarly, they want to control who uses their guns.

Re: A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Agent0013]

I never hear about farmer's kids shooting themselves with all the guns people have in the country. It's the stupid city or suburb kids that play with dangerous tools.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Fringe]

No, not ignore them. Just battle their attempts towards goals we disagree with even before they get to the ballot box.

Your initial statement, summarized, was that 2nd Amendment supporters shouldn't worry about devices that almost certainly would lead weak politicians to pander by endorsing and then requiring... until the ballot box time of supporting those politicians. My rebuttal is that if you don't respond when you see the danger coming, beating it back later is far harder. Just as anti-freedom gun-ban advocates see no "legitimate" use for a gun, Constitution-supporters may see no "legitimate" use for a technology that provides a clear path to the NSA disabling all the guns.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

ALL guna are ALWAYS loaded and the safety is ALWAYS off. When you start treating ALL weapons like this you become a safer person.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

really glad I don't live in your cuntry, your all fucking insane!

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

and another insane person.

Not allowing guns is not perfect.

But allowing every insane person like you to have them means more good people than bad get killed, via accidents or anger (your a prime candidate from the tone of your posts!).

simply compare UK to USA, point made.

It would be fine if all you insane idiots used the gun on yourselves to remove the danger from the rest of us.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

but not saner

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[KhabaLox]

Point was that you should be training/practicing on a regular basis, as well as cleaning it and checking it to make sure it's in working condition.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

> ...since if their views actually did represent the full population then it would be reflected in their elected officials.

Presumeably reflected sir, presumeably reflected.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[laird]

I'm talking about the difference between theory and reality. In theory, guns might make people safer. In reality, however, people with guns get shot, and shoot other people, far more often than people without guns. So while they might feel safer, the numbers don't support their feelings. You see, in real life people aren't always rational - sometimes they get angry, or feel suicidal, etc., and when those feelings hit and they have a gun, people are much more likely to die than if they don't have a gun.

I'm not trying to "punish" anyone. I'm trying to keep people from making bad decisions due to lack of information about the risks that they're putting themselves and their loved ones in by keeping a gun in their home.

It sounds like we agree about requiring people to know how to use a gun before they can buy it, and in punishing those who commit crimes with guns. As are 90% of Americans polled. Sadly, the NRA is strongly opposed to both measures, and they have enough money to buy politicians to make sure that they don't do what the voters want.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[allo]

Better a non working firearm, than a firearm in the wrong hands. Use less firearms.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when do our elected officials actually listen to us? They are in the pockets of the special interests and big $$$

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it really matter what you want? If there is a market for this weapon then it is completely outside of your control.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Electronics fail, batteries die, the more complicated you make something, the less reliable it is. That's why a revolver makes a better home defense gun than one with a clip and a slide and a safety. Those guns jam and misfire much more often when left there untouched for a year or more than the much more simple mechanism in a plain revolver.

The only point there is that without practice, the shooter may not be accurate enough. Leaving it sitting for a year or more? They're not practicing enough. And one should always clean and lubricate their weapon as needed after shooting.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[AlabamaCajun]

Then don't buy one.

Ain't that the truth!

In a real capitalist society we could buy them but unfortunately we have sunken to an Oligarchy where the few rule on what we can buy. This is the point I'm upset about. I don't have a NRA card and for this would not get one, cancel your membership. Looks NRA has actually stepped on the second amendment and blocked our freedom to bear technical arms.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

You lost me with the "Princeton University publication proves this". Hilarious that you would even post that as proof of anything. Your standards of proof are very low. Hope you never get to sit on a jury.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL....said by someone that clearly has no idea how weapon technology works.
A revolver is far more reliable than a sword and shield in that anyone can learn to pull a trigger but it takes years of training to learn to use a sword and shield which is still defeated by a woman with a revolver. Just ask any soldier, cop, or rich liberal (I need a gun because I am more important than the other guy) democrat why they carry guns now instead of a sword.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then take it up with your elected officials. You elected them, if you don't like the laws they make for you, then it's your responsibility to do a better job at the voting booth. Or move to someplace where your fellow citizens vote the way you like.

Regarding doing a better job at the voting booth. Henry Ford once said you could buy any color of Model T that you wanted, as long as it was black. You may vote for whoever you want-but the powers that be will select the candidates you have to choose from. Money talks.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Grishnakh]

There's always some third-party candidate on the ballot who'd be better. No one ever elects him/her because they want to keep "the wrong lizard" out.

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

K. S. Kyosuke: You've been called out (for tossing names) & you ran "forrest" from a fair challenge http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:A firearm that depends on a battery?

[ogdenk]

People aren't very good about checking the condition of their gun either.

Really? Mine are cleaned/oiled once a month and checked over to ensure flawless reliable operation with minimal metal wear.

Or if the safety is off.

My safety stays on until I drop it with my thumb when I'm ready to fire. I can quite literally field strip and reassemble my pistols blind-folded. If you're going to stake your life on it, it's best to know how every aspect of the weapon functions and what is considered "acceptable" wear.

Or if it's loaded.

Generally you should TREAT all weapons as if they were loaded. I keep all of my weapons loaded but I don't keep a round chambered (with hammer down and safety on) unless I'm feeling exceptionally paranoid for some reason which happens from time to time. Most of my pistols are also single-action with a firing pin block making a negligent discharge a little less likely but still possible if I get stupid.

Or if the kid didn't move it from the usual place when he showed it to his friends.

My kids aren't that stupid, and they have been trained to shoot and respect weapons. They also know that showing off weapons is how you lose them. The most effective weapon is one people don't know you have.

There's already a lot of uncertainty. You can't be sure of anything if you don't take care of it.

True. And the best firearms to own are as mechanically simple as possible with flawless simple operation. Being powerful enough to be truly effective helps too. I'm a big fan of 7.62x25 for handguns personally.

So no, a battery isn't an issue, it's another safety.

No, it's a way to get your family killed and adds needless complexity to a simple mechanical device impeding its usefulness and reliability. Since the right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting/sporting and everything to do about defending yourself and/or fighting tyranny..... a gun which can be told not to fire is one I will never own.

They're nuts but right

[slashmydots]

Well they're clearly a bunch of moron rednecks but they're still right. What if the watch runs out of batteries? What if somehow the signal is disrupted? What if you take the weapon off someone who's robbing a bank and now it won't fire? Guns do what they do and there's no need to cripple them in this way. It's the PEOPLE with the guns that need work. Stop selling them to idiots with mental problems or people who, oh I don't know, maybe send letters to places saying they're going to kill everyone.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Hypotensive]

What if you take the weapon off someone who's robbing a bank and now it won't fire?

Now the bank robber doesn't have a gun and can't threaten people.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

But you cant finish him off execution style then...

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

FTFA:
"I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote.

Stop sellinfg them to idiots like this for a start.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Cro Magnon]

Until he kicks your ass and takes back his gun.

Re:They're nuts but right

[chiefcrash]

Until he takes his gun back, which will now fire...

Re:They're nuts but right

[BasilBrush]

Stop selling them to idiots with mental problems

I think that will kill the gun market right there.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

That is, without a doubt, the absolutely LAMEST list of "what if" questions that I've ever seen. Runs out of batteries? Replace the battery. Robbing a bank with the gun and someone takes it from the robber? Good. Now nobody is getting shot.

Only Americans would find issues like those to actually be insightful... Sad...

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

What if your gun is stolen and used in a crime? What if your gun is found by your kid and he harms himself or another with it?

Because these scenarios are statistically far more likely than any self-defense fantasy.

Big picture wise, that's not even what guns are. They're a hot button issue used by extreme right wing groups to rile up their base. The NRA is an ultra-conservative fear promulgator first and a gun rights advocate maybe a distant 10th.

I will continue to fight for restrictions on guns that match our laws and rules for all other types of dangerous machinery and equipment. Mostly because gun advocacy groups themselves are dangerous and harmful to society and our country as a whole.

Find better champions of your cause.

Re:They're nuts but right

[BasilBrush]

We already have proximity keys on automobiles. How often do they let people down? How often are people locked out of their car because the key doesn't work?
Not often enough for it to be an issue. But then car owners aren't nearly so hysterical as gun nuts.

Re:They're nuts but right

[dirk]

These are all very good reason why you might not want to buy one of these weapons. None of them are good reasons why we should try and harass the company to not even produce these weapons. I don't own any guns, but if I felt like I needed to buy one, I would look into something like this. This seems like a wonderful product (assuming ti actually does work as advertised) but gun nuts are too busy screaming about "don't take my guns" to bother to even see the upside. I agree it is not a full replacement for standard guns and I don't think it should be legislated to be the only option, but that in no way means it shouldn't be available either.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

If we're playing hypothetical, then he'll just shoot anybody who gets close to him.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Chas]

And if you think criminals are going to buy these guys, instead of getting a regular gun through illicit channels, you're smoking some SERIOUS ganja there.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Until he kicks your ass and takes back his gun.

Nope. Once the gun is out of the equation, it becomes a "vote" and the robber's ass is kicked.

Re:They're nuts but right

[necro81]

Well they're clearly a bunch of moron rednecks but they're still right. What if the watch runs out of batteries? What if somehow the signal is disrupted? What if you take the weapon off someone who's robbing a bank and now it won't fire? Guns do what they do and there's no need to cripple them in this way.

People can bitch about the technical merits or deficits of the technology all day long. But making personal threats against someone for trying to sell a product? That's fucking asinine and should not be accepted. Threatening to boycott a store that wants to stock and sell it? That's pretty stupid, too, since if the product is so fraught with shortcomings, people won't buy it.

I don't see anyone personally threatening to attack people at Samsung, or boycotting Best Buy, because they've released half-baked products.

And as for the "what if this is the only gun you can buy" counterargument: there are a few hundred million guns in the USofA, and the people that make them have considerable clout. The notion that suddenly all those other, conventional firearms will disappear, and that gun manufacturers will be forced to make only this type of gun, is delusional.

Re:They're nuts but right

[necro81]

Now the bank robber doesn't have a gun and can't threaten people.

Until he kicks your ass and takes back his gun

Not if I first pistol-whip him with his own gun, or beat him to death with his own shoes.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Attempting to grab his gun would activate it. That's not exactly in his best interest, is it?

Re:They're nuts but right

[jythie]

Which is kinda scary. Destroy the life of a real person at no risk to themselves over hypothetical legal changes.

I also note the glee in the thread around her being an attractive woman, which makes me wonder how much masculine insecurity is playing a role.

Re:They're nuts but right

[greenwow]

bunch of moron rednecks...

You were right until that point. If one of those Republicans shoot at people so often that a gun that fails to fire 25% of the time, then they deserve to not have it fire and be punished for their crime of owning a gun. Seriously, why would any private citizen need a gun that is 100% reliable? They don't, and those morons aren't smart enough to understand that fact. Of course, if they were smart they wouldn't own one of those things in the first place.

Re:They're nuts but right

[jythie]

Yeah, but things that happen frequently make for much less dramatic story telling then rare events.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

? why would any private citizen need a gun that is 100% reliable?

Great insight. A cop, a soldier, an assassin, an SS member that protects the President, etc. are the only people that need a 100% reliable firearm. The only reason one of those rednecks that would own such a thing needs a reliable weapon is if they’re going to murder someone. A misfire during one of their animal murder trips won’t hurt anyone. In fact, it would make hunting more challenging. Maybe the act of murdering an animal will get more respect then. I hope not, but there is a positive side to it for their kind.

Re:They're nuts but right

[XxtraLarGe]

We already have proximity keys on automobiles. How often do they let people down? How often are people locked out of their car because the key doesn't work? Not often enough for it to be an issue. But then car owners aren't nearly so hysterical as gun nuts.

You're missing the bigger picture. After all new guns are "smart" guns, the next step is a remote kill switch.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

> What if the watch runs out of batteries?

If you're using the gun for sport, then who cares. Go get a new battery.

If, on the other hand, you're looking for the chance to kill another human being with the slightest provocation (for example they come to take property from you), then yeah. You'd better keep some spare batteries.

Re:They're nuts but right

[ColdWetDog]

Cars aren't typically used in life and death situations. Guns are. Changes the game, so to speak.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you! To see this and to see it is modded insightful, made me think there might be hope for humanity after all :)

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

I will continue to fight for restrictions on guns that match our laws and rules for all other types of dangerous machinery and equipment.

That just shows you have no idea what personal weaponry is useful for. A tractor is for plowing, but the danger comes from its fueling, size and power. So it can be regulated to make sure it can plow without exploding in your face. But a gun's purpose is TO BE DANGEROUS. That's why it's useful. So you're really trying to make a purposefully dangerous thing, less dangerous. No greater stupidity exists.

So I will continue to fight whatever restrictions you try to impose. Because you're dead wrong. Always.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it'll simply stop *you* from buying one.

Re:They're nuts but right

[CrimsonAvenger]

Big picture wise, that's not even what guns are. They're a hot button issue used by extreme right wing groups to rile up their base.

They're also a hot button issue used by extreme left wing groups to rile up their base....

Fact is, guns don't do a fraction of the harm of automobiles. Yet we don't see the left calling for banning autos....

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2nd Amendment is my champion, what's yours?

Re:They're nuts but right

[AmiMoJo]

The point is to stop people taking your gun away from you and then using it. They might wrench it from your hands, or they might simply steal it, but either way it would be unusable without modification which is the point. A significant number of gun crimes are and gun suicides are carried out by people who are not the owner of the gun, and requiring them to get your watch as well adds another layer of security.

The only real problem here is that the system may not work as designed, not that it isn't necessarily a good idea.

Re:They're nuts but right

[admiralh]

Assuming there's a battery indicator that will give you a decent amount of warning before it fails (say a month), if you have left your gun unused (not practicing using it) for that amount of time, you'll be incredibly lucky to use it properly in a crisis. You'll be more likely to have it taken from you and be killed by it.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars are highly regulated and have many required safety features, though.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the watch runs out of batteries?

What if you don't clean and maintain your gun, and it jams when you try to fire it?

Re:They're nuts but right

[coolsnowmen]

Insightful ? hahahahah no. If he was a fucking ninja, he wouldn't have brought a gun in the first place. The gun works because it causes people to back away (rightfully afraid for their lives) instead of overwhelming the crazy man with raw pounds force (dog pile). Once there is no gun, a single man is quickly subdued by the dozen others in the bank. Or by simply running away and calling the police. Banks have a lockable room typically somewhere....

Re:They're nuts but right

[PIBM]

10 inches is enough to shoot you in the face with it..

Re:They're nuts but right

[fahrbot-bot]

Well they're clearly a bunch of moron rednecks ... Stop selling [guns] to idiots with mental problems ...

I see you've clearly stated the problem *and* solution. :-)

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, too many people believe they *need* a gun when, in reality, they don't. And using a gun to protect ones property - or most property - is inappropriate - it's property, it can be replaced. No one deserves to die for just stealing a TV or car. Of course, using a gun to protect yourself or others is another matter - though not from popcorn in a movie theater or loud music at a gas station...

Re:They're nuts but right

[Em Adespoton]

Big picture wise, that's not even what guns are. They're a hot button issue used by extreme right wing groups to rile up their base.

They're also a hot button issue used by extreme left wing groups to rile up their base....

Fact is, guns don't do a fraction of the harm of automobiles. Yet we don't see the left calling for banning autos....

No, you see the left calling for tougher safety regulations for the construction, sale, and use of automobiles. Think mirrors, seat belts, ABS, airbags, driving impairment laws, etc.

You don't tend to see the left calling for banning guns either; just restricting their construction, sale and use.

Of course, one significant difference which people don't tend to get is that there's no constitutional right to drive an automobile, especially on public roadways.

Re:They're nuts but right

[SuricouRaven]

Accidents, too. There are quite a few children die from playing with guns.

The obvious advice is to keep your gun unloaded and in a locked cupboard, but that defeats the point of having one for self-defense: If the burgler is breaking into your home, you don't want to spend two minutes fumbling around for the key in a drawer, unlocking the cupboard and putting the bullets in. There's a reason people sleep beside them, ready to grab at a moment's notice.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Like taking it from the arsenal that mummie or daddie have lying around the house, just to protect themselves from teh eeevul gummint that's trying to take their gunz away?

Re:They're nuts but right

[SuricouRaven]

At least the autos are bringing a clear benefit to society. Guns, not so much. They are heavily restricted in most of Europe, and we do just fine.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Agent0013]

I will continue to fight for restrictions on guns that match our laws and rules for all other types of dangerous machinery and equipment. Mostly because gun advocacy groups themselves are dangerous and harmful to society and our country as a whole.

If you fight for gun restrictions so hard, then why do the police always get the exceptions? Gun free zones, the police don't have to leave their guns in the car. When you take the guns away from the biggest criminal gang first, then you can talk to me about giving up mine. I really love it how the parents of some dead school kids are all there in the news talking about getting rid of guns, and how scary guns are, while surrounded by swat teams with assault rifles. It's just full on hypocrisy and makes me think maybe that shooting was faked for political reasons.

Re:They're nuts but right

[gabrieltss]

DUH all he has to do is take your "watch"! Now he can fire the gun because they are "in range"of each other....

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

You will never stop criminals. It's to stop your son from blowing his friend's brains out when he gets pissed at him in an argument, or when your little kid finds it laying around. Yes, blah blah responsible gun owners, blah proper respect for firearms... every American is a paragon a respect and virtue, no guns are ever left not locked up and no kid is ever left uneducated.

Re:They're nuts but right

[PIBM]

Perhaps you don't like plinking, but that doesn't mean everyone should not. I've been shooting with air guns since I was very young, and I know that I've shot over 20 K pellets over the time. I've often upgraded my airgun to the newer model, or with better features. Last year, I wanted to get myself a nice PCP. I then went to a weekend of training for the firearms profession. I had to apply for a possession and acquisition permit, wait a while, had administrative issues, but then at some point I finally received it. Then I started the work to try and get the PCP. Suffice to say that I had to contact multiple company, make tons of calls to the governement, had to arrange for modifications so that it would be legal to own here, and finally I learned that I woudl also, after all this, have to send the gun back to the governement for analysis, and that beside the more than 2K$ it would cost it would take a few more months again before I'd receive it.

So I started wondering how much more noise (DBs) and money would it cost to shoot a 22LR using a load equivalent in power to the gun I was acquiring. I did the calculations, and I would have to shoot 42 000 rounds through the .22LR I was looking at before it would have cost me the same amount as shooting 42 000 rounds through the PCP for which I would be pumping all the shots.. (not including any maintenance, which would also be higher on the pcp case). Any less and the 22 was costing less, so that's the choice I made at that point. Went to the dealer, purchased it, and I'm done!

This all come down to new regulations being applied on simple gear making it way out of price for a lot of people. Spending countless hours trying to acquire it is also a waste of time I'd have liked to spend shooting or doing something else I like rather than battling through legislation. The good thing is that the company I had contacted for the importation had other requests for the same gun and they finally invested themself to make it legal to import here.

Re:They're nuts but right

[AC-x]

Fact is, guns don't do a fraction of the harm of automobiles.

Bullshit, guns kill almost as many people in the USA as cars do:

Road deaths in 2010: 32,885
Gun deaths in 2010: 31,076

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you take the weapon off someone who's robbing a bank and now it won't fire?

People who think this is an actual scenario to consider should definitely have this gun, plus a lifetime ban on buying batteries...

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

And if there was a second armed bank robber? You can't shoot him, but he can shoot you.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

It will fire as he tried to take it back. Once his wrist comes within 10 inches, you can fire it at him.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Big picture wise, that's not even what guns are. They're a hot button issue used by extreme right wing groups to rile up their base.

They're also a hot button issue used by extreme left wing groups to rile up their base....

Fact is, guns don't do a fraction of the harm of automobiles. Yet we don't see the left calling for banning autos....

This is a good point, but not entirely rational. If we got anywhere NEAR the utility from guns that we get from automobiles, I don't think people would be as upset about their rampant (mis)use. Cars help us get to/form work, enable commerce, etc., and sometimes there is an accident that harms people. Guns are generally just stand-ins for dick-measuring contests that end up accidentally killing people.

Re:They're nuts but right

[blackanvil]

Fact is, guns don't do a fraction of the harm of automobiles. Yet we don't see the left calling for banning autos....

To legally use an automobile in most of the US, you need a state-issued license that has training and testing requirements, a state-tracked title to the car, a state-tracked registration for the car, clearly viewable identification tags, and usually safety gear (seatbelt, airbags, crumple zones, etc), insurance and a key. To legally use a gun in most locations, you need a gun and ammo. All these requirements were legislated into existence by "leftist" politicians over the loud protests by the right, usually claiming that they would destroy the automotive industry.

Re:They're nuts but right

[sjames]

So as long as you shoot intruders on an almost daily basis, all will be well?

Try leaving the car in a garage for a few years and see how reliably it starts.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so from cars with proximity sensor "keys" we have seen that they are extremely reliable. So reliable that it would be trusted in a life and death situation as automobiles are every time someone needs to get rushed to a doctor or police need to get to a crime scene.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

I still wouldn't want my family's lives to depend on that car door opening when needed.

Case in point, over the 6 months I've had my new car, I have had 4 separate occasions where my key was in my pocket and the door wouldn't unlock until I moved an inch closer to the door. If it was a gun instead of a car, the precious second(s) it took to recover the signal and allow the gun to fire could mean the difference between life and death.

No thank you.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

If criminals aren't going to buy them, then their black market value is reduced, making criminal less likely to steal them in the first place.

Another reason to support smart guns.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice failure to read.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't tend to see the left calling for banning guns either; just restricting their construction, sale and use.

Well, sometimes they do exactly that.

For decades it has been pretty much impossible to legally own a firearm in Chicago & Washington DC. Despite that, both cities have had ludicrously high rates of gun crime.

Recently both cities have had their de facto gun bans slapped down by the courts.

Sadly, both cities seem focused on preventing law-abiding ordinary citizens from having firearms instead of cracking down on gun crime.

Of course, if you're an important person(TM), then you can break their gun laws without consequence:
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

Re:They're nuts but right

[LordLimecat]

Well they're clearly a bunch of moron rednecks

Gotta love what passes for "insightful" and "rational" on slashdot.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they buy them from NRA members. Here in Seattle a few years ago, the ruler of the police here admitted that 100% of the guns that they collected from criminals that year had been sold legally in a gun store. The NRA members are buying guns by the thousands then flooding the streets with them. If you don't let NRA members buy those things then the criminals wouldn't be able to get them from the NRA.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

guns don't do a fraction of the harm of automobiles. Yet we don't see the left calling for banning autos....

So you'll accept licensing and registration? With compulsory testing before licensing? And inspections before registration? And mandatory safety features... oh, full circle...

Re:They're nuts but right

[The Grim Reefer]

What if you take the weapon off someone who's robbing a bank and now it won't fire?

Now the bank robber doesn't have a gun and can't threaten people.

Assuming he only has one gun. Or is alone.

Re:They're nuts but right

[slashmydots]

Who the hell robs a bank alone? You deserve to have your gun stolen if you're that dumb. It's usually a team.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is, with the car, the proximity thing is simply a convenience, it isn't as though your key no longer opens the door.

This is simply another failure mode, introducing an entirely new power system.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

What century are you living in? No one actually robs a bank with a firearm. They just pass a note saying they have one, or a bomb. Thankfully, the law (at least NY state law) treats that the same charge and punishment-wise as if they actually had a weapon. Which I believe is a good idea.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on your insulting comments that show nothing but your own ignorance and fear of machinery, one can only conclude that you've lived a very sheltered, probably pampered life where your existence has never been threatened. How else can you view firearms and their (sometimes dumb fuck red neck) owners with such contempt and disrespect?

I wish I lived in your lala land. Have you ever been violently assaulted? I had my nose broken and head kicked and stomped on with hard-soled boots because I involuntarily laughed at a guy who tried hitting on my then girlfriend, now wife. I was covered in my own blood and had broken teeth as well as needing 4 staples in my head. I did nothing wrong. However, I live in a state (NY) that makes it so you need to be rich/well-connected or a cop to have an unrestricted carry permit.

You believe that what happened to me was ok, since I'm just a mentally ill "gun nut"? Yes I sure was safer not being able to draw before I was spitting tooth chunks. Such compassion!

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Until I step in and kick his ass first before he tries to get his gun back. We could go on with this stupid fictional story forever.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Until he kicks your ass and takes back his gun.

You've successfully wrested a gun from his control and he's going to kick your ass?

Re:They're nuts but right

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What if the watch runs out of batteries?

Same problem as, "What if your gun runs out of ammo?". How do gun owners mitigate that problem? They check their weapon regularly.

What if you take the weapon off someone who's robbing a bank and now it won't fire?

You've just leveled the field. Either he's going to flee or you can throw the gun away and subdue him.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, except that the changes are not hypothetical. There has already been a number of proposals to require all guns to have this tech from the legislators in the usually gun-phobic states like CA and NJ.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Remove the suicides and that number is nearly half. Remove justifiable self-defense and it's halved again. Now add the lives potentially saved by defensive gun use and you have tipped the scales far in favor of guns.

Re:They're nuts but right

[kqs]

They're gun nuts. Masculine insecurity is 90% of gun ownership. Why else would you want to wear your strap-on in public?

And you cannot stop selling guns to idiots, because the NRA opposes any background checks for any reason.

What is hilarious is that most of these "gun enthusiasts" were probably livid when the addresses of gun owners (from public records) were publicly posted in New England a few years ago.

I'm not anti-gun, but I'm anti-idiot. Limit handguns, mandate background checks and periodic training, and punish people who kill when they fear a deadly bag of skittles. Then you can own your very own phallic security blanket and I can be a bit more confident that you won't kill someone I care about because they wear a hoodie and have the wrong color skin.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of each are suicides?

Re:They're nuts but right

[Chas]

Basically it's called "Introducing a design flaw and then selling it as a feature".

If I were Microsoft, I'd be suing the fuck outta them right now for theft of business methods.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Try leaving the car in a garage for a few years and see how reliably it starts.

If you're not checking on your gun regularly, you're not a responsible gun owner.

Re:They're nuts but right

[kqs]

Plus we have heavy regulation of automobiles and their safety features, so that road deaths are going down while miles driven continue to rise. Gun deaths are mostly consistent with number of people who own guns (both have been slowly dropping for a few decades).

Re:They're nuts but right

[Trailer Trash]

You don't tend to see the left calling for banning guns either; just restricting their construction, sale and use.

No, *YOU* don't tend to see it, probably because you ignore it.

https://www.google.com/search?...

It's frightening how much shit comes up on that search.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, we do see the left calling for the banning of guns look for video from the 90s of politicians saying basically we can't ban guns but we could make it almost impossible for someone to own them. Aka, having the guns require registration every year. But your window to re-register is only 1 day. No fines for being late instead the gun is simply illegal to posses in that jurisdiction from then on. No appeal, no I was in the hospital with a hear attack. No you lawyer can't do it for you, etc. Yes, you could technically still own a gun but good luck keeping it.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You're missing the bigger picture. After all new guns are "smart" guns, the next step is a remote kill switch.

The NRA already strongly advocates for remote kill switches in the form of other gun owners.

Re:They're nuts but right

[nwaack]

Stop selling them to idiots with mental problems

I think that will kill the gun market right there.

That fact that this got modded +5 insightful is disgusting and scary all at the same time. Just because you don't like guns doesn't mean you get to paint gun owners as idiots with mental problems. I know that being anti-2nd amendment is currently the fashionable thing to do in liberal circles, but don't dare start trying to make me look like an inbred hick just because I happen to like to target shoot.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

And if he grabs it with his other hand- the one NOT wearing the watch?

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is kinda scary. Destroy the life of a real person at no risk to themselves over hypothetical legal changes.

Brendan Eich called, he'd like his job back.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

None of those arguments are valid.

It does not change the fact that I must have a reasonable chance of success in a revolt against a tyranny. and anything that inhibits that chance of success is an infringement.

It's an illegal "law" and nobody has any obligation to obey it, and courts and police have no obligation or authority to enforce it.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Fnord666]

Cars aren't typically used in life and death situations. Guns are. Changes the game, so to speak.

Have you ever looked at the fatality statistics associated with intoxicated drivers?

Re:They're nuts but right

[Fnord666]

Same problem as, "What if your gun runs out of ammo?". How do gun owners mitigate that problem? They check their weapon regularly.

Except that rounds do not magically disappear from a loaded magazine when it sits for a month. It still goes bang when you need it to. Batteries self discharge and could leave you defenseless just when you are counting on it.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

The clear benefit of arms is enumerated in our constitution. Much like the vote, it's not being used effectively, but the principle is sound.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Then he's fighting you one handed.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you take the weapon off someone who's robbing a bank and now it won't fire?

I think the proper response to this is: "If you outlaw guns that can only be fired by one person, only outlaws will have guns that can only be fired by one person."

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is kinda scary. Destroy the life of a real person at no risk to themselves over hypothetical legal changes..

Kind of like what happened to the former CEO of Mozilla?

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't right, but completely wrong. Those concerns are not held by me. I would like to buy this gun, and if "they" don't think it's a good idea, "they" can screw off.

I could keep this gun next to my bed (in a drawer they cannot easily access) without worrying that my 3 or 4 year old will kill themselves with it. At that age, you cannot teach a child how to deal with guns, and all fireable guns need extra levels of protection. As a result, they are all locked in safes that are not as easy (or quick) to access.

A gun with this level of protection wouldn't be turned on me, stolen and used in a crime, or generally be very attractive to anyone who would want to steal it.

I'll keep my "real" guns locked in a safe and used for recreation, but just because you don't think this is a good weapon doesn't mean I don't have reason to buy it.

My home security system might be disabled in a number of ways as well, but that doesn't diminish my interest in having one.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you think criminals are going to buy these guys, instead of getting a regular gun through illicit channels, you're smoking some SERIOUS ganja there.

This is a $200 gun with $1000 of electronics added onto it. If you are buying this gun, you have no reason to rob a bank.

Re:They're nuts but right

[bigpat]

What if your gun is stolen and used in a crime?

Well that is the beauty of these magical electronic gun locks.... it will now be prima facie evidence that you committed the crime because how could anyone steal your gun, figure out how to disable an electronic device and use your gun in a crime. Police won't even have to leave the donut shop to solve that one.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Briareos]

Sure you can, you just have to make him keep his hands above his head...

Re:They're nuts but right

[bigpat]

At least the autos are bringing a clear benefit to society. Guns, not so much. They are heavily restricted in most of Europe, and we do just fine.

You do just fine... except for the occasional genocide and periodic continental war where millions and millions of people die. Pretty sure that is not a good trade off.

Re:They're nuts but right

[kyrsjo]

If you have a gun for "self defense" but never practice using it, or bother maintaining it - I don't think you have any chance of using it effectively in a scary situation.

Try not driving for a few years, and see badly you'll drive...

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Both sides do this exact thing frequently. It wasn't a few days after the shooting at Sandy Hook that a newspaper decided to publish the name and address of every gun owner they could find. Why is this one any worse than all of those people's lives being put in jeopardy?

Re:They're nuts but right

[sp0tter]

If my car's remote unlock doesn't work then I sigh and use the key to get in. Or I find a locksmith if it's that bad. If my gun fails to fire during the admittedly rarer time when I need it for defense well let's just say there probably won't be anyone to register a complaint.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

>Stop selling them to idiots with mental problems

Not going to happen. You can only sell a sane person a couple of guns. The crazies buy whole arsenals because they have fantasies about overthrowing the elected government and setting up a far-right theocracy.

Re:They're nuts but right

[citizenr]

Stop sellinfg them to idiots like this for a start.

Stop? you seem to not want to understand the issue. Guns like that will be MANDATORY if there is no opposition.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

"What if your gun is stolen and used in a crime? What if your gun is found by your kid and he harms himself or another with it?
Because these scenarios are statistically far more likely than any self-defense fantasy."

Proof? Because all the facts I've ever seen point to the exact opposite thing. A large majority of firearm uses in the US are legally justified devensive uses. ("Using a gun" and "firing a gun" are not the same thing. Just as a criminal can display a pistol while robbing people without actually firing it, many times just having a firearm is enough to stop a crime.)

I don't expect to change your mind here. Anti-gunners are just as set in their ways as pro-gunners, the main difference is that we see a dangerous world in front of us and do not want to die waiting for help that may not come from someone else. and anti-gunners seem to think that either getting guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens will disarm criminals also, or make cops magically show up when you need them. Neither of those things are true.

Looking at crime around the world as it relates to gun laws doesn't paint a pretty picture for disarmament. At best, you wind up with a country like England where virtually all arms are illegal and violent crime has risen. No, nobody's getting shot anymore, but more people are dying. At worst, you end up like Germany, Russia, China, N. Korea, Myanmar, or any number of other countries who have disarmed their citizens only to come back and massacre large numbers of people that the government didn't like. More than likely, a disarmed America would end up more like Mexico where violent gangs have seized much of the power through violent wars of terror and intimidation knowing that the local population is unarmed and cannot fight back against them. The black market for those guns is wide open enough that anyone who wants one can find one fairly easily, but penalties are strong enough to keep law-abiding citizens from picking up arms themselves. (And no, those guns were not purchased from American gun shops and gun shows- for the most part.) Almost 90% of the illegal weapons (And 100% of the machine guns, fully automatic-rifles, ammunition, and explosives) the cartels use come from direct sales by the US government to the Mexican government. Those guns are then either stolen or sold to cartels. This can easily be proven through the gun tracking done by Mexican and US officials. ~90% of those guns are traced back to federal gun sales, NOT private sales.

The fact is that guns are dangerous and that's a good thing. The world is dangerous. Until we can change that, and make other people less dangerous, many Americans simply refuse to make themselves less dangerous and become victims.

And let's face it, gun grabbers can never win. Pro-gunners are the ones with all the actual firepower. We may not have the money, we may not have the numbers, but we're the ones who have bullets for guns that can outvote your money and numbers if we must.

Re:They're nuts but right

[citizenr]

What if your gun is stolen and used in a crime?

what if your car is ..

What if your gun is found by your kid and he harms himself

darwinism

Re:They're nuts but right

[citizenr]

great, now find stats for non fatal accidents.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the same thing. If my key doesn't work, I'm not likely to die in a pool of blood. If I'm in a position to use my firearm, there simply isn't time for it not to work or I will likely die.

Cars are tools for every day life. Guns are tools for emergencies. You cannot equate the use of one to the use of another.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Remove the suicide count from each and then analyze the difference. Suicides are something you cannot not stop and never will be. They are not statistically reliant when talking about safety and violence.

Re:They're nuts but right

[L. J. Beauregard]

extreme left wing groups

Those who speak of "extreme left wing groups" usually mean anyone less insane than Michelle Bachmann.

Re:They're nuts but right

[ImprovOmega]

Of which ~20,000 were suicides. Oh, I'm sorry did logic ruin your talking point?

Re:They're nuts but right

[serviscope_minor]

Oh, I'm sorry did logic ruin your talking point?

No. A fact did, not logic.

Re:They're nuts but right

[SuricouRaven]

You mean that bit about 'a well-regulated militia?' The constitution spells out exactly what those guns are for, and it isn't individual defense. It's national defense, dating back to a time when warfare was still about vast armies meeting in open battle.

Re:They're nuts but right

[SuricouRaven]

Well, we had *one* genocide... and didn't the US have their own continential war, too?

Do you really think widespread gun ownership would have stopped the holocaust? I can tell you exactly what would happen: The Nazis would march into the ghetto to round up some jews. A few jews would fight back and kill some Nazi soldiers. Then some more Nazi soldiers would go in after them - but this time in armored vehicles carrying machine guns on top, preceeded by smoke and gas grenades.

The government has more guns then you. They have bigger guns than you. They have better-trained men to operate the guns.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Belial6]

That you projecting. Your genital insecurities do not make guns anything like dildos. In fact, one has to wonder what kind of sick fantasies you have that would make you see the two as being related.

Re:They're nuts but right

[AK Marc]

Ah yes, the mythical slippery slope. If you give them anything, they'll take everything. There are enough "dumb" guns out there that any attempt to mass-disable guns would likely be met by resistance from those whose guns don't disable. I don't see your scenario as a next step. I see it as a fanciful invention to spread FUD.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Until he whips out a pair of kitchen knives and goes to town on everyone in arms reach . . .
( see recent knife incidents both in the US and China )

Re:They're nuts but right

[LF11]

*cough* Ukraine *cough*

If the Russians make a move, only Switzerland and Finland will be able to stop them, because of their culture of marksmanship and widespread ownership of rifles.

Re:They're nuts but right

[LF11]

It is never a matter of life and death if the proximity key fails. (OK, maybe some edge case it could be, but generally no.) Also, there is a manual override so even if the proximity key fails, you can still get into the car.

Now maybe newer and more expensive cars don't have the manual overrides that mine have had, but being locked out of your car is not a matter of life and death.

Being suddenly unable to operate your firearm is most certainly a matter of life and death.

Re:They're nuts but right

[AK Marc]

The number one source of guns to criminals is theft. Most guns used in crimes were stolen from a lawful owner. Only a few were stolen by the person that used them, but most were sold by people that stole them. Sold into the black market, then resold until in the hands of someone that used them in a crime. Gang members with long rap sheets don't go to Wal-Mart to buy a rifle. They talk to a guy who knows a guy and they buy them out of the trunk of someone's car.

Only a few are strawman sales, but that's easier to track than doing what many places do and require a secure storage location before allowing firearm purchase.

I moved to a place where guns are illegal. I can buy one, but I must have 6 months of training, and must pay for an inspection of my home, where the means of storage will be inspected. Guns aren't solen often. They are easy to buy, once you get your certification, but hard for criminals to get. But such restrictions would be illegal in the US, as the right to own a gun trumps your responsibility to be responsible with it.

Re:They're nuts but right

[AK Marc]

The last fwe big shootings were all the same. The guns were stolen from a lawful owner. If there were no lawful owners, those shootings would likely have never happened. Of course, pointing that out gets me labeled as a gun grabber, despite the fact I didn't advocate grabbing any guns. Just stating facts. If you don't like them, argue with reality, not me.

Re:They're nuts but right

[AC-x]

And in the context of smart guns suicides are one of the most important statistics, because they account for the vast majority of deaths and they are often carried out by other members of a gun owner's family.

A gun in the home raises the suicide risk for everyone: gun owner, spouse and children alike.

So smart guns are an easy win to prevent suicides in a gun owning households. Oh, sorry, did logic ruin your talking point?

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Subtract the number of suicides from your Gun death category and start comparing apples to apples.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we have the police adopt them first to show everyone how reliable and safe they are...

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you do see the left calling for bans. Examples include Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, the Chicago and NYC governments, many local elected officials in MA, the Brady Campaign (whose official line matches yours but whose management has come out and said their real goal is to ban guns), Rosie O'Donnell Piers Morgan, Oprah Winfrey and others.

Re: They're nuts but right

[Agent0013]

According to the x-cop investigating the new-town shooting, there were no kids there. If the government is going to fake things, or even hire the assassins, then it doesn't matter if guns are outlawed, because the government will get the anyway.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Mspangler]

"We already have proximity keys on automobiles. How often do they let people down? How often are people locked out of their car because the key doesn't work?"

Quite often until I cut the wires going to the power door locks. Note to self, never buy a car with power locks again.

Actually the problem is slightly different than you describe, the truck arbitrarily locked its doors at random times while parked. That still deons't improve my confidence in the locking control system. And that is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Re: They're nuts but right

[AK Marc]

So Adam Lanza didn't kill any children? I didn't read any x-cop report, and I've never seen any report that indicates a lack of children in the school at the time of the shooting.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because driving on public roads is a PRIVILEGE. Owning firearms is a RIGHT.

Learn the difference and why there is one.

Re: They're nuts but right

[bigpat]

Yes I think the anti gun laws of the 1920s were a big factor which allowed Hitler to rise to power. He could have never used such level of petty street thuggery against an armed population before he came to power. It isn't about a lone gun against tanks and planes, then it is obviously too late, it is about not being afraid of the guy with a steel pipe that wants you to vote for that well spoken young fellow with the neatly trimmed mustache.

Re:They're nuts but right

[SuricouRaven]

The Russians have nuclear weapons. The only thing stopping them from invading anyone they want is knowing that if they launch an open war then the rest of the world will turn on them. Locals with rifles can't hope to stop an army with bombers and tanks - the best they can achieve is a long insurgency that makes the prospect of invasion much less attractive (See Afganistan, Iraq). That's why Russia is using the 'deniable invasion' - inciting chaos then moving troops in for claimed humanitarian reasons to help restore order.

Re:They're nuts but right

[amxcoder]

Your figure for gun deaths is a blatant slant of the statistics. 61% of those deaths are from suicides, not homicides. And another study was done on suicides that showed no change in the number of suicides when guns are available or not, meaning the suicides are going to happen regardless of the availability of guns, so including that figure is misleading.

Your figure for gun deaths also includes "justifiable deaths", where good guys are defending themselves from bad guys. Including those deaths is also a lie used to inflate your figures.

Re:They're nuts but right

[John.Banister]

When I took my driving test in WV (in 1986), it consisted of six questions on a laminated page, with traces of previous marker visible around all the correct answers (and fainter traces visible around a couple of popular incorrect ones). There was also a driving test, which entailed the safe circumnavigation of one block at 15 mph. In almost all of the US, neither license nor vehicle safety features are necessary to operate your own automobile on your own property. In all of the US, a background check, and a license is required to have a firearm in your possession when you're not on your own property, and in many parts of the US, training and a proficiency test are also required.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Saint Fnordius]

Cars aren't typically used in life and death situations. Guns are. Changes the game, so to speak.

Actually, cars are used far, far more often in life-or-death situations. The big difference is that they have uses outside of those. Guns have little use outside of inflicting fatal damage to fauna (humans included), or target sports.

Re:They're nuts but right

[BasilBrush]

I'm not sure if you mean the same thing. I don't mean the ones where you press a button on the key or fob. I mean the ones that unlock and enable the ignition automatically when you come close.

So you had a faulty vehicle. That doesn't mean that people generally have problems with proximity locking. It doesn't mean there's a a significant chance of it not working when you need it.

Heck any car with a modern immobiliser is undrivable unless the proximity key is working. Yet we don't hear many stories of people being stuck because of the immobiliser not working.

Re:They're nuts but right

[BasilBrush]

After all new guns are "smart" guns, the next step is a remote kill switch.

An unfortunate choice of words. But it's certainly a good thing if the police can stop a criminal's gun firing.

Re:They're nuts but right

[BasilBrush]

Tell that to the person that needs rushing to hospital.

In most people's lives they are far more likely to have a life/death situations where they need a car than where they need a gun.

And then there are all the emergency service workers that are dealing with life/death situations every day and use cars.

Did you realise just how out of proportion your view of guns has become?

Re:They're nuts but right

[BasilBrush]

but don't dare start trying to make me look like an inbred hick just because I happen to like to target shoot.

Are you threatening me?

Re:They're nuts but right

[BasilBrush]

Try leaving your gun in the garage for a few years and see how reliably it shoots.

Re:They're nuts but right

[BasilBrush]

If my car's remote unlock doesn't work then I sigh and use the key to get in.

I didn't say remote unlock. I said proximity lock. And they are so reliable that the keyhole is usually buried behind some trim and most owners don't even know it's there.

If my gun fails to fire during the admittedly rarer time when I need it for defense well let's just say there probably won't be anyone to register a complaint.

Because these systems virtually always work on cars there is a vanishingly small chance that it won't work when you need it in the very unlikely chance you ever need your gun for an emergency.

Against that vanishingly small possibility, you have to weigh all the lives that would be saved by the gun not being able to be used by people other than the owner. For example, rather than the hypothetical you pose, how many real children are killed because they or their friend got hold of a gun to play with?

Re:They're nuts but right

[BasilBrush]

Tell that to all the people who've needed to be rushed to hospital in a car in an emergency. After a heart attack, or because there's a childbirth problem, or because of a life threatening accident.

Yes, keyless cars usually have a manual backup lock buried behind some trim, but they are so rarely needed that most owners won't know they are there.

Re:They're nuts but right

[LF11]

Many people share your opinion on this, but I would invite you to consider that you have broken your own argument. The Russians are not using nukes, bombers, and tanks. They are using small bands of unidentified armed foot soldiers with light support, which are easy marks for an armed citizenship.

Against nukes and bombs, you need a government to help you. But the government cannot defend every point, nor can they protect every facility.

But individual people can.

Re:They're nuts but right

[LF11]

Edge case, which I already admitted would be the case. Furthermore, if your car doesn't work, most people live close enough to other people that someone else's car will suffice. Not only that, but you pretty much should never be rushing someone to the hospital in your own car -- that should be handled by an ambulance driver who is trained and has the siren and lights to do so with some degree of safety.

Most drivers might not know where the manual backup lock is located, BUT IT STILL EXISTS. And the knowledge is a short Google search away. Such is not the case with "smart" guns.

Re:They're nuts but right

[BasilBrush]

Edge case, which I already admitted would be the case.

Not nearly as edge case as using a gun for defense.

Not only that, but you pretty much should never be rushing someone to the hospital in your own car -- that should be handled by an ambulance driver who is trained and has the siren and lights to do so with some degree of safety.

That really depends on what the response time for an ambulance is in your area. And what the medical emergency is. For possible neck or back injury you certainly don't want to move the patient. But for many other things such as heart attack, stroke or childbirth problems, time is far more important than mode of transport.

And of course don't forget that emergency driving is also done by the emergency services. Doctors and cops also drive cars.

Re:They're nuts but right

[sjames]

If it has been properly conditioned before being put away and it is stored in proper conditions, it'll be fine as long as it doesn't have a battery to fail.

Re:They're nuts but right

[SuricouRaven]

And the only reason Russia isn't using nukes and bombs is that they fear their neighbours who have their own nukes and bombs. The threat of military weaponry is keeping them from escalating into something that an armed citizenry couldn't possibly handle.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap, I wouldn't eff with some guy that's fighting you with one hand behind his back for control of a gun!

Re:They're nuts but right

[LF11]

You are completely correct. But something I think you may be missing is that the armed citizenry is not a replacement for the military, it is an augmentation. One that the Ukraine is sorely missing.

Re:They're nuts but right

[SuricouRaven]

Do you think it's make any difference? The moment they started shooting at the Russian 'police' forces it would provide the justification Russia needs to start bringing in the heavy weaponry. A simple matter of declaring them terrorists and common murderers and sending in the APCs and snipers. The most effective thing the armed civilians could do would be the long insurgency, one of the areas where an armed civilian populace excels, but that wouldn't stop Russia invading. It'd just force them to spend a fortune maintaining a strong military presence for a decade to keep in control (Again, see Iraq).

Re:They're nuts but right

[LF11]

It would force them to spend a fortune. A fortune they perhaps might not want to spend, considering that it would occupy their treasury, men, and equipment in a world suddenly full of hostile, motivated, angry countries.

Still a win, to have an armed citizenry.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

And the gun unlocks just as he's close enough to grab it...

Re:They're nuts but right

[nwaack]

Are you threatening me?

Do you see an "or else" in my post? I'm not threatening anyone, although I'm sure you'd like that because then you could shout from the rooftops that the nasty gun owner made naughty typings at you. Do you honestly think that gun owners are "clearly moron rednecks?" If so then you're stereotyping.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah you can buy them in every major city.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

You would be surprised about the number of individuals who do not know how to properly operate a firearm and engage targets at close range.

Re:They're nuts but right

[Anonymous Coward]

Small gun syndrome. Cf. "This is my rifle, this is my gun".

Re:They're nuts but right

[Tyndmyr]

I am amused that posting the address of a gun control advocate(and she is), is seen as clearly a threat. Yet, everyone was quick to say that posting a list of addresses of gun owners(New york CCW holders) was somehow not. If this is a threat, then it's one started by the gun banners, and which they wield far more indiscriminately.

RFID interlock

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep the tag on your keychain. Done.

Re:RFID interlock

[koan]

Batteries... *click* you're dead. Done.

Re:RFID interlock

[compro01]

So your argument consists of "I'm not competent enough to perform maintenance on a firearm".

Re:RFID interlock

[frovingslosh]

And, since it is a 10 inch range from the device when it is working, shoot from the hip.

Re:RFID interlock

[AC-x]

Someone else has your gun... *click* you're still alive. Done

Your son has your gun... *click* he's still alive. Done.

Re:RFID interlock

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit happens.

Re:RFID interlock

[hey!]

Check batteries when you arm yourself in the morning. Bang. Done.

Re:RFID interlock

[koan]

Someone else said: "So your argument consists of "I'm not competent enough to perform maintenance on a firearm"." and I would add to that "store your weapon", after all how did someone else or "your son" get a hold of it if you weren't incompetent and leaving it out for that to happen?

Re:RFID interlock

[koan]

How about a gun with no electronics, I know what my pistol can do right now or a month from now without checking it, because I maintain the weapon, I know whether it's ready to go or not without a daily check.

Why add another point of failure to something you may depend on for your life, only incompetent people think that's a good idea.

Re:RFID interlock

[Cederic]

How often have you had to shoot someone, outside of a work related requirement?

I'm curious because people I know seem to get through their lives without needing to shoot anybody, so the miniscule chance of a gun failing is pretty fucking irrelevant because there's a miniscule chance they'll ever fucking need it.

I mean, if you live in the Central African Republic then I can kind of understand that there's a need for serious and visible self-defence, and indeed to move around in numbers.

Or are you just a total twat that gets high on the thought of using his penis substitute to hurt someone?

Re:RFID interlock

[hey!]

Why add another point of failure to something you may depend on for your life, only incompetent people think that's a good idea.

Because your life might *also* depend on other people not getting hold of your weapon and using it on you? That might not be the case for *you*, of course, but not every user is necessarily like you.

The idea that somehow we can't make electronics reliable enough to depend upon for your life is silly. Walk into any hospital and you'll find it chock full of electronic gizmos that people are staking lives on. Airplanes have electronic instruments that hundreds of lives are staked on. The engine computer in a modern automobile failing would frequently be a fatal event.

In any case, what you need to worry about is the least reliable component in a dangerous scenario, which in 90% of the cases is bound to be the user.

Re:RFID interlock

[AC-x]

But then, how do you keep it secure enough to prevent accidents but ready enough to actually use in a self defence situation? If you can't access your gun in time why is that any better than the possibility of a dead battery etc?

Re:Gun nuts

[sgbett]

Why yes! Those kind of people sound *exactly* like the kind of people that should have guns!

Untrustworthy

[BasilBrush]

And again, gun nuts show they are the last people that should be trusted to be responsible with anything.

Re:Untrustworthy

[Anonymous Coward]

You making an assertion with little substance, no facts to back it up and essentially no argument other than 'XYZ is true', does not make for a convincing argument.

Good people armed with guns makes the whole world safer. I say more guns.

Yes that means more training, more responsibility, but those are good things also.

You need to be armed to protect yourself from the criminal who will himself likely be armed, and he won't care at all about any laws or smart guns or safe firearm handling or any of that bullshit. Look, do you only wear your seatbelt when you are going to have an accident? Or do you wear it all the time *in case* of an accident?

It's the same with self defense.

Re: Untrustworthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Except there are a lot of people willing to straight up murder someone and it is much easier to steal a gun and use that instead of a seatbelt.

Also did you read the article? These crazy people are threatening the lives of anyone who designs a safer gun. Convince that guy to go to gun training class and try and teach him to keep his gun locked up. I'll wait over here at a safe distance while you knock on his door.

And that story last week about another kid getting ahold of a gun left in his parents drawer and killing his 4 year old brother? This gun/watch idea would have prevented that. That kind of thing happens thousands of times every year.

So no, I don't trust you people with guns, because you are not all good people with good training. Thousands of you can't even be mature and responsible enough to keep firearms away from your kids, and many of you also post death threats online. And you want MORE guns out there? You can't even control the guns that are out there now and you think that in this perfect fantasy world you live in, everyone will all go to training and follow the rules and be responsible. Guess what, if everyone in the country followed the rules and was responsible, you wouldn't need guns for self defense would you?

Re:Untrustworthy

[jythie]

gun nuts and good armed people are not really the same group.

Re: Untrustworthy

[Anonymous Coward]

"So no, I don't trust you people with guns, because you are not all good people with good training."

Incorrect, show me the numbers, read the below and you will find that whoever is telling you this is full of shit. Law abiding citizens with legal firearms do not commit crimes for the most part. The vast majority of gun crimes are by those people who have guns illegally, this is not opinion this is fact. No gun law you can ever think of will prevent the lawbreaker from getting hold of a gun, only prevent those law abiding citizens, the good people, from protecting themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20RoAfflGCM

Have you ever been to a shooting range? You should try it, there you will find the most polite, nicest, intelligent and helpful people of anywhere else in your ciy. Do you think it is a coincidence that Chicago, where guns are basically outlawed, is like a war zone?

As to "people are threatening the lives of anyone who designs a safer gun", obvioulsy I wouldn't support any such thing, that's isn't really the subject I am speaking about here.

Re:Untrustworthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Gooder people armed with thermonuclear weapons makes the whole world safer. I say more thermonuclear weapons.

Hell let's give the guy who claims to be Jesus a doomsday weapon, then we'll be the safest we can possibly be!

Re: Untrustworthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, no. Don't care, and I won't read those links. I can't tell the difference between you, a lunatic gun nut making death threats, a responsible gun owner, and idiots who leave loaded firearms out for children. Since you're anonymous, I don't have any way of verifying which you are, and you're passionate about a weapon that can kill me, or anyone by accident (because you never know where that bullet is going to go), I want Federal gun control so I know exactly who you are and how to avoid you. You can kill all the criminals you want, but I don't want to be anywhere near you lest you think I'm a criminal or someone who needs killing.

Re: Untrustworthy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, we know, that's why the founders created the 2a.

FWIW if it came down to it, I would be someone you want on your side is a crisis.

And like I said, meet some gun owners, I bet you'd be pleasantly surprised.

Cheers!

Re:Untrustworthy

[publiclurker]

according to the gun nuts, that is.

Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Kohath]

a gun that might not fire.

Sounds like a good gun for the police to use. Get back to us when every police officer in the country has one of these and is forbidden to use a traditional weapon.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Anonymous Coward]

a gun that might not fire.

That would be all of them.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[swillden]

a gun that might not fire.

That would be all of them.

Yes, if you're a pedant. However, a well-maintained modern handgun firing factory ammunition is unlikely to fail, and nearly all failures that do occur are transient and easily fixed. With a bit of practice, even type 3 malfunctions (double-feed) can be cleared in under a second and the gun restored to working order.

What we're talking about here is an additional failure mode, one that is almost certainly not repairable in a second, or even a couple of minutes. In a gunfight, a couple of minutes is likely to be a literal lifetime. Further, it introduces a failure mode which can occur even when everything is working perfectly. If for some reason you need to shoot with your off hand and cannot get your strong-side wrist in range of the gun, you'll be unable to shoot.

Police will absolutely refuse to use these, and civilians should also refuse to allow them to be imposed on us.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Anonymous Coward]

What we're talking about here is an additional failure mode, one that is almost certainly not repairable in a second, or even a couple of minutes. In a gunfight, a couple of minutes is likely to be a literal lifetime. Further, it introduces a failure mode which can occur even when everything is working perfectly. If for some reason you need to shoot with your off hand and cannot get your strong-side wrist in range of the gun, you'll be unable to shoot.

Police will absolutely refuse to use these, and civilians should also refuse to allow them to be imposed on us.

It's not unprecedented for a police officer to lose their weapon in a brawl and get shot with it. You'd think that some cops might be more worried about that very real possibility than the chance the technology in their weapon will fail...

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy to make a gun that will only fire when the owner is holding the gun. But it is very difficult to make a gun that will always fire when the owner needs it to fire. Say my right arm gets injured, am I supposed to hold my right arm up next to my left arm to shoot my gun from my left hand? Or take the watch off and put it on my left hand? Or maybe I get separated from my gun in a fight. Does someone else have to get really close to my right hand to shoot the guy beating the hell out of me? Or maybe the batteries in the watch die. With this technology I can't toss a spare gun to a friend without saying "be sure to put this watch on too". It seems like this technology would be pretty easy to circumvent. Just strap the watch to the gun. I bet someone will make rail mounts for them if they become popular. I saw oil filter silencer adapters being marketed as solvent collectors at the last gun show I was at.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great...no one is imposing them on anyone.

as for firing from the off hand...how about a wrist device on both wrists. Awfully simple.

"it introduces a failure mode which can occur even when everything is working perfectly" what failure mode is this exactly, if everything is working properly then by definition it is not a failure. they are adding a constraint to the definition of working properly to include "is within 10 inches of the wrist device" it being outside that range and not firing is not a failure.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[r_jensen11]

a gun that might not fire.

Sounds like a good gun for the police to use. Get back to us when every police officer in the country has one of these and is forbidden to use a traditional weapon.

Considering gun owners are more likely to get shot by their own gun than shoot an intruder, I'd consider this a win.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Kilo Kilo]

Sounds like a good gun for the police to use.

Give the LAPD a trial run and the interlocks will mysteriously stop working.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Triklyn]

you're talking about reliability issues, and boundary issues. all of which can be tested and refined. If you were talking specifically about this product, fine. it might not be perfect for law enforcement. but how about a locket that projects 4 feet in all directions? what about having 2 "watches"? design can be fixed. reliability can be improved. do you have any objections to a the hypothetical? if it worked perfectly so only the owner could use it, in any way he wanted, in any situation, and never failed. would you have any objections?

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Chris Mattern]

That's great...no one is imposing them on anyone.

Because it's not possible to impose it on anyone, as they are not yet availabe. The time between them becoming available and someone proposing laws to make them mandatory will likely be measured in milliseconds.

what failure mode is this exactly, if everything is working properly then by definition it is not a failure. they are adding a constraint to the definition of working properly to include "is within 10 inches of the wrist device" it being outside that range and not firing is not a failure.

Correct, that is not a failure. When the device *does* fail, when everything is *not* working properly--and nothing works properly all the time--it can result in the gun not firing when it should, when it *is* within 10 inches of the wrist device. And that can be fatal. The most dangerous weapon is the one that doesn't work when you need it. Every gewgaw you add to a device can fail, and adds the possibility that the device as a whole will fail. Particularly when the gewgaw's intended purpose is to make the device not work in the first place. A thing that activates when it is not supposed to is one the most common failure modes.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Anonymous Coward]

All of them that have not been properly maintained*

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Anonymous Coward]

"The time between them becoming available and someone proposing laws to make them mandatory will likely be measured in milliseconds."
That's nice, all kinds of crazy laws get proposed all the time most of them fail to pass. So we shouldn't do thing A because thing B might happen? I've never understood that logic, predicting the future typically makes you look dumb.

"The most dangerous weapon is the one that doesn't work when you need it" or ya know the one pointed at your head by someone intent on murdering you.

All the justifications I've heard for these weapons (granted I don't actively follow it) has been directed at their use by law enforcement, to prevent an agent's weapon from being used against them.

"and nothing works properly all the time" except guns, according to swillden...just look 2 posts up.

"Every gewgaw you add to a device can fail, and adds the possibility that the device as a whole will fail. articularly when the gewgaw's intended purpose is to make the device not work in the first place." so by that logic all gun safety should be removed because they are "gewgaw"s that are designed to make the gun not fire.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Anonymous Coward]

Our local PD has a friggin MRAP, a helicopter, allegedly two drones, and more military hardware than a banana republic. This isn't Libya, it's a small town far, far removed from anything even remotely target-worthy. I suppose they use it all to protect themselves from "terrorists" as they answer the call to get granny's cat Mr. Tiddles down out of the tree.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Agent0013]

That's like asking for DRM that works correctly in every situation and allows fair use. I don't see it happening.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[sjames]

Interestingly, NJ ALREADY has a law that the technology becomes mandatory within 3 years of general availability.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Algae_94]

The most dangerous weapon is the one that doesn't work when you need it.

Just to be further pedantic about this, the most dangerous weapon is the one threatening you that makes you get a weapon for defense.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[vux984]

However, a well-maintained modern handgun firing factory ammunition is unlikely to fail

So assuming you maintain it, which you already claimed you do, you should be just fine as it will continue to be unlikely to fail.

What we're talking about here is an additional failure mode

How is the potential of getting shot with your own gun not also a "failure mode"? Where you simply see "additional failure mode", I see tradeoffs plain as day.

If for some reason you need to shoot with your off hand and cannot get your strong-side wrist in range of the gun, you'll be unable to shoot.

If for some reason the person you wish to shoot wrestles the gun away from you, he'll be unable to shoot you with it. Tradeoff.

Police will absolutely refuse to use these,

Lets look at some actual numbers. According to the Washington Post

From 2000 to 2010

511 police officers were killed by guns.
----
170 the source of the gun is not known / gun not recovered
107 of those were by guns legally acquired by the killer
77 were from stolen guns
51 were killed with their own weapon or another officers weapon (presumably obtained during the incident)
46 obtained from relatives or friends who had them legally
41 obtained through illegal street sale
16 obtained through 'staw buyer' (bought legally by someone for someone else prohibted to own a gun)
3 purchased illegally at gun shows or private sellers

So a full 10% of police deaths by firearm were by their own guns. This system would have saved at minimum 51 police officers lives. Its plausible that some percentage of the stolen and other illegally obtained guns would also have been prevented; but we'll set that aside and just consider police officers being shot with their own firearm for now.

So the question before us then is how many times would a smart system have to fail to fire before it caused more deaths than it saved?

The number of bullets fired by Officers in New York City was 431 in 2001, and 540 in in 2006. (And peaked quite a bit higher in the 90s, but I'm trying to keep the data as current as possible.) Now Given NYC is 1/40th the US population we can make a very gross extrapolation to the entire country to 17,000 - 21,000 shots year. Lets call it 200,000 rounds over the same decade. (And I think that's crazy high over estimate); and it includes everything from putting down a dog to warning shots to that time LAPD shot a single 19 year old guy 90 times after he threatened them with a cell phone. (Yes he was trying to provoke them and he deserved to get shot... but really 90 rounds fired at what turned out to be an unarmed man?)

Anyway based on those numbers a smart gun system then would have to fail >50 times in 200,000 rounds (or 1 round out of 4000) and EVERY single failure would have to be a life or death situation where failing to fire leads to the officers death, which is so utterly ludicrous its not even really worth considering... but lets consider it anyway.
1:4000 failures is 99.975% functional.

That's how reliable the system has to be to be an improvement, even under the most RIDICULOUS assumption that every single failure would lead to a cop being killed. But even 99.975% reliable is a very low bar to reach.

Not only will the system clearly be more reliable than that, and even when it does fail most of the time it won't get anyone killed.

If it were to be even 99.99% reliable, and we assume that even 1 time in 10 the gun not firing is fatal for the police officer, then this system would have saved 51 officers, and resulted in 2 deaths. /. is a place for science and math. And the math is pretty clear. The system will save far more lives than it costs. And your objection is therefore knee jerk hysterics.

I look forward to a well reasoned, well researched, well articulated counter argument. (Or just call me a liberal tard who wants to take all yer guns away...whatever works for you).

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[im_thatoneguy]

What we're talking about here is an additional failure mode, one that is almost certainly not repairable in a second, or even a couple of minutes.

Let's not talk about delta force operators--most people in a panic won't be able to calmly go through the steps to correct a firearm failure with someone coming at them with a knife.

Secondly, who gives a shit? Let's say this thing fails 1% of the time. Something like 10% of all police fatalities were with their own firearm. You're only looking at one failure mode, this might introduce one failure mode (electronic failure) but it eliminates a 10x worse problem. And that 1% failure I imagine is actually pretty high. In reality it should be trivial to keep it at less than 1%. If you included a reset button and it was a transient bug you could just as easily in less than a second clear a software glitch. Meanwhile you're avoiding a problem that is probably at least 1,000% worse.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Blakey Rat]

Ok so you don't like the gun.

And that makes harassing and threatening this person acceptable because...?

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Anonymous Coward]

Is NJ also outlawing the re-sale of firearms? or only for new purchases.

These kind of single state laws are totally ineffective. Make friends with a resident in a neighboring state, they buy gun, make a drive and you buy gun from them.

I haven't read the NJ law but I can almost guarantee it would be struck down long before it ever goes into effect.

I get that "Oh no new gun law, PANIC." Is the default behavior for a lot of people but taking a few seconds to think about it critically would eliminate most of the outrage.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually police are probably the only people who would want these.

If your are maintaining your gear properly the odds of it failing to fire are pretty low, but a lot of cops get shot with their own gun, usually because they were avoiding using deadly force and someone grabbed the gun from their holster.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Most accidents and shootings are caused by police because the so called experts can't tell the difference between a toy and the real thing. If it's such a great thing, then let all the police

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the implicit argument that all firearms are used for self defense purposes, rather than the reality that most all firearms are used for recreational purposes exclusively.

For a recreational use, this type of technology is a very acceptable compromise between reliability and prevention of unauthorized use.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[AK Marc]

a gun that might not fire.

That's every gun. "might" includes anything.

Sounds like a good gun for the police to use. Get back to us when every police officer in the country has one of these and is forbidden to use a traditional weapon.

Many police deparments (though not in the US) use anti-theft technology. In places where the cops are armed and nobody else is, a cop is more likely to be shot by their own gun than any other. In the US, guns are common, so getting shot is likely by a different gun, so they have different worries.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[AK Marc]

Funny that the gun nuts claim that the FBI under-reports firearm saves because the FBI don't count brandishing a firearm as a "use" of one in self defense. So the gun nuts assign some massive number to the deliberately uncounted number for the number of saves. But if it comes down to having a gun to brandish that won't work, then a successful use to the gun nut is firing it.

The stance changes depending on the inconsistent argument by the gun-nut flip-flopper.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Jeremi]

It's a tradeoff, for sure. On the one hand, it's (possibly) less likely to function when you need it to fire.

On the other hand, it's also less likely to end up inadvertently killing you or one of your loved ones at a time when you needed it not to fire.

Pick your poison -- but if I was a gun owner and there were children in the house, I might be tempted to keep one of these around instead of the traditional variety.

(Yes, yes, a good parent will also keep the gun away from the children and warn them not to touch it. But there's nothing like telling children 'don't ever do X' to get them curious about what would happen if they did X)

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Anonymous Coward]

One big assumption being made here is that all guns are used for self defense. What if you just want a gun for hunting or target shooting? Wouldn't this be good for someone with those needs?

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Jeremi]

Because it's not possible to impose it on anyone, as they are not yet availabe. The time between them becoming available and someone proposing laws to make them mandatory will likely be measured in milliseconds.

So, in order to make sure the government can't prevent people from buying certain types of gun, gun-rights activists are going to prevent people from buying certain types of gun.

Heh.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Anonymous Coward]

I look forward to a well reasoned, well researched, well articulated counter argument.

On slashdot?!? Are you kidding me?!?

(Or just call me a liberal tard who wants to take all yer guns away...whatever works for you).

There, that's more like it. You learn fast, kid.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Anonymous Coward]

If you included a reset button and it was a transient bug you could just as easily in less than a second clear a software glitch.

Unless the software was made by M$. Then you are just plain screwed.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[amxcoder]

Considering gun owners are more likely to get shot by their own gun than shoot an intruder, I'd consider this a win.

Citation please... that is a myth. Can you back up your claim?

Here is my citation that what you claim is pure malarkey. http://gunowners.org/sk0701.ht...

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Anonymous Coward]

"Make friends with a resident in a neighboring state, they buy gun, make a drive and you buy gun from them"

Good idea! Well, almost if we're talking about a handgun, you just committed a felony, as did he. Something about crossing State lines. You can buy long guns in a neighboring State, but you can only buy handguns in the State where you reside.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Firethorn]

Lets look at some actual numbers. According to the Washington Post

I looked at something very similar, but slightly newer using FBI statistics. 2002-2012. 535 officers, 25 killed with their own weapons. One downside is that it didn't mention officers killed by another officer's weapon. Balancing that would be that there are multiple cases of cops shooting each other. But I figure that 5-10% is a good percentage, and it's not that big of a range.

That's how reliable the system has to be to be an improvement, even under the most RIDICULOUS assumption that every single failure would lead to a cop being killed. But even 99.975% reliable is a very low bar to reach.

Not only will the system clearly be more reliable than that, and even when it does fail most of the time it won't get anyone killed.

Do you have some citation on the reliability figure? I thought the false-negative* was higher.

Personally, I looked at the cost - the system seems to cost $1k over a non-smart gun. The USA has ~900k officers, presumably the vast majority of them armed. Round up to 1M guns**, you're looking at $1B to transition them all to 'smart guns' if you do it as firearms wear out. If you accellerate the replacement you're looking at $2B.

If you figure the average police firearm lasts 20 years, that's $50M/year to save 5-10 lives.

*Authorized user/gun doesn't unlock
**Average NYPD officer might go through 1 firearm in their career, but the average rural deputy has at least 2-3(handgun, rifle, shotgun), and the SWAT types go through them like candy.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[vux984]

Balancing that would be that there are multiple cases of cops shooting each other

Good point.

But I figure that 5-10% is a good percentage, and it's not that big of a range.

That's fair.

Do you have some citation on the reliability figure? I thought the false-negative* was higher.

There are a number of competing systems. I don't know. I guess the point is that if we set a low target like 1:1000 (99.9%) its amost surely a net positive. If we set a target like 1:5000 (99.98%) its beyond clear reproach that its a net positive. If the guns are currently only 99% reliable... or something absurdly terrible like that then I agree they aren't ready for primetime -- but that's not an indictment of the idea of smart guns, merely the current status of the implementation.

Personally, I looked at the cost - the system seems to cost $1k over a non-smart gun.

And that's another good point. Clearly the cost needs to come down for it to be practical. But the anti-smart-gun crowd tends to frame their objection around how its automatically going lead to more innocent deaths. I'm aiming to shred that argument, but I have no issue conceding that price is valid concern.

If you figure the average police firearm lasts 20 years, that's $50M/year to save 5-10 lives.

The above said, that seems surprisingly reasonable to be honest. 50 million year divided over how many police officers? Google is suggesting that its around 780,000. That's $64 per year per officer to save at least 5-10 lives year.* I don't know if that is 'high' or not relative to other measures that are in place relative their expense but its not as bad I thought it would be.

* That only considers officer deaths. How many civilians are shot with stolen police weapons? How many of those would be eliminated with a smart system? In some cases the thief would and could defeat the system... but surely in some cases not.

I'd also like to wind out by saying one concern i have about this particular smart gun tech highlighted in the TFA is that it appears to be a wireless link between wristband and weapon -- and I'm concerned about the ability for it to be jammed. If it can be effectively jammed then its not suitable at all for the police. (Although it may still be entirely reasonable for a hobby weapon or hunting weapon.)

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[uninformedLuddite]

That statistic doesn't work if you take out suicides.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[Firethorn]

There are a number of competing systems. I don't know. I guess the point is that if we set a low target like 1:1000 (99.9%) its amost surely a net positive.

If you're using it as a design consideration, that's fine. I was thinking about real-world systems. Another thought I just had is the question of how fast the authorization takes place. If I grab the gun out of my holster, will it be ready to fire by the time I have it raised/aimed?

But the anti-smart-gun crowd tends to frame their objection around how its automatically going lead to more innocent deaths.

My main fear on this is the reliability issue. As far as I'm concerned, my carry weapon* needs to be able to work through gloves, primary and off hand, at -50 and over 140F. It needs to be able to last, with routine maintenance, over 20 years(military), 40 for private. It also needs to be easy enough that I don't end up not using it, and cheap enough that I feel it's worth it.

50 million year divided over how many police officers? Google is suggesting that its around 780,000. That's $64 per year per officer to save at least 5-10 lives year.*

It's too expensive for me. I value the 'average' human life at $2-3M at this point. Of course, I'll also state that if any officer or department wishes to switch that I'll support them. It might run a touch more than $1k though - the mechanism will probably have to be beefed up in order to survive the shock of a .40S&W round as opposed to a .22lr. It might also increase maintenance costs.

Vests are normally around $2k and have about a five year lifespan in use, but an officer is a lot more likely to be shot than shot&killed with their own weapon.

* That only considers officer deaths. How many civilians are shot with stolen police weapons? How many of those would be eliminated with a smart system? In some cases the thief would and could defeat the system... but surely in some cases not.

First, I assume that any stolen smart weapon will either have the system disabled or reprogrammed.
Second, I think the numbers shot with police weapons are very low - they aren't going to increase the numbers by much. Not many weapons are stolen, and not many of those are subsequently used in a murder.

I'd also like to wind out by saying one concern i have about this particular smart gun tech highlighted in the TFA is that it appears to be a wireless link between wristband and weapon -- and I'm concerned about the ability for it to be jammed.

Unlikely short of highly organized crime, but I understand the point. On the other hand, how do you propose having the gun authenticate if the officer is wearing gloves?

I should probably state my views a bit better: I believe that until the technology is good enough that the police are voluntarily embracing it that it's not ready to be mandated to civilians. If a civilian wants to buy an unreliable weapon, that is his choice. But it should not be forced on him.

As is, the police will lobby incredibly in order to exempt themselves from any such requirements, which tells me it's not ready yet.

*I carry non-routinely both as a member of the USAF and as a private citizen.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[pepty]

51 were killed with their own weapon or another officers weapon (presumably obtained during the incident) ... This system would have saved at minimum 51 police officers lives.

I don't see how you arrive at that conclusion. Many of those 51 deaths were probably suicides, friendly fire during a confrontation, or other situations where the safety system wouldn't prevent the weapon from discharging.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[pepty]

The most dangerous weapon is the one that doesn't work when you need it.

Actually it's the reverse: the most dangerous weapon (for its user) is the one that does work when you don't want it to. Most gun owners will never be in a firefight, but they and their families will be around weapons fairly often.

Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger

[vux984]

Possibly. Friendly fire was already pointed out by someone else. And I think friendly fire would very likely have counted towards this total.

But its not as clear to me whether deliberate suicides would have been included in the total or not. After all, if I count all the incidents where police were charged with assault its similarly not clear that it would include domestic spousal abuse incidents at home, off duty, not acting in anyway in the capacity of police officers. Maybe it would? Maybe it wouldn't... but you'd want some documentation one way or the way. Same goes here I think. Suicides are quite different than being shot to death in the line of duty or even off duty.

So find a better breakdown or documentation of the numbers if you can to establish just what was counted and how, or just halve it -- that's what the other poster did. It doesn't really change the argument significantly in the end whether its 51, or 26.

In a future cop movie...

[Anonymous Coward]

The criminal is surrounded by cops... no escape. The cops yell "slowly, take off your watch.... no, you don't have to put your gun down, but you HAVE TO REMOVE YOUR WATCH... NOW!"

if it's so advanced

[hypergreatthing]

Just mandate that the police force has to use it. Once it's been fully adopted and vetted, i'm sure us normal citizens would enjoy the chance to buy it.

Other than that, who cares?

Re:if it's so advanced

[sandytaru]

That's actually a good solution. One of the concerns police have is a criminal disarming them (or just making a grab for their weapon). This would ensure that only an officer actually gets to fire the gun if the situation warrants it. If a suspect snags it from them in am altercation, it's useless.

Re:if it's so advanced

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the concerns police have is a criminal disarming them (or just making a grab for their weapon). This would ensure that only an officer actually gets to fire the gun if the situation warrants it. If a suspect snags it from them in am altercation, it's useless.

Not exactly.

A gun that won't fire unless it's within 10 inches of a watch?

So for the safety to apply, the criminal would need to grab the gun, step away, and then try to fire. In the much more likely case where the criminal and the cop are struggling over control of the gun, it will be within 10 inches of the control watch unless the cop fights one-handed and swings his other arm behind himself. So, useless for all cases except maybe target shooting competitions where you want to be sure someone didn't swap pistols.

Re:if it's so advanced

[swillden]

That's actually a good solution. One of the concerns police have is a criminal disarming them (or just making a grab for their weapon). This would ensure that only an officer actually gets to fire the gun if the situation warrants it. If a suspect snags it from them in am altercation, it's useless.

Yep, and in spite of that police will refuse to accept this technology. Weighed against a gun grab, they'll vote for the weapon that is more likely to work for them when they need it. To combat gun grabs they'll continue to use retention holsters and train to defend their gun.

You may not know, but another technology in this vein (gun grab protection) is already in production and widely available. It's a more sensible and less risky approach... and by and large police officers don't like it. The technology in question is the "magazine safety". It blocks the trigger press unless a magazine is fully inserted. The idea is that if an officer ends up in a wrestling match they can reach down and hit the exposed magazine release, disabling their gun until the magazine is re-inserted. Seems sensible enough, but it still creates a small risk that the gun won't work when they want it to, so by and large police have refused to buy guns with the feature even though it was designed specifically for them.

Re:if it's so advanced

[rhazz]

But what is the point of mandating that police use it? Nobody on the selling side of this product is advocating forcing this gun on the populace. This is a private company selling a particular product to a particular market. That market is probably gun owners who have young children.

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy electric cars today either.

Re:if it's so advanced

[AmiMoJo]

According to the FBI11 officers were killed with their own weapon in 2003, but that dropped to 1 in 2012. I wonder what changed.

Re:if it's so advanced

[Em Adespoton]

Seems to me there's a simpler solution to these: have the gun "safety" be a wrist tether with a pin. Part of arming the gun involves inserting the pin. A quick visual check will tell whether or not it is inserted.

No electronics, no hidden bits, just a simple tether like on exercise and water sports equipment. The tech has been in use for years, shouldn't be difficult to move to a gun.

If I were with the police, I sure wouldn't want that magazine safety, as you can't easily check and see if it is on or not. I also wouldn't want the proximity safety, as there are too many things that could go wrong (RF jammer, anyone?).

But a simple pin and tether mechanism ensures that the gun use is at least intentional. Key the pin to the specific gun for an extra layer of security (both ways -- you can't just jam something in the hole to release the safety, and you can't use just any gun if you've got the tether).

Any legislation enabled should at least allow for this kind of tech.

Re:if it's so advanced

[Agent0013]

The police just start shooting innocent people a lot earlier so there is less chance for someone to be a violent attacker that grabs at the gun.

Re:if it's so advanced

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the FBI11 officers were killed with their own weapon in 2003, but that dropped to 1 in 2012. I wonder what changed.

The 11 dumbest got killed off.

Re:if it's so advanced

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing. The law of small numbers: 89% decrease in an already negligible number is negligible.

Re:if it's so advanced

[sjames]

It won't help. The nominal range is 10 inches from the watch, meaning it WILL fire while the cop and perp struggle for the weapon. Once the perp gets control, instead of trying to back away and then run, he will certainly fire point blank.

It won't help any other situation either. Look at the picture. There's a place for the watch that you will definitely not want to wear every day right there in the gun case. The kid that gets into the case will have the watch. The suicide will have the watch. The crook who steals the gun will have the watch.

If they could come up with a gun that magically only fires when it's justified and is never wrong, I would be all for it, but this isn't it.

Re:if it's so advanced

[Algae_94]

This just shows that police are like everyone else. They are afraid of changes and susceptible to doubtful accusations of new things.

The magazine safety is just an additional mechanical safety. No real difference from a grip safety, and those have been tested for over 100 years. People just like to become creative writers and come up with all sorts of possible scenarios where they won't have a magazine loaded, but need to shoot that one in the chamber.

Re:if it's so advanced

[gorliath]

Mag safeties suck hard, and least the ones Ive worked on. Just recently took one out of a gun, to vastly improve its cycling and accuracy, also made it far easier to dissasemble and clean, and less dangerous to handle. Complexity is a huge negative in firearms.

Re:if it's so advanced

[Anonymous Coward]

disabling it would be trivial with an SDR and some time with a signal analyzer. I wonder why it is the US government thinks no one in the world other then them knows a thing about electronic warfare?

Re:if it's so advanced

[blackraven14250]

Looks like statistical variation rather than a real change. In 2006, for example, there was also only 1 incident, while in 2010 there were 6.

Re:if it's so advanced

[frovingslosh]

That is a disingenuous and ignorant argument. There is already a law on the books in New Jersey that once such technology is available it will become mandated in 3 years for all new gun sales. And you think other, even more repressive states, will be far behind?

Re:if it's so advanced

[Anonymous Coward]

Future Slashdot Post...
"Third Major Police Department Found To Have Disabled "Watch Safeties" on Officer Handguns"
April 14, 2023 by samizdata22 in the who didn't see this coming department.
A recent article in the New York Times details the third municipal police department to have secretly disabled Watch Safeties, introduced about twenty years ago, as anecdotal evidence of the erratic nature of the technology has piled up and gun owners are increasingly vocal in oppostion to the required electronic inserts. Rumors of a signal jammer that works with Gen1 and 2 Watch Safety Triggers is bolstered by a new video shot at dashackercon in the e.u. (video)...

Re:if it's so advanced

[rhazz]

I will agree it was ignorant as I missed the portion about New Jersey, in which case it makes sense in that state. Moreso it makes sense for the gun-toting populace of New Jersey to appeal to their politicians, and let the market decide.

Turnabout is fair play

[Anonymous Coward]

If a journalist wants to go around posting the addresses of all registered gun owners, then expect the opposite to happen.

Re:Turnabout is fair play

[i kan reed]

So... the turnabout is gun owners publishing the addresses... of ... a gun owner?

I don't think you know what "turnabout" means.(they eat their own because of paranoia)

Re:Turnabout is fair play

[qbast]

So the opposite is posting addresses of employees of company manufacturing various types of gun safety? Yes, absolutely logical if you go by gun nut logic.

Re:Turnabout is fair play

[imatter]

I think gun nut logic should be a new, single word gunnutlogic. Somethinig along the line of nonetheless.

Re:Turnabout is fair play

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. It is disgusting how the NRA publishes the home addresses of journalists and politicians that disagree with them. How many murders are they responsible for? Out of all the politicians assasenated last year, what percentage does the NRA claim responsibility for? The biggest one in our history was comitted by one of their members. Of course, even if the assasination attempt wasn't done by one of their members, it was still done by one of their kind.

Re:Turnabout is fair play

[Deadstick]

Ummm, I think he means one of the following and not your interpretation:

(a) Gun owners publishing the addresses of non-gun owners, creating a catalog of homes where an intruder has only dogs and baseball bats to worry about; or

(b) Gun owners publishing the addresses of pro-gun-control journalists.

Re:Turnabout is fair play

[Anonymous Coward]

I think his point was that this already happened in New York where the names and addresses of registered gun owners were published and I believe at least one of those homes was broken into. So, publishing the name and address of someone presumably lobbying for restrictions on guns seems like "turnabout" and fair play in an atmosphere where Bloomberg the Great has promised to spend $50 million dollars to slander gun owners in every nasty way possible so he can take away the guns of everyone except his private security force of course.

Re:Turnabout is fair play

[Anonymous Coward]

So... the turnabout is gun owners publishing the addresses... of ... a gun owner?

I don't think you know what "turnabout" means.(they eat their own because of paranoia)

Everyone knows what he meant pedantic prick.

Re:Turnabout is fair play

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in agreement with the gutless nuts that say it's bigotry to classify a whole group of people with derogatory negative terminology -- except when the gutlessnutlogic says it's okay to do when it doesn't sound like kike or nigger.

So this another cop lobby shill spouting the scripted orchestrated contempt agenda or another gutlessnutjob who thinks a cop's first priority is to put his life on the line for the gutless nut job and their families.

need to enter a PIN to enable

[Chirs]

While needing to enter a code on your watch to fire the pistol would be fine for range shooting, it would seem to be unworkable for people wanting a gun for protection.

Maybe just a distance sensor would be better.

Re:need to enter a PIN to enable

[Anonymous Coward]

it would seem to be unworkable for people wanting a gun for protection.

Because being quickest at the draw is how you use a gun for protection? As someone who has spent their life around guns, that seems very unlikely.

Re:need to enter a PIN to enable

[Anonymous Coward]

it would seem to be unworkable for people wanting a gun for protection.

Because being quickest at the draw is how you use a gun for protection? As someone who has spent their life around guns, that seems very unlikely.

I've been in a situation where I came amazingly close to having to shoot someone. It was terrifying, it bothered me for quite a long time afterwards, and there would have been absolutely no time to put a PIN code into a watch.

Re:need to enter a PIN to enable

[Anonymous Coward]

it would seem to be unworkable for people wanting a gun for protection.

Because being quickest at the draw is how you use a gun for protection? As someone who has spent their life around guns, that seems very unlikely.

Any doodads you add into the basic functioning of a firearm increase the number of ways it can fail. My sidearm is emergency equipment. When I need it, it had better damn well go *bang* when I pull the trigger. I do not want to be at the mercy of a dead battery, or of which hand I'm holding it in.

"Because being quickest at the draw is how you use a gun for protection?" For someone who "has spent their life around guns" you sound like someone who gets their information about guns from movies.

Police and military?

[bigpat]

I think once the police and military adopt this kind of gun locking technology in large numbers, then we can start talking about whether it is ready for adoption. If it is a compelling safety feature without great expense, proves reliable and gun owners find it worthwhile to add to their safety and the safety of their families, then they will buy guns with these features.

Otherwise, this sounds like just another way the anti-gun fear mongering freedom hating lobbying industry are trying to increase the costs and burdens of gun ownership in order to reduce gun ownership by law abiding citizens. It is yet another straw man in the war against freedom.

Re:Police and military?

[AGMW]

LOL where you say "... freedom hating ..."!

Because people who want to reduce the chance of _everyone_ getting shot by limiting firearms obviously hate freedom!

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha - man, best one yet!

Re:Police and military?

[greenwow]

military adopt this kind of gun locking technology in large numbers

Oh please. The fact that they're unreliable is a feature. One of those NRA members wouldn't go around killing people if he (note, I said he. This entire situation is the fault of men) knew his gun wouldn't fire 20% of the time. A logical person would then only use the gun when absolutely necessary. Of course, if you own a gun, you are not a logical person. They know their gun is over forty times more likely to kill themselves or a member of their family, but hat doesn't stop them from committing the violent act of owning one of those things. The fact that these gun are unreliable makes it even more important that they be mandated.

Re:Police and military?

[bigpat]

I agree that fewer guns or guns kept safely locked away would be better for the day to day safety of society, but these absurd anti-gun laws do nothing but cause gun hording and force otherwise law abiding people to become scofflaws. Undermining the rule of law by passing bad laws is not good for Freedom. And having an unarmed population that can't defend themselves isn't either.

Re:Police and military?

[Anonymous Coward]

Horse shit. Where the fuck do you persecuted majority fucksticks get your info from?

If you want to see fearmongering pick up an NRA pamphlet. The Obama administration has done damn near jack shit about any gun policy in 2 terms. Historically less than nearly other any administration ever. Notably less than Bush or Bush II, son of bush.

If you're to look at the big picture objectively Obama one of the MOST pro-gun presidents in history.

Yet the NRA goes on and on about how he's taking away your gun rights. Lying. Not stretching the truth. Not exaggerations. Complete, unashamed, factual falsehoods.

American gun advocate groups are pawns of the GOP and far-right thinktanks. They have very little do do with actual gun advocacy.

Re:Police and military?

[CQDX]

Of course they'll never agree to adopt the technology. First, it means you can't use your buddy's backup weapon if your weapon malfunctions. Second, it won't be long before the technology becomes available to jam the system so you can't fire your weapon.

Re:Police and military?

[Registered Coward v2]

Otherwise, this sounds like just another way the anti-gun fear mongering freedom hating lobbying industry are trying to increase the costs and burdens of gun ownership in order to reduce gun ownership by law abiding citizens. It is yet another straw man in the war against freedom.

Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. There are a variety of interests that benefit from this type of controversy. At both ends of the gun debate spectrum you get people riled up. That results in money. Anti gun groups can use this to say "See, there is a solution that keeps your gun in your hands but out of others." The gun industry and their lobbying groups gets to say "Look out; THEY"RE coming to get you guns. Buy now before it is too late..."

A problem gun manufacturers face is much of their market is already saturated and offers limited growth. So while they are reaching out to new markets such as women by offering guns designed to appeal to the; they also want to keep gun enthusiasts afraid of "what's coming" so they stock up in advance of the great gun grab.

Of course, a few nut cases cast all gun owners in a bad light. If a company wants to build a gun with an external cutoff, let them. If it sells there is a market if not then they go out of business. A fine libertarian solution to the problem without government intervention; but saying that don't create FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Dollars) and thus is ignored because fear is the most important thing to drive the dollars.

Finally, I find it interesting that many folks who are staunch 1st amendment supporters want to keep criminals and those with mental problems from buying guns. Nowhere in the amendment does it say "...except felons and the mentally ill;" so they already implicitly accept that there are reasonable limits on weapons ownership. The question then becomes "what is reasonable?"

On a side, but related, Stand Your Ground is being used as a defense where a kid stabbed and killed another who had bullied him. Even though the dead kid was unarmed at the time the defense argues that their client was reasonably in fear of this life because of the previous actions.So know when someone threatens you does that give you a green light to later shoot them? Would the mere act of legally carrying a weapon be enough to justify standing your ground if the person made what appeared to be a treating move or said something that was threatening?

Re:Police and military?

[Lord Lemur]

I can't speak about the police, I have never been one. However the level of firearms safety measures the military uses is mind boggling compared to what most people personally follow. Mandatory hours of training, practicing, recertification, back round checks, ect. Strictly enforced rules for storage, carrying and discharging. No walking around with one in the chamber, unless there is emminant threat, ect. After all of that, Military Bases CONUS are effectively weapons free, (aside from Military Police, or firearms training). I personally don't carry (CONUS) or own a firearm. I think if your so scared of where you live, or what you do that you feel the need to carry a fire arm, you should probably move. I do however think you should have the right to have a weapon to protect yourself, if that makes you sleep well at night.

All that being said, the usage case for a firearm is very diffrent for a couch cowboy then for a armed combatant in an active warzone. If a "bad guy" is close enough to take my weapon and use it on me in a warzone there is a very good chance I have no ammo left in my rifle or my side arm. However, in a normal home situation or a mugging, the probablity that the bad guy is with in 10' is about 75% (based off FBI statistics).

They are a diffrent usage case, and military acceptance shouldn't be a lynchpin in acceptance of this saftey measure, the market place should be.

Re:Police and military?

[bigpat]

They are a different usage case, and military acceptance shouldn't be a lynchpin in acceptance of this saftey measure, the market place should be.

Agreed on the marketplace. And that was my point. Right now you have a set of politicians and anti-2nd amendment activists who are actively lobbying to make electronic disabling devices mandatory features of all new civilian guns sold in the US. That isn't the free market, that isn't freedom and these new devices aren't even proven in the free market let alone for mandatory adoption.

It makes sense to have standards and regulations for safe gun storage. Which for the most part it seems that all states already have such standards. But the "use case" for a gun is that you shoot someone in order to kill them. It is never a good thing, but it could be necessary for self defense or to protect your family. In that unfortunate "use case" anything that could prevent you from firing the weapon at your intended target is what is dangerous.

Re:Police and military?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is already gun hoarding. Recent stats have shown that gun ownership is at an all time low. But the number of guns out there is as high as ever. It's just that certain individuals have many guns, but less people have them in total. Yes yes, proof or it didn't happen. Don't have the time or inclination. If you aren't in agreement with the idea you'll just tell me my proof is some BS cooked up by X interest group.

Re:Re:Police and military?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they do, because they're trying to limit the ability of law abiding citizens to own weapons, something that does not reduce the chance of anyone getting shot. Au contraire it increases the chance of a law abiding citizen and her/his family getting shot dead/raped/molested by a burglar (and before you say that never happens please read some news).
Also an unarmed population is an herd of sheep waiting for a dictator to come and rule them against their will.

Re:Police and military?

[Whorhay]

What is reasonable will always vary because it comes down to what a jury believes to be reasonable.

Going from my bad memory the decision to shoot or not should come down to positive answers to each of the following questions:
Does the target pose an immediate life or death threat to yourself or another person?
Is the threat credible, do you believe they will carry out the threat?
Do they have the means to carry out the threat?

On the surface the details of that case does not sound reasonable to me. But I could see a Jury deciding that it was a reasonable action by virtue of being privy to much more information.

Re:Police and military?

[Registered Coward v2]

What is reasonable will always vary because it comes down to what a jury believes to be reasonable.

Going from my bad memory the decision to shoot or not should come down to positive answers to each of the following questions: Does the target pose an immediate life or death threat to yourself or another person? Is the threat credible, do you believe they will carry out the threat? Do they have the means to carry out the threat?

On the surface the details of that case does not sound reasonable to me. But I could see a Jury deciding that it was a reasonable action by virtue of being privy to much more information.

To me, it ultimately comes down to the "reasonable person" test; i.e. would a reasonable person reach the same conclusion and do what you dod? Just because one individual may have felt they were justified in that action is not good enough to justify their action.

Re:Police and military?

[ai4px]

Felons are not citizens... well they are citizens again once their sentence is served. They cannot vote, they cannot own guns. They forfeit their rights against search and seizure. Where WE screwed up in the GCA 1968 where we never gave them back their gun rights.

Re:Police and military?

[Lord Lemur]

One use case is killing people. One is deterant. One is hunting. One is sport. One is peice of mind. Each one has different tollerances for extra safety measures. If i'm looking for personal or home protection, yes i want the simplest revolver with as little between draw and bang. My point was a safety feature that the military uses might not be right for that use case. I personally read the whole 2nd amendment, and feel it doesn't protect a citizen's right to individually own any weapon they want. The 2nd amendment by my reading doesn't regard safety requirments in any way. It seems constitutional, but that doesn't automatically make it a good choice to mandate.

Re:Police and military?

[Registered Coward v2]

Felons are not citizens... well they are citizens again once their sentence is served. They cannot vote, they cannot own guns. They forfeit their rights against search and seizure. Where WE screwed up in the GCA 1968 where we never gave them back their gun rights.

A couple of points:

Felons are still citizens

Even so, nothing in the 2cd limits it to citizens.

How long before a remote cutoff?

[tomhath]

The government could disable every firearm at will. That might take a backdoor into the gun or watch, but hey...

Re:How long before a remote cutoff?

[CQDX]

Not long at all. Government agencies are already looking into automobile kill switches. We KNOW they are already illegally spying on us. Why give them one more way they can subjugate us?

Re:How long before a remote cutoff?

[Graydyn Young]

And then those of us who jail-broke their guns can run amok!

Re:How long before a remote cutoff?

[AmiMoJo]

Seems like you wouldn't have to be the government to remotely disable such a weapon. It must use some kind of radio communication system at very low power so that the reception range is quite small, and outside that range it won't fire. Similar to those tags you can buy for luggage that beep if it gets out of range of your person.

The tags will be using one of the free, unlicensed bands most likely. In the US I believe that is primarily 915MHz. A simple jammer would easily disrupt the signal.

Re:How long before a remote cutoff?

[Algae_94]

Are you assuming that this firearm/watch is connected to the world and is a general computing device that can be reprogrammed? I believe it just gets a signal from the watch to enable firing. Unless the government could blast out a jamming signal over the entire country and continue to do so, I don't see how they can remotely disable every firearm. They may be able to jam the signal of an individual person, or people in a specific area, but it would only be while they were actively jamming the signal.

Re:How long before a remote cutoff?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is a bad thing

Re:How long before a remote cutoff?

[IamTheRealMike]

The government can disable every firearm at will already, by shooting the people holding them. You are no match for a professional army that's been told you're a terrorist.

Re:How long before a remote cutoff?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think you're subjugated? Have you been reading/watching/listening to far-right media without your critical-thinking skills engaged? You're supposed to laugh at that stuff, or at least pity the fools that fall for it.

We've had an insane drug war for decades, but that seems to be winding down, and no new oppression took its place.

Auto kill switches are a great idea. You prefer high-speed chases getting people killed?

Funny that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans

And, yet, if someone did the same to them, they'd cry their freedom of speech was being violated.

But, when these same people get shouted down for saying they want to ban gay marriage or let religious assholes openly discriminate, it becomes all "help help I'm being repressed".

And, yes, I do believe the gun nuts, conservative idiots, and religious nut jobs share a common core group of morons.

Re:Funny that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The conservative, the "gun nut", and yes I know many of them, really do not care about gay marriage and I don't know anyone advocating discrimination of any kind whatsoever anywhere ever. But yea, go on listening to the DNC talking points, Harry Reed, Barack Obama and continue being led around by the nose like a sheep.

You know there are many gay gun clubs? And I think this is great. More guns = safer society.

Re:Funny that ...

[Anonymous Coward]

But yea, go on listening to the DNC talking points

It may surprise you to learn that many people on Slashdot aren't Americans.

Which means we read broader sources of news than CNN and Fox.

I don't specifically listen to the DNC, or any American political organization.

But, in the end, I'm forced to conclude most of you are idiots.

Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about guns

[Tuidjy]

For a long time I thought of myself as a gun enthusiast. I kept my old Army service CZ for decades, and I kept replacing the barrel, as I was firing thousands upon thousands of rounds to 'keep my hand'.

Then I got married, and now my gun stays at the range, where we go and fire it once in a blue moon. Now that I think about it, I have not touched it since last August.

I live in a much nicer community than the one in which I used to live, and really do not think that my gun would be much extra protection over my swords and bows. (Not that they would be much protection, either) Furthermore, a few months ago, agun owner 20 miles away, in San Bernadino, got killed when he interrupted a home invasion (by unarmed people) He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.

All of this said, I cannot imagine for the fuck of it a situation where I would want a fucking piece of shit that only fires if I am wearing a watch. I do not sleep with my watch, and I am not replacing my watch with another, for any reason. This is a stupid gimmick that will eventually screw a legitimate owner up. And I bet that if you give me two of these guns, the associated watches, and leave me alone with my PC, in my office at the plant, I'll have the gun 'unlocked' within a week.

raise our level of advance back to monkey love

[Anonymous Coward]

discard the guns & the watches. the hymenless monkeys still do not resort to shooting each other (turd flinging still non-fatal) & continue to share their bananas with mom monkey having full partnership rights if we change how we look at stuff stuff will change

Re:raise our level of advance back to monkey love

[chiefcrash]

"if we change how we look at stuff stuff will change"

Let's start by not looking at "gun violence" like some special phenomenon, and simply treat it as "violence"

Re:Gun nuts

[chiefcrash]

Are you saying they're not trying?

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls ... and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act ... [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns." Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. ” Andrew Cuomo

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." U.S. Senator Joseph Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

"I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers... No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Professor Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, stated to the U.S. Congress

"The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take...we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases." U.S. Representative William Clay, quoted in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on May 6, 1991.

"We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.” Discussion among Senator Loretta Weinberg (D37), Senator Sandra Cunningham (D31), Senator Linda Greenstein (D14) of New Jersey's State Legislature, May 9, 2013

California Assembly Bill 174 (Bonta 2013) would ban the possession of any firearms that were “grandfathered “ for possession if registered in previous “Assault Weapons” gun control schemes. Californians that trusted the State of California and registered their firearms will be required to surrender the firearms to the Government or face arrest.

“the state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program. Even if you have them, I think we need to start taking them,” Iowa state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) 2013

Should I continue?

Subtle nationalism

[Anonymous Coward]

People like to say it's articles like these that show "the true nature" of americans.
Which sounds quite stupid to me, it's a small number of enthusiasts.

The real tell is the comments on the articles, on pages like these. Where the tone might not be as "redneck guntoting", but you will surely see the overall tone of US. citizens vs the rest of the world(aka. most posts regarding "let the police vet them first", is a clear sign of the US problem in a nutshell. They are way to reliant on guns to function as a society).

The simpler the better

[koan]

If we are talking about functionality, the simpler the better with a firearm, the last thing I want to worry about is a battery failure, radio interference or "forgetting" to wear my "watch".

Consider that in this case you need 2 devices to talk to each other, so how simple would it be for someone to interfere with the communications between the devices, a jammer of some sort (something the cops would enjoy I'm sure) and in other cases with biometrics involved I would poo to that as well, electronics are not reliable enough for firearms.

Re:The simpler the better

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns are already so easy to use that kids can use them.
Which is one of the reasons that people are trying to make them less simple.

Re:The simpler the better

[Lumpy]

Trivial as hell. I can build a jammer to disable all of these guns in a 100 foot radius easily.

Re:The simpler the better

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. This would make robbing banks much safer/easier. Robbers only need to equip themselves with a jammer to avoid being shot/killed by the police.

Re:The simpler the better

[MerlynEmrys67]

Kids should be taught how to safely use tools. In my grandfathers day it wasn't unusual for the boys to bring their 22 rifles to school to put into the back wall of the classroom so they could shoot squirrel/rabbit/??? on the way home from school.
Contrast that with my daughter where if I accidentally pack a butter knife into her school lunchbox, she would get expelled from school. Frankly there were a lot fewer school shootings in my grandfather's day. Go figure.

Re:The simpler the better

[Anonymous Coward]

And I can build a bomb with nothing more than a pine cone and a stick of dynamite...

Re:The simpler the better

[Anonymous Coward]

If people did everything they should, this discussion would be moot.

Re:The simpler the better

[Anonymous Coward]

How did you get the pinecone?

Re:The simpler the better

[hey!]

If you strap on the smartgun without putting the watch on and checking the batteries, I submit you're too stupid to be carrying a lethal weapon.

Jamming is an interesting question. It's not particularly easy to jam RFID without getting quite close, but it's a testable idea.

Re:The simpler the better

[koan]

The range I go to has a ban board, ~60% of the banned names are police, police routinely accidentally discharge their weapons because they carry them everyday and "familiarity breeds contempt".

Your reasoning is if a person can't check their batteries/watch they shouldn't carry a gun, my reasoning is "why add another point of failure to something you may depend on for your life".

I submit that your reasoning actually shows you're the one that shouldn't be allowed a weapon, because you have an unrealistic assessment of life and human behavior made from a soft chair in front of a computer.
Therefore you can't be expected to make the correct decision come shooting time.

Re:The simpler the better

[hey!]

Pilots and surgeons handle much more taxing memory tasks all the time, using an amazing tool called a *checklist*.

Smart Guns

[Stormy Dragon]

I'll trust a smart gun when the police are required to use the same technology on their service firearms.

If they're not willing to stake their lives on it working properly in an emergency, why should I?

Re:Smart Guns

[MBGMorden]

Indeed. Gun legislation often is scoffed at because almost every time an exemption is put in for law enforcement. 10 round magazines for everyone . . . except cops.

Its hard to keep a straight face when these people are saying that "anything more than 10 rounds is good for nothing but mowing down crowds of people" while they insist that the police need to keep their hi-cap mags.

Bottom line is that most gun regs put a needless and artificial burden. I wouldn't accept an artificial and arbitrary limit on my computer of 1GB of RAM, a 160GB hard drive, and a single core 1Ghz processor to keep me from hacking, nor will I accept artificial magazine capacity limits, or "smart gun" technology on my guns to keep me from misusing it.

Re:Gun nuts

[koan]

Engrish plz kthnx.

No, they are just nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is disrupted, it doesn't fire. End of story. If a robber is stupid enough to use such a gun, the robbery turns into a comedy sketch. End of story.

Cars and airplanes have been repeatedly "crippled" in the last decades, which made them incomparably safer and saved countless lives. Hell, even guns have locks for more than a century now. Should we outlaw gun locks? If not how do you decide which locks to allow and which not? Nanny state, anyone?

Most importantly: NO ONE forces you to buy this gun. She was just selling it to whomever wanted to buy it - and was getting hated for that. That's absolutely, unqualifiedly nuts.

> Stop selling them to idiots with mental problems

This story just shows how frighteningly many idiots are there in the US of A...

Re:No, they are just nuts

[chiefcrash]

"Most importantly: NO ONE forces you to buy this gun. She was just selling it to whomever wanted to buy it - and was getting hated for that. That's absolutely, unqualifiedly nuts."

Except in New Jersey in about 3 years. The law is already on the books, just waiting for a "smart gun" to be sold somewhere. CA and other states have been trying to get the same laws passed...

Re:No, they are just nuts

[judoguy]

Most importantly: NO ONE forces you to buy this gun...

That is actually the end game though. Sure you can have a gun, but the government can shut it off, you know, for the children.

Re:No, they are just nuts

[camperdave]

Hell, even guns have locks for more than a century now. Should we outlaw gun locks?

Matchlock
Wheellock
Flintlock

Seems to me like guns have had locks pretty much right from day one.

Re:No, they are just nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood this justification of things. We shouldn't implements policy A because someday they may implement policy B.

You shouldn't let kids ride bikes because someday they may ride them in into traffic, No nation should have atomic weapons because someday they may randomly detonate. etc

Re:No, they are just nuts

[CastrTroy]

Exactly. Maybe some people think it's a good feature, because the only use they have for a firearm is for target practice. If you don't need your gun for self defense, then it's a minor problem when the battery runs out and you have to replace it.

Re:No, they are just nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

> Most importantly: NO ONE forces you to buy this gun. She was just selling it to whomever wanted to buy it - and was getting hated for that. That's absolutely, unqualifiedly nuts.

Not if you have political wherewithal greater than that of a child. It's not only *possible* that the technology will be mandated (along with a government backdoor) once these achieve significant market penetration, it's *inevitable*. It absolutely makes sense to start fighting now.

Look at what happened to the fourth amendment in the digital realm. Don't you wish *we* had had the same foresight a decade or two ago?

Re:No, they are just nuts

[PIBM]

It's still a large problem. If those company get what they want, the gun price goes from 150-250$ to 2K overnight, since you can't buy anymore of those guns priced 150$ and with the laws in place they control the market (patents on the process and use of the electronic locks...). Companies are looking to maximise their profit, thus will do everything to get the same kind of laws everywhere.

With the price of that single pistol ($1800 USD), I can get myself an assortment of rifles and shotguns and a lot of ammunitions, with both clip locks and trigger locks and also a very nice, large and solid chest to store them all, and pay to have it installed securely too.

If there had been no talk of banning regulars guns, I'd have a hard time understanding the hate, but then it's not the case...

Re:No, they are just nuts

[Agent0013]

Yeah, the camera that disables the gun if it isn't aimed at a specially designed target is really a "great" idea for a defense gun -- NOT. I think the gun in question is only intended for target practice.

Re:No, they are just nuts

[sjames]

Actually, the state of New Jersey already has a law on the books that once such a technology becomes generally available, it will become mandatory. So yes, in fact, someone IS forcing residents to buy that gun or no gun at all.

Re:No, they are just nuts

[Algae_94]

It's still misdirected anger to attack an Armatrix employee. The New Jersey legislators passed that law, and that is who people should be angry at if they don't like this. It's probably less fun for them to send various threats to state legislators that make bills rather than some employee at a company trying to pay her bills.

Re:No, they are just nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point of this is that someone might outlaw all guns but these guns.

Re:No, they are just nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

but the government can shut it off, you know, for the children.

And how exactly does "the government" shut off this gun?

Re:No, they are just nuts

[Arker]

"Most importantly: NO ONE forces you to buy this gun. She was just selling it to whomever wanted to buy it - and was getting hated for that. That's absolutely, unqualifiedly nuts."

If that were the case it would be fine. It's not. The broader context is what you are ignoring. There are open plans to outlaw any weapons that do not implement this flawed technology as soon as such a weapon is considered viable. And there is a distinct shortage of people who have any interest in using weapons secured by this system or anything like it among people who actually carry weapons. (Even if you do not understand why this should give you pause to wonder and ask some questions, no?)

It is unfortunate that technology, neutral on its own terms, gets sucked into this political sinkhole instead of being evaluated on its own terms. Unfortunate, but unavoidable at this point, because the technology at issue is driven by political, not technical requirements.

Re:No, they are just nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

New Jersey residents who value their RKBA can express their distaste with Armatrix and the New Jersey legislature however they like. It is the 1st amendment right to do so. You wouldn't say it's a good idea to force everyone who wants to exercise free speech to wear a wristwatch that records everything they say and submits the records for government processing and approval... would you?

Re:No, they are just nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've never understood this justification of things. We shouldn't implement policy A because they have proven over the years to be bastards and will eventually implement policy B."

FTFY.

captcha: intent

Re:No, they are just nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

California HAS the law on its books. The second a "smart gun" is on the market, that feature becomes mandatory for all new firearms on the approved firearm roster.

Re:No, they are just nuts

[Fringe]

Was it misdirected for the rainbow coalition to villify Brendan Eich? I suspect you of hypocrisy.

Re:No, they are just nuts

[citizenr]

Cars and airplanes have been repeatedly "crippled" in the last decades, which made them incomparably safer and saved countless lives.

only if you ignore numerous studies that found adding safety features makes the driver more careless

Re:No, they are just nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you're a liar.

Re:No, they are just nuts

[Algae_94]

I have no idea who Brendan Eich or the rainbow coalition are. I assure you there's no hypocrisy.

Re:No, they are just nuts

[Algae_94]

OK, I did a quick search. Yes it was misdirected what was done to Mr. Eich. Supporting either side of a ballot proposition is totally acceptable and within his rights. In his case, his views clearly were not outrageous as enough of the population agreed with him to pass the proposition.

Too many people have this with us or against us mentality. People that disagree with each other are a healthy part of the democratic process.

Re:No, they are just nuts

[AK Marc]

Sure, and when they push that, those with the guns that can't be disabled can request a review of the law. It's s self-fixing problem.

Re:No, they are just nuts

[Algae_94]

There is clear precedent that certain forms of speech are not protected under the 1st amendment. That includes death threats and harassment.

Re:No, they are just nuts

[John.Banister]

With the third highest population of any country, there's a frighteningly large amount of every kind of person in the US of A.

Sci-fi foresaw this

[haapi]

"Weapon Shops of Isher" (A.E.Van Vogt) or the Harry Harrison "Deathworld" novels.

Re:Sci-fi foresaw this

[Noishkel]

Yeah I read the Weapon's Shops of Isher. Interesting idea. But it was also a really bloody stupid idea too. In Isher the gun technology was supposed to be smart enough to know when it was being used 'wrong'. Relying on technology to be the arbiter or morality isn't likely to work ever... let alone with this still unproven technology.

And never mind the fact that this actual Armatix is a complete piece of crap as is.

I must live in a different country...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear my fellow Americans talk about needing guns in every room of the house to ward off the nightly assaults of Orc maurders but what country do these people actually live in? How many times has anyone ever personally had to fire a gun for self defense?

Someone wants to own a gun because they enjoy firing it for sport. Maybe hunt. Whatever. But they are concerned that their children get hurt. Sure, they have all the precautions. They have it locked in a safe and have spoken to their children about safety. But they remember how when they were a teenager they popped off Jobba the Hutt's head and filled him with gasoline. How they tried to make black powder bombs out of the little plastic gumball containers.

But they also know that as stupid as kids can be, they can also be crafty and clever. You really think that your kids don't know where the lock to the gun safe is? So someone is looking into technology that can keep my gun from firing if it isnt near my smartwatch/phone, whatever. What's the worst thing that can happen? I might not get to shoot a gun some night. What a damn horrible thing to happen.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[bluefoxlucid]

To be fair, a firearm probably is the best home defense weapon on hand; it's just that a home invasion is rare.

What gets me is people who think the gun makes them a god. I will never carry a weapon when I'm out. What if I get jumped? What if a mugger pulls a gun on me? People tell me, "Oh, I'll shoot them." "When a mugger threatens me with his gun, I'll shoot him with my gun." You're grappling on the ground, you reach to pull out a gun... and you don't think you're now grappling for a firearm? The mugger will see you reach for a firearm and shoot you dead with the one already trained on your face.

I'm not bringing a liability to a fight. For a firearm to do me any good, I need to be able to take you with my bare hands first so I can get to the damn thing without having it taken from me. If I can do that, I'll just beat the shit out of you in the first place, and if you bring out your own firearm I'll take that and shoot you with it. If it's not a war, a stealth infiltration, a closed-quarter invasion, or a defense against animals (bear), carrying a firearm is the absolute stupidest thing I can do.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Anonymous Coward]

You really think that your kids don't know where the lock to the gun safe is?

You sure as fuck can bet they don't. It took me 18 years to learn where my dad hid the key to his gun safe. I still have no clue where my grandfather hides his.

Did I know where the safes were? Sure. But the key is one thing you don't fuck around with.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Shakrai]

To be fair, a firearm probably is the best home defense weapon on hand; it's just that a home invasion is rare.

Home invasions are rare because of the 2nd Amendment. Look up the "hot burglary" (burglaries when people are in the structure) numbers for the United Kingdom sometime. People are disinclined to rob an occupied structure in the United States because they know the laws of all 50 States permit the occupiers to shoot them dead as soon as they come inside.

I'm not bringing a liability to a fight. For a firearm to do me any good, I need to be able to take you with my bare hands first so I can get to the damn thing without having it taken from me. If I can do that, I'll just beat the shit out of you in the first place, and if you bring out your own firearm I'll take that and shoot you with it.

The firearm is for disparity of force scenarios, meaning you're attacked by someone stronger, or by multiple aggressors, or you're injured and can no longer effectively defend yourself. I would never say that you have to carry one, it's a personal decision, I just take issue with the people (not you, at least not in this post) that try to make that decision for me by telling me I can't carry.

I carry virtually everywhere it's legal to do so. The firearm is not the only tool in my toolbox, I've also got OC spray and unarmed training. I will run away if the option is available to me, before I use the firearm. The firearm is for a true kill or be killed scenario, which I sincerely hope to never find myself in.

Incidentally.....:

You're grappling on the ground, you reach to pull out a gun...

If you're grappling on the ground you've probably already lost. I know that looks awesome when you see it in "Ultimate Fighting" on TV, but in the real world ground fighting is something you truly want to avoid.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear my fellow Americans talk about needing guns in every room of the house to ward off the nightly assaults of Orc maurders but what country do these people actually live in? How many times has anyone ever personally had to fire a gun for self defense?

Between 250,000 and 370,000 times per year.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Anonymous Coward]

People are disinclined to rob an occupied structure in the United States because they know the laws of all 50 States permit the occupiers to shoot them dead as soon as they come inside.

That's not true, most places you'd still need to show that you had a reasonable fear for your life, otherwise you could be prosecuted. For example:
http://www.komonews.com/news/national/Man-who-shot-burglars-convicted-of-premeditated-murder-257255831.html
If you're in Texas, a jury would probably let you off, but not everywhere.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[s.petry]

I hear my fellow Americans talk about needing guns in every room of the house to ward off the nightly assaults of Orc maurders but what country do these people actually live in? How many times has anyone ever personally had to fire a gun for self defense?

Trolling won't help, especially with something as flagrantly invented to distort reality.

Reality is that people know that the 2nd amendment is not, and was not, primarily intended to protect yourself from a bad guy. The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the populace to defend themselves against tyranny. The Federalist papers and notes from nearly every founding member of the US discussed this. Without weapons, they could not have won a war with England and we would have still been a colony. Sure, it can secondarily be used to defend your property from a bad guy but that is a side effect.

When you look at the constant attack on the 2nd amendment by the same corrupt politicians that are allowing TPP to be "top secret classified", have not punished any of the people that made billions collapsing the economy a few years ago it becomes obvious that armed citizens are a concern for them. People are fed up with corruption, fed up with overreach, and fed up with the same ole controlling both parties doing nothing for the Citizens.

I don't see this attack as anything other than the latest anti 2nd amendment attack.

Stories like this don't make national news because it harms the agenda trying to disarm citizens. Considering the take over of US media, the take over of nearly every major political office (Judicial as well as other branches) people _should_ be concerned and push back. The US is not immune to having shitty people in office, and not immune to corruption in office no matter how nicely the major news outlets try to paint people like Diane Feinstein and Eric Holder.

Holder has not been punished for Fast and Furious, and neither has anyone else. Now the Holder is trying to strong arm banks into not doing business with Gun Manufacturers and sellers. You can play stupid if you like, but don't spread the same propaganda as the corrupt politicians are trying to do.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a tough one. There's always the "It was dark I thought I saw him reach inside his jacket so I fired." justification. It's impossible to prove what that person saw or what fear they had at that moment.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[bluefoxlucid]

Home invasions are rare because of the 2nd Amendment. Look up the "hot burglary" (burglaries when people are in the structure) numbers for the United Kingdom sometime. People are disinclined to rob an occupied structure in the United States because they know the laws of all 50 States permit the occupiers to shoot them dead as soon as they come inside.

There are major cultural differences in the US versus the UK which largely drive the differences in the form and method of crime. Burglars in the US seem to not want to be seen; that's a gross simplification.

The firearm is for disparity of force scenarios, meaning you're attacked by someone stronger, or by multiple aggressors, or you're injured and can no longer effectively defend yourself.

If I can't fight them, they'll take my gun away.

If you're grappling on the ground you've probably already lost.

If you want to take someone in a ground fight, bring them to it: you can tangle them while falling to the ground, quickly gaining absolute advantage.

Standing fights look more awesome than ground fights. Standing, it is possible to immediately react to an opening, and so landing a strike typically provides a new opening which you are fully capable of landing another strike in. Putting aside practically useless 30-step kata, the real world gives you plenty of opportunity to chain attacks; these opportunities do not come when grounded.

Once the fight is on the ground, you're both facing a situation of vying for balance and control. Usually gaining balance loses control: The opponent who forces me to my back gets his face punched clear off his head. Gaining control often loses balance: the opponent who manages to guard my limbs cannot prevent me from shifting and coming at him on angle to unseat him. The fight ends in the same way as a standing fight: by damage beyond ability to fight at your opponent's level or by complete and total forced submission. Submission is hard in a ground fight, therefor you're looking to deal as much damage as possible or to escape and get back to standing; my preference is to have my opponent standing, as I don't find advantage in standing over an opponent lunging from the ground (I mean, I can kick... and be on one leg, impressing myself with my elite ability to balance while imagining groin strikes don't exist).

Standing or on the ground, you have two weapons: awareness and reflex. All else is incidental.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is always the thing... someone is breaking into your house to steal your Xbox360... what do you do.... give him your stupid system. Who cares, that's what insurance is for. Is it worth killing someone for a stupid piece of plastic. I highly doubt most home invaders are there to murder you.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Anonymous Coward]

Two weeks ago my wife was unable to sleep and reading on our couch in the living room at about 2:00 AM. Someone tried our front door, found it locked, then proceeded to try our back door, then they moved on. No shooting, no drama, but if someone had actually entered our house, my wife (with a loaded 1911) would have been in a position to make a very strong argument that they should leave again. You joke about "Orc maurders" (I'm thinking you mean marauders) but in some circumstances it's really not that funny.
And before you go there, no, calling 911 and hiding in fear is not a proper response to that situation.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Shakrai]

That's not true, most places you'd still need to show that you had a reasonable fear for your life, otherwise you could be prosecuted

The fact that they're in your dwelling uninvited is usually sufficient to meet the reasonable person standard for fearing for your life. More to the point, most states (including very blue ones, like New York) specifically outline burglary as a justification for the use of deadly force. From New York's Article 35:

A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.

New York State's duty to retreat does not apply in this scenario either, you can stand your ground inside your dwelling or place of business.

Keep in mind that I make no comment on the wisdom or lack thereof of such a decision. It depends on the totality of the circumstances. As a matter of personal morality I would always regard shooting someone as the last resort. If you can flee you should do so, if for no other reason than to spare yourself the emotional torment that comes with the ending of a human life. In my personal circumstance I live in a 2nd floor apartment with no means of escape other than the front door, so if you come in here I've really got nowhere to go. I sleep with a loaded 1911 in my nightstand, and I will use it if push comes to shove. You have to be alive to feel guilty about shooting the person who was trying to kill you....

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Shakrai]

If I can't fight them, they'll take my gun away.

I don't think you understand the criminal mindset. You're not dealing with a United States Navy Seal. You're dealing with an untrained lowlife scumbag who's looking for the easiest mark he can find. The vast majority of defensive gun uses end with a simple display, not the actual use of deadly force.

More to the point, any competent self-defense instructor will teach you how to avoid being disarmed. If you think you're getting my firearm away from me you're in for a rude surprise.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of defensive gun uses end with a simple display, not the actual use of deadly force.

Just to play devil's advocate, if a display is enough, wouldn't that mean you don't need a real gun after all? Just use a really accurate replica/toy!

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reality is that people know that the 2nd amendment is not, and was not, primarily intended to protect yourself from a bad guy. The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the populace to defend themselves against tyranny.

Having grown up in a part of the US with a proud tradition of gun ownership, where every home has a display case and getting one's first rifle is a cherished ritual of boyhood, I almost never heard that said guns were necessary or useful for fighting against a tyrannical government. Why? Possibly because in this formerly economically impoverished area, lots of men served in the army in their youth, so they are well aware that a collection of pistols and shotguns is not going to do squat against the US military with its powerful weaponry.

What people like their guns for is hunting and the ability to protect one's family from a home intruder in the case of pistols.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Stickerboy]

I hear my fellow Americans talk about needing guns in every room of the house to ward off the nightly assaults of Orc maurders but what country do these people actually live in? How many times has anyone ever personally had to fire a gun for self defense?

Trolling won't help, especially with something as flagrantly invented to distort reality.

Reality is that people know that the 2nd amendment is not, and was not, primarily intended to protect yourself from a bad guy. The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the populace to defend themselves against tyranny.

Really? Please, in this age of the NSA surveillance state and free speech zones, let me know when my fellow gun owners are or are planning on defending themselves against tyranny. All I see is tacit complicity with the actual tyranny and a bunch of idiots in Nevada defending a tax avoider on Fox News.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Bob the Super Hamste]

or a defense against animals (bear)

This is why I carry a handgun some times, but than again it is is specifically to deal with large dangerous critters in the north woods of Minnesota. I have had a few too many close encounters with the wolves, cougars, and bears up there. Also for something the size of a black bear you are going to want something a bit more substantial than a .45ACP or 9mm, so you probably aren't going to be concealing it.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Cederic]

Another lmgtfy twat. Link to the fucking reference so that I can see from the link whether it's some partisan bullshit or a reliable source.

The person asking the question may already have used google and given up on trying to find reliable non-partisan evidence, and you just failed miserably to fucking help. Next time just do the world a favour and stay fucking silent.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Trailer Trash]

You can argue hypotheticals all day, but the fact is that even by the craziest looney left numbers guns are used about 100,000 times each year in self defense in the US. In reality, the number is 10-20 times as high.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[s.petry]

Propaganda is a powerful tool. Playing the ignorant against "save the children" arguments is not complex if tyranny owns TV stations. Do you think that the BLM standing down against Bundy was because they were afraid of Bundy? No, they were afraid it would be a spark to a much bigger event.

Claiming Bundy is a tax avoider is not just a horrible grammatical error, but factually incorrect. Why not look at other cases where a Judge has already ruled that the BLM was conspiring to put ranchers out of business?

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is kind of an icky example due to how emotionally charged it is, but the Zimmerman case seems to be a complete and total refute to your hypothetical.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[laird]

No, you're assuming your own conclusion. Robbers rob empty buildings because it's safer and easier than doing so when the building is occupied. That has nothing to do with a gun - a home owner can call the police, or call out for help (and the neighbors call the police) which results in cars full of policemen who are not only armed, they are trained, surrounding the house. And that's a lot more threatening to a robber than one untrained civilian with a handgun. A robber can likely kill one untrained civilian and escape, since someone without training is unlikely to actually hit anything in a combat situation, but the odds of taking on many, trained police are much worse for them.

Statistically guns are much more likely to get the owner or someone else in their home killed than to save them from anything. So you might feel safer having a gun, but the odds aren't in your favor, and by carrying a gun you're (statistically) putting everyone around you at more risk. That's not to say that you're going to pull your gun out and shoot someone, but if you get angry or suicidal and you have a gun, you're more likely to shoot someone than if you don't have a gun. And those things happen more often than "hot" break-ins.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[sp0tter]

You make some great points and I am pleased to see someone with a bit of sense on this thread. You are absolutely right that once someone has you covered by their muzzle, you probably are at a disadvantage and your gun won't do you much good and is now a liability. You've already lost at that point. I occasionally carry concealed but I maintain the best defense is using your brain and tying your shoes tight. That alone will keep you out of trouble %95 of the time. As for when I do carry, if I feel like I am entering a dangerous area or I see suspicious individuals walking toward me, I often ready my flashlight (more important then any firearm) and prepare to draw if necessary. Carrying allows me to be proactive when I feel I might be threatened. If someone gets the drop on me then I just hope I my shoes are tied tight and/or they are a bad shot.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because you know: if I live in a nice affluent neighborhood and don't have rapists climbing through my windows: that is an accurate assumption to make about the lives of 100.000000000% of the Unites States 313.9 Million people.

Great argument starting from a flawed premise: "I've never personally met a rape victim, therefore rapists don't exist."

Re:I must live in a different country...

[AK Marc]

I will never carry a weapon when I'm out. What if I get jumped? What if a mugger pulls a gun on me? People tell me, "Oh, I'll shoot them." "When a mugger threatens me with his gun, I'll shoot him with my gun." You're grappling on the ground, you reach to pull out a gun... and you don't think you're now grappling for a firearm? The mugger will see you reach for a firearm and shoot you dead with the one already trained on your face.

Must be easy. Poor Innocent Zimmerman managed to get out his gun while the larger and more athletic Martin was over him and beating him to death. One shot one kill, easy.

The people I know that carry everywhere carry in the chance that a lone gunman will go postal in his vicinity. That seems to be the carry-conceal ideal. Of course, it may be different elsewhere, as open carry is (mostly) legal where I've lived. My favorite was always the posse that complained the police didn't patrol their poor neighborhood, so they had 20+ people with guns walking around at night, looking for bad guys. The police increased patrols, anything to get the posse off the streets. Pefectly legal to do in Dallas, so long as nobody points the gun at anyone or fires (regardless of where it's pointed). And if that happened, it'd be legal depending on circumstances.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[AK Marc]

If you're grappling on the ground you've probably already lost. I know that looks awesome when you see it in "Ultimate Fighting" on TV, but in the real world ground fighting is something you truly want to avoid.

Why is it that I feel that at least one of the people here mentioning the difficulty of fighting that way also backed Zimmerman's story as the probable one? He was on the ground, being beat (fear of death) by a younger stronger taller (but not wider) Martin. And pulled out his gun and got of one clean shot, resulting in a kill. After the assailant saw and grabbed for the gun first.

Must be easy to do, if one is to believe Zimmerman's account of the events.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[AK Marc]

I was bullied as a kid, so I worked on "unfair" techniques. kneeing someone in the groin is a great tactic. Especially if you knee them hard enough to lift them off the ground. Interestingly, it puts people off balance enough that if you hold you knee up, the'll fall off to the side, holding groin and landing on their head. In a gronud fight, I'd try the same. Raise a knee as hard as I can. I imagine most untrained people would spread legs for balance. That'll disable an attacker, male or female.

I don't find advantage in standing over an opponent lunging from the ground (I mean, I can kick... and be on one leg, impressing myself with my elite ability to balance while imagining groin strikes don't exist).

Legs are longer than arms. Someone wouldn't have much force behind it if they were flat on their back and struck at your groin. But a soccer-kick to the head should end a fight in a single blow. Whether the concussion or the neck snapping, I'd have no idea which would be more disabling. I can kick a soccer ball 60 yards (yes, I would get it past half-way before the first bounce for goal-kicks). I imagine I'd break my foot, but I'd try, if I thought that I'd die if I didn't. And someone would be hard pressed to get in a groin shot. The fight from the ground is when the standing person is not going for immediate disabling of the person (kicking the belly for pain, and such). But stomping is more effective than kicking for close quarters anyway.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Anonymous Coward]

The stupidest thing you've done so far is assume that there's no way you'd realize a confrontation was upon you until you've got a gun in your face or that you're grappling on the ground. Maybe you should increase your situational awareness.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Shakrai]

I like the implied conclusion that robbers are afraid of people with phones but not afraid of people with guns because they can easily disarm and kill the untrained civilian. Hint: If they can take a gun from you with ease they can probably get the phone out of your hands before you complete the call. Your whole argument annoys me, because it comes across as exceedingly condescending towards people that have made the choice to defend themselves with something a tad bit more effective than 911.

"911: When seconds count, help is only minutes away."

Re:I must live in a different country...

[psmears]

Home invasions are rare because of the 2nd Amendment. Look up the "hot burglary" (burglaries when people are in the structure) numbers for the United Kingdom sometime.

I haven't been able to find good stats on that, but what I can find suggests that the burglary rate overall is broadly similar - at most 20% higher in the UK. But even assuming the UK rate is five times the US one, it's worth noting that the gun murder rate is over thirty times higher in the US than in England&Wales. To me at least, that doesn't sound like a great tradeoff :-/

Re:I must live in a different country...

[bluefoxlucid]

That's because Trayvon was an idiot. People keep talking about how Trayvon got shot because he was grappling for Zimmerman's gun, or arguing that Zimmerman just shot him in the face after beating him, or whatever. It appears in any case that this fight came down to who gained control of the firearm; and if Zimmerman and Trayvon were grappling for it, the implication is whoever's better at taking a small object from another man first lives.

Maybe if the giant negro man wasn't in such a blind rage, he'd have taken the gun away. Zimmerman wasn't exactly in the best shape, and Trayvon was a pretty well-trained fighter. He lost by a tactical error.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[bluefoxlucid]

You'd be surprised how hard that is to do. Kicking someone in the head while they're diving at you from the ground means kicking a moving target; and 13 pounds on the knee will dislocate it.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the person who has given up on even trying to support their claim should remain silent. If you're going to say something stupid about taking away people's rights, then you deserve to be mocked.

Here's a link to the actual source, since clicking on the first link was too hard for you.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[Anonymous Coward]

We do know that burglary has gone DOWN by 50% since 1995.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stat...

I could point out that the way the statistic are collected are different; definitions are different etc etc, BUT you know this, you're being deliberately disingenuous.

Again, you haven't actually given a link.
from my linkl,
"Around 2 in 100 households were affected in the year covered by the 2011/12 survey, "
using YOUR figures the US rate is 0.19 (2.2/114)*100, negligible.
Really, you're trying to push your gun agenda based on a infinitesimal difference in burglary !

It should be noted from the FBI
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...
"Burglaries increased 2.0 percent in 2010 compared to the 2001 estimate. "
so they are on the INCREASE in the USA despite the incredible number of guns held ! yet, reduced in the UK.

edit
Looking at gun homicide rate shows a remarkable difference, the USA has 3.2 per 100,000 and England &Wales it's 0.1, ie the ratio is 32:1, so you are 32 times more likely to be gunned down in the USA compared to England & Wales.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canad...

So much for guns making you safer, I could point out the huge prison population also shows that guns don't reduce crime either !

So your talking shit.

In the UK due to our saner gun controls we sleep well at night, not cowering in a corner holding a gun like you Americans!

We understand the balance or of risk much better, and have a much lower chance of being killed.

nutters the lot of you.

Stop watching hollywood shit and get a brain!

Re:I must live in a different country...

[athenaprime]

Home invasions are rare because of the 2nd Amendment. Look up the "hot burglary" (burglaries when people are in the structure) numbers for the United Kingdom sometime. People are disinclined to rob an occupied structure in the United States because they know the laws of all 50 States permit the occupiers to shoot them dead as soon as they come inside.

People are disinclined to rob an occupied structure because burglary is not assault. If I want your stuff, I will wait until you leave, break in and take it, and get out without having to confront you. I want your stuff, not your life. If I want to assault you, *then* I'll go looking for a fight. If I'mma break into your house, I'm already fixing to break the law, I'm not exactly concerned with whether or not I could sue you if you shoot me.

If you're grappling on the ground you've probably already lost. I know that looks awesome when you see it in "Ultimate Fighting" on TV, but in the real world ground fighting is something you truly want to avoid.

There's already far too many "Ultimate Fighting" TV scenarios surrounding guns as it is. :/ There's just too much cognitive dissonance for me to live in the NRA's world. If the world is full of gun-totin' criminals, I'm simultaneously supposed to believe that everyone around me who is armed is gunning for me, so I need to be armed to protect myself, but at the same time, I'm supposed to believe that everyone armed is just a bunch of "good guys with guns" until they aren't. I do not buy the fear they are selling.

Besides, the people who are performing the wholesale looting of our collective coffers are either doing so from comfy chairs in China/Russia/Nigeria, or they're wearing suits and running for re-election every two years. Your gun is useless against either of those, I'm afraid.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[AK Marc]

Trayvon was a pretty well-trained fighter.

I've never seen anything that indicated he was a "trained" fighter, let alone a "well-trained" one.

More likely, Zimmerman was lying.

Re:I must live in a different country...

[AK Marc]

13 pounds on the knee will dislocate it.

And 300 lbs to the knee won't. And generally a soccer ball isn't stationary

Re:Gun nuts

[Penguinisto]

Not sure if you're American or not, so I'll try to explain:

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. There are only a very few obvious prohibitions, namely against convicted felons and those declared mentally incompetent or ill.

Meanwhile, there are people in the US who fear the things so much, they want to restrict who can and cannot have a firearm, and wish to dictate under what conditions they are possessed. There is a route by which this can be accomplished, but it would require amending the US Constitution, which is notoriously hard to do (as it should be - capricious changes are painful, to say the least.) Any other route (including most attempts at federal "gun control" laws) is a circumvention of this process, and IMHO should not be taken, lest it set a dangerous precedent - after all, if you can circumvent one amendment, you can circumvent them all, and down that road lies fascism.

If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.) However, please do not try to impose such things across the whole nation. There is no "reasonable" restriction in the eyes of those who wish to promulgate these laws, save for complete abolition.

As for the people you speak of? As long as they do not commit a felony, so what? The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best.

Re:10 feet of me.

[BenSchuarmer]

You seem to be missing the point. The guy you're shooting doesn't have to wear the watch, you do.

Re:Gun nuts

[BasilBrush]

Should I continue?

Well that all depends. Did the person you plagarised this from actually write any more examples for you to pass off as your own research?

Radio controlled?

[Anonymous Coward]

The website says that if the gun loses radio contact with the watch, it disables itself. So if I'm a criminal and have a regular gun, all I need is a radio jammer to disable my victims gun? Nice.

Re:Radio controlled?

[Anonymous Coward]

This last Sunday I jimmied a 12V LED lamp on to my bicycle, and night before last worked out that when on it interferes with the signal between my speedometer (bicycle computer) and the sensor on the front fork.
Who knows what a microwave / AP / electrical motor will do? If you need to fire your weapon, is that a good time to find out?

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone wants a gun to defend the nation against enemy insurgents slamming down their door. Some people use guns for SPORT or PRACTICE. They do not care if it takes 5-10 seconds to unlock the safety. They don't mind changing the batteries. They don't care if a weapon only works inside a shooting range. They care that their kids can't take the gun and bring it to school, or shoot their friends, or shoot their eye out. These sort of technologies are needed to get guns and weapon proficiency into AVERAGE JOE hands, because freedom doesn't come from gun nuts.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

because freedom doesn't come from gun nuts.

This might surprise you, but almost all National Guardsmen, active military personnel, and Law Enforcement Officers are also pretty serious "gun nuts." Are you arguing that your freedom comes from bureaucrats in Washington, DC and state capitals around the nation?

Re:When did slashdot become a NRA shill platform?

[CRCulver]

I've been reading Slashdot since 2001 and there have always been posts on gun laws and acrimonius debate in the comments section. Among the prominent figures in the rise of "open source" in the 1990s you have a few "gun nuts" like Eric S. Raymond, and the cypherpunks had at least one major figure calling for Americans to buy guns to defend themselves from tyrannical government. There has always been overlap between nerd culture and love of guns.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

People who threaten to murder other people should be locked up and denied their precious access to guns.

Gun nuts usually threaten to murder anyone that even questions them.

Why are the people harassing this woman not on trial? Enjoy exercising your 2nd amendment rights when you have a felony on your record, assholes. Hahahaha!

Just chip everyone

[randomErr]

Put an RFID into everyone's shoot hand you're set.

Re:Just chip everyone

[amxcoder]

And what happens if during a firefight, you shoot hand is injured, and you need to switch to your "offhand" to stay in the fight? Shooting and reloading with a single hand (off-handed) is often something that is trained for in decent firearms courses for this reason.

It's people that write shit like this...

[Red_Chaos1]

..."In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. 'Belinda?" the person wrote. "Is that you?" ... "I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote.""

That help give gun owners a bad image/name. Stupid motherfuckers.

Then again, how do we know this wasn't purposely put out by an anti-gunner? I hate tossing conspiracy stuff out there, but there's no way to really know.

Re:It's people that write shit like this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you and I both know people like that? Maybe not always about guns, but people who get irrationally riled up at the bare thought of any sort of change and violently push back.

Re:It's people that write shit like this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly possible. The anti-gun assholes are basically as crazy, irrational, and deranged as the pro-gun assholes.

Re:It's people that write shit like this...

[Triklyn]

... then again, how do we know this wasn't put out purposely by gun owners to make us think it was anti-gunners framing gun owners?

i hate when my convoluted thinking is retarded.

Not good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see the situation desired.. A loaded gun is no threat. Can leave it on the coffee table, no one can fire it. Daddy doesn't have to watch his gun as the kids play, secure in knowing that his weapon is not useful to the kids at play. Before the Smart gun, Daddy always had to be vigilant and actually watch his children to make sure they are playing safely.

Little Timmy picks up the gun, walks up behind Daddy working away at his computer, and now is in electronic range. So begins the story of Little Orphan Timmy.

Re:Gun nuts

[therealkevinkretz]

Actually, in NJ they'd love to: as the article mentions, a law was passed a few years ago requiring that once such technology is available, all new handguns in NJ would be required to have it. Stupid stupid stupid.

That's right

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, if we read the law literally, a law can be written where you can have arms but no: firing pin, barrel, ability to hit anything beyond 50 feet, .....

Basically neuter a gun by law but yet have a legal definition of an "arm" so that the Constitution isn't violated but yet the arms you bear are nothing." Here's a bullet firing stick that can't hit anything beyond 50 feet and if hit it's a hurtful sting - like a pinch" - It wouldn't violate the Second Amendment.

As it is, the NRA being legal gun owners, have ALL their arms recorded and cataloged by the government. So, if I were a despot, I know EXACTLY where to find my adversaries!

Just say'in.

Re:That's right

[i kan reed]

Honestly, while it seemed like you were agreeing with me, the words you used came together in a way I'd characterize, subjectively, as crazy.

Re:That's right

[ColdWetDog]

Because, if we read the law literally, a law can be written where you can have arms but no: firing pin, barrel, ability to hit anything beyond 50 feet, .....

Basically neuter a gun by law but yet have a legal definition of an "arm" so that the Constitution isn't violated but yet the arms you bear are nothing." Here's a bullet firing stick that can't hit anything beyond 50 feet and if hit it's a hurtful sting - like a pinch" - It wouldn't violate the Second Amendment.

As it is, the NRA being legal gun owners, have ALL their arms recorded and cataloged by the government. So, if I were a despot, I know EXACTLY where to find my adversaries!

Just say'in.

Require them to be printed. That should solve all of your requirements.

Re:That's right

[Agent0013]

In my state you do not need to register your guns. So even if I joined the NRA, they would not have a record and catalog of my guns. I suppose you could guess that I have one if I were a member, but you could not know how many, or even be sure that I did have one.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative "

Again for those that aren't Americans, and apparently some that are... The above statement is WRONG. Local laws MAY NOT supersede the constitution.

Re:Gun nuts

[unimacs]

"I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote."

The constitution doesn't prevent the nation as a whole from deciding which sort of weapons are appropriate for self defense and which aren't. Nor does the constitution restrict anybody from developing a weapon that has safeguards built in designed to prevent it from being fired by anybody other than its owner.

The above quote is a not so veiled threat and yes the poster has a right to question whether the person behind the quote is somebody who should be trusted with a gun, - constitutional rights aside.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[OverlordQ]

> He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.

It still would have happened, but the only death would have been his.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[lagomorpha2]

Furthermore, a few months ago, agun owner 20 miles away, in San Bernadino, got killed when he interrupted a home invasion (by unarmed people) He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.

Isn't 2 dead burglars, an imprisoned burglar, and a dead homeowner still better than 3 live possibly free burglars and a dead homeowner?

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[modecx]

All of this said, I cannot imagine for the fuck of it a situation where I would want a fucking piece of shit that only fires if I am wearing a watch

Also, assuming the watch/firearm actually work as designed: god forbid you have have to shoot with your weak hand for some reason (such as your strong arm/hand being injured) and all you can do is uselessly pull away at the trigger (since the watch is more than 10" away), as your attacker continues to do whatever it was that prompted the use of lethal self-defense in the first place.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

"guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense" - Bullshit. The language doesn't say that at all, it says a regulated MILITIA.

It's since been INTERPRETED to mean "each American individually" but the 2nd Amendment does NOT say that explicitly, nor was it referring to anything but 1-shot muskets.

Re:10 feet of me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the Syrians who are fighting the al-Assad regime. Or the Ukrainians. Or any other populace.

You missed the point.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

There are only a very few obvious prohibitions, namely against convicted felons and those declared mentally incompetent or ill.

Well, given the development of incarceration rates, most of U.S.-Americans will be convicted felons in the intermediate future (basically, you have to accept a plea deal when farting in public). And frankly, those that don't emigrate while they are not yet convicted are mentally incompetent or ill.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not say anything about the arms being for a militia, do you not read English?

You're an idiot and you need to go fuck yourself.

Re:Gun nuts

[Shakrai]

The Constitution guarantees the right for citizens to keep and bear arms for the purposes of having a militia.

The Supreme Court disagrees with that interpretation and says that the prefatory clause is not a limiting clause. This was the proper decision, given the context of "the people" in the 2nd Amendment, and for that matter every other mention of "the people" in the document and its amendments.

Re:Gun nuts

[UnknowingFool]

Let me explain it to you: This company is not requiring you to turn in your non-smart gun and get theirs. They are selling their weapon which has enhanced firing protections. There have been previous guns which had physical firing protections before. This one is simply more high tech. The gun manufacturer believes that there is a market for their gun as there have been cases of children being accidentally shot when discovering their parents' firearm as well as weapons being stolen. So if you don't like their restrictions, DON'T BUY THEIR GUN. It's that simple. In your talk of freedom and rights, it is ironic that you are actually advocating for restrictions. Since it is a weapon that you don't like, no one else can buy it.

Second, I find it also amusing that you talk about irrational fear. Someone has posted this woman's phone and address on a forum. But she has nothing to fear, right? This is a veiled threat to her life simply because she works for a company that people don't like. So if I don't like the company you work for, I can post your whereabouts on the Internet? I can have people stalk you? Funny you don't seem to stand up against people who seem to be threatening others.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[dirk]

To me, you are the perfect person for this type of gun. Your gun currently sits at the range. With a standard gun, if it gets stolen, they can then use it for anything they want. You don't have to worry about using it in your home for self defense or anything like that. So with this type of gun you can still use it at the range when you want but if it ever is stolen, the thief couldn't use it for anything. This gun isn't a good replacement for people who feel they need protection at all times with them (of course I think most of those people are paranoid and are idiots for not keeping their gun secured). But it is a perfect weapon for someone who goes to the range once and a while to shoot. It at least starts to cut down on illegal guns by taking at least a few of them out of circulation since if these guns are stolen they are useless.

So just hack the gun and disable the safetys

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely if smart guns suddenly became the only type available, responsible gun owners would quickly work out how to modify it to work like an ordinary gun.

They smart enough to work something like that out, right? Right?

.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

So fix the law. Don't threaten the technology inventor.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

A dismissive dick joke is a "score 2, insightful" comment?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution guarantees the right for citizens to keep and bear arms for the purposes of having a militia.

That's not the official interpretation of the Supreme Court.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

A gun is a fairly simple machine. There are only so many ways to prevent it from firing normally. Stop the trigger pull. Lock the sear from disengaging. Block the firing pin. I can't think of anything else. All require some electromechanical device to push a pin or bar in the way to prevent the normal motion. My point is, it would not take you a week, and you don't even need the watch. File that pin down. Remove the bar, or jam it in the unlocked position. A week? no. For someone even remotely mechanically inclined maybe 2 hrs. Then we're back to only criminals having guns that work reliably.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean it should be.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

"nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative"

McDonald v. Chicago applies the second amendment to the states. A city can no more ban firearms within the city limits than it could prohibit freedom of speech.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah really, how does that get +4 insightful. he's also wrong about this
" and those declared mentally incompetent or ill." i wish that was close to true.
there are effectively no mental health checks or background checks.

Re:When did slashdot become a NRA shill platform?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's strange but I've noticed there is a great deal of shilling for the NRA here in the last number of years. Is there a deliberate campaign by NRA to infiltrate other libertarian but not pro gun constituencies and bait and switch them to an NRA agenda? Considering the topic in the article excuse me if I don't post with my standard account.

This is a matter of perspective. For example, I feel like Slashdot is basically an echo chamber in favor of gun control, with many reasonable pro-human rights comments being modded down out of spite.

So, given we have diametrically opposed perspectives about the community, I am guessing the truth is somewhere in the middle. I will say that we both agree this is a wedge issue, and it is one that does serve as a lightning rod in the "audience" (*cough*fuck you, Dice*cough*). It is sad people feel the need to post as AC because of it... that's a sign that rational debate isn't reigning on the subject.

Cheers!

Plenty of use cases

[jd.schmidt]

I can see that smart guns are not for everyone, but for many owners they may be just the thing. What a smart gun can do is put the owner is control of who can use the gun or who it can be transferred to. I could easily see the military and police, as organizations, being very interested in them even if individual members find them an extra hassle. Basically it proves accountability, no "the guns were stolen/misplaced", now you can prove and track authorization and transfer. So sure a beat cop may view it as a annoyance, but the police chief may view it as valuable feature. The locking system can probably be hacked, but it still makes the gun less valuable to the black market because it requires extra effort and no legitimate gun shop will deal with at afterwards.

Re:Plenty of use cases

[ColdWetDog]

Fine and dandy. The problem is that legislatures (in this example, New Jersey) immediately picks up on this and requires the technology in every gun.

That's the problem, not the tech itself.

Re:Gun nuts

[gandhi_2]

Ohhhh nice!
Forget the issue and attack the poster! Leftist playbook, page 3.

Socialists can't allow people to own firearms. It stands in the way of an omnipotent government. Since leftism are ideas that are SO GOOD, they have to be mandatory and enforced by a powerful government, liberty is incompatible with their ideals. Free speech, property rights... all that has to go away for a leftist agenda to be successful.

And by successful, I mean everyone totally fucked except The Party elites.

It cracks me up when people call Che a "revolutionary". Some elite dudes telling you what you can have, when you can have it, what you can do, and where you can do it... that sounds a LOT like every government BEFORE the enlightenment and "government as a social contract among free people in a state of nature". Just another king. Leaving people the fuck alone to arrange their own affairs, THAT is revolutionary.

Gun maps

[Anonymous Coward]

The leftists started this.

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

I'm lazy so I didn't look into this too much. But it fails even a cursory inspection. As to your Biden quote "Banning guns is an idea whose time has come". It is from this NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11...>
the article is about a law to ban the domestic manufacture (not sale or ownership) of assault rifles (the brady bill).

But Senate supporters of the measure said they would apply whatever pressures they can muster on the House and called on constituents to write and call their representatives. "The House better understand the power of an idea whose time has come," said Senator Joseph R. Biden, the Delaware Democrat who heads the Judiciary Committee.

surely you see the difference between a vote on the assault weapons ban and a vote to "ban guns". methinks you're being dishonest.

What I love.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Post this on Slashdot and its "LOL at the gun nuts" Post something about DRM on the newest game and people on Slashdot loose their minds.

No, YOU are missing the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do NOT have this technology, someone WILL take your gun away and use it against you. Because after all, they just crippled you.

It is very easy to disarm people and the last thing you want is your own gun used against you or your family or friends.

No really, nobody practices quick draw - I tried and was thrown out of my gun club for it.

It's all: Pick gun up ... Breath. Count. .... take aim. Breath. Count. ... put finger on trigger ....Breath. Count. fire. ....

At "Pick gun up" you are dead.

Got it?!

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

it's not his own research because it's not true. nailed it: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

Re:Gun nuts

[Valdrax]

If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.) However, please do not try to impose such things across the whole nation. There is no "reasonable" restriction in the eyes of those who wish to promulgate these laws, save for complete abolition.

Due to a number of court challenges, there is no local governments that are allowed to practice such restrictions anymore, because "there is no 'reasonable' restriction in the eyes of those who wish to [oppose] these laws, save for complete [legalization]." See Heller vs. DC, et al.

Okay, maybe that's a bit too far. Most gun-enthusiasts support restrictions on felons and the mentally ill owning guns, but there are a good number of true gun-nuts that don't, and politics over the last decade has pushed further and further to the fringe on the right. Witness the latest law in right-leaning Georgia to allow concealed carry in bars where people will be intoxicated while armed.

I mean, why did anyone think that was a good idea?

The Victim?

[digitalPhant0m]

It's obvious that few people on this forum even care about the victim in the article.
Just a refresher: Stalking is a crime.
So perhaps this woman needs to carry a gun now to keep her safe from the idiots who are (pun intended) up in arms over this silly device?

If you support this device or not: it is wrong to intimidate, threaten and/or stalk someone.

NFC jamming anyone?

[tommyatomic]

It seems overly likely that this watch "smartgun" combo use some kind of near field communications. Whats to stop someone from jamming NFC like the asshat with the cell jammer they caught the other day?

I for one will probably not welcome our new NFC jamming overlords that will with the push of a button disable nearby Smart guns with a simple jamming transmitter.

Now that I'm thinking this through a Jamming device would prevent alot of police caused deaths. Might be a safer time to take up a life of crime.

Also possible that with an NFC hacking program on a Smartphone a criminal might be able to activate a smartgun stolen from a police officer.

This sounds like a brilliant plan. Almost needs a Florida tag on fark.

Re:Gun nuts

[Old97]

You're not quite correct on a couple of points.

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The 2nd amendment qualifies that right with words about a "well regulated militia". Not everyone agrees that individuals have the right to bear arms when they are not acting as participants in a state sanctioned militia. Courts have ruled both ways on this and there is still quite a bit of debate.

If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.) .

It is not true that communities can ban fire arms on their own. That notion has been over turned in court along with all the related local laws. I live in Chicago and the city and state are now grappling with how far they can go to restrict even concealed carry much less the possession of guns. We actually have to post signs if we don't want people to bring fire arms on our property.

Re:Gun nuts

[Immerman]

A milita is a contingent of citizens, who may be called upon to act against the "legitimate" government. Putting contol of the guns in the hands of the government completely undermines that most important of functions. Or did you forget the fact that the founders had just finished winning a blatantly illegal war against the "legitimate" government of the US colonies?

Re:Gun nuts

[compro01]

nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.)

Aside from the minor fact that local-level bans of readily transportable objects are inherently futile unless you want to allow cities to set up border checkpoints.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

"The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense."

The Constitution guarantees the right for citizens to keep and bear arms for the purposes of having a militia. You're an idiot and you need to go fuck yourself.

You are so right! Since a militia is only about protecting ourselves from the government, we can only stop them from trampling our rights! Everyone else has free reign to do it!

Someone needs to look in the mirror to evaluate who the idiot is.

Re:Gun nuts and Safety interlocks

[Anonymous Coward]

Do these same people complain if they pick up a gun which has the safety engaged?
OMG! I CAN'T FIRE THIS GUN! MY FREEDOMS! WHAR ARE MY 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

Re:Gun nuts

[GrumblyStuff]

[...] if you can circumvent one amendment, you can circumvent them all, and down that road lies fascism.

Which, of course, is why gun owners are famous for defending free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of (and from) religion, the right to peacefully assemble, the right to a speedy and fair trial, against unreasonable searches and seizures....

Problem?

[digitalPhant0m]

Does anyone else have a problem with legislation being tied to a commercial product?
To me, it just seems wrong.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

The supreme court disagrees with it now, but the interpretation you take as obviously incorrect was settled law for 70 years. A couple more reactionaries retiring or dying and being replaced by moderates or liberals will likely cause the court to return to the old interpretation, so enjoy it while you can.

Re:Gun nuts

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

To be technical, the text of the 2nd Amendment is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Many people focus on the last two phrases in that sentence. Not so much attention is focused on the first two phrases, but IMO they're just as important as the last two. Keeping and bearing Arms is a right ... but it's a right, a power that comes with a hefty dose of responsibility (to be "well regulated") as well. Most of you probably know the quote "With great power comes great responsibility." If you can't handle the great responsibility, well, responsibly then perhaps it's better you hold off wielding the great power until you can.

For instance, the person quoted in the summary as issuing a death threat directed at the employee? Yeah, IMO they're not handling the responsibility very well at all. I wouldn't have a problem with that person's gun or guns being placed out of their reach while they learn how to play well with others.

Re:Gun nuts

[CrimsonAvenger]

The 2nd amendment qualifies that right with words about a "well regulated militia". Not everyone agrees that individuals have the right to bear arms when they are not acting as participants in a state sanctioned militia.

Read the Militia Act sometime. Yes, it's still in force. Yes, we're all members of the militia. Assuming we're Americans, male, and adult, of course.

Note that "state sanctioned militia" is NOT mentioned in the Second Amendment....

Re:10 feet of me.

[bluefoxlucid]

It's been shown that a criminal with a knife can cross 25 feet and kill a cop in 1.3 seconds. That's a sprint of 12mph; a normal human can break 25mph for a second or two, and Usain Bolt can do it for about 8 seconds.

If a gun's pointed at me, there is a problem. If I see you reaching for a gun, that's a wholly different scenario. These two things require differentiation.

Re:Gun nuts

[nurb432]

How about you crawl back under the rock you live under?

Re:Gun nuts

[Type44Q]

but their ID-checking gun seems to default to an unfireable state

I hate to shatter your stereotype but not all "gun nuts" are necessarily less than hyper-intelligent nor phallically-challenged... you might even go so far as to say that some of them are downright culturally-aware, environmentally-conscious, theologically-secular and (*gasp* *cough*) vegan...

but their ID-checking gun seems to default to an unfireable state

At the end of the day, the problem with this is that there's a non-zero chance that the fucking thing isn't going to work when you need it most.

Re:When did slashdot become a NRA shill platform?

[Shakrai]

There has always been overlap between nerd culture and love of guns.

That's because firearms are a pretty awesome piece of technology, when you strip away the politics.

I see no problem with them...

[Lumpy]

As long as ALL the police and military are required to have them and use them. If they completely trust these firearms to be 100% reliable and safe, then I will.

But I guarantee not one cop on the planet will use one. Their reliability is suspect which makes their safety also suspect.

Re:Gun nuts

[thedonger]

"nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative"

McDonald v. Chicago applies the second amendment to the states. A city can no more ban firearms within the city limits than it could prohibit freedom of speech.

Firstly, who cares what a cheeseburger-wielding clown thinks? Secondly, places like Chicago and Manhattan, while not able to make it explicitly illegal to own a handgun, have made it practically near-impossible.

Re:Gun nuts

[Beeftopia]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -- 2nd Amendment

I imagine back in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, and the country was mostly rural, and the army was mustered from the citizenry, this made perfect sense.

Today, we have standing armies. People are trained to shoot while in the military. You're not relying on people training themselves, or bringing their own weapons. Heck, the average person has a very hard and expensive time getting an automatic weapon, the type used in the military.

However, I think the Supreme Court reads this correctly. The 2nd Amendment says WHY the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Granted, the WHY is not relevant to the situation today, but that's what the 2nd Amendment does pretty clearly say.

Re:Gun nuts

[khasim]

the article is about a law to ban the domestic manufacture (not sale or ownership) of assault rifles (the brady bill).

This is one of the problems with this discussion.

"Assault RIFLES" are already heavily restricted. These are the fully-automatic weapons.

"Assault WEAPONS" is a classification that was created for political reasons. It is based upon COSMETIC features of a weapon.

surely you see the difference between a vote on the assault weapons ban and a vote to "ban guns". methinks you're being dishonest.

No. Because the difference is cosmetic. Not functionality.

Weapon A can be classified as an "assault weapon" and banned if it has a flash suppressor (along with other cosmetic features).

But if weapon A does not have a flash suppressor then it is not an "assault weapon" and is okay to sell.

The flash suppressor does NOTHING to change the functionality of the weapon.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

He wasn't shot dead for trying to talk to his neighbor. He was shot dead for illegally breaking and entering an occupied structure. There is currently a debate as to whether he has broken into this residence multiple times and/or was he lured back to this same property because of his prior break-ins. See reference below:

http://missoulian.com/news/local/missoula-teenager-shot-killed-in-grant-creek-garage/article_59096ee8-ce3d-11e3-961a-001a4bcf887a.html

Re:Gun nuts

[harrkev]

I have no problem with adding hi-tech such as this to guns, but it should be OPTIONAL. However, singe New Jersey already has a law that once this thing goes on sale, every gun must have the same feature. This is the problem... If it remains an option, then fine. If it becomes mandatory, that is problematic.

For homes with children, this may be a great idea. For homes without kids, who needs it.

"Whoops, my gun crashed (or the battery died, watch got dropped and broken, etc). Now my ex-husband can feel free to break his restraining order and kill me." I do no want to hear about this story in the news.

Re:Gun nuts

[nurb432]

Nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative

I disagree, states should be forced to follow the federal Constitution as part of the 'contract' to be part of the union. They can of course make their own rules, but those should not be allowed to conflict with the 'base' rules at the federal level as outlined by the Constitution. The court seems to agree, at the moment.

If a state was allowed to do this, then the entire structure of our country would be at risk, and be pointless to even be a 'union'.

Re:Gun nuts

[Type44Q]

However, intelligence clearly doesn't preclude the ability to create blatant typos (such as inserting quotes a redundant number of times) in one's post... :p

Fun fun fun...

[ErichTheRed]

My personal opinion is that the second amendment is dated and no one should be allowed to personally own a gun. BUT, I'm aware that there's a huge collection of libertarians, rednecks, whatever who feel they need one. So changing the Constitution is out of the question. Anyone trying that will get the rednecks at their doorstep just like this person did. Either the South and most of the West will secede again, or they'll try to take over.

The problem with the US is that we're way bigger than we were in 1789, and have 300+ million we need to keep happy. We also have little need for an unorganized militia, although the more survivalist among us might disagree on that one. The reality is that gun use is very different in urban areas than it is in cities. In the country, people go shootin' at some food. In cities, they're used primarily in crimes and by the mentally ill to wreak havoc. This is why mayors ban handguns -- not because they think it'll do anything, but because they can't be seen as contributing to the problem.

Anecdotal example about differing opinons -- someone I know who grew up in an urban area moved out to a rural location. Over the years I've known him, he's gone full-on libertarian and is constantly railing against gun control. I have no idea what changed, but I guess it's the differing way guns are viewed. Country = useful tools, city = aids to criminal activity.

I've never had the desire to own a gun, nor do I see the appeal. However, like I said, I realize we're stuck with this state of affairs. It does not make the gun lobby look good in the public eye when someone attempting to make gun ownership safer is threatened by a bunch of kooks. I don't see the anti-gun movement making death threats on gun owners. Even if the people making these threats are only a small sample of the pro-gun group, they sure make a bad impression.

Re:Fun fun fun...

[Anonymous Coward]

So the larger, stronger person should by default, be able to exert their will over any smaller, weaker person?

“God made men, Col. Colt made men equal.”

Re:Fun fun fun...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey jackass, the rebuttal to your dismissal can be listed in four words: Where's that bullet going? Yay, in your what-if scenario someone smarter defended OP's life, but now where's that bullet going after it went _through_ the assailant? My shooting range instructor drilled that into my head, and it's why I don't carry in urban areas. I might take my assailant down, but I might take innocent bystanders down too--Or do you think it's only black people doing drive-by shootings that hit innocent bystanders?

Re:Fun fun fun...

[Whorhay]

I would wager that a number of gun owners took it as a near death threat when they had their names and addresses published by a news paper who even provided an interactive online map of those addresses.

Re:Fun fun fun...

[silas_moeckel]

I'm 60 miles from NYC and we have wild moose, great cats, coyotes, and other critters that can be a danger to me and mine. You have never lived on a farm or hunted for part of your food. Guns are dangerous tools, same as a cutting torch, a backhoe or a pile of other things that are basic parts of life outside urban area's and the nanny state they spawn.

Sure there are piles of scary people on either side, were a highly polarized nation. If you do not want a gun nobody is forcing one on you and were all hoping that not a decision you will ever have cause to regret.

Re:Fun fun fun...

[kqs]

A few years ago, someone in my neighborhood (~4 miles away from a fairly large city) was arrested because they were shooting from their house at someone in their backyard (maybe someone taking a shortcut through their backyard? I don't remember the details but it was not a home invasion.)

A year later, my cat came home with a pellet in her liver. Despite expensive surgery, she died a painful two weeks later.

When you say "nobody is forcing one on you", I'm not sure how that's supposed to work.

Re:Fun fun fun...

[AC-x]

I've never had the desire to own a gun, nor do I see the appeal.

I sincerely hope that if you ever have occasion to regret your irresponsibility, that there is someone smarter than you at hand who is prepared to defend your life.

The really smart people know that owning a gun makes you statistically more likely to be a victim of gun violence.

Re:Fun fun fun...

[TangoMargarine]

Yeah, now I'm picturing some misguided idiot wandering into one of these houses to "prove a point," the owner blows him away, and they use that as "evidence" that the gun owners are crazy and should have their guns taken away.

What could possibly go wrong

Re:Fun fun fun...

[silas_moeckel]

Would it be somehow better if they used a meat cleaver? People swing cats by there tails and paralyze them leading to a painful death. Idiots will still be idiots irregardless of the tools they have available to them.

In neither case is anybody forcing you to have a firearm. It's a falsehood to think that outlawing them makes you any safer hint criminals do not follow the rules that is why they are criminals.

Re:Fun fun fun...

[AK Marc]

The "fix" is to generate the need for a militia, and "require" the states tightly regulate the militia. Abolish the standing army. Have national guard only, and only state members make up the force. And restrictions on non-members. Wanna carry? Sure, that right is guaranteed. You just need to join an "official" militia. We've had more unconstitutional things pass without a second thought. It'll save money and increase security, while also decresing the guns in the hands of "I need to shoot all trespassers" gun nuts.

Re:Fun fun fun...

[amxcoder]

My personal opinion is that the second amendment is dated and no one should be allowed to personally own a gun. BUT, I'm aware that there's a huge collection of libertarians, rednecks, whatever who feel they need one. So changing the Constitution is out of the question. Anyone trying that will get the rednecks at their doorstep just like this person did. Either the South and most of the West will secede again, or they'll try to take over.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but...
Despite what anti-gunners want to think, it's not a matter of re-writing the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is considered "devine rights" or "natural rights", that every person is born with. They do not list them as rights that are granted by the Government (and thus able to be repealed by the Government). They are rights that every person is born with that the Government CANNOT take away. That is the whole point of the BofR, to list the things the Government cannot do, not enumerate what Citizens are allowed to do.

BTW, your slant on things is typical, by calling someone pro-gun a "RedNeck" you try to paint a negative picture of anyone who is pro-gun rights. I live in the Bay Area in California, one of the biggest metropolitan areas on the west coast, and am pro-gun, pro-second amendment. Would I be classified as a RedNeck? There are many others that I know that live here too that share the same views (and others that don't obviously...being California).

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[stoploss]

I live in a much nicer community than the one in which I used to live, and really do not think that my gun would be much extra protection over my swords and bows. (Not that they would be much protection, either) Furthermore, a few months ago, agun owner 20 miles away, in San Bernadino, got killed when he interrupted a home invasion (by unarmed people) He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.

First off, I will give my standard libertarian disclaimer that I don't care what you do as long as you don't try to compel me to do what you think is best. So, fair enough you believe you have no use for a firearm anymore. Great, just don't try to prevent me from owning and using firearms for my own protection.

As for your anecdote, I would take the odds of potentially only stopping 2 out of 3 while defending my family with my firearm. Because, you know, home invaders aren't your typical burglars (cf. Wichita Massacre). Home invaders are more like rabid animals—normally burglars have a fear of being discovered. Home invaders, like rabid animals, somehow lack that fear and are willing to enter the home while people are present. Witnesses... something every criminal wants.

If someone forces their way into my home, their right to live is forfeit in favor of my right and duty to protect my family.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Lumpy]

You are correct, you would have had only one murder, the home owner and 3 criminals still roaming the streets. If you think someone who does a home invasion will leave you alone, you are nuts. If a criminal enters a home they know is occupied, they are ready to kill whoever is in there.

It's a safety feature

[Anonymous Coward]

This does nothing to disarm the average person any more than when weapons first started using safeties.

Seems less suited to civilian use and more to major organizations. PMCs or a standing military make them part of the equipment. Have a standard "watch" (doesn't actually have to be a watch) for everyone in the unit/outfit/organizational unit, different units have different ID. Making sure the watch works is now just a standard part of the equipment check. Maintains the ability for a soldier to use a fallen weapon when things go FUBAR but prevents them getting shot by their own weapons in most scenarios. Armories keep the weapons and watches separate as a standard safety procedure.

This is not beneficial practice for private owners. Gun ranges? Sure! Weapons provided by the range are disabled until the range is active. There are plenty of safety practices already in place that do the same thing. This just takes the responsibility of safety away from the average person.

Are you going to sleep with the watch on? (again it doesn't need to be a watch) Do you sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow? A loaded gun in a nightstand? An unloaded gun in a nightstand? All this does is add another safety system to the firearm. It's somewhere in between Bio-metrics and what exists already with the button on the firearm.

What if ECM is employed to jam the signal between the watch and firearm? That would disable a lot of guns and render an area with the system disabled. This would be both harmful in a military engagement and beneficial to public areas like sports arenas or schools. Hell, I can see this being a major thing in the far future if the system is widely adopted or mandated.

I kinda altered my view on this halfway through writing it. So if it seems disjointed that's why. The more I wrote the more i realized it's just a higher tech version of the safety already standard in guns. Any complaints on mechanical failure of the system are responsibility of the owner. If you don't maintain a gun, you don't get to complain that it doesn't work.

Re:Gun nuts

[dullertap]

Nothing like a heartfelt sermon from somebody who has likely never seen a gun in their life.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

So by what standards did you measure 30% of gun owners?

Ya pretty much

[Sycraft-fu]

If you can show me something the police and maybe military is happy with, then I'll say you have something. However if they have unresolved concerns, then I think it is valid for others to be wary.

Re:Gun nuts

[BasilBrush]

Forget the issue and attack the poster! Leftist playbook, page 3.

The irony of this is most amusing. Given that the story it's attached to is about some gun nuts stalking a woman for being a rep for a company selling a gun technology they don't approve of. Who's really attacking the messenger?

I would and have criticised others for cutting and pasting material and passing it off as their own in the comments under all sorts of topics. It's a dumb thing to do.

And "Elites"?! What a redneck numpty.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

"Putting contol of the guns in the hands of the government completely undermines that most important of functions." A militia is not the federal government.

Your premise doesn't stand.

Re:Gun nuts

[sgbett]

I'm not debating the right to bear arms. I'm suggesting that there are some people who, when challenged, do certain things that suggest they are a little bit off kilter in the ethics department.

I'm all about choice. I hate the fact that means, to be consistent, I have to side with the pro-gun people.

There are nut jobs on both sides, but the ones with guns are more dangerous.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State," --- This is the justification clause.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -- This is the operative clause

The justification clause establishes why this amendment is important but does not constrain or otherwise modify the operative clause.

The word "Militia", as used by the framers meant every able bodied adult willing to defend their country. Before you go there, yes ... the framers did explicily identify men. I think we can manage to be inclusive enough now to allow women in the militia.

In short, the 2nd amendment does guarantee the right for citizend to keep and bear arms for the purpose of having a militia. Your problem is that you believe such a militia must be organized and commanded by the government. That is something the framers clearly thought should be avoided.

You need keys to drive a car

[plopez]

Why not to use a gun?

Re:You need keys to drive a car

[Second_Derivative]

Being able to drive a car right this second isn't usually a matter of life or death.

Re:You need keys to drive a car

[Whorhay]

Keys, or other locking devices are used in vehicles because they are often left for hours at a time unattended in public places, have a relatively high value, and would be trivial to steal otherwise as they provide their own mode of escape.

Have you ever known a gun owner that left their weapons unattended in public places on a daily basis for hours on end?

Re:You need keys to drive a car

[plopez]

Yes

Re:You need keys to drive a car

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not to use a gun?

I have a driver's license that is valid in all 50 states. Why not my CCW permit?

Re:You need keys to drive a car

[pepty]

Have you ever known a gun owner that left their weapons unattended in public places on a daily basis for hours on end?

Yes. They leave them in the glove compartment of their car.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Same poster as above. The B&E occurred at 12:30 AM to add more context to the story

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply put, no.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Let me fix that for you:
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution recognizes that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. For hunting, for self-defense, for looking pretty over the mantle or in the truck gun-rack, for target practice, sport-shooting, pest-control, defense of family or others, for collecting, for trade, for destruction of said arms, for reenactments, for LARPing, yes, sometimes for penile compensation, for attracting the opposite sex, for repulsing the opposite sex, for tweaking gun-grabbers' noses, for noise-making, for scientific experiments, etc. The right to keep and bear arms: The right to carry weapons around. This right exists without the amendment, and the amendment just reinforces that congress is not allowed to make a law infringing upon that right.

To every complex problem there is a solution

[Anonymous Coward]

...and that solution is neat, simple, and wrong. (paraphrasing H.L. Menken)

The logistics of making something like this work reliably and in a manner that can not be subverted are ridiculous. It is also quite straightforward to remove the solenoid that keeps the gun from firing.

This whole idea is a anti-gun twit's wet dream. Oh, one other thing: Those who steal the guns can also steal the bracelet. Read about what Adam Lanza did before shooting up Sandy Point elementary school. How would this stop anything of the sort?

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of fucked up country do you live in where only murderers break into houses? over here burglars mostly run for it if interupted (they also vastly prefer owners to be on vacation etc, not asleep in the house), sometimes people get beat up.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet they're better spellers though. I wonder what percentage of people in the total population couldn't pass said psychiatric evaluation? And we trust them with steak knifes and SUVs. It's surprising that civilization itself hasn't crumbled.

Re:Gun nuts

[harrkev]

Another stat that gun nuts don't like mentioning is that 30% of current gun owners couldn't pass a pyschactric evaluation.

Proof? Just a little bit of proof?

Another statistic: 99.99% of the guns are never used in any sort of murder. So, the gun-grabbers are trying to restrict the rights of ALL Americans to stop the 0.01% of guns that actually cause the problems. This is a statistic that I can back up, using homicide rate, and estimates of US population and gun ownership.

I also seem to recall a fatal stabbing in a school in the last week. If it had been a shooting, lots of people would have been standing up yelling that we need to do something about guns. Where is the vehemence about knives?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. The way the story I read told it was that the teenager (Diren Dede) was in the man's garage in the middle of the night. The same married man with property and a wife to protect that had been robbed (burglarized) twice in the last 3 weeks. But spin it how you want.

Re:Gun nuts

[ColdWetDog]

You need a baseline here: What is the percentage of non gun owners who will 'pass' a psychiatric evaluation.

And was does a psychiatric evaluation mean? How do you 'pass' it?

Re:Gun nuts

[Shakrai]

but the interpretation you take as obviously incorrect was settled law for 70 years.

Actually, it wasn't, the Supreme Court had never ruled on it before. More to the point, if you look at the more than two hundred years of precedent in lower Courts (State and Federal), the State level 2nd Amendment equivalents written around the same time, and the writings of the Framers it's clear as day that the Amendment always referred to an individual right. The 'militia' argument is a losing one and we both know it.

A couple more reactionaries retiring or dying and being replaced by moderates or liberals will likely cause the court to return to the old interpretation

Be careful rooting against stare decisis for I think you'll find that Roe is in a lot more danger than Heller, and Roe is near and dear to the hearts of most of the anti-gun crowd.

You also might consider the political reality of the United States, where even traditionally blue States remain staunchly pro-gun. In fact, I can name only five States that are openly hostile towards guns (New York, Hawaii, New Jersey, California, and Maryland) and even in those States you'll find a solid consistency that's pro-gun (all of Upstate New York for example). In fact, I live in one of those States (New York) and have an unrestricted pistol license that allows me to carry a concealed firearm almost anywhere I deem it appropriate.

Best of luck with your dream of doing away with the 2nd Amendment when you can't even win the issue here in New York.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

will likely cause the court to return to the old interpretation

I see you fail to understand how 'precedent' and 'stare decisis', works. The supreme court doesn't like to reverse decisions not involving 'due process'.

Re:Gun nuts

[atriusofbricia]

... as usual go ape shit at slightest reason. Calm down morons, nobody is taking away you dick extensions.

There probably should be a debate rule much like Godwin's that says in any debate on guns or really anything else not actually involving such, the minute your side pulls out "dick extensions" or like phrasing you lose.

The pro-rights side has history, logic and statistics on their side. The Anti-rights side has dick jokes, fear, racism and lies. Who should we really be listening to here?

Re:Gun nuts

[paiute]

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Or to be part of a 'well regulated' militia. Self-defense is not specified in the amendment.

These watches will be the new iPod head phones.

[Anonymous Coward]

Muggers used to look for the white head phones, now they can look for the watch.
Grab the watch arm and the victim is disarmed. Take their gun that is worth a lot more than an iPod.
Bludgeon the victim until they agree that you should have the watch and gun.
Sell gun after hacking it or just sell it with its watch.

This is as dumb as open carry. You are advertising that you are carrying hundreds of dollars if not thousands, that someone can mug you for.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, I heavily disagree with your opinion that 3 dead people is better than one dead person, no matter who they are.
But more importantly, the typical (>95%) home invasion involves stealing some small, easily replaced objects and then leaving quietly. If he hadn't confronted the invaders, no one would have died.

Re:Gun nuts

[PortHaven]

Fine, and you're going to eliminate all the criminals?

Heck, 85% of crimes are committed by paroles, early releases and repeat offenders. So you won't even keep the known criminals at bay. Let alone the ones you are unaware of..

And don't tell me prisons are too full, there are not enough police. Because we have tons of non-violant offenders in prison. Prison should be violent and dangerous criminals. And police are always there when you fail to use a blinker. They just can't be there when you call 911.

Re:Gun nuts

[by (1706743)]

Well said.

We even have restrictions on free speech, even though the 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech...". It seems to me that my right to free speech is being "abridged" in that there's an effective ban on death threats, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc. And yet, I don't really see people going on about the death of the Constitution with respect to this aspect. Of course, I happen to think that death threats should *not* be protected under free speech just as I think gun laws should, in some way, be reformed, but I suppose that's my opinion and all...

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

that may or may not be true but the quote was from the 90s and the debate over the original brady bill, when the focus really was on AK47s, etc.

to be honest, I'm really surprised by the absolutist nature of gun nuts. Many people are uncomfortable with guns in their communities. instead of rallying against any moderation or worse like in the summary threatening people, find ways to compromise and come to consensus. it doesn't have to be black or white.

Re: Gun nuts

[O('_')O_Bush]

Not only is it just another unreliable restriction, but guns don't go off and fire ontheir own, any more than cars start up and drive off on their own. All modern guns are safe to drop, even when loaded, and have several mechanical protections to pprevent them from being discharged unless someone squeezes the trigger.

So:
We gain no safety with this device, as it is only redundant to existing protections
It is overly complicated and prone to failure compared to existing protections
It defaults to a deadly state when it fails

Every rational human who has any knowledge of crime prevention statistics knows that this will put far more lives in danger than it plans to protect.

Also, I am bothered that the summer/article blasts gun owners in general because a few gun owners posted the inventor's personal information, but where was the outrage from the gun grabbers when gun owners' addresses and other personal information were posted by The Journal News? Instead, when the journalist/editors addresses were also posted, the NYT declared those editors were being "targeted", while those editors merely "pinpointed" owners.

This type of language helps drive the wedge issue.

Reality is, the U.S. doesn't have a gun problem. Guns prevent 2 million crimes per yearaccording to statistics compiled by the FBI. What the U.S. has is a violent gang problem fueled by drug money, which makes up the majority of gun-related crime (still orders of magnitude lower than what is prevented).

By your definition...

[PortHaven]

Congratulations!!!

You've just arrested and locked up every cop, the IRS, and half a dozen Federal agencies. All of which, enact their policies under the threat of to murder anyone who questions them.

Re:By your definition...

[Pascoea]

You've just arrested and locked up every cop, the IRS, and half a dozen Federal agencies.

That sounds like a pretty good start to me. Can we find a way to include patent lawyers, or just lawyers in general, in that mix somehow?

Re:By your definition...

[Noah Haders]

its not murder when the government does it.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Without the gun, maybe the homeowner would have been killed, maybe he would have been hurt, or possibly left unharmed. What we do know is that he had a gun and it didn't do shit to save his life. The gun changed the scenario and probably forced the home invaders in to a "kill or be killed" mindset.

Re:Gun nuts

[Charliemopps]

But they are trying very very hard to. And it's a constitutionally protected right. You can dislike and demean that right all you want, that's why it's in the constitution. To protect it even when popular opinion shifts.

That said, no one should be threatening anyone, ever. But this constant attention paid when one jerk does something stupid like this is a bit ridiculous. Yes, there are idiots that own guns, just like there are idiots in any other group you look at. It's like the guy that set fire to that parking lot full of Hummers. He doesn't represent everyone that wants to reduce CO2 emissions any more than this guy represents gun owners. Find him and charge him. Don't come to me and try to make some generalization about an entire group of people that are, by their very ability to purchase a firearm, clearly law abiding citizens.

Re:Gun nuts

[CrimsonAvenger]

Another stat that gun nuts don't like mentioning is that 30% of current gun owners couldn't pass a pyschactric evaluation.

Citation?

I'd heard that 36% of gun-control advocates are secretly fascists, myself. But anyone can make up statistics....

Personal threats?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like boycotting a company because an employee exercised his own freedom and donated to a political campaign?

And to the "There's 100 million other guns" argument- these gun nuts understand too well the risk of letting the camel get its nose under the tent. Unlike you, they're not just worried about today, they're worried about tomorrow and 100 years from now.

So the original post was right: They're nuts, but they're right.

Re:Gun nuts

[qbast]

Firearm? Give them tank, canister of sarin and some shoulder-fired SAMs. As long as they do not commit felony, so what? After all 2nd amendment does not restrict people being 'armed' to any specific type of weapon, so why are you not protesting this horrid restriction of you freedom?

Re: Gun nuts

[Type44Q]

Reality is, the U.S. doesn't have a gun problem. Guns prevent 2 million crimes per yearaccording to statistics compiled by the FBI. What the U.S. has is a violent gang problem fueled by drug money, which makes up the majority of gun-related crime (still orders of magnitude lower than what is prevented).

Stop complicating the issue with facts; it leaves people flustered and confused... :p

Re:Gun nuts

[admiralh]

Unless, of course, the Republicans decide that overturning them would serve them or their corporate overlords (see Voting Rights Act, Citizen's United, etc.)

Re:Gun nuts

[Charliemopps]

The above quote is a not so veiled threat and yes the poster has a right to question whether the person behind the quote is somebody who should be trusted with a gun, - constitutional rights aside.

and what evidence do you have that the person even owns a gun? It's just as likely some ANTI-gun nut trying to stir things up. There are idiots on both sides of this argument and they're all willing to lie, cheat and steal to achieve their goals.

Re:Gun nuts

[gandhi_2]

You really think Stalin, Kim Jung Il, Pol Pot, or Fidel Castro were "sharing" with the rest of their so-called equality societies?
Call me a redneck all you want. You simply ignore the truth. In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it is the exact opposite. The difference is liberty to play the game or not.

The people screwing with the sales rep are wrong, and they should know better. A "smart-gun" should be a choice people have, and the market can sort that out. If some of these guys cross the line and find themselves with a felony, removing their gun rights, they shouldn't be too surprised.

What exactly is wrong with cutting and pasting? How much time do you REALLY have to formulate a persuasive essay in THIS venue? Do you have some copy-pasta that proves Feinstein isn't a liberty-hating piece of shit? If you do, I welcome the counter copy-pasta as part of the discussion. The fact remains a lot of politicians swore to uphold the constitution (which, at its core says that government doesn't decide what government is) then make a career of armed robbery to buy votes and championing ideas like disarmament of the public.

Here's the real irony: Liberals say that only the police and military should have guns. Liberals at their core really hate the police and military.

Re:Gun nuts

[MightyYar]

The problem is that we have a poison atmosphere where any discussion of reasonable regulation get's you thrown into one camp or another.

In particular, I am generally very pro-gun but I'm also in favor of more tightly regulating handguns. We already regulate the sawed-off version of shotguns, fully automatic rifles, etc. so I'm not sure why the suggestion that we treat handguns a bit more strictly elicits such a strong reaction. They are objectively the largest contributor to homocide in this country - it seems like a reasonable thing to discuss, anyway.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2nd amendment qualifies that right with words about a "well regulated militia".

Wrong. The author of the 2nd Amendment uses the necessity of a 'well regulated militia' as an example of why 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Agree or disagree, this is settled case law now.

Re:Gun nuts

[qbast]

It talks about Well regulated milita , which implies some kind of organization and leadership, not bunch of rednecks waving their guns around as they please.

Sort of....

[Anonymous Coward]

If a gun's pointed at me, there is a problem. If I see you reaching for a gun, that's a wholly different scenario. These two things require differentiation.

Your typical gun owner isn't trained in combat techniques. They'll be firing everywhere you aren't - if you know how to evade amateur gun fire.

If I were against a combat veteran, I'd be screwed.

Re:Sort of....

[Whorhay]

The demonstration I participated in years ago was a bit different, or at least I think it was as details are lacking here.

We did a demonstration where one person, A, with a training firearm stood in place. They were told that if the other participant made a move toward them they were to draw and say "bang" as rapidly as possible. The other participant ,B , was standing 22 feet away with a concealed training knife. The only case in which A was able to draw and say bang before B had poked them with the knife was when they started with their hand grasping the firearm. Keep in mind that A was planning to shoot B the entire time and was just waiting to do it until B moved. That isn't a very realistic situation because in real life A frequently will not know if B poses a threat and will not have time to make that kind of fight or flight evaluation before being killed.

Things only get worse the less distance you have. I saw a program once where they were discussing and demonstrating the speed of a practiced disarm. It boiled down to a trained individual being able to deflect and disarm an oponent faster than could be possibly defended because of the time it takes to recognize an opponents action and then send the nerve signals to counter it. Basically whoever decides to take definitive action first has a huge edge.

"Gun Jammers" are the problem

[MadCow42]

So what if all the privately-held weapons in the USA were of this type? do you think that someone (... some 3-letter acronym, maybe... ahem) might design a gun jamming system? What good is the right to bear arms if someone else can simply shut them off on you? Sorry, no go - at least from a mandated-use standpoint. Sure, I can see it being nice for some people who CHOOSE to use it, but not if it's mandated by law.

Re:"Gun Jammers" are the problem

[jd.schmidt]

It is very hard to jam a signal between two devices in such close proximity, also since different manufacturers would have different locking systems it would greatly increase the complexity of an effective jamming system. Further if it ever really became an issue, a variety of techniques, like frequency hopping, could make jamming almost impossible.

Re:"Gun Jammers" are the problem

[silas_moeckel]

First off it's not that hard to jam NFC at a distance, it's very low power.

Second the worry is this is a closed system that can be subverted. What happens when that subverted safety the gun code gets out? We have seen that the NSA can not be trusted and will use all the dirty tricks they can to do this legally or not. They are looking into similar tech for cars.

Re:"Gun Jammers" are the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Reposting from above as this seems to apply: This last Sunday I jimmied a 12V LED lamp on to my bicycle, and night before last worked out that when on it interferes with the signal between my speedometer (bicycle computer) and the sensor on the front fork. Who knows what a microwave / AP / electrical motor will do? If you need to fire your weapon, is that a good time to find out?

Re:"Gun Jammers" are the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

In contrast, you don't need to maintain some special jamming frequency if you don't care about salvaging that part. One high power blast of signal will fry the (almost certainly) unshielded circuitry (starting at the antenna), disabling the device until the relevant circuits are replaced.

One directed wide-spectrum radio blast and the civilians are disarmed. What government wouldn't want that?

Re:"Gun Jammers" are the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Jamming consumer level frequency hopping is simple enough (certainly for some TLA with deep pockets). Modern semiconductor devices can easily deliver 10-15W of power at low GHz frequencies, which will jam any signal a watch can transmit (you don't want the watch battery to die in 20 minutes after charging)

Re:"Gun Jammers" are the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

We already have this "Gun Jammer" tech. It's called an EMP. If this were to be mandated, I would totally build and carry one, giving me the instant ability to protect myself from others with guns. Much easier than carrying another gun with the same issue.

Re:"Gun Jammers" are the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What good is the right to bear arms if someone else has a tank

Re:"Gun Jammers" are the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if there is a federally mandated backdoor that allows the gun to be disabled by law enforcement.

Dumbest thing i've read today (so far)

[Daetrin]

"but their ID-checking gun seems to default to an unfireable state, which might not always be an attractive feature."

I'm sorry, but that's the _only_ feature of this gun vis-a-vis a regular gun. The whole point is that it has to be "activated" by some specific method before it will work, in an attempt to verify that only the "right" person can use it. The details may differ, whether using a watch such as in this case or other proposed methods using fingerprints or other biometrics, but the fundamental concept is that the gun doesn't fire unless that condition is met.

Why in the world would you pay extra for a gun that checks your ID, but then decides to default to a fireable state even if you fail the ID check? If that's what you want you could just get a regular gun that doesn't bother checking your ID to begin with.

If you don't like the fundamental concept, don't buy the gun. If you don't like the idea of laws being passed in relation to this concept then write to your congressperson and/or vote for someone else. But complaining that the gun does exactly what it is designed to do is just dumb. (And needless to say, harassing and/or threatening employees of the company that sells them is just insane.)

Re:Gun nuts

[harrkev]

Keep in mind the events surrounding the birth of the USA. A bloody war had just be fought where the colonists had just driven off an oppressive government. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not just to be the army, it was to be an army that could revolt against the government if needed. The Constitution was, in fact, designed to place hard limits on the powers of the government, and to actually make it hard to accomplish anything (checks and balances).

Fortunately, our government is still fairly functional. Armed revolt is not needed currently, and I suspect that it will not be necessary in my lifetime. I certainly hope that it stays that way, but the fact that the citizens are armed should certainly help prevent the politicians from doing anything too unpopular. The implied thread of armed citizens helps keep the government in check.

Look at "Rancher Bundy." The government sent in guys with guns and lots of citizens showed up with their own guns. In the end, everybody went home and nobody got hurt. I am not saying that the rancher was right. What I am saying is that the government was wrong to send in hummers full of guys with M-16s and body armor. The way to go after this sort of issue is to take it to the courts. If they guy is wrong, make him pay a fine. Most farmers and ranchers get some money from the government (as far as I know, not being a farmer). You can attack those funds and penalize him in the wallet. That is MUCH better than sending a group of armed thugs.

Re:Gun nuts

[admiralh]

Your problem is that you believe such a militia must be organized and commanded by the government. That is something the framers clearly thought should be avoided.

Really? What does "well-regulated" mean? Who is supposed to do the regulating? Doesn't the word "militia" imply that someone has to have command over it?

I would think that part of being "well-regulated" would be to require a safety device so that only the owner could actually fire the gun. Yes, it might be more difficult to use in a crisis, but it will reduce the number of accidental shootings that happen when some kid finds a gun.

fool

[Anonymous Coward]

Those fools have said far worse. Confiscating firearms would be shortcut to a violent and bloodly revolution.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

I thank you for your intellectual honesty.

I would also suggest, go out and meet some gun owners if you have a chance. Responsible gun owners take safety and responsible gun ownership very very seriously and I think you will find some of the most polite, friendly and helpful group you will ever encounter.

Indeed, a nut job with a gun may be dangerous, but what else are you going to counter him with but a good person with a gun? Remember the police, as well intentioned as they are, will take time to get to you, sometimes a very very long time.

A gun is just a tool like anything else, learn how to use it safely, treat it with respect and it is quite safe.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[cdrudge]

Depends. Am I the dead homeowner, either of the dead burglars, the incarcerated burglar, or the tax payer who is paying to incarcerate the burglar? Come to think of it, I don't think it's better for any of those people.

Re:Gun nuts

[jcr]

Hey, here's an idea: why don't you go fuck yourself?

My right to self defense doesn't require your approval.

-jcr

Re:Gun nuts

[jpvlsmv]

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. There are only a very few obvious prohibitions, namely against convicted felons and those declared mentally incompetent or ill.

I have yet to see any constitutional argument that supports these "obvious prohibitions". Either the 2nd amendment allows each citizen to keep and bear arms (including convicted felons and the insane) or there are obvious limits on the scope of the rights enumerated there.

And once you accept that there are obvious limits on the scope of gun rights, then you can't just say "the 2nd amendment allows me to carry whatever firearm I want wherever I want to"

Re:Gun nuts

[admiralh]

You don't see posting someone's cell phone number or taking a picture of their P.O. Box as threatening?

The threat doesn't have to be explicit to still be a threat, as in the stereotypical Mafia line "Nice little restaurant you have here. Hate to see anything happen to it."

Re:10 feet of me.

[wonkey_monkey]

Man, you are so awesome.

That's what you wanted to hear, right?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you wittering on about ?

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't 2 dead burglars, an imprisoned burglar, and a dead homeowner still better than 3 live possibly free burglars and a dead homeowner?

No. The point is - he probably would not have 'interrupted' the invasion in the first place if he didn't have a gun. So 3 live, possibly free burglars and a live homeowner vs 2 dead burglars, a dead homeowner and a burglar that is now in jail for life (hopefully). Hurray for gun ownership...

Hell, no.

[jcr]

There is nothing in the world more useless than an unreliable firearm. When you need a gun, you need it very badly, and you need it right away. What you do NOT need is something that won't fire if its battery is dead.

-jcr

Re:Hell, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your needs must be pretty special. I'm sure you've shot your way out of at least a dozen situations Bruce Willis style. Most people *need* a gun as much as they need a third nipple.

Re:Hell, no.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

When you need a gun, you need it very badly, and you need it right away. What you do NOT need is something that won't fire if its battery is dead.

Or is out of ammo. But no one seems to think that's an argument against guns in general. Why? Because they've learned to check their weapon and ammo supply regularly. I'm not sure why checking a battery level is the unbearable burden it's made out to be.

Re:Hell, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

That nice little saying only applies to weapons that are purpose built and purchased for defensive purposes, rather than recreational purposes. I have both types of firearms, and would love for the recreational variety to have this sort of functionality.

Re:Hell, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing in the world more useless than an unreliable firearm. When you need a gun, you need it very badly, and you need it right away. What you do NOT need is something that won't fire if its battery is dead.

-jcr

That's a good point, and equally true is the fact that, when you don't need a gun, you don't want anyone else using your gun while you aren't using it.

Re:Hell, no.

[laird]

Really? A gun that has a battery that you have to check ever year is worse than a gun that can be taken from you and used to kill you? Are you sure about that?

Re:Hell, no.

[AK Marc]

There is nothing in the world more useless than an unreliable firearm.

And all others are 100% reliable? This is the *only* unreliable firearm on the planet.

Oh, and you have data on the unreliability of this, and aren't just lying to present your incorrect opinion as fact, right?

Re:Hell, no.

[jwhitener]

I thought the stats showed something like, for every person who successfully defends against an attack using their personal gun, 5 people are killed with their own gun when it is wrestled away from them? That stat alone (if I remember it correctly) would make me want to carry a gun that couldn't be used against me.

Everyone believes that they will be that 1 person that lives, not the 5 that died by their own gun. Or the 3-4 who get shot by their kid or neighbor kid, or the wife shot by her husband when he wrestles the gun away, etc..

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/04/carry-a-gun-you-get-shot-more/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2014/02/having-gun-house-doesnt-make-woman-safer/8474/
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
http://www.examiner.com/article/possessing-a-gun-makes-you-less-safe-not-more-safe
http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-person-youre-most-likely-to-kill-with-your-gun-is-you/

Re:Gun nuts

[qbast]

How about you go back to polishing your ... gun?

Re:Gun nuts

[admiralh]

Look up the term "stochastic terrorism."

Re:Gun nuts

[Arker]

"Moderate" our rights and safety away because of irrational fears?

Education is a better response.

Re:Gun nuts

[yakovlev]

It is not rational to fear all people who own guns.

If you own a gun, here are the things I know and suspect.

1.) All people who own guns own a gun, and nearly all own ammunition. This means that simply being around a gun owner or at a gun owner's house I am dramatically more likely to get shot accidentally. This is perhaps not so much a fear of the gun owner as it is fear of the gun itself.

2.) MANY gun owners believe in using their gun for self-defense. This also increases my likelihood of being shot around a gun owner because the gun owner may mistake me for an intruder.

3.) HARDLY ANY gun owners (and this includes police officers and members of the military) are sufficiently skilled to discharge a firearm in a crowded indoor situation with multiple panicked people and possibly a few assailants in such a way that they correctly identify and harm the assailants but do not harm the bystanders. If an individual has multiple years of experience working as a military sniper they probably fall into this group, but even then they may not fall into this group when using a handgun.

4.) FAR MORE gun owners believe they fall into group 3 than actually do. This makes them a danger to others when they incorrectly gauge either the facts of the situation they are in (see #2) or their ability (see #3.)

5.) SOME gun owners believe guns are a good way to solve interpersonal problems besides those involving self-defense. These people WANT their ownership of a gun to be a form of intimidation to some individuals. I rationally consider these people to be a danger to everyone.

6.) MANY gun owners are responsible with their guns and how they are stored. They also understand the risks of discharging a firearm and the limits of their ability. For these individuals the increased risks come primarily from items 1 and 2, and not items 3-5.

My point is, it is perfectly rational to fear gun owners for the increased risks they bring to my personal safety. While I am most afraid of those who fall into group 5, all gun owners represent an increased risk to my safety.

Re:Gun nuts

[qbast]

The pro-rights side has history, logic and statistics on their side. The Anti-rights side has dick jokes, fear, racism and lies. Who should we really be listening to here?

Fox news of course. It will tell you all about those pinko commies who want to take your guns away. Protect you precious!

Re:Gun nuts

[Immerman]

Governments can be subverted at all levels. So, how do you avoid putting control of the militia in the hands of the government, ensuring that it defends the interests of the people rather than the power structure, without keeping the guns in the hands of the people themselves?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Any other route (including most attempts at federal "gun control" laws) is a circumvention of this process, and IMHO should not be taken, lest it set a dangerous precedent - after all, if you can circumvent one amendment, you can circumvent them all, and down that road lies fascism.

Otherwise known as the slippery slope fallacy, and this one takes paranoia to the extreme. I hypothesize that conservatives are so paranoid about such things because they try to control access to abortions with the ultimate goal of banning them entirely. They openly push to create that slippery slope, and everybody knows it. So they are unable to fathom a situation where the phrases "100% background checks" and "closing the gun show loophole" don't actually mean "liberals showing up in your home to take your guns away."

Note, in contrast, a number of liberals supported the ban on partial birth abortion and oppose other types of late-term abortions.

Americans - the original Taliban.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no surprise that so many Americans have a hate-on for Muslims -- they hate competition.

Re:Gun nuts

[radarskiy]

Clearly, Belinda Padilla is single-handedly re-writing the laws of New Jersey.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see posting someone's cell phone number or taking a picture of their P.O. Box as threatening?

The threat doesn't have to be explicit to still be a threat, as in the stereotypical Mafia line "Nice little restaurant you have here. Hate to see anything happen to it."

Really motherfucker? Where were you when this happened? There are still lefties who see no problem with this.

Metal Gear Prophecies

[alexkaskasoli]

I'm always amazes me how more or less everything Hideo Kojima imagines for his Metal Gear Solid series actually ends up existing in one way or the other. In MGS4 virtually all guns have such a security feature (except it's enabled by nano-technology, not watches). This leads to the existence of weapon-launderers who can disable these security features. The UN troops end up getting screwed when the arch-villain hacks the network and disables all their guns. He then pretty much pwns the world (until Solid Snake kicks his ass yet again).

Oh Brother

[blanddragon]

This article confirms that technology is stupid, as it's users. Examples: Smart phone, Smart watch, Smart @ss. If you are not an American citizen then you don't have a horse in this race so enjoy imagined 'freedoms'. Thank you I'll be here all week...

Re: Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

So then your problem should be with the law, not this type of gun's existance

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

If it had been a shooting, it's likely there would have been a lot more fatalities too.

And, to turn that around, where is all the vehemence about the government's ban on citizens owning tanks and fighter jets? The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to arms, not to guns.

Re:Gun nuts

[admiralh]

How many people who buy guns for protection, who haven't been gun owners in the past, really know how to use them and are effective in defending themselves?

It's much more likely that they would end up getting killed with their own gun. Having or not having this lock will probably make little difference either way.

What it will go is reduce the number of accidental shootings, kids finding guns, etc. Even though you may not have kids living in your house, they might still be there visiting, and may even go searching for your gun, if they happen to hear that you have one.

I don't understand why the pro-gun people are so unwilling to accept any rationale for making guns even the tiniest bit more difficult to use, considering the thousands of gun deaths we have every year.

Re:Gun nuts

[CamelTrader]

I'd just like to point out that the 2nd amendment does not specify right to bear arms /for self defense/. Could that have been the intent? I guess. IANACS.

Re: Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

What you don't know is that nj law does effectively require this

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

That could actually be read two ways, and you are choosing to read it in the more sinister way. Perhaps that is warranted, but not by anything I have seen. I've seen no evidence anyone has harmed her or offered to harm her - and if I am wrong, if someone has done that, they should face consequences for that act. But what I do see is being done (and SHOULD be done) is that people are watching to see when she manages to get a distributor lined up, and informing said potential distributor of some context that might change their mind. People are mad about this and have every right to be concerned.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't having a "smart" gun as described in TFS be a win/win for everyone? Gun owners can use their guns, but it someone steals it or disarms the gun owner, the gun is useless. Not sure why folks are complaining. Anyone want to enlighten me?

Re:Gun nuts

[Arker]

The founding fathers prohibited standing armies for a reason.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not rational to fear all people who own guns.

Of course not, which is why next to nobody does fear everybody that owns a gun. How does it get lost on so many people that saying "I support stricter gun control" doesn't mean "I fear everybody that owns a gun and I want the government to take them all away?"

Re:Gun nuts

[lagomorpha2]

No no, "well regulated" refers to how militia members must have access to a steady supply of water from wells.

Re:Gun nuts

[_anomaly_]

I'm sure there are parts of the Brady Bill that should be revised, re-worded, or even taken out, but I'm not going to get into that, or argue about semantics.

However, you may be able to say that a flash suppressor has no affect on the function of the weapon in a literal sense, but I'd argue it completely changes the weapon's intended use. A weapon intended for target practice, sport, or self defense has absolutely no need for a flash suppressor. This type of "feature" is intended for covert use of the weapon, which I'd argue falls under what most would categorize as an assault weapon.

right handed people wear their watch on left arm

[frovingslosh]

I haven't worn a watch for years. Not because of cell phones, but because the straps or where the strap mounts kept breaking on me.(a problem that I don;'t want to have with a gun when a Trayvon Martin type decides he doesn't like my looks.) But when I did wear one, like most right handed people, I wore it on my left wrist. This gun interlock supposedly has a 10 inch range. Why is no one commenting on that? I don't want a bunch of right handed people going around trying to aim guns and shooting with their left hands, and I doubt that many will want to change where they wear the watch (there are good reasons why a right hand person wears the watch on the left hand). I also have noticed that there is a wide range of tastes in watches. but I don't expect that variety of consumer options to be reflected in a device sold to be used as both a watch and a gun interlock. Of course, you don;tr have to buy this crap and wear a junky black plastic or rubber watch today, but if the liberal wackos who live to take away second amendment rights get their way, it will not be long before they get laws passed mandating this technology for anyone who wants to be able to protect themselves.

The problem with technology...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is that it listens to many owners, and the buyer is not the most important of those.

The buyer is the least important of those in fact.

Just wait until the government insists on these for civilians and we find a backdoor in them to allow broadcast disarmament. Push-button anti-revolution kill-switch. And we'll buy it. We'll buy it because it satisfies the constitutional requirement. We'll buy it because we're thinking of the children. This won't end well.

Re:Gun nuts

[gerardrj]

Likewise, the 1st amendment guarantees freedom from government sponsored/imposed religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..."
ANY god is certainly an establishment of a religion yet Congress has passed laws respecting gods by putting oaths to them on our money and forcing school children to acknowledge such existence in a government mandated daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. These are both act that the founding fathers were against.

Why is it that the same people who will go to the ends of the Earth to uphold the 2nd amendment are usually the first on line trying to erase the 1st amendment?

There's no need to protest this device, in any cas

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the watch battery dies when you need the weapon, or you can't use the gun after you get it out of the hands of a criminal? What if? I don't really see the big issue? How often does someone stop a bank robbery or other crime from happening by forcibly removing the weapon from the hands of the perpetrator and then using the same weapon to prevent them from leaving the scene or doing anything else? That's more likely seen in the movies than reality. Typically, the "good guy" with his/her OWN gun manages to stop the criminal. You're more likely to just get shot and potentially killed by trying to take the criminal's weapon away.

The "watch battery went dead just as I needed the gun" scenario seems rather unlikely too, but sure -- it could happen. Obviously, someone buying this setup would be aware of that possibility -- and would hopefully double-check the status of the watch before leaving with it and the gun.

I agree that there may not be a pressing need to cripple the functionality of a gun in this manner, but SOME people may have reasons they prefer it. I see no problem with offering it, if the technology allows it. Perhaps law enforcement would be interested for the department-issued weapons, to ensure they're not fired by a suspect who manages to take one from the officer? (I remember reading where this happened on more than one occasion, when someone was able to sneak up behind an officer and remove their service revolver from a holster.)

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

why wouldn't a responsible gun owner choose to operate his guns in safe manner, such as with an interlock so that only he can shoot them? would'nt you want to be responsible?

I'm uncomfortable when I'm around strangers who are armed. there's nothing irrational about that, it is a fact. Why do you insist 100% unfettered gun "do what you want" instead of meeting me in the middle?

jammer..?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just an RFID jammer, in this case...

Re:Gun nuts

[harrkev]

As I have stated elsewhere, approximately 0.1% of the guns in the US are used in murders. So you want to burden the other 99.9% of them with expensive tech that the owner may not want?

I also like the use of the phrase "gun deaths." So, if a person commits suicide, how would this bracelet stop them if it is their gun. If it is NOT their gun, how would you deny them access to sleeping pills and alcohol, or a car in a closed garage, or even a piece of rope. Maybe we should put neck detectors in all ropes?

Some gun deaths are caused by police shooting a criminal. Do you suppose that those should be stopped? How about legitimate defensive shootings. Do you want to prevent those?

Really, the ONLY statistic that really matters is when a gun is used in a crime. Throwing out a meaningless statistic like "gun death" simply shows a person with an agenda.

Re:Gun nuts

[gerardrj]

As well as the meaning of the word "militia" during the time of the writing of the amendment.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

No, it doesn't. Have you read the fucking thing?

A well regulated militia

In the context of belonging to a state-regulated militia,

being necessary to the security of a free state

because we realized at some point during the Articles of Confederation that it was hard to deploy the Federal army on a moments' notice, so we want the States to be able to deploy their own militias to defend against invaders

the right of the people to keep and bear arms

we want the militia members to keep their arms handy so they can be called out for duty to "bear arms" (as in, "serve as a soldier in a military force")

shall not be infringed.

and we don't want Congress trying to tell us that the Federal army can handle it, because we don't believe it. Hands off the State militia system!

That is what the 2nd Amendment actually says.

Re:Gun nuts

[StubNewellsFarm]

Umm. The government has taken him to court, many times. The courts have ruled against Bundy repeatedly and demanded that he pay grazing fees and fines. He refuses to pay and says he doesn't recognize the authority of the US government. Washington and Hamilton (who I think count as Founders and had a good sense of the intended power of the government under the constitution) sent troops to Western PA to collect taxes on whiskey. Perhaps the government had other options that would have worked better, but the one they chose is well within the constitution and the history of this country.

Re:Gun nuts

[Old97]

Which Militia Act - 1792, 1795, 1862 or 1903? You see, the act of 1903 superseded all the previous acts and established the National Guard as the states' militias. If you are not a member of the National Guard then you aren't in a militia. These militia acts all dealt with the role and rights of states to create and regulate militias versus the role and rights of the Federal government in these matters. Try again.

Re:10 feet of me.

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, he's right.

Re:Gun nuts

[Ozymandias_KoK]

So, the gun-grabbers are trying to restrict the rights of ALL Americans to stop the 0.01% of guns that actually cause the problems.

What? I thought guns didn't kill people!

Re:Gun nuts

[christophla]

Actually, it does say exactly that. The right of the people to keep and bear arms for a regulated militia (i.e. the states).

Jammer..?

[Captain Centropyge]

Can anyone say "RFID jammer"..?

Not only will the pro-gun crowd say that a jammer could be used by government agencies to disable their weapons, but the bad guys could easily build a jammer for their own use to ensure their safety during commission of a crime. Imagine cops closing in with "smart guns". The bad guys flip on the jammer and cops can't do anything about it. Throw in the bad guys having traditional guns, and the cops have a serious problem on their hands. Same goes for home invasions.

I understand the idea behind smart guns, but this is a horrible idea. And as a gun owner, I'll never guy a smart gun. I've heard of fingerprint scanners being easily bypassed, as well. Unless you can tie it to DNA or something, I see no good way to produce a gun like this. And even then, it could likely be bypassed without much difficulty.

Re:Gun nuts

[MillerHighLife21]

Like the kind of people who go completely ballistic because somebody said something that offended them? Or that somebody shouldn't be allowed to say something they disagree with? Or that call for the firing of a company employee because of their political views?

You mean those kind of people? Because I agree those kinda people are pretty much crazy...but by and large those have been non-gun nuts.

"Gun nuts" get perturbed when you start adding mandatory point of failure to a device that is already perfectly safe with the idea of preventing a single non-existent scenario.

Re:Gun nuts

[Old97]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... SCOTUS has issued different opinions on this over time. They can always change their minds again. Even if it is settled as case law it is not settled politically any more than Rowe v Wade ended the debates on abortion.

Why are gun enthusiasts so quick to retaliate?

[Anonymous Coward]

People who feel strongly about gun ownership consistently make the claim it's for self defense, and that they are law abiding, good people that only want to own a gun to protect themselves.

Yet whenever gun ownership rights are threatened, or even perceived to be lightly infringed upon such as in this case, it is the gun enthusiasts who are the first people to start making insults based on gender, race, and religion, to verbally and physically intimidate and harass people, and to generally be as unpleasant as they possibly can towards the individuals they feel are threatening their "rights". They don't act civilized, they don't act like adults, they don't go through the proper channels.

It's hard to take these people seriously when at the drop of a hat, they turn into they very violent, unhinged freaks that they purport to be defending themselves from.

Gun nuts really are "nuts"!

Re:Gun nuts

[khasim]

that may or may not be true but the quote was from the 90s and the debate over the original brady bill, when the focus really was on AK47s, etc.

Except that fully automatic AK-47s were already highly restricted. And they still are.

to be honest, I'm really surprised by the absolutist nature of gun nuts.

You might want to look at your usage of "gun nuts" in that statement.

Once you start labelling people who disagree with you as "nuts" it does not inspire confidence that you will be less "absolutist" in your goals.

Re:Gun nuts

[Penguinisto]

The above statement is WRONG.

Explain that to New York City, Chicago, etc. That, or prove that you can buy and keep a pistol in either of those cities without their blessing and permission.

It's an insane idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

This only sounds good to those who know nothing about guns and gun ownership.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Because clearly we should instate capital punishment as the penalty for breaking and entering.

Re: Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck are you to say?

Re:Gun nuts

[JDAustin]

Here is the simplest interpretation of the 2nd amendment which even left wingers like your self can understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I don't get something...

[gumbright]

"but their ID-checking gun seems to default to an unfireable state, which might not always be an attractive feature." Isn't that the point? So that only the person with the bracelet or whatever can fire the gun? Unattractive feature? Isn't it THE feature?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the intelligence of the average American should prohibit them from owning anything sharper than a butterknife. Do you really want Cletus to own a gun?

Re:Gun nuts

[Lord Lemur]

Or to provide security for the State. Like it says. In black and white. In English.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

It talks about Well regulated milita , which implies some kind of organization and leadership, not bunch of rednecks waving their guns around as they please.

If you go to take the guns from those "rednecks" I think you'd be surprised how organized and regulated they can get.

Re:Gun nuts

[admiralh]

Veiled threats are veiled threats, regardless of which side makes them.

However, that article was simply a compilation of publicly available information. I could see how that could be interpreted as threatening (the argument about being a target for burglaries makes some sense), but it was done in a non-specific way.

Taking a picture or tweeting a cell-phone number is a much more personal, directed threat.

And it's real easy to throw around insults anonymously. I guess you're too much of a coward to even create a pseudonym to attach your posts to. But I find it's mostly the fearful cowards that feel they need the gun in the first place.

Re:Gun nuts

[BronsCon]

Having been robbed at gunpoint twice, I fully support legal gun ownership. Neither of the guns that have been held to my head were legally purchased, and I'm sure it would have happened more than twice if it was widely known by criminals that I'm highly unlikely to be able to defend myself.

Yes, I am now armed. CC permit and I do carry. I hope to never need it, but I'll be damned if you're gonna take it away from me.

Re:Gun nuts

[Entropius]

That is not how the Second Amendment has been interpreted by a majority of people who are experts in constitutional law.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[misexistentialist]

Insane logic, guess soldiers shouldn't carry guns either since they often die anyway. We know with certainty that if he killed all 3 he definitely would have lived, the unpredictable criminal actors being taken out of the equation. And it's probably gun control that got him killed, if that's what stopped him from firing more rounds by arbitrarily crippling his weapon

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm sure the burglars wanted to kill him and would have done so even if they were able to just steal his stuff and leave. That's why they were called "burglars" and not "hitmen."

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet have some of the highest gun crime rates in the world.....damn I thought those people breaking the law wouldn't break this one!

Re:Gun nuts

[BronsCon]

No, it says that's WHY we have that right, not that they must at all times, and only, be used for that purpose.

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

i don't make people gun nuts. they make themselves gun nuts. like the guy who killed to man in the theater for sending a text message. people who refuse to acknowledge any mitigating factors between them and owning a personal arsenal.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Tuidjy]

A good gun is a fairly simple machine, I agree with you there. But I would not go as far as assuming that the gun we're talking about is a good one, or a simple one.

If I had somehow agreed to design something like this, and, for some unfathomable reason, had avoiding positive failure as the highest priority, I would not go for something as tested and true as a firing pin.

No, I would have specialized ammunition, that can be only fired when some kind of electronic challenge-response has taken place. Hell, the ammunition would be paired with the watch, the gun would be only be supplying the power for the communications, to truly insure a logistic nightmare and at least three points of failure! Sounds like an abomination to you? You must not have dealt with enough upper management yet, and I am told politicians are even worse :-)

By the way, the Armatix in question uses electronic magazine disconnection. Sure, there still may be a simple mechanical way to insure the gun fires reliably, and you may be able to figure it out in two hours. But I would rather find a way to reliably and cheaply unlock any gun of that model. Once you have physical possession of two guns, it should be possible.

Of course, the manufacturers could have made it very hard to get at the electronics... but that would increase the price of the gun and possible repairs... of course, $400 is already an awful lot for a rather crappy .22L

Re:Gun nuts

[bleh-of-the-huns]

I'll play devils advocate here.

Yes, I'm willing to bet the guns that were used against you were purchased legally at one point.

That said, I am not against gun ownership. However, I am for stricter controls on who can purchase weapons, especially the resale market. The 2nd Amendment says you have the right to bear arms. There is no restriction in place however on how easy or hard that should be.

Re:Gun nuts

[unimacs]

If it's a bad idea or poorly implemented, let if fail for that reason.

If it fails as a product because the developer or potential distributers feels that their personal safety is being threatened, that is wrong. And yes, I would consider posting the location of her P.O. box as threatening. What else would the intent be?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

The iP1 is a not-so-veiled threat against gunowners.

Constitution

[ZombieBraintrust]

Constitution for the most part limits only the federal goverment. So the initial statement is somewhat true. It is also somewhat false. The 14 amendment expanded the bill of rights to state and local goverments. (the amendement was passed after the civil war to legally end slavery) That includes the right to bear arms. That is why a Chicago gun law was recenty tossed.

Re:Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

So in other words, since the 14th amendment, the constitution no longer limits only the federal govt. What the constitution applied to before the 14th is irrelevant, so why bring it up?

The constitution is now a baseline that all states must meet. Period.

Re:Constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a long-standing interpretation. However, even without it, the 2nd Amendment was written with no clause tying it to only federal government -- unlike the 1st (Congress shall...).

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

If it had been a shooting there sure as hell would have been more than one death.

Re:Gun nuts

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Not sure why you were modded flamebait. I completely agree with you. Part of responsible gun ownership is knowing how to handle, and how to react to situations. If a persons knee jerk reaction is to threaten someone with death, even if it is an empty threat, I do not believe they should be permitted to own any weapon.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple more reactionaries retiring or dying and being replaced by moderates or liberals will likely cause the court to return to the old interpretation, so enjoy it while you can.

That's what I've been saying about you baby murdering lefties and Roe vs Wade.

Moderators are on drugs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I post a link with a news story that gives more info, and I get hammered down to a -1, but this moron gets a +1? Fuck this site and the stupid anit-gun moderators. By rewarding this moron, you are proving you put your personal beliefs ahead of the health of the site. Thanks for trying to ruin a good thing.

Thanks for the blanket statement.

[Anonymous Coward]

I consider myself a gun nut. I love my guns. I feel safer having them in my home than I do without them, and I enjoy taking them to the range for practice. A couple times a year, I even use some of them to put food on the table, and if someone breaks into my home with the intent to do harm to me and my family, I will, with minimal hesitation, use my firearms to protect my family.

I will gladly entertain any questions put to me by those who agree and disagree alike, and never once have I threatened to murder someone who questions me. Kill in self defense a person who intends to do me harm? Sure. Murder? no.

Re:Thanks for the blanket statement.

[robbyb20]

I'll bite!

If you had to choose one of the reasons you stated above as a reason why you like to own guns, which one would it be?

And yes, zombie apocalypse defense is a valid answer.

Re:Gun nuts

[Penguinisto]

Wrong, and here's why:

1.) All people who own guns own a gun, and nearly all own ammunition. This means that simply being around a gun owner or at a gun owner's house I am dramatically more likely to get shot accidentally. This is perhaps not so much a fear of the gun owner as it is fear of the gun itself.

This would only be true if said gun owner started taking his firearms out and handling them carelessly, which is so rare that you stand a better chance (by at least an order of magnitude) of being hit by a car driven recklessly (yet for some odd reason, no one is calling for a ban on automobiles.)

2.) MANY gun owners believe in using their gun for self-defense. This also increases my likelihood of being shot around a gun owner because the gun owner may mistake me for an intruder.

If you break into my house, yes - expect to be shot if it's dark, and held at gunpoint if it's daylight. If you are not an intruder, you have nothing to worry about. Under what condition do you expect to be mistaken for an intruder, anyway?

HARDLY ANY gun owners (and this includes police officers and members of the military) are sufficiently skilled to discharge a firearm in a crowded indoor situation with multiple panicked people and possibly a few assailants in such a way that they correctly identify and harm the assailants but do not harm the bystanders. If an individual has multiple years of experience working as a military sniper they probably fall into this group, but even then they may not fall into this group when using a handgun.

Hardly any human being is sufficiently skilled to safely land a crippled airliner - and yet the odds of either happening are roughly the same, if not slightly in favor of the crippled airliner. Your point?

5.) SOME gun owners believe guns are a good way to solve interpersonal problems besides those involving self-defense. These people WANT their ownership of a gun to be a form of intimidation to some individuals. I rationally consider these people to be a danger to everyone.

Such people are promptly arrested/convicted for assault, brandishing a firearm, etc. They are only a danger once, and once only. After that they are, as convicted felons, no longer allowed to own such things.

Meanwhile, how many people commit DUI, reckless driving, blatant disregard for life/limb in their automobiles (see also the almost-daily police chases in LA), and assorted road rage incidents? Do you therefore also fear automobiles under the rational banner, or is it just that you fear something you have no familiarity with (considering that owning and using a firearm is replete with enforced gun safety demands at the gun range, classes required for hunting, classes/certifications required for concealed-carry permits, etc?)

Re:Gun nuts

[khellendros1984]

You're missing the point. The amendment doesn't say that firearms can only be used within a well-regulated militia. The justification clause doesn't legally limit the valid purposes for owning a weapon. If it said "Home defense being necessary for the security of the people, ...", it wouldn't preclude someone from owning it for reasons that *don't* include home defense.

I would think that part of being "well-regulated" would be to require a safety device so that only the owner could actually fire the gun.

That's a silly thing to think. Is the US Army not "well-regulated" because its weapons don't require proof of ownership to fire?

If your central argument is that guns are dangerous, and we should accept some reasonable limitations for safety purposes, then I don't entirely disagree with that. If your argument is that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd amendment isn't valid, then I'd have to disagree (either that, or question the validity of the government as a whole).

Re:Gun nuts

[AmiMoJo]

If you want to be literal about the 2nd Amendment, let's see what Merriam-Webster has to say:

armaments : military weapons that are used to fight a war

So not limited to just firearms and rifles then, but any arms used for self defence. Considering how well armed some potential opponents are (particularly the government) that seems to imply a well regulated militia would be justified in bearing almost any kind of weapon to protect themselves.

Are you arguing for that? Or do you think there should be some restrictions on things like WMD, rocket launchers/RPGs, C4, artillery etc? Where do you draw the line and how did you decide where it lies?

Re:Gun nuts

[BronsCon]

Then, I guess I'll play... devil's devil's advocate?

Guns exist. Whether or not purchased legally at one point or another, their existence means they'll be purchased illegally at some point.

The only solution is to make guns cease to exist. Were that possible and were it going to be done, I wouldn't mind, one bit, giving up my gun.

Re:Gun nuts

[Entropius]

When I was in Arizona, a place known for permissive firearms laws, there were very few "rednecks waving their guns around as they please". By and large most armed Arizonans are reasonable people; most of the crime there (and it's really not that bad) is associated with cross-border smuggling (and specifically not "illegal immigrants", who are generally peaceful people). Yes, there are wackos like the Minutemen, but they're less bonkers and less prevalent than CNN would have you believe. If you want to talk about armed gangs harassing people out in the desert, there's one that overshadows all the rest: US Border Patrol.

If you want to see people "waving guns around" irresponsibly, look at what happens in inner cities (often places where guns are banned). People get shot in DC and Baltimore all the time by, essentially, kids exhibiting machismo.

Re:Gun nuts

[UnknowingFool]

What does this gun have to do with fearing people who own guns? If she had advocated that all guns need to be seized, that would be an irrational fear. No, the irrational fear is from the gun nuts who are threatening her simply because she works for a company they don't like.

Re:Gun nuts

[admiralh]

Obviously the bracelet will not stop the gun owner from suiciding with the gun. However, it will stop the owner's kids from doing so.

Another thing about suicide: while many suicides are attempted, people who use guns in the attempt are far more likely to succeed than people using other methods. Taking pills, etc., allows time for regret and possibly calling a suicide hotline to be saved.

And you are damn right I have an agenda. I see the NRA and their ilk as stoking fear in the public in order to increase sales for the gun manufacturers (Glock, Beretta, etc.). Who do you think gives the NRA most of their money? It's not the members.

Here's a quote from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre at the latest NRA convention:

We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers [sic], haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all. I ask you. Do you trust this government to protect you? We are on our own.

http://home.nra.org/pdf/waynel...

Can't you see that this is all an attempt to make people be afraid, very afraid? And to also not trust any external agency to protect you from all these threats. Why? Because that fear motivates people to buy guns, which enhances the profits of all those gun manufacturers that bankroll the NRA.

It a wonderful racket.

Re:Gun nuts

[Entropius]

Go read the ruling in Heller and then come back.

There are pages of reasoned discussion as to what "arms" means.

Re:Gun nuts

[Penguinisto]

Which, of course, is why gun owners are famous for defending free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of (and from) religion, the right to peacefully assemble, the right to a speedy and fair trial, against unreasonable searches and seizures....

Actually, the vast majority (if not all) are, or can you show proof otherwise?

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

I have to disagree with your assessment about "cosmetic". It speaks to the purpose of the weapon.

I think a question that gun enthusiasts refuse to answer is "what is the purpose of a gun". A gun is a tool, and all tools are designed for a purpose. And there's different types of guns, each suited for different purposes.

Here's the fact: the purpose of these "cosmetic features" you mention is to make the gun good at harming other people. one compromise in gun control is to make a prohibition only on a subset of guns, the guns that are designed to harm other people.

the fact that you'll fight so hard to keep your arsenal of guns that are designed to hurt other people says a lot about your true intentions.

Re: Gun nuts

[UnknowingFool]

That is a problem with New Jersey not with the manufacturer of this gun or this woman. Threatening her is the actions of cowards because if they threatened an elected official then they would most likely find themselves under investigation and/or arrested.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

District of Columbia v. Heller nullified the Militia clause. No one pays attention to it because the Supreme Court declared it to be irrelevant, flowery prose.

(AC only because I'm too lazy to login)

Constitutionally protected machinery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, the right to bear arms is protected as an individual right - by the constitution of the United States of America. Restricting that right requires an amendment to the constitution - just like restricting any other right protected by the constitution.

If you want those restrictions - you need to get enough people to agree with you to amend the constitution - it is not acceptable to end-run the constitution - and the supreme court, in recent history, seems to agree.

Find better champions of your cause indeed.

Solution: decoy posts

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution was described in "Rainbows End" by Vernor Vinge; a group called "The Friends of Privacy" would post fake information about people all over the web. If you googled someone, you'd get so many fake hits, that the real ones would be impossible to detect.

Same thing here: make new posts claiming that her address is something else (preferably an NRA member's house), with similar blurred pictures. And when the original poster posts again complaining "hey, these other posts are fake", then generate new posts claiming the same thing about his posts.

Pollution: its time has come.

Re:Gun nuts

[misexistentialist]

What, a gun doesn't shoot itself, being around one doesn't increase your risk of anything. Other than hunting, or if you're Pistorius's live-in lover, someone mistaking you for an aggressor is not really something that comes up. More likely is if government mistakes you for a resister of aggression--many unarmed people are killed during traffic stops or SWAT raids

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even close to a "proper" decision, but one that gun advocates like. The Supreme Court does not have the right to amend the Constitution (removing the militia clause) nor does it have the right to decide whether to enforce it (that is the executive branch). Activist judges amending the Constitution will be the death of us all.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

> "I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote."

So, something like what's been done to Eich or that racist NBA guy? I thought it was in vogue these days, actually.

Re:Gun nuts

[Tuidjy]

Secondly, places like Chicago and Manhattan, while not able to make it explicitly illegal to own a handgun, have made it practically near-impossible.

I wish you were right. That they they have done, is made it near-impossible to legally own a handgun. Not the same thing.

Re:Gun nuts

[Entropius]

Does the law in Georgia require bars to permit armed patrons, or does it give them the right to choose?

Arizona law says that a bar is just like any other private property: the property owner has the right to decide under what conditions people can enter. Most bars there have "No firearms" signs, and people get on with their lives. A bar owner could choose to allow armed patrons to enter, but they generally don't.

It all boils down to probabilities.

[hey!]

Whether this device is a good thing or not boils down to simple math, but the outcome is going to be different for different people.

Take prison guards. They normally go unarmed, because the probability a weapon will be taken and used against them is extremely high. This makes a handgun a net liability for them. A device like this might be a good thing for them, even if they occasionally forget to change the batteries. In fact, even if the device had an extremely high failure rate, say 1 in 5, it might still make sense *for them*.

On the other end of the scale there are big game hunters who carry a sidearm as a backup weapon. Since there is no chance a bear or lion will use their handgun against them, the device would have to have a zero percent failure rate before it made sense to even consider.

Then there are people in the middle, say process servers or people who carry cash, for whom being disarmed is a potential concern but not necessarily an overriding one. For them whether a particular smart gun makes sense depends (a) on their particular situation and (b) on the performance of the specific smart gun model in tests. There's likely to be no one-size-fits-all decision that covers all users and all models of gun.

Critics of smart guns demand certainty: "Even if a particular system could be 99.9% reliable, that means it is expected to fail once every 1000 operations. That is not reliable enough. My life deserves more certainty," says one [citation]. Clearly this is an irrational position, given that non-smart guns don't have anything near 100% reliability. Feeding mechanisms jam and cartridges misfire. This is to say nothing of the most unreliable component in any self-defense shooting scenario: the user. The user can miss, hit an innocent bystander, or even fatally shoot himself.

A device like this could well make a great deal of sense to some users while making absolutely no sense at all for others. Insofar as people are free to use lethal weapons for self defense, they should be free to choose the weapon that fits their needs best.

Re:It all boils down to probabilities.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Clearly this is an irrational position, given that non-smart guns don't have anything near 100% reliability. Feeding mechanisms jam and cartridges misfire."

While this is true, I can clear just about any malfunction in under 2 seconds, and many people are quicker. What I can't do is troubleshoot why the computer on my gun won't give me permission to use it, when I need it most.

Re:It all boils down to probabilities.

[Anonymous Coward]

How often are you fighting lions with your handgun? Seriously, you guys have LION problems over there???

Gun nuts. Their analogies make even less sense than their viewpoints.

Re:Gun nuts

[khasim]

i don't make people gun nuts. they make themselves gun nuts.

And that is why the people who disagree with you will not accept your views on "compromise and ... consensus".

Re:Gun nuts

[UnknowingFool]

As I have stated elsewhere, approximately 0.1% of the guns in the US are used in murders. So you want to burden the other 99.9% of them with expensive tech that the owner may not want?

The 99% can not buy this gun. If there are laws that require this type of protection, then the citizen should protest their government not the manufacturer or an innocent employee of the manufacturer.

I also like the use of the phrase "gun deaths." So, if a person commits suicide, how would this bracelet stop them if it is their gun. If it is NOT their gun, how would you deny them access to sleeping pills and alcohol, or a car in a closed garage, or even a piece of rope. Maybe we should put neck detectors in all ropes?,

This technology was not intended for that purpose. This technology was not meant to be a panacea to every use of a gun. No where has anyone advocated that this technology will be. This is an irrelevant point.

Some gun deaths are caused by police shooting a criminal. Do you suppose that those should be stopped? How about legitimate defensive shootings. Do you want to prevent those?

Again this technology does not address any of these nor was it supposed to. It is supposed to prevent accidental shooting and weapons theft.

Re:Gun nuts

[robbyb20]

Thats and interesting statistic. So does that mean most criminals are repeat offenders? If so, should we just make it a 3 strikes rule and youre unfit for society?

Re:Gun nuts

[Shakrai]

The Supreme Court does not have the right to amend the Constitution (removing the militia clause)

The militia clause is a prefatory clause, not a limiting clause. The Amendment clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right of the people serving in a militia.

Your desired interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has never been upheld by any Federal Court, pre or post Heller. If you dislike the 2nd Amendment you'll have to use Article V to get rid of it. Best of luck with that undertaking.

Re:Gun nuts

[Whatsisname]

Because many people prefer the risk of it being stolen or being disarmed in the middle of a scuffle, than to have those risks, plus the additional risk of the weapon refusing to fire due to some hard to resolve technical issue.

Re:Gun nuts

[Penguinisto]

Let me explain it to you: This company is not requiring you to turn in your non-smart gun and get theirs.

That's nice, but let me explain this to you - I was addressing GP's statement, thus:
"Why yes! Those kind of people sound *exactly* like the kind of people that should have guns!"

Simple mechanical machines.

[nurb432]

Tried, true, reliable, inexpensive. We dont need to add unreliable complexity just because liberal pea brains are afraid of something..

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[AC-x]

First off, I will give my standard libertarian disclaimer that I don't care what you do as long as you don't try to compel me to do what you think is best. So, fair enough you believe you have no use for a firearm anymore. Great, just don't try to prevent me from owning and using firearms for my own protection.

Serious question though, should people be allowed to privately own tanks with live shells? Where is the line drawn between allowing people to own dangerous items and items being too dangerous to be allowed widespread private ownership due to the potential on infringing on others' right to life?

WILL

[notjim]

It would have save WILL GARDNER. There, arguement won.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Grow up. You'll go a lot farther if you can have a conversation without ad hominem attacks and profanity.

Re:Gun nuts

[atriusofbricia]

The pro-rights side has history, logic and statistics on their side. The Anti-rights side has dick jokes, fear, racism and lies. Who should we really be listening to here?

Fox news of course. It will tell you all about those pinko commies who want to take your guns away. Protect you precious!

Well, that's slightly more tasteful than a dick joke but still not anymore of a thoughtful comment. Want to try again?

Firearms ARE safety devices

[Vrallis]

A firearm IS a safety device in and of itself.

To add another 'feature' to impede in the ability of a safety device to function properly is insane.

Imagine if the brakes on your car had such a 'feature.' Need to slam on your brakes? Ooops, you were reaching your right arm out to grab your coffee, watch now out of range, no brakes.

Now imagine the same thing, but in a mugging. You and your attacker go to the ground, including your gun. You manage to reach it with your off-hand. Oops, no bang--your watch was on your other hand. Or, to go with their scenario, the bad guy gets the gun. You grab his wrist, trying to push the gun out of your face--oops, you just stuck your watch within 10 inches of it...bang, you're dead.

Re:Firearms ARE safety devices

[iamacat]

If breaks killed people every time they worked successfully, I would fully support an added security mechanism. You know how you need to put in a key to turn on the engine, to make sure you are an adult rightful owner?

Once you are down to hand to hand combat, you are better off if the gun as disabled, as you and your opponent have equal access to it.

Re:Firearms ARE safety devices

[kqs]

Imagine if the brakes on your car had such a 'feature.'

They do. They're called "antilock brakes". They exist because many people don't know how to pump brakes, and if you slam on your brakes at speed then you lose all steering control, so the antilock brakes help save you from your own incompetence. They sometimes make the problem worse (stopping distance on dry pavement is sometimes longer), but on average they save a lot more lives than they endanger.

And when they started appearing in cars, most of those who thought they were competent drivers complained. Just like this.

Re:Firearms ARE safety devices

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see the data then. Lives saved by a gun in the face of a felony being actively committed against a non-police civilian, versus lives cut short via accident, prison sentence due to use of a weapon, or police response on an armed but otherwise law-abiding citizen's home. I believe in the right to bear arms, but choose not to -- it's now more of a risk to me than that posed by home invasions or other criminal acts.

Re:Firearms ARE safety devices

[Anonymous Coward]

Ridiculous!
By and large, guns are made to kill; they are destructive.
They present many opportunities to do just that, often accidentally.
But what about hunting and self-defense? Sounds like killing, or maybe just maiming.

You like guns, that's fine, but such a statement is just asinine.

Re:Gun nuts

[harrkev]

So, most of the "gun deaths" will not be stopped by this technology. I am not saying that the tech is a bad idea -- far from it. I am just saying that the any possible benefit is small, so the tech should be considered optional, not required.

I do agree that the backlash against the company making the product is unjustified. However, the government and the media have tried their best to demonize honest citizens, so many of them are overly-sensitive on the subject.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right.

It ALSO is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
And it does NOT grant you (anti-gun majority) the power to decide *anything* for others.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[AC-x]

Then I got married, and now my gun stays at the range, where we go and fire it once in a blue moon. Now that I think about it, I have not touched it since last August.

All of this said, I cannot imagine for the fuck of it a situation where I would want a fucking piece of shit that only fires if I am wearing a watch.

Ok, so you'd rather have no gun at hand at all than a gun you can safely keep at home?

Re:Gun nuts

[Agent0013]

I think what you say makes a lot of sense. But you should look at your statement about local gun restrictions and what the Supreme Court (perhaps it was state courts) has decided on them. Chicago has just had it's handgun restrictions deemed unconstitutional and the same was found for Washington DC recently. Illinois was also required to implement some sort of concealed carry permit process when they didn't have one before.

Re:Gun nuts

[gandhi_2]

Who are you to say what Cletus can get or what he can do?

If I have to choose between Cletus having a gun and YOU deciding who gets what because you think you are the smartest person... then I choose Cletus.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

You must not put a lot of value on a life... people who lived for 20+ years, had a family, laughed and cried. Burglars... they wanted some hunks of plastic and some pieces of metal which you could just claim on insurance. Instead we have 3 people with lives cut short. Most people aren't thieves purely for the fun of it. It's a system where the owner of Wal-Mart makes more during the time it takes to shit than you do in a year and you are complaining about a bunch of poor people.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Unarmed burglars, but somehow you know that they would have killed him?

Re:Gun nuts

[harrkev]

Stoking fear? Right. One of the biggest fears is that the government will outlaw guns. Far-fetched, right? Tell you what. Hop in your time machine to five years ago. Go to Chicago and try to legally buy a gun. Guess what? For the average person five years ago, legally buying a gun was practically impossible. IT is not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you.

Here is a quote from a current US senator:

If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!

As to the NRA quote, is there anything unfactual out there? Yes, we live in a very safe country. The odds of any bad violence happening to any one person out there is relatively small (of course, this varies GREATLY by zip code). But dangers are out there. How much danger is enough for you to carry a gun? Only YOU can decide that. However, it is up to you, and should not be up to a politician to tell you "no." Simply stated, if something bad DOES happen to you, how long would it take for you to call 911 and expect help to arrive? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? Would that be fast enough?

For the record, I own guns (where I live, it would probably take 20 minutes for a sheriff to show up), but I do not carry one when I am away from home. But I have friends who do, and I respect their decision.

Re:Gun nuts

[misexistentialist]

Clause originally read

a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person

The Bill of Rights is not about limiting rights! The First Amendment is relevant to threats, and attempts to limit "harmful speech" are BS.

Community reaction?

[B1]

"Then again, how do we know this wasn't purposely put out by an anti-gunner? I hate tossing conspiracy stuff out there, but there's no way to really know."

You're right. It could have been an anti-gun troll, or it could have actually been a pro-gun commenter. From one comment, we can't tell. You'd have to look at their other posts to get a better sense of their motives.

I'm more interested in the community reaction. Did they call him out for giving them a bad image or name? Or did they stay quiet... and if so, why?

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

look, going around in circles here. all I'm saying is would somebody reasonable stand up so we can have a reasonable conversation.

Re:Gun nuts

[khasim]

the fact that you'll fight so hard to keep your arsenal of guns that are designed to hurt other people says a lot about your true intentions.

Work on your trolling.

I have to disagree with your assessment about "cosmetic". It speaks to the purpose of the weapon.

I don't think you understand the subject. How, exactly, does a flash suppressor "speak to the purpose of the weapon" in this case?

Here's the fact: the purpose of these "cosmetic features" you mention is to make the gun good at harming other people.

In WWII, the M1 Garand was issued to the US soldiers. It had no flash suppressor. How is it less effective because of that?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe repeat offenders are the justice system's fault?

Re:Gun nuts

[flink]

to be honest, I'm really surprised by the absolutist nature of gun nuts. Many people are uncomfortable with guns in their communities. instead of rallying against any moderation or worse like in the summary threatening people, find ways to compromise and come to consensus. it doesn't have to be black or white.

I'm someone who would like to see a whole lot less weaponry in our society, but I'm still on the side of the "gun nuts" because as much as I am not a fan of the proliferation of firearms, I'm even less of a fan of abridging the constitution. If people are serious about gun control, lobby to have the 2nd amendment stricken or altered, but don't try to weasel around it legislatively.

I personally feel that the 2nd amendment is somewhat of an anachronism, but part of living in a democratic society means putting up with laws you don't agree with. If we don't defend the 2nd so long as it is the law of the land, we can hardly complain when the 1st or 4th amendments are weakened as well.

Re:Gun nuts

[UnknowingFool]

Again, this technology was not meant to stop most "gun deaths". It addresses a very specific set of circumstances. Whether it is required or not is really a problem for lawmakers and the citizens.

I do agree that the backlash against the company making the product is unjustified. However, the government and the media have tried their best to demonize honest citizens, so many of them are overly-sensitive on the subject.

I feel that there is a heightened paranoia and persecution complex that many gun advocates have. Any little talk about changes to current gun laws and it seems they go off the deep end. After Sandy Hook, there was talk about limiting magazine sizes. Suddenly Obama was coming to take every one's guns according to them. Such reactionary movements don't so much demonize the staunch gun advocates as it does paint them in a bad light.

Re:Gun nuts

[dyslexicbunny]

We shouldn't need "smart" guns for things like children finding their parent's guns. We just need severe negligence laws for not properly securing your guns.

What are you smoking?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You don't tend to see the left calling for banning guns either"

So when these guys call for bans on "assault weapons", they're not on the left or not calling for gun bans?

When NYC starts taking people's guns away, the city is not left-leaning or it's not banning any guns?

When Democrats tried to put confiscation of assult weapons into a bill in New York state, apparently they were not "on the left" and were not going for the guns?

When Democrat senator Dianne Feinstein said this about her desire to order every person in the US to turn in their guns (which only failed to happen because she could not get enough votes) she did not really mean it?

And while we're on the subject, what's with this article on the various Democrat efforts to grab/ban guns and various ways to lie to the public about it so the public will let them do it???

Who am I supposed to believe? You or my apparently lying eyes and ears? Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.... and as a corallary: those who failed to listen to tyrants as they announced their evil plans in the past, are probably too dumb to notice when the next wave plainly announce the evil they are planning.

Re:What are you smoking?

[Em Adespoton]

I'll repeat what I said: they're not calling for banning guns, they're calling for regulation. In other words, they're not saying "nobody can own a firearm" -- they're saying "only specially certified people can own this kind of firearm." Just like I can't go buy an earth mover and drive it on a public road, or buy an airplane and fly it wherever I want. As I pointed out, the big difference is that firearm ownership is enshrined in the constitution, unlike our "transportation rights" via specific means.

Talking about a blanket ban on guns and talking about restrictions/regulation are completely different things. Did you really only see that one sentence from my post? Your response makes you look like a member of one of those extreme right wing groups, instead of the logical person you actually (probably) are.

If you're not talking about gun bans, don't conflate banning guns with what's really happening -- call out the actual abuses and then people can have a logical debate on the issue instead of throwing more left and right-leaning FUD on the fire.

And making this into a partisan issue is silly: we all know that while certain groups of politicians pay lip service to one stance or another on private ownership of assault weapons (including firearms), it's the government as a whole who have been doing what they have been doing, and the implementations have been pushed by unelected lobbyists and carried out by unelected career government employees. Making this a Dem/Rep issue just ads yet another layer of distraction from the real issues: social treatment of firearms, firearm safety, and the right to overthrow government when it becomes too self-serving.

Re:Gun nuts

[Whorhay]

It is the Militia that is referred to as being "well regulated" not the gun ownership rights. Current federal law defines the militia of the US as being all able bodied Males between the ages of 17 and 45, and Female citizens who are members of the National Guard.

For a militia to be useful it needs to have armaments, which are impractical for the government to keep on hand just in case. The solution was and is to allow citizens to keep and maintain their own weaponry. In the event that they are called to active militia duty they then can bring their own weapons until production ramps up to meet supply requirements.

I agree that death threats are unacceptable whether made in person or anonymously over the internet.

Re:Gun nuts

[UnknowingFool]

And what do you suggest to properly securing your guns? So called gun safes are not actually all that safe.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

The word 'for' isn't there. What are you reading? I mean this is simple stuff, you say it says FOR, FOR isn't there. Thus I am proven right.

You may continue to go fuck yourself.

Re:Gun nuts

[JoeMerritt]

You can own a tank, they're just expensive, and the main cannon will be disabled if it is over 50 caliber (which they all are). They tend to disable it by setting concrete in the barrel. Seems the USSR left overs are still the easiest/cheapest to get, and there are companies that specialize in importing them. You'll be spending several hundred thousand dollars. You can purchase old fighter jets, they're also very expensive, and their use requires a pilot's license. SAMs are less expensive but still cost a lot (FIM-92 Stinger unit cost is $40k), and those you cannot purchase. You CAN ATF form 1 an explosive device (pay a $200 tax stamp to legally make a grenade for example, someone has done this already), and you could in theory attach that to a propulsion device of some sort and produce something extremely inadequate compared to a modern SAM. Sarin gas is outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of which the USA is a signatory, but a person with knowledge of chemistry could create a variety of toxic chemicals if they desired. Simple elemental Chlorine alone is quite deadly.

You don't find 2A supporters rallying for the ability to purchase those things because they're not murderers. They are interested in defending their lives, family, and property, and they don't find those things to be useful in pursuit of that goal.

The key thing here is the purpose of the 2A was to ensure the population stayed armed in a USA where they were to BE the army. We have subverted that by having a standing army that covers all areas of operations. There is a balance to be had, because individuals cannot afford to build modern equipment (aircraft carriers are expensive!), nor can they learn to use it on short notice. The military could be reformed to something closer to the system when the country was founded, but there is too much money and fear involved for anyone to allow that to happen. Eisenhower knew what he was talking about when he warned about the military-industrial complex. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

I don't get it

[S810]

Why would people be opposed to the possibility of buying a gun that limits the user base to a single person who can be identified by either a "watch" or a fingerprint? Personally I think the watch idea is terrible because someone could, feasibly, steal both the gun and the watch. Fingerprint scanners would be a much better solution for security of that firearm.

I wouldn't be opposed to some form of DNA identification either, but I am one of those people who is okay with the NSA snooping my texts, emails and phone calls... Why, you may ask? Because I am not doing or planning on doing anything illegal with my email, texts or phone calls.

Bring it on!

Just my 2 cents.

Re:I don't get it

[mosb1000]

I'm driving over to Gander Mountain first to grab a gun!

Do you think it might be easier for someone to disarm the public if all their guns are consolidated like that?

Re:Gun nuts

[AthanasiusKircher]

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Precisely where in the 2nd Amendment does it say anything about "self-defense"? It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As many have argued, the first clauses set up only one possible justification, so the last clause just says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So, where's the "self-defense" language?

There are only a very few obvious prohibitions, namely against convicted felons and those declared mentally incompetent or ill.

Where are these in the 2nd amendment? I don't see them. It says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I don't see any, "unless they've gone looney or have previously committed a felony."

(Note: I am not arguing we should give guns to the mentally ill or felons -- I'm saying that the only place these "obvious prohibitions" are found is in court rulings and judicial interpretation, not in the original language.)

Meanwhile, there are people in the US who fear the things so much, they want to restrict who can and cannot have a firearm, and wish to dictate under what conditions they are possessed.

Hmm... sounds like you already agree we should to just that. "Self-defense"? Good. "Militia" or "security of a free state"? Meh. Felons and mentally ill? Bad.

In other words, you seem unconcerned about the little language in the amendment given to guide its primary purpose, but you make up your own conditions for why guns should be possessed, along with deciding who can and cannot have them.

Well... except you're not doing it, as much as courts have done it, in their process of interpreting the meaning of the Constitution.

There is a route by which this can be accomplished, but it would require amending the US Constitution, which is notoriously hard to do (as it should be - capricious changes are painful, to say the least.) Any other route (including most attempts at federal "gun control" laws) is a circumvention of this process

And yet you cited a number of instances of "obvious prohibitions" that you seemingly think don't require amending the Constitution. Were they too a "circumvention" of the proper Constitutional process?

How do we know?

Re:Gun nuts

[khasim]

all I'm saying is would somebody reasonable stand up so we can have a reasonable conversation.

And which of the "gun nuts" that you identified would meet your criteria for "somebody reasonable"?

Almost EVERYONE thinks that their beliefs are "reasonable" (and correct).

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Many criminals try not to escalate their charges if they don't have to. It's why retail employees are trained to just hand over the money and let insurance deal with it, instead of fighting back. Of course, this doesn't work when you have a macho "tough-on-crime" politician make the penalty for theft and the penalty for murder near indistinguishable.

Re:Gun nuts

[jimbolauski]

If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.) However, please do not try to impose such things across the whole nation. There is no "reasonable" restriction in the eyes of those who wish to promulgate these laws, save for complete abolition.

Chicago and DC's gun ban laws have been struck down by the supreme court. The 10th amendment stops states and cities from enacting laws that violate the constitution. If people wanted to create a community with no guns they would need to do it on private land, violation would be a civil matter.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns aren't banned in NYC. Just very heavily regulated and restricted. Unless you can provide a very good reason, you will not be able to get a license to carry.
You can get a Restricted Premises-only License which lets you keep a gun in your home, but transporting it anywhere else requires it be stored in a lockbox.

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

Because many people prefer the risk of it being stolen or being disarmed in the middle of a scuffle, than to have those risks, plus the additional risk of the weapon refusing to fire due to some hard to resolve technical issue.

Fair enough. I imagine there are many people who would welcome such a feature. And if someone doesn't like the product or the idea of such a product, then don't buy one. In any case (and I'm not referring to you here, Whatshisname), IMHO there's certainly no reason to threaten the life of a *marketing drone* from the manufacturer over this.

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

How, exactly, does a flash suppressor "speak to the purpose of the weapon" in this case?

what's the purpose of a flash surpressor? Why would somebody buy one and install one on their weapon?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't say there should be a law against guns. It was more of a philosophical stance: Nobody who wants a gun should have one. I think you would agree that the criminals who robbed you at gunpoint should not have had guns. To want a gun is in a way proof that you're unfit to have one. The problem isn't that guns exist. The problem is that there are so many people who want to have guns.

Re:Gun nuts

[FuzzMaster]

. . . nor was it referring to anything but 1-shot muskets.

Nor did the founders anticipate digital media, yet the 1st Amendment protects speech on the Internet. Are you suggesting that only the technology available at the time the Constitution was written should be protected?

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Tuidjy]

If I thought that I needed a gun at home, I would have a good, reliable gun. (It would probably be a newer CZ with a similar grip to my old one - not that there aren't better guns, but because familiarity is more important that subtle differences in performance)

If I didn't think I need a gun at home, I'd have no gun at home. (Which is the case right now)

In no case would I have an expensive, gimmicky contraption like the iP1 at home, nor I would I recommend anyone gets it - I do not think that the watch is any more useful a control than a key for the trigger lock, and kids have defeated these to shoot themselves before.

This said, feel free to get one, and feel good about it. Chances are, you will benefit from the positive emotions, and will never be harmed from the decreased reliability.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

However - I would argue that said "militia" is NOT well-regulated since 99% of the people I know have no clue about the Militia Acts of 1792 (or 1903 - which superceded it and created the National Guard). If they don't know they're included - they can hardly be called "well-regulated", eh?

So that sorta blows that "we're all part of a militia - so we can all have all the firearms we want" argument away...

I will admit - I *AM* a firearm owner in the United States. I *WOULD* consider a smartweapon that safed itself if more than a foot away from me.
Why? Simple - statisitics.

In EVERY case, save one, having the weapon disabled if it is more than a foot from me is valuable.
1) Weapon is stolen from my house/car/boat/gymbag whatever while i am not present, but I am wearing the security device. Weapon is effectively valueless without the security device - so I win.
2) Someone other than me "plays" with the weapon without my knowledge. Weapon is safed - I win.
3) I posess the weapon but relieved of it due to tactical necessity/it being wrestled away from my hands/etc -if the unlock device is over a foot away - that gun doesn't work, possibly giving me a chance to do something else. Hmm - still sounds like a win.
3) The ONLY negative case I can think of is if my wife has/needs the weapon and I have the security device. And that may be resolvable with either two weapons, or if the system is at all programmable - two unlock devices....

The ONLY time having this device is a liability is if it DOESN'T eanble the gun some time I need it, right? Well that's what a good testing and maintenance plan is for. Hell - NORMAL guns can have issues if they are not maintained - I've personally SEEN busted safeties prevent a gun from firing. *shrug*

Re:Gun nuts

[sjames]

Technically, the prohibition on yelling fire in a movie theater and death threats is not due to tyhe speech but the effect of causing (respectively) a panic likely to hurt or kill people or placing someone in fear for their well being.

But not the 'free speech zones' placed well away from anyone who might listen.

Re:Gun nuts

[AthanasiusKircher]

Many people focus on the last two phrases in that sentence. Not so much attention is focused on the first two phrases, but IMO they're just as important as the last two. Keeping and bearing Arms is a right ... but it's a right, a power that comes with a hefty dose of responsibility (to be "well regulated") as well.

Let's change the language of the 2nd amendment you quoted to an issue that's less inflammatory:

A well educated Electorate, being necessary to the democratic function of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.

Okay. Suppose you read that. Are you seriously going to tell me that the only reason to let people read books is to vote properly? Let the government ban book ownership and readership for kids under 18 -- after all, they can't vote, so why should we let them read? If you aren't registered to vote, you are subject to raids of your home to remove all books. If you're not part of the "Electorate," why do you need them?

Or, if you read my altered version, would you conclude something more like: "The Founders thought it was important for all people to have the right to own and read books, and they particularly recognized how important it was to have an educated group of voters, so these books would facilitate that process. This wouldn't preclude other reasons for people to own and read books, only recognizing one of the most important ones."

Would that be a more fair interpretation?

A lot of people have arguments about what those first two clauses mean, and how they might restrict the last one. But I find my intuition about it is better if I actually change the topic to something else -- and in that case, it seems (to me) that the sentence is setting forth a general right, with the beginning providing one essential justification (though not necessarily implying it is the only one).

Let me try to put this in a way your simple mind m

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like mandatory locked bootloaders on ALL future hardware.

You must get the government's approval for ALL code you wish to run on any device.

Imagine that they make it mandatory to have breathalyzer key locks on all cars in the future. Sounds good, right? Even people who have never taken a single sip of alcohol in their life must blow into a sensor each time they want to start their car. That sounds like a brilliant idea right up to the point where we all know that technology has a propensity to break down. The one time your wife is in labor and needs you to drive her to the hospital, your car decides not to start just because the sensor is dead.

The stupidest part about this gun is that anyone who knows anything about wireless transmissions should immediately think of jamming devices. You quite literally jam the gun with a tiny device on your keychain.

This means a home invader just keeps a conventional gun (even if they're illegal because why do they care?) with them, then jams the transmission between the watch and your gun, and you're dead.

The police state agents disable all innocent citizens' guns when they come to round us all up into concentration camps.

It may sound crazy now, but the people of Germany would probably have you institutionalized if you told them what was about to happen pre-WW2.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.
Flash suppressors are designed to reduce the flash to the shooter, not the target. It is ancillary that the targets view may also be reduced, but the design is concentrated on reduced flash to the shooter. This is so a shooter is not blinded by a flash during low light shooting, such as home defense situations (because the shooter would be closer to the flash than the target).
Try researching a topic you know nothing about before you babble on about it. Even a cursory wiki read would have shown you did not know what you were taking about.

"Contrary to popular belief, it is only a minor secondary benefit if a flash suppressor reduces the intensity of the flash visible to the enemy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_suppressor

Re:Gun nuts

[sjames]

The militia as the word was defined at the time meant every able bodied man. We might reasonably interpret that today as every able bodied person.

Well regulated meant well practiced. In other words, able to hit what they aim at.

Re:Gun nuts

[Penguinisto]

IIRC, actual and credible death threats are considered a felony, which would fulfill your wish in that regard.

Re:Gun nuts

[sjames]

Well regulated in the language if that time meant well practiced. An accurate watch might also be called well regulated.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have representatives. Only corporations and special interest groups do.

Our votes mean just about nothing. Maybe they actually mean LESS than nothing because we have the delusion that they DO mean something.

Our votes are a placebo.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

[Grishnakh]

What's really sad, however, is that your votes really do control who gets elected. There's no indication that the elections are actively rigged. If 60% of voters walk into the voting booths in a particular state and vote for some guy to be a Senator, for instance, that guy will become Senator for that state. The reason votes don't make a difference is because of everyone else: they listen to mainstream news, they vote for who the media tells them are the approved candidates, they listen to the various media groups (and there's different ones, with different agendas, but they all serve the corporations and special interests, which compete with each other just like Medieval fiefdoms did) and the lies or spin they use to control public opinion.

In a nutshell, the majority of the population is stupid and gullible, and because of this, it's possible to indirectly control the elections, to an extent, using information. So we wind up with two candidates on "opposing" parties (basically representing different alliances of special interests, though these alliances do frequently agree on many things such as foreign policy and screwing over the working class) to choose from, and neither of them really representing the working class at all.

Re:Gun nuts

[Stickerboy]

There are commonly used legal/medical avenues to declare a person unfit to make life-changing decisions for themselves, to declare guardianship by others, and to likewise screen out those that are a danger to themselves and others.

How else do you think there's a legal basis for taking away grandma's car keys when her driving is a danger to everyone else on the road?

As a gun owner, I would welcome having to take a screening along with my weapons safety and firearm training classes. Especially if it meant some of the loons out there would be weeded out from gun ownership.

Yes they are confiscating and banning guns.

[Anonymous Coward]

Try living in New York, Massachusetts or several other places where restrictive gun laws have been passed. Confiscating guns and making all sorts of makes and models illegal is exactly what they have done. Oh sure they are "grandfathering" in some weapons, but if you let your license lapse or for whatever reason that gun in your closet that your grandfather bought legally or your father earned in the service of his country now makes you a felon. Congratulations, anti-gun nuts have made your grandma a felon.

Re:Gun nuts

[jedidiah]

This is no "slight" reason. This is something that can be perverted into effectively nullifying the 2nd Amendment much in the same way that the DMCA erodes personal property rights.

The problem with any of these "gun control" measures is that you always have the cops as a ready reserve of civilians with access to firearms. The industry will need to remain in place to service them and there will be plenty of stock left to fall off the back of trucks.

"Smart Guns" are fine so long as it's the soldiers and cops first.

When such a gun is good enough for a cop or solider, then it's good enough for a citizen.

Otherwise it's a technological end run around individual rights.

Fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single vehicle proximity key has a mechanical alternative built into it.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

The second amendment refers to a collective "right of the people", not of individuals. This collective right is to be exerted through "a well regulated Militia". The second amendment says nothing about private gun ownership, or about whether guns should be allowed anywhere outside a Militia.

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

but none of the amendments are absolutes. free speech is good, subject to limitatations. I don't want my kids to be at school where everybody else is armed.

Re:Gun nuts

[Bartles]

Not sure if you're American or not, so I'll try to explain:

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

In reality, the 2nd Amendment says nothing whatsoever about self-defense. It just says that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and it shall not be infringed, period. That's an extremely important distinction.

Clingey

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are the gun-nuts afraid? Haven't they got their guns to cling to?

Re:Gun nuts

[amiga3D]

They started twisting the 2nd Amendment to mean what they wanted it to mean and now are working on others such as the 4th and 1st which are more popular rights to the left leaning crowd. They didn't give a shit when they were perverting the protection of the 2nd but now I think they begin to see the light with the further attacks on civlil liberties in the last decade or so. If you don't protect the entire document you weaken the entire document. If you like your freedoms it means you have to protect mine as well.

Re:The safety is on

[Whorhay]

Not all safeties are like what you imagine. Most Glock models have several safeties but they are all of the variety that prevent accidental discharge when the gun is dropped or something. There are no safeties that I am aware of for Glocks that prevent the gun from firing if you pull the trigger.

Re:Gun nuts

[Bartles]

No, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infinged.

Re:Gun nuts

[khasim]

what's the purpose of a flash surpressor? Why would somebody buy one and install one on their weapon?

Well, according to YOU it is because:

Here's the fact: the purpose of these "cosmetic features" you mention is to make the gun good at harming other people.

So, specifically, how does a flash suppressor accomplish that?

I have to disagree with your assessment about "cosmetic". It speaks to the purpose of the weapon.

Again, specifically, how does a flash suppressor accomplish that?

And don't bother replying with another question.

Re:Gun nuts

[bigpat]

The meaning of a "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment is that it is necessary to have a well regulated militia... and the only way that the people can effectively regulate that militia is by being armed themselves. The argument of the day was whether to even allow for a standing army at all. The red coats were seen as a bunch of free loading thugs who could show up at your house armed and demand that you give them shelter and feed them. It was a compromise to recognize the necessity of having militias for the common defense, but that to regulate a group of armed men would require that people themselves also be armed.

The second amendment isn't about arming a militia, the second amendment is about balance of power. A right of the people to bear arms is about balancing the need to live in a peaceful society with the needs of the individuals to defend themselves, their property and their families.

Would the same backlash happen against a man?

[Ameryll]

Given the way the internet reacts to women saying things they don't like about video games and coding I wonder if a man had invented this instead of a woman would someone still have decided to retaliate against him by posting his personal information on line for people to give them trouble? Independent of whether the idea is a good one or not.

Re:Would the same backlash happen against a man?

[thejynxed]

Actually, yes, and with the gun crowd, they've been known to show up on front porches and ringing doorbells (and to do everything they can to run you out of town and out of your job depending on where you live in the US).

While I support the right to bear arms, I also do not think certain types of firearms (I am looking at you, AR-15s, AK-47s, etc) belong in the hands of your average citizen, as our fellow citizens have proven time and again that they can't be trusted to own and operate them responsibly.

Re:Gun nuts

[pr0fessor]

More than 50% gun related deaths are do to suicide at least according to the CDC and so removing guns is likely to save less than half the total gun deaths.

Now I don't own any guns but I see some flaws already with this one.

It's a short barrel .22 very inaccurate and very short range and dangerous. You would likely be better off defending yourself with a baseball bat. {FYI I own a baseball bat and if I hear any funny noises at night I take it with me to investigate}

Most people don't wear watches on their dominant wrist because they are more likely to bump it into things and break the watch. If for some reason you were to fire this one handed {and being a .22 you might} then when you drop your non-dominant hand the gun locks.

Re:no constitutional right

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, one significant difference which people don't tend to get is that there's no constitutional right to drive an automobile, especially on public roadways.

Sure there is. It's in the Ninth and Tenth amendments.

The definition of a right, which people don't tend to get, is that a right is something that can be limited, but only for a good reason, and only for a limited scope related to that reason.

Now ask me why in the 21st century driving is a right.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's such a good idea why isn't the armed forces using it? Clearly a technical malfunction could never put someone's life at risk...

Magazine safeties are for "unloaded" guns

[Animats]

The technology in question is the "magazine safety". It blocks the trigger press unless a magazine is fully inserted.

A magazine safety isn't for "gun grab" protection. It's to prevent a supposedly unloaded weapon from firing when there's still a round in the chamber. California requires it on new handguns. Prevents the "But I didn't know it was loaded" problem.

The U.S. Army often puts a barrel of sand outside mess halls and such in war zones. Entering the area, soldiers must unload their weapon, then try to fire it into the sand barrel. For a large mess hall, about once a day, on average, "bang".

When Col. Dave Hackworth was working on the Army's project to replace the 1911A1, he discovered that, over the Army's history of that weapon, it had killed more US troops through accidents than enemy. Sidearms are carried by troops who don't plan to use them. If you expect to need a weapon, you take something bigger. So the Army really wants sidearms that don't go off by accident.

Re:Magazine safeties are for "unloaded" guns

[Anonymous Coward]

It's usable for both. You should get to a few advanced self defense with gun classes. You'll learn something.

Re:Magazine safeties are for "unloaded" guns

[Shakrai]

A magazine safety isn't for "gun grab" protection. It's to prevent a supposedly unloaded weapon from firing when there's still a round in the chamber.

It also negates your ability to do a tactical reload while keeping the firearm functional, which is why no sane police department issues firearms with magazine safeties. Nor should any civilian shopping for a self-defense firearm consider one. On a range or hunting toy it's not a big deal, but there's no place for a magazine safety on a self defense weapon. The action of checking the chamber is not rocket science and no amount of technology is going to make up for poor gun handling.

When Col. Dave Hackworth was working on the Army's project to replace the 1911A1, he discovered that, over the Army's history of that weapon, it had killed more US troops through accidents than enemy.

I'm calling bullshit on that unless you have a citation. The M1911 went through two World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, and is still used by a handful of military units today. It went through all that but has claimed more accidental deaths than enemy KIAs? That strains credibility. More to the point, the M9 is no safer than the M1911 with regards to negligent discharges. Both have manual safeties. Both go boom if you disengage that safety and squeeze the trigger.

Sidearms are carried by troops who don't plan to use them.

They were used plenty in the aforementioned conflicts. In WW1 they were the preferred weapon when clearing enemy trenches. Which would you prefer when clearing a trench? A semi-automatic pistol that's easy to handle in tight quarters or a large bolt action rifle? A shotgun would be the ideal weapon of course, and we did use them, but they weren't issued as widely as the M1911.

Pistols are primarily a sidearm in this day and age, particularly as carbines have become the weapon of choice (pistols aren't even standard issue in most of the military these days, not even for most officers) but they still have a place on the battlefield. And at home for that matter, police and civilian CCW'ers find it rather hard to tote an AR-15 around with the same ease as a service pistol.

Re:Magazine safeties are for "unloaded" guns

[Animats]

I'm calling bullshit on that unless you have a citation.

It's in his autobiography, "About Face".

Re:Magazine safeties are for "unloaded" guns

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. Army often puts a barrel of sand outside mess halls and such in war zones. Entering the area, soldiers must unload their weapon, then try to fire it into the sand barrel. For a large mess hall, about once a day, on average, "bang".

Only an idiot/badly trained Soldier actually fires their weapon into a clearing barrel. Properly clearing a weapon involves visually inspecting the chamber. Yes, someone somewhere along the way thought it was a good idea to actually dry fire it and the stupidity just spread on its own (see this blog post).

I would also dispute your "once a day" statistic. There are some 'special' Soldiers out there, but weapons aren't carried with a chambered round on a FOB, and they get cleared at ECPs (i.e.: the gate) when coming back from outside the wire (where obviously rounds are chambered).

Re:Magazine safeties are for "unloaded" guns

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. Army often puts a barrel of sand outside mess halls and such in war zones. Entering the area, soldiers must unload their weapon, then try to fire it into the sand barrel. For a large mess hall, about once a day, on average, "bang".

Charge them with unauthorized discharge of a firearm. A few weeks in army jail should sort them out!

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

My point is, it is perfectly rational to fear gun owners for the increased risks they bring to my personal safety.

Do you fear Benjamin Franklin and his work with the electric fluid?

Because calling your utility company and having your power turned off because you fear accidental electrocution is about the same level of "rational" fear.

Re:Gun nuts

[jedidiah]

You are engaging in nothing more than infantile trolling crudely disguised as something more thoughtful. Your remarks are a great example of the smug psuedo-intellectual.

Re:Gun nuts

[andydread]

"guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense" - Bullshit. The language doesn't say that at all, it says a regulated MILITIA.

It's since been INTERPRETED to mean "each American individually" but the 2nd Amendment does NOT say that explicitly, nor was it referring to anything but 1-shot muskets.

arms also means explosives and cannons and pistols. not just rifles.. Seems you are quite ignorant of weaponry and arms.

Re:Gun nuts

[harrkev]

It is NOT paranoia if they really are out to get you. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. First, you ban large magazines. Another shooting, Then, you ban all semi-auto firearms. Another shooting. Time to ban them all! This is a slight exaggeration, but my point still stands.

We once tried limiting magazine sizes. Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, and it expired after 10 years. Sandy Hook happened DURING this ban. Did crime suddenly drop after the ban? No. Once the ban expired, did crime suddenly shoot back up? Once again, no. So, if a law had NO real effect, why try to do it again? Give me ONE good reason that can be backed up with statistics.

Another popular item is to try to ban guns based on features. How stupid is that? If somebody is shooting at me, I would worry more about the bullets and less about what shape or color the gun is. Simply stated, all semi-auto guns are designed to shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. The ONLY thing else that matters is the magazine size. SO, if it is straight and the furniture is make of wood, OK. If it is black and plastic, bad. Tell me how that makes sense. Some people even wanted to ban any gun with an "upper gas tube." Really? During an actual shooting, how is the location of the gas tube supposed to change things?

Another thing that I love is "universal background checks." Sounds like a great idea, right? I live in Colorado, where we had major wild fires about a year ago, and we require "universal background checks." They cost $10, and it is hard to find a dealer who will do a background check without a sale. So, people had their houses burn down, so they took their guns. Could they leave them with a friend? Nope, not without a LOT of trouble. Since a gun safe is pretty big and hard to move when you are evacuating, I guess your only choice it to take the guns with you to the hotel (along with your kids, who now have easier access to your guns), or break the law by leaving them with a trusted friend. Nice job, government.

Now, the VAST MAJORITY of gun crimes only involve a few shots (if I recall correctly, about two shots is the average). Would a magazine limit make much of a difference in those cases? Now, how about mass shootings (which are statistically rare - you are about as likely to be hit by lightning as to be a victim of a mass shooting). Could restricting the rights of EVERY PERSON IN AMERICA make a difference in a statistically rare situation? Well, the Aurora theater shooter had his 100-round magazine jam after about 45 rounds. That is apparently not uncommon. If he had five 20-round magazines, or even ten 10-round magazines, he would have probably done more damage since a jam would be less likely. With practice, it only takes about two seconds to change magazines.

Gun laws often make no sense and might actually harm innovation. The law makes a clear distinction between a handgun and a long-gun. During WW2, it was not uncommon to have pistols with separate detachable shoulder stocks (collectors items from what I understand). If you tried doing that today, you would have a "short barreled rifle" which will get you years in Club Fed. If you put a shoulder stock on a pistol, is it suddenly more dangerous? If so, how? So, how does this law make any sense at all? I have yet to hear a single good reason how this law makes anybody any safer, and it has certainly made certain classes if firearm and accessories illegal, stifling innovation.

Which gun laws do you think will actually be obeyed by criminals. I have done nothing illegal (other than speeding). I am an honest citizen. Please explain to me how restricting my rights makes anybody else any safer..... Please..... I have not heard any good reasons yet. You can pass laws to try to stop criminals, but criminals do not obey laws? The point of a law is to define behavior that is considered bad, and to use to apply punishment to people who break the law. The law is remarkable bad at stopping people from doing

Re:Gun nuts

[mpoulton]

A weapon intended for target practice, sport, or self defense has absolutely no need for a flash suppressor. This type of "feature" is intended for covert use of the weapon, which I'd argue falls under what most would categorize as an assault weapon.

Aside from your apparent lack of knowledge about what different types of weapons and accessories are used for, your general premise is mostly correct. Flash suppressors are more useful in actual combat than in most other situations. That type of use is exactly what the Second Amendment explicitly protects. Target practice, sport, hunting, and defense from crime are merely secondary byproducts of having a "well regulated"* militia.

* "regulated" meant "equipped" at the time it was written - see DC v. Heller for a detailed analysis.

Yes, it would. Yes, it did.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Internet recently got Mozilla's CEO (a man) fired (ok fine, he stepped down) over him donating to a cause they didn't like years ago.

The Internet is equal opportunity hater. Enjoy your stay.

Re:Gun nuts

[harrkev]

I see no problem with that. Now the criminals know which houses to stay away from. If you want to steal and/or rape, avoid the houses with guns.

I would expect the lefties to be complaining about this, since they are probably sad that their name is NOT on the list. ;-P

More likely

[DarthVain]

They were probably just offended about how ugly the watch is.

They should have made it a stylish watch you can wear every day, and have several styles. Where it is an awesome watch that just happens to also unlock your gun.

As it is, it is an ugly watch you only wear when you want to shoot your gun, which mean's 99% of owners will actually store it with their gun.
    A) Making it absolutely pointless.
    B) Unless they shoot a lot, maybe a dead battery, making it also pretty pointless.

So bling it up already! :) (Seriously I've seen calculator watches from the 90's that looked better than that)

It is the kind of attention they deserve

[tommyk3000]

What is the point of such a gun anyway?

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

cmon man. I don't own a gun, let alone one with a flash surpressor. I don't know why somebody would buy a flash surpressor. nor do I know why somebody would want to own WMDs. perhaps a flash surpressor owner can chime in with why they own one.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

It talks about Well regulated milita , which implies some kind of organization and leadership

Protip: The phrase 'well regulated', as per the second amendment, has absolutely nothing to do with laws, rules, regulations or structured organization of a militia.

Sorry, you can't apply 21st century definitions to late 17th century documents while ignoring context.

But I somehow suspect you already knew that.

Re:Gun nuts

[Cederic]

and what evidence do you have that the person even owns a gun?

Why is evidence required? The challenge is whether they should be trusted with a gun; their current status is immaterial until you choose to act on that level of trust.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it's not an on the books ban. But it's a ban in all but name only.

Re: Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

And maybe not -- shivers

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Washington just happened to have a Rye distillery that was magically exempt from the whiskey tax.

Self Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Telling a law abiding person that you need to take away their gun for the safety of society raises the same red flags as telling someone that they have to leave their doors unlocked. And it should. We do not live in a perfectly peaceful society. We live in a society where people want to kill us, they want to rape us or our children, they want to take our stuff and enslave us. And for tens of thousands of people in this country alone, this is their experience. I understand people wanting to feel safer, that is what motivates gun owners and that is what motivated the founding father's when they adopted the second amendment. If you want to live in a safer society let people keep their guns and encourage them to keep them locked up until the day they need them. Because telling them they don't need guns is going to be seen for the transparent self deluded lie that it is and that lie will just hasten mistrust and division in society and will itself lead to greater violence. Feeling safer is your right, feeling safe is delusional.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Fire control groups are fairly simple mechanical devices and are user serviceable. The gun will not be useless for long because - like any DRM - the 'smarts' will be sidestepped (could be a simple shortcircuit to 'always on' or a complete replacement of the complex electro-mechanical system to the simpler mechanical fire control group). Rights access management cannot work when the user has full access to the system. I don't understand why an audience that understands the futility of DRM would endorse this analagous stupidity. Increasing system complexity will likely degrade trigger performance as well; single action triggers are crisper than double action only triggers, which in turn are at least more consistent than the single action / double action options. The 'single action only' system is much crisper than the single action mode of a single action/double action system.

I'd just say 'don't buy it' but the countdown laws are what annoy me. Note gun control laws always exempt law enforcement. This is infuriating because I should have access to the same hardware cops have. They only patrol my neighborhood. I have to live there. If cops need it, then so do I; if I can do without, then so can the police. Before the 'highly trained professionals' comments, most department quals are minimal and most cops never need to draw their service weapon.

Re:Gun nuts

[Cederic]

Not at all. Nobody is forcing them to buy one. Nobody is forcing them to give back the guns they already own. Nobody is preventing them from buying a different make or model.

I see no threat at all, unless you're worried that you wont be able to disarm the owner of an iP1 and use their weapon against them. That's not really the sort of threat I tend to worry about.

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

If it's such a good idea why aren't the armed forces using it?

I have no idea. Hence my question. I guess your reading comprehension skills are right up there with your subject/verb agreement skills, eh? Oh, and FTFY. You're welcome.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[stoploss]

Serious question though, should people be allowed to privately own tanks with live shells? Where is the line drawn between allowing people to own dangerous items and items being too dangerous to be allowed widespread private ownership due to the potential on infringing on others' right to life?

I suspect you are trolling, but in the interest of rational debate I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

From a historical basis, the Constitution authorizes letters of marque and reprisal (Article I, section 8), which reinforces the notion that the framers were comfortable with the concept of heavy weaponry in private hands. Letters of marque, of course, were the basis that distinguished a warship owner as a privateer rather than a pirate. So... the founders were comfortable with private ownership of warships and cannons. Tanks with live shells can do less damage than a warship with rows of cannons, so I'm going to use logical induction to say they would consider that acceptable as well. Suffice it to say, I don't believe it's legitimate to infringe upon the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear modern firearms.

Practically speaking, though, the tank thing really isn't an issue. A modern battle tank costs millions, and I'm guessing the shells are in the tens of thousands, and the fuel for an M1 Abrams is quite expensive (it gets ~0.6 mpg). What would allowing private ownership of this tank do to threaten peace, in your opinion?

Besides, if someone *really* wants to inflict mayhem, they will build a Killdozer.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Good then fuck off and go live in your noguns urban utopia. I'm sure you'll enjoy all the cultural enrichment you'll receive.

Re:Gun nuts

[denmarkw00t]

I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans

Seems like a threat to me - I'm not sure how else you level someone's life, than with violence. I'm not sure what else that could mean other than the person posting that comment intends to hurt harm else.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you are ready to stand up against the unconstitutional bullshit that I shouldn't have a fully automatic weapon or a rocket launcher? I mean you seem to think that having firearms are for military service to the country so they aught to be battlefield effective armaments.

Re:Gun nuts

[DaHat]

The only solution is to make guns cease to exist. Were that possible and were it going to be done, I wouldn't mind, one bit, giving up my gun.

And if wishes were horses beggars would ride, if turnips were bayonets I would wear one by my side.

Good luck with your impossible dreams.

Re:Gun nuts

[dyslexicbunny]

I read that report when it came out. Those safes look like cheapest of the cheap. That doesn't make their failures excusable but they certainly shouldn't be advertised as safes.

Trigger locks work fine. As does a higher quality safe. Will they stop the most determined of individuals? No but it's enough to stop young children.

Gun nut stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun nut logic applied in other fields.

I don't like amazon's TV box => Mr. Bezos must be 'leveled'.

You don't like the product? Don't buy it. It is a free country, right, dimwits?

Re:Gun nuts

[harrkev]

Of course not, which is why next to nobody does fear everybody that owns a gun. How does it get lost on so many people that saying "I support stricter gun control" doesn't mean "I fear everybody that owns a gun and I want the government to take them all away?"

Well, it either means "I fear everybody" or "I have not actually bothered to check the statistics."

Lots of people hold up Australia. Gun deaths are way down! Too bad deaths from stabbings and beatings are way up. Murders in Australia are down a *little* since they made it very hard to own a gun. However, violent crime overall went up by 40% down there.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

"well regulated" means "in proper working order". It does not mean "under the organization, leadership, and orders of the government".

see Constitution

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

I take it that you don't own any guns either but wish you did.

Re:Gun nuts

[nortcele]

Well said. It seems that the same folks that use fear to back their argument against civilian gun ownership are the same ones using fear to back other issues (climate change, etc). They unwittingly advocate a police state while the "gun nuts" are actually the protection from a police state. Perhaps in order to get proper gun training, we're going to have to mandate 1-2 years mandatory military service. Now just who do you think would be the ones complaining about that?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

My point is, it is perfectly rational to fear gun owners for the increased risks they bring to my personal safety. While I am most afraid of those who fall into group 5, all gun owners represent an increased risk to my safety.

as do all car owners.

Re:Gun nuts

[internerdj]

"And if someone doesn't like the product or the idea of such a product, then don't buy one." Except that this technology is unproven and there are already attempts to legislate forcing it on gun owners. Although, even if it were actual law it wouldn't justify threatening anyone from the manufacturer.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel like you don't know any gun owners.

Re:Gun nuts

[DaHat]

And if someone doesn't like the product or the idea of such a product, then don't buy one.

The issue is that some states have pushed for laws which would require this kind of technology on new guns, and require older firearms to be fitted with such a scheme.

Self-Professed 'Gun Nut' (fairly moderate though)

[Firethorn]

I don't agree with everything you said, so here's my comments.

Meanwhile, there are people in the US who fear the things so much, they want to restrict who can and cannot have a firearm, and wish to dictate under what conditions they are possessed.

True. These types tend to fixate upon 'gun crime', and worse tend to give us the perception that they're willfully ignorant. They want to ban 'assault weapons', IE scary looking semi-automatic rifles when 72% of firearm murders are by handguns. Shotguns are normally used in more murders than *ALL* rifles. They want to ban .50BMG, used in approximately ZERO murders or crimes(Each round costing ~$20 and fired from a rifle that can't be shot unsupported and is normally 5+ feet long might have something to do with that...). They want to ban high capacity magazines when the average number of shots fired in a confrontation with a semi-automatic is 3.5(2.5 out of revolvers). Etc...

The general consensus is that gun-grabbers are doing the same things that conservative anti-abortion types are trying: Make guns so expensive and such a hassle that most don't bother. We don't like that.

If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.)

I'll note that their gun bans have been shot down by the Supreme Court recently.

Personally, I'm all for allowing the sale of Biometric/fire control firearms. I'm just scared of the prospect of states and other jurisdictions *REQUIRING* them before they're well enough developed that the police are willing to use them. Nearly 5% of 'feloniously killed' were killed by their own weapon over the last 10 years. (25 out of 535). Despite this, even in states where they support the most gun control, the police will lobby to the hilt to exempt themselves from any such requirements.

Honestly enough, my figuring:
1. "Smart Guns" will not stop their use for suicide by authorized users. (~19k suicides by firearm; 14k murders by all methods; 69% firearm)
2. SG will not stop criminal action by authorized users
3. Smart Guns will not hold against being reset/modified to remove the function if stolen.
4. I hear more about guns being taken from criminals than citizens trying to use them to defend themselves from criminals.

In short, until they've proven themselves reliable enough for police use where professional armorer support is available for maintenance, I don't think they're ready for private use either.

I don't get it

[denmarkw00t]

I see arguments about what the 2nd Amendment "really" says all over this page; people talking about how their guns are going to be stripped away; how any law-abiding citizen has a right to own a firearm. Where are we really disagreeing here, people?

You want a gun? Fine: pass a background check. Have a history of 1) violent crime or 2) attempts to harm yourself or others due to mental illness? Then maybe you should consider something other than a gun for protection, and maybe the state should enforce that for you. You want an assault rifle for hunting? Hunting what, exactly? Well-armored bears who are currently stealing your children?

Legitimate uses for guns owned by citizens fall into either hunting, or self defense. Other than that, it's fun to go to a shooting range sure, but that's arguably practice for the aforementioned tasks. If you need an assault rifle for militia-type purposes, maybe you need to have those kept somewhere safe. "Geez, we all banded together in our community and have decided to fight oppression from the government, but I'll be damned if I'm driving over to Gander Mountain first to grab a gun!"

Re:Gun nuts

[qbast]

You can own a tank, they're just expensive, and the main cannon will be disabled if it is over 50 caliber (which they all are). They tend to disable it by setting concrete in the barrel. Seems the USSR left overs are still the easiest/cheapest to get, and there are companies that specialize in importing them. You'll be spending several hundred thousand dollars.

I don't want one with disabled main cannon. We are talking about weapons here, not fancy transportation.

You can purchase old fighter jets, they're also very expensive, and their use requires a pilot's license.

Fully armed?

SAMs are less expensive but still cost a lot (FIM-92 Stinger unit cost is $40k), and those you cannot purchase.

Exactly. So my right to bear arms IS being infringed upon.

You CAN ATF form 1 an explosive device (pay a $200 tax stamp to legally make a grenade for example, someone has done this already), and you could in theory attach that to a propulsion device of some sort and produce something extremely inadequate compared to a modern SAM. Sarin gas is outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of which the USA is a signatory, but a person with knowledge of chemistry could create a variety of toxic chemicals if they desired. Simple elemental Chlorine alone is quite deadly.

Does international treaty come before constitutional amendments?

You don't find 2A supporters rallying for the ability to purchase those things because they're not murderers. They are interested in defending their lives, family, and property, and they don't find those things to be useful in pursuit of that goal.

Are you saying that everybody who wants fully-functional tank is a murdered? Ha, so you are just anti (big) gun leftist in disguise!
I just want to organize a shooting competition. With 120mm tank guns it would be a lot of fun.

The key thing here is the purpose of the 2A was to ensure the population stayed armed in a USA where they were to BE the army. We have subverted that by having a standing army that covers all areas of operations. There is a balance to be had, because individuals cannot afford to build modern equipment (aircraft carriers are expensive!), nor can they learn to use it on short notice. The military could be reformed to something closer to the system when the country was founded, but there is too much money and fear involved for anyone to allow that to happen. Eisenhower knew what he was talking about when he warned about the military-industrial complex. http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

Times change - untrained militia cannot replace jet pilots, tankers, submarine crew, etc. What made sense 200 years ago is quite obsolete now.

Re:Gun nuts

[DaHat]

Nobody is forcing them to buy one. Nobody is forcing them to give back the guns they already own. Nobody is preventing them from buying a different make or model.

Today at least, New Jersey already has one such law on the books which has yet to go into effect... something that you would have noticed if you look at the summary of this article... which linked to a previous /. article: http://tech-beta.slashdot.org/...

Re:Gun nuts

[Ksevio]

Wrong, and here's why:..

Those aren't really extreme points. Yet you're still arguing that he's wrong. Obviously in a house without a gun, there is a 0% chance of being shot by the owner's (non-existent) gun. Are you saying there's also a 0% chance in a house with a gun? Because in that case you're the one that's wrong. Gun statistics are often hard to come by because the NRA tries to de-fund any organization that tries to collect them, but I'm pretty sure I've seen in the news cases where people have accidentally been shot by a gun in their own home, or accidentally shot someone else thinking they are an intruder. That brings the chance up to > 0%.

Guns are dangerous tools, designed to be dangerous and injure people. If you disagree, then you should DEFINITELY NOT be allowed to handle them because you'll probably end up killing someone. It's not comparable to automobiles that, while dangerous, are designed with safety in mind and useful for transporting people.

Use a gun for its intended purpose = someone ends up dead
Use a car for its intended purpose = someone ends up at the grocery store

Re:Gun nuts

[nabsltd]

The 2nd amendment qualifies that right with words about a "well regulated militia".

In the 1700s, "regulated" meant "smoothly functioning" or "accurate". For example, another name for the pendulum clock was a "regulator clock". With people, "regulated" would mean "trained" or "skilled".

Then, since "militia" meant "people who could be required to defend their country from tyrants, either as part of the army or as irregulars", which today would likely mean anybody who could conceivably be drafted, the whole phrase takes on a completely different meaning today.

With the rewrite into modern English, you get something like "since people who are trained well enough to be able to defend their country are necessary, and those people need access to the tools with which to become familiar with defense procedures, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Because this "smart" technology is unreliable and not something people want to trust their lives with when it matters. How about we have police and military start using these "smart" guns first to show everyone how great they are?

Re:Gun nuts

[Firethorn]

There is no restriction in place however on how easy or hard that should be.

"A well regulated milita being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Personally, using a plain english reading of this, I say that "shall not be infringed" places a bar on how hard the government can make it.

That being said, I'm mostly fine with felons & the mentally ill being barred from possessing firearms. Personally, the furthest I'd go would be some sort of 'gun transfer permit' that is essentially free, that you need to show in order to receive a firearm. No records necessary, it's for lending and selling, etc... You go to the range and want to rent a firearm? Show the permit. Going hunting with a buddy's firearm? Show the permit. Buying? Show the permit. Done. They can't use it to prove that you have firearms for confiscation purposes, and it makes for an easy method for private sellers to determine that you're an allowed person.

Right now there's a substantial group of individuals who won't sell any firearms out of their collection* to anybody without a CCW.

*IE They're NOT a dealer. They're probably selling weapon X in order to be able to afford weapon Y, and a private 'split the difference' sale gets them far more money than involving a dealer.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

I own guns and shoot for sport. I support individual rights to gun ownership. I also dislike the absolutist nature of gun nuts. There's a difference between owning and using guns, and being a gun nut.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

That could actually be read two ways, and you are choosing to read it in the more sinister way. Perhaps that is warranted, but not by anything I have seen.

I've seen no evidence anyone has harmed her or offered to harm her - and if I am wrong, if someone has done that, they should face consequences for that act. But what I do see is being done (and SHOULD be done) is that people are watching to see when she manages to get a distributor lined up, and informing said potential distributor of some context that might change their mind.

People are mad about this and have every right to be concerned.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't having a "smart" gun as described in TFS be a win/win for everyone? Gun owners can use their guns, but it someone steals it or disarms the gun owner, the gun is useless. Not sure why folks are complaining. Anyone want to enlighten me?

Butbutbut you might lose the watch! or it might break! or the batteries die! or you might not be wearing it when you are attacked! and then what will you do without a precious GUN??????

But seriously anything that isn't a tube, a sufficiently strong restraint behind the cartridge, and a pin directly attached to a sprung trigger is a heinous violation of the second amendment (by their interpretation). Never mind that guns malfunction all the time, any notion that you want to introduce any way to stop a gun from working is a non-starter. A gun (to them) has to be a tube that discharges a bullet when a little lever is pressed, and absolutely nothing more. (google "hillary hole" for an example of a perfectly reliable, completely safety-driven improvement to handguns that was roundly despised because it violated the "tube-bullet-trigger" rule).

Re:Gun nuts

[nabsltd]

Keeping and bearing Arms is a right ... but it's a right, a power that comes with a hefty dose of responsibility (to be "well regulated") as well.

If you don't let me own guns, how can I become "skilled in their use" (which is what "well regulated" means in that context)?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there are an abundance of people going around on the internet and in front of microphones saying, "I fear everybody that owns a gun and I want the government to take them all away?"

Re:Gun nuts

[DaHat]

Another thing about suicide: while many suicides are attempted, people who use guns in the attempt are far more likely to succeed than people using other methods. Taking pills, etc., allows time for regret and possibly calling a suicide hotline to be saved.

Such wonderful hypotheticals with so little reality.

Men on average in the US are 3-10x more successful at committing suicide than women.

It's not because women come to regret their decision sooner and call for help... it's because more often than not men use more effective and deterministic means to off themselves than women.

Re:Gun nuts

[jedidiah]

> Nothing like a heartfelt sermon from somebody who has likely never seen a gun in their life. ...or any kind of wildlife. That's quite a trick in American cities that can be populated by all kinds of interesting critters. It also doesn't take much to encounter even more menacing creatures just slightly outside of city limits.

You have to work pretty hard at going nowhere and doing nothing while being insulated from nature in order to be so ignorantly "cosmopolitan".

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

So much misinformation. Well regulated back then didn't mean oversight or control, it meant maintained in proper order, that is lubricated and cleaned!

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

The statist will go to any lengths to pervert the language to achieve his ends. Can we have just a little intellectual honesty here?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

If it had been a shooting, it's likely there would have been a lot more fatalities too.

So you only care about dead people? Not stabbed people?

How progressive!

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is your fear of a disarmed populace? After all you know who else wanted to have no gun owners in their country???!!!! amiright

Re:Gun nuts

[nabsltd]

As well as the meaning of the word "militia" during the time of the writing of the amendment.

Or "regulated".

Re:Gun nuts

[admiralh]

Stoking fear? Right. One of the biggest fears is that the government will outlaw guns. Far-fetched, right? Tell you what. Hop in your time machine to five years ago. Go to Chicago and try to legally buy a gun. Guess what? For the average person five years ago, legally buying a gun was practically impossible. IT is not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you.

Thank you for proving my argument about the gun-proponents stoking fear. They've certainly got you in a tizzy.

As to the NRA quote, is there anything unfactual out there? Yes, we live in a very safe country. The odds of any bad violence happening to any one person out there is relatively small (of course, this varies GREATLY by zip code). But dangers are out there. How much danger is enough for you to carry a gun? Only YOU can decide that. However, it is up to you, and should not be up to a politician to tell you "no." Simply stated, if something bad DOES happen to you, how long would it take for you to call 911 and expect help to arrive? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? Would that be fast enough?

You need some lessons on how to evaluate risk. The gun-proponents are big on the fallacy of "misleading vividness", and use this to stoke fear. It would be nice to have unbiased research, but thanks to Congress banning the CDC from researching gun violence in the mid-90s, we have no actual data.

For the record, I own guns (where I live, it would probably take 20 minutes for a sheriff to show up), but I do not carry one when I am away from home. But I have friends who do, and I respect their decision.

I personally would not want to be out with anyone who feels the need to carry a gun, because I don't know what might trigger this person to draw the weapon, and who knows who might eventually get shot. We are all human. We all make mistakes.

Re:Gun nuts

[harrkev]

We even have restrictions on free speech, even though the 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech...". It seems to me that my right to free speech is being "abridged" in that there's an effective ban on death threats, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc. And yet, I don't really see people going on about the death of the Constitution with respect to this aspect. Of course, I happen to think that death threats should *not* be protected under free speech just as I think gun laws should, in some way, be reformed, but I suppose that's my opinion and all...

OK. Let's treat the 1st amendment the way that a lot of people (apparently including you) want to treat the 2nd amendment.

Some people might hurt others by misusing words. We will define the word "fire" as an "assault word", so it is now completely banned. Do you want to use more innocent words and phrases, such as "Wankel rotary engine?" You need to go through a background check before you can use that phrase. Note that that word may still be banned in New York and Chicago.

We cannot allow people who speak too rapidly. From now on, you are only allowed to say 10 words at a time before stopping to take a breath.

Wait, you want to give your words to somebody else? They need to go through a background check before they can receive your words.

See, the 1st amendment is still safe and sound, but you are now protected from dangerous words by banning them, and you still have free speech, if you follow all the rules!

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Politically, abortion is still a talking-point, but realistically the issue is settled. It won't ever be illegal in the United States again.

Re:Gun nuts

[catmistake]

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense

That's a damned lie. The 2nd A. of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Only this Supreme Court, in 2008, changed 200 years of LAW to reinterpret the 2nd A. to mean what it NEVER DID, and WHAT THE FOUNDERS debated and DECIDED to leave out, namely, "self-defense" which is never once mentioned in the Constitition. And we know this because its in the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses.

Again... self-defense may be an inalianble right, but that right sure as shit never came from the 2nd Amendment.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

So glad you have the ability to see into alternate realities to assert what would have happened if things had been different. That's a valuable skill.

My god

[Richy_T]

I just scrolled down past 600 messages and not one I stopped at was worth reading.

Now, that is the Slashdot I know and love.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

If smart guns take off aka are federally mandated or at least by the biggest cites. We'll see two things. First there are a lot of Guns already in USA. What are they going to do about those?? Am guessing smart guns could come with special incompatible ammunition while making standard ammunition illegal. Two, if there enough of them people will make kits to convert them to regular guns. Especially, since 3D printers exist but am guessing some chinese 5 axis mill owner will make a more reliable kit. These parts will be used by people who steal the guns....

But why won't the smart gun work??? 1. Many people actively don't like watches or rings. 2. Someone will be killed after attempting to fire a smart gun w/o the watch/ring or they simply did have the gun charged. 3. Some kid will attempt to use one against a predator and it won't work.

Re:Gun nuts

[admiralh]

I need a license, registration, and insurance to drive a car.

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

"And if someone doesn't like the product or the idea of such a product, then don't buy one." Except that this technology is unproven and there are already attempts to legislate forcing it on gun owners. Although, even if it were actual law it wouldn't justify threatening anyone from the manufacturer.

Unproven technology or not, wouldn't it be the consumer to decide if they wish to purchase such a weapon? I'm just a dumb, non gun-owning city dweller, so I'm not very knowledgeable about such things, but even if a state (IIRC, NJ was mentioned in TFS, right?) tried to mandate that new guns sold there must use such a technology, couldn't I just buy a used gun in NJ, or go to another state (NY, CT, PA, DE, etc) that doesn't have such a law and buy a new "dumb" gun?

FWIW, It seems to me that this is something of a tempest in a teapot Just sayin'.

Somebody ought to kill you

[jp_831]

Since you don't respond to dialectic, I think you should be killed. If members of your immediate family are the same way, they should be killed as well.

That is the reason why Americans need to own guns.

Re:Somebody ought to kill you

[qbast]

Thank you for proving that typical gun nut is a raving lunatic.

Safety

[Firethorn]

First post on this here.

Roughly speaking, firearm owners are very conservative in their fiream selections. Consider that the most popular handgun type is the 1911- accepted by the Army in the year 1911, development and early models were around a few years earlier. Even the AR-15 dates back to '57.

The concern is one of reliability. Consider how hard police will lobby for exemptions to any requirements to use smart guns, when 5% of officers murdered are murdered with their own firearm. They're not reliable enough yet.

Another is expense - guns are expensive enough to begin with, how much more expensive would this make firearms for how much added safety? Probably a lot, for very little. Few are murdered with their own weapon by a person that wouldn't be authorized(Spouse killing Spouse, for example).

Re:Safety

[NotSanguine]

First post on this here.

Roughly speaking, firearm owners are very conservative in their fiream selections. Consider that the most popular handgun type is the 1911- accepted by the Army in the year 1911, development and early models were around a few years earlier. Even the AR-15 dates back to '57.

The concern is one of reliability. Consider how hard police will lobby for exemptions to any requirements to use smart guns, when 5% of officers murdered are murdered with their own firearm. They're not reliable enough yet.

Another is expense - guns are expensive enough to begin with, how much more expensive would this make firearms for how much added safety? Probably a lot, for very little. Few are murdered with their own weapon by a person that wouldn't be authorized(Spouse killing Spouse, for example).

Thanks for the information! I agree with you (from your first post) that the sale of "smart" weapons isn't a bad thing. I say let the market decide if they are viable. I'd only add that I'd imagine if the technology (I would think that finger/palm print or similar technology would be more reliable than something like RFID -- that would be trivial to jam, no?) is viable, it might save some lives.

Re:Safety

[Firethorn]

I agree with you (from your first post) that the sale of "smart" weapons isn't a bad thing.

If somebody wants one, I believe they should be allowed to buy it. I'm free market like that.

As for finger/palm reading, what if I'm wearing gloves? I'm not police, I'm military, but I can say that I'm wearing gloves at least half the time I'm handling a firearm, whether for duty or practicing at a range or during an exercise. They're not thick gloves, but a palm print won't even penetrate thin latex gloves.

On the other hand, a watch type RFID system would require me to use both hands or the hand with the watch - and I'm used to wearing a watch on my left hand. What if I have to shoot off-handed?

Hell, the weapon would still fire if the user's arm is within 10" of it, such as if the criminal and user are wrestling for control of the weapon. So the user might STILL get shot.

it might save some lives.

I've found that "It might save some lives" to nearly always be a suprisingly poor reason to do something.

Consider Police Officers. In the last 10 years, 535 were murdered. 25 with their own gun. Per Wiki there's 780k Officers. Firearms are almost the definition of 'durable goods'. So we're looking at ~800k firearms*. At $100 a pop for the smart technology, that's $80M if you don't accellerate replacement of firearms at all. More like $800M* if you really want them in officer's hands NOW.

$80M/25 = $3.2M per officer saved, assuming that the technology prevents every officer death with his stolen weapon, that the officer isn't killed in a different way, and that no officers are killed because their weapon failed to fire when it was supposed to in the Officer's hands.

Given that my valuation for a random life is hovering around $2-3M, it might be worth it only if it's really only $100. But what do you know, it's available for sale in California...

Price Notes: Typical mid-range .22 $300-600
Armatix iP1 .22: $1400
Watch: $400(And one is NOT included with the gun).

So if you figure that the RFID option is $1k, that boosts the cost per life saved to $32M. It seems to be more of a 'let's not have POOR people armed' option at this price point. Which would infringe on the RKBA.

The above also assumes that the system doesn't have to be redesigned/reinforced when you go from the very lightweight .22lr round to the relatively punishing .40S&W that US Police seem to prefer. Even 9mm/.45ACP presents far more stress per shot than .22lr.

*Probably more. $100 price increase for the technology, $1000 to buy a gun with it. The version of the firearm without the option would be $900.

Re:Safety

[NotSanguine]

I agree with you (from your first post) that the sale of "smart" weapons isn't a bad thing.

If somebody wants one, I believe they should be allowed to buy it. I'm free market like that.

As for finger/palm reading, what if I'm wearing gloves? I'm not police, I'm military, but I can say that I'm wearing gloves at least half the time I'm handling a firearm, whether for duty or practicing at a range or during an exercise. They're not thick gloves, but a palm print won't even penetrate thin latex gloves.

On the other hand, a watch type RFID system would require me to use both hands or the hand with the watch - and I'm used to wearing a watch on my left hand. What if I have to shoot off-handed?

Hell, the weapon would still fire if the user's arm is within 10" of it, such as if the criminal and user are wrestling for control of the weapon. So the user might STILL get shot.

it might save some lives.

I've found that "It might save some lives" to nearly always be a suprisingly poor reason to do something.

Again, good information. Thanks! I'm not police, [para]military or a gun enthusiast and didn't consider the use of gloves. That's an excellent point.

I do see your point about "saving lives," however I think that your economic valuation of human life would come up rather short for the person(s) killed and their loved ones.

That said, I'm not advocating for the mandatory use of "smart" weapons. As someone who finds technology fascinating, to me the concept of a "smart" weapon is an excellent one.

Perhaps I should look into designing something like this. ;)

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

> The constitution doesn't prevent the nation as a whole from deciding which sort of weapons are appropriate for self defense and which aren't.

The Constitution has nothing to do with private individuals choosing to engage in social pressure to punish those who step outside social norms.

These exact same things happened to the owner of the Clippers and the CTO of Mozilla...and people were fine with it. When the exact same actions are taken by gun owners, it's a tragedy. Guess what, social pressure and intimidation work against you - if you weren't out flogging people for trying to personally and professionally destroy the CTO of Mozilla or the owner of the Clippers, then you have no standing to flog people doing the same thing to someone else.

Re:Gun nuts

[DaHat]

Witness the latest law in right-leaning Georgia to allow concealed carry in bars where people will be intoxicated while armed.

The Georgia law is nothing new, here in Washington state I can legally carry concealed (or open) in a bar or restaurant which services alcohol... so long as I stay on the right side of a magical little line that separates the area which is restricted to those over 21 and where under 21ers can be.

The funny thing about the 'family' sections of such places is you can still get a drink there as well... assuming you are of age... and do so legally even when carrying.

This is the same faux outrage we see over 'stand your ground' laws... which exist in all but 16 states, and people forget what already exists elsewhere and seems to be working ok as is.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

So who defines what constitutes a well-regulated militia then?

proposing to throw people in jail is a threat.

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't reasonable to discuss throwing people in jail for exercising their second amendment rights, but that is actually what you are proposing. That is every bit a threat of violence against otherwise law abiding citizens as anything else you could say. You are just saying that you don't want to be the one to pull the trigger and will leave that up to the police. That is why such talk elicits such a response, because you want to so casually talk about attacking your neighbors and taking away their right to defend themselves.

Re:proposing to throw people in jail is a threat.

[MightyYar]

Thank you for illustrating my point. You don't want to discuss what is and isn't a reasonable regulation under the 2nd Amendment, so you make an appeal to fear.

Safety Fail

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Take the watch and super glue it to the gun ....
2. Profit

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Movie example would be Skyfall. Bond's adversary could not use his electronically monitored gun but yet Bond would of died if the enemies also carried electronically monitored guns. Where would the WIN/WIN be, for you as the viewer or Bond? No real world examples so a fictions with an underline theme had to be used.

I for one want reliability. When a battery is attached to any pure mechanical tool it has a greater potential for failure. Just look at the battery issues with Tesla cars, night time vamping of power. Sorry for not being able to use your firearm since the wireless connecting is being blocked by heavy apparel, low battery, or wireless interference.

Shorting the RFID connection would be simplistic, that is why access control hardware often is accompanied by security screws, not all have the drivers. Stolen property can never be modified to circumvent security.

Safety is and will always been in the hands of the beholder just like a car, a knife, or any tool.

Re:Gun nuts

[catmistake]

A well-regulated militia...

Correct. The 2nd Amendment demands regulation, and any local laws cannot stop that mandate that was so important to the Founders and the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that they put it in the the first 3 words of the Amendment. Regulation of firearms is, in effect, even more important than the right to bear arms.

Re:Gun nuts

[ekgringo]

Chicago does not ban guns. Until 2 years ago, concealed guns were banned, but that was overturned in December 2012 on the basis that it was unconstitutional.

Re:Gun nuts

[Cederic]

Sorry, I don't understand. What the fuck has that got to do with this woman? She passed the law three years ago? She got New Jersey residents to elect the politicians that voted for it? She's forcing people to live in New Jersey?

Come back when you can think of an actual justification for a claim that developing this technology is threatening someone, because I think you're talking fucking nonsense.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution doesn't prevent the nation as a whole from deciding which sort of weapons are appropriate for self defense and which aren't.

Correct, the Constitution does not prevent itself from being amended. Not exactly sure what your point was with stating the obvious.

The above quote is a not so veiled threat

No it isn't. A threat would be if I said "I'm going to punch you in the face if you do / don't do $X". This is more like me saying "I have no problem with someone else coming up and punching you in the face for doing / not doing $X".

and yes the poster has a right to question whether the person behind the quote is somebody who should be trusted with a gun

Of course they do. The First Amendment guarantees that right. But careful, or your attempts to circumvent the Second Amendment may come back to bite you in the ass, and actually take away the right of the poster to question the person behind the quote.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe without the gun he would have done the only sensible thing which is to retreat and call the police. It is a completely unacceptable risk to prevent the theft of your possesions if those possesions aren't necessary to stay alive.

So many people here are missing the point..

[gorliath]

If you don't understand the strength of feeling against these tools of oppression, please consider

1. There are pre-existing laws on the books mandating this technology once it is commercially available. So it will get unwillingly shoved down someone's throat. How would you feel if there was a law mandating that you must use a BB if RIM develops a new one, and outlaws other phones ?
2. This technology will radically increase the failure rate of the devices. There is a reason why firearms have no electronics in them, and why their basic design has not changed in over 100 years, and that is reliability. It is literally life and death, so fractions of a fracton of a percent count.
3. Do you see the police and military clamoring for this technology ? If this stuff is so good, don't you think they would be champing at the bit to get ahold of it ?

   What you see may be a small startup with an exciting new technology. What they see is a opportunistic vulture looking to abuse a law to get goventment granted monopoly and deliver a fake product.

seems to have worked for George Zimmerman

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I get jumped?

You're grappling on the ground, you reach to pull out a gun... and you don't think you're now grappling for a firearm?

George Zimmerman successfully pulled his firearm and shot Trayvon Martin while being straddled and having his head punched into the sidewalk.

This isn't a hypothetical situation anymore. This happened, and everyone watched the political witch-hunt and trial.

Re:seems to have worked for George Zimmerman

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a hypothetical situation anymore. This happened, and everyone watched the political witch-hunt and trial.

You cannot draw conclusions like that from the trial even if you consider the verdict correct. All the trial outcome means is that the state couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that it didn't happen the way Zimmerman claimed but that's far from proof that it did. The defense didn't have to prove their version true, all they had to do was to make the state's version seem doubtful enough.

Re: Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Please read Federalist paper 46 for a better idea of the original intent of the 2nd amendment

Re:Gun nuts

[harrkev]

Thank you for proving my argument about the gun-proponents stoking fear. They've certainly got you in a tizzy.

Tizzy? No. Concerned? Yes? I explained why my concern is reasonable.

You need some lessons on how to evaluate risk.

No, I do that quite well myself. What evidence do you have that I do not know how to evaluate risk. How nice of you to decide that you are better at deciding MY risk than I am. How presumptuous of you. You do not know me, my neighborhood, or where I live, and yet I suppose that you think that you have more of a right to tell me how I should lead my life than I do. How dare you.

but thanks to Congress banning the CDC from researching gun violence So, is gun-ownership a disease? It is obvious.. being shot is bad for your health. Some people were rightly afraid that tax money was going to support partisan politics, and I agree. Guess what? It is not the ownership of guns that determines the murder rate. I have actually plotted gun ownership vs. murder rate for each state. The resulting graph looked pretty random. Now, there IS a strong correlation between income and murder rate. Why not have the CDC study tax breaks for small businesses, since improving the economy of an area would do MUCH more to stop crime than to ban guns.

I personally would not want to be out with anyone who feels the need to carry a gun, because I don't know what might trigger this person to draw the weapon, and who knows who might eventually get shot.

Yeah, he might do something stupid like stop a criminal from murdering you. If he did that, the average IQ of the world would probably be a little lower.

I live in Colorado, We have had some mass shootings around here. Guess what? All of the successful shootings were in gun-free zones. There was a shooting a New Life church that was stopped by a legal concealed-carry-permit holder. Without this person, many more innocent people would have died. Schools and movie theaters are all "gun-free" zones. I, for one, am quite happy to have responsible people carry guns. You, on the other hand, think that only criminals should carry guns.

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

And if someone doesn't like the product or the idea of such a product, then don't buy one.

The issue is that some states have pushed for laws which would require this kind of technology on new guns, and require older firearms to be fitted with such a scheme.[Emphasis added]

Other than NJ, which states have put forth or enacted laws requiring "smart" guns? The NJ law (enacted in 2002, BTW) is, AFAICT, the *only* state to have enacted such legislation. What is more, the NJ law makes no mention of retrofitting any firearms. In fact, "antique" guns are explicitly exempt from the provisions of the statute.

As I mentioned in a previous post, IMHO, this is something of a tempest in a teapot.

Eventually, this technology will be good enough fo

[Anonymous Coward]

and they are the kind of people who would have the ability to maintain it.

I'm worried about anything that would keep George Zimmerman from being able to shoot Trayvon Martin. This is one more thing to keep maintained.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if a person commits suicide, how would this bracelet stop them if it is their gun. If it is NOT their gun, how would you deny them access to sleeping pills and alcohol, or a car in a closed garage, or even a piece of rope. Maybe we should put neck detectors in all ropes?

It's kind of hard to ignore the fact that guns per capita correlate directly with suicides per capita. Either there is some strong force in each gun that causes gun owners to want to kill themselves (I will leave that speculation up to you) or there is indeed something more appealing about a gun to suicidal individuals compared to say a rope or a bottle of sleeping pills.

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

Because this "smart" technology is unreliable and not something people want to trust their lives with when it matters. How about we have police and military start using these "smart" guns first to show everyone how great they are?

Umm...Okay. Why not? Then again, shouldn't we just let the market decide?

Re:Gun nuts

[maxmutt]

The first clause does mean something in regards to the last two clauses, but probalbly not what most people think. Most people read "well regulated" and think, "Army" and if not army, then iether Reserve or National Guard, and all that organization carries with it. The Guard and Reserve are both trained and equiped by the Federal governement and are trainined and equiped to be pretty compatable with the regular Army itself, in general. All are issued equipment and go through boot camp to learn to use, maintain and fire that equipment among other things.

In a militia, members normally equipe and train themselves as individuals and small units. This being the case, well regulated takes on a differnt meaning, it means moving towards a normalized state within the militia, but not necessarilly standardization. It is something as simple as; having a long gun, having ammunition for it, having a sufficient quantity of that ammunition, having magazines for it, knowing how to clean and maintain it, knowing how to fire it accurately and otherwise how to operate it, for example. For the militia, there is no bootcamp, these all are things a civillian can do and learn on thier own and can do if there is no organized miltia at the time.

So that you don't have a group of 50 people; 19 with rifles, some with a single magazine for their AR15s. 15 people with pistols and 9 with various types of shotguns, and between 6 and 500 rounds each. The guy with 500 rounds is shooting a .22LR, so he can at least share ammo with the 3 people with .22 rifles. Then there are another 4 with bows, 2 with crossbows and 1 guy with a blowgun. Well regulated at least means There would be 50 people with rifles, and 250 rounds each, even if they weren't all .223, but a mix of .223, .308, 30-06 and other calibers.

Re:Gun nuts

[internerdj]

"Use a gun for its intended purpose = someone ends up dead" This seems rather simplistic. I don't own a gun but I've been researching and looking at various manufacturers for a while. Some firearms are clearly for personal defense (or homicide if you have little faith in humanity), some firearms are for killing specific types of animals other than humans, others are pretty poor choices for killing anything and are designed specifically for shooting inanimate targets, others are clearly designed to do little more than make the owner feel like a man. Finally, if I use a personal defense weapon for its intended purpose then I've never even drawn it because I've detered an attack by verbally confronting the person and letting them know I have the means and the will to protect myself.

Re:Gun nuts

[modecx]

Nobody is forcing them to buy one....Nobody is preventing them from buying a different make or model.

Actually, that's exactly what's at issue here, and that's exactly why gun owners are pissed. You have companies that are lobbying the varying state (and Federal, and international) legislatures, with the idea that all guns should have this technology, in the name of safety, crime, muh chillunz, or whatever they think will sell it. Same thing with the companies that are promoting firing pin and breech microstamping technology, never mind that it can be defeated in a matter of minutes with some fine grit sandpaper.

They're not invested in making the world safer, they're invested in making their wallets fatter, and they bribe representatives toward that end. They don't just want to put a new product on the market, and promote it for what it is. Heck no. They want state-sanctioned mandatory monopolies. They want to outlaw these devices as they traditionally exist, in favor of their own monetary interest. Is that a threat? I say yes!

Re:Gun nuts

[chiefcrash]

"find ways to compromise and come to consensus. it doesn't have to be black or white."

Allow me to use someone else's analogy, whom I can't find the source for at the moment:

Let's say I have this cake. The cake represents gun rights. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."
I say, "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."
I say, "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake.
So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
You keep nibbling away at the cake -- we'll call these compromises the Clinton Executive Orders, the Lautenberg Act, the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement, the Brady Law, the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act, and so on.

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

Does that seem like genuine compromise to you?

Isn't this the point though?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am neither for or against guns as I am not against nail guns or hammers (also known to be used in crimes).

I am however wondering if instead of fighting against guns which would in theory have protected you... Meaning guns which can only be fired if held by the owner would be something which everyone should agree on.

1) in military situations, guns used in the field that can only be fired by the side who purchased them. So weapons which can't be raided, stolen, etc... Being turned against the side who brought them.

2) Personal protection. Guns can't be removed from people who purchased them and used against someone else.

I think the bracelet thing is stupid unless people are expected to wear them at all times. However, using iPhone style finger print scanning on the grip for identification sounds pretty smart.

If you want a gun... Go for it! But wouldn't it be nice if it had an effective means of making sure that it couldn't be used by someone who stole it from you?

Will there be problems to begin with? Absolutely! Batteries won't last. There will be electronics problems. There will be jams. Many guns already have similar problems when not properly cared for. This is why things like revolvers are still so popular. But for newer weapons... Why not try to make them safer.

I had to buy a table saw recently and purchased a Dewalt which had a nice safety guard for the blade. It's a little inconvenient, but I figured it was a smart move. If I bought a gun, I would probably like the idea of a safety guard. For now, I just borrow guns when at the range and leave the there when I'm done. I have no need for them. If someone wants to take my money... Go for it... Drink one on me. Of course I live in a city with 800,000 people and an average of 10 shootings a year... Mostly domestic.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[kqs]

The home invaders were unarmed, but they would have killed him anyways? Look, I know that criminals are not generally competent, but that's quite a pretzel of logic there.

Stupid Gun Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Can Armatrix guarantee that in a close quarters combat / scuffle that...

1. your finger prints will read?
2. battery can't get jarred loose or somehow disconnected?
3. the firearm will "initialize" fast enough to be deployed?
4. if the firearm is somehow taken beyond that 10" range of use , will you have to reinitialize the weapon to get it to work?
5. will it only work on your strong side? What if you switch hands?
6. will 22LR get the job done?
If smart guns were a good idea police and military would be the first to purchase and mandate them ! California law exempts police from the requirement ! Do you know why state law exempts police ?

7. batteries regularly fail, then what?

A real threat...

[Anonymous Coward]

Many states, mine included, are on the path to banning any gun which is not a "smart gun". Except for cops of course, because they don't need to have safe stuff.

So to anybody who does not want this stuff, this person is actually leading the charge against them, directly.

If the pacemaker works without one

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's make this simple for people with quips not appropriately modded insightful.

If the pacemaker already worked as intended without a battery, there's no reason to add one. And just like a fucking pacemaker, the purpose of one of my pistols is to protect /my/ life. Not yours. I will not needlessly introduce unreliability into a functional system for no actual benefit.

but you're too damned opaque in the one liners to admit it.

TLDR; I'm not relying on a fucking battery for anything other than a backup sight. It needs to send lead at 1300 fps every time I squeeze the trigger with the safety off and the gun properly held.

Re:Gun nuts

[Arker]

"Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't having a "smart" gun as described in TFS be a win/win for everyone? Gun owners can use their guns, but it someone steals it or disarms the gun owner, the gun is useless. Not sure why folks are complaining. Anyone want to enlighten me?"

Sure. If you are not familiar with the tool it might sound reasonable, I understand.

But safeties on firearms are a very important design element. The one element in the entire weapon that attracts, and deserves, the most attention. You might naively think its function is to prevent firing, but you would only be partly right. Yes, when the safety is engaged it prevents firing, and it's very important that it do this reliably. But it's even more important that it does not negatively affect the reliability of the weapon itself.

If the safety fails to engage then nothing bad should happen anyway. That's what muzzle control and weapons safety is all about. You always assume every firearm you come across is loaded and has no functioning safety, even when you know for a fact both of those things are false, it doesnt matter - that's how you handle a weapon, period.

But if the safety fails to disengage? The weapon is a useless lump of metal. And this is not a toy. If you need it and it fails your life and/or the lives of your loved ones are threatened.

Re:Gun nuts

[UnknowingFool]

It is NOT paranoia if they really are out to get you. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. First, you ban large magazines. Another shooting, Then, you ban all semi-auto firearms. Another shooting. Time to ban them all! This is a slight exaggeration, but my point still stands.

It is paranoia if nothing of the sort ever happened. That's the definition of paranoia.

We once tried limiting magazine sizes. Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, and it expired after 10 years. Sandy Hook happened DURING this ban. Did crime suddenly drop after the ban? No. Once the ban expired, did crime suddenly shoot back up? Once again, no. So, if a law had NO real effect, why try to do it again? Give me ONE good reason that can be backed up with statistics.

The limiting of magazines after Sandy Hook was suggested not to prevent ALL crimes with guns. These smart guns are not to prevent all shootings. It seems that any solution presented for a particular problem is immediately denounced by you as not preventing problems they were not enacted to prevent. You are missing the point.

Please explain to me how restricting my rights makes anybody else any safer..... Please..... I have not heard any good reasons yet.

Why is it when it comes the 2nd Amendment, you think your gun rights are entirely absolute? Please answer that. No other freedom whether it is for speech, press, religion, etc. is absolute. Yet you won't accept any limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

Re:Gun nuts

[Trailer Trash]

surely you see the difference between a vote on the assault weapons ban and a vote to "ban guns". methinks you're being dishonest.

Really? What is an "assault weapon"?

Re:Gun nuts

[chiefcrash]

Gun interlocks wouldn't make a responsible gun owner's operation of the gun any safer. In fact, the theory is they won't impact the gun owner's operation of the gun at all. And if you're worried about other people using the owner's gun while he's not around, then a $5 cable lock does the exact same thing as this overpriced and untested technology. Frankly, this is a solution in search of a problem.

Are you uncomfortable around armed police officers? If not, then yes, your discomfort is irrational.

Because your kind refuses to meet us in the middle. You only propose more and more restrictions, obstacles, and etc. You offer no concessions as a compromise.

Re:Gun nuts

[BoberFett]

Why would the bill of rights - a set of amendments designed to protect the rights of the citizens from the government - need an amendment that protects the government's right to own guns?

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

Movie example would be Skyfall. Bond's adversary could not use his electronically monitored gun but yet Bond would of died if the enemies also carried electronically monitored guns. Where would the WIN/WIN be, for you as the viewer or Bond? No real world examples so a fictions with an underline theme had to be used.

I for one want reliability. When a battery is attached to any pure mechanical tool it has a greater potential for failure. Just look at the battery issues with Tesla cars, night time vamping of power. Sorry for not being able to use your firearm since the wireless connecting is being blocked by heavy apparel, low battery, or wireless interference.

Shorting the RFID connection would be simplistic, that is why access control hardware often is accompanied by security screws, not all have the drivers. Stolen property can never be modified to circumvent security.

Safety is and will always been in the hands of the beholder just like a car, a knife, or any tool.

No one other than Sean Connery can be James Bond. Therefore your example is invalid. :) :) :)

As I said several times in other posts, let the market decide if it's a viable product and this, IMHO is something of a tempest in a teapot. Folks seem to be getting all up in arms (no pun intended) about something that doesn't (and likely won't) affect them.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

But can't you see? The criminal who broke into the gun owner's house would have most certainly spared the gun owner's life if the gun owner hadn't shot and killed two of his accomplices! We know this because the common criminal is a man of morals and high standing who would never ever kill an innocent person to prevent a living witness from testifying against said criminal at trial.

We as a progressive society should allow the criminal to proceed with his pilfering undisturbed if discovered in one's home or place of business. If you are so unlucky as to meet the extremely rare brute of a criminal who doesn't thoroughly enjoy spending time in penitentiary, then perhaps you shouldn't have been in your own home or owned anything worth stealing, you capitalist pigdog.

Re:Gun nuts

[Payden K. Pringle]

What Whatsisname said.

In theory, it's a win/win. In practice, it's not.

As someone else said, when you need a gun, really need it, you don't want something technical like a dead battery or a bug from stopping you on top of the other things that can happen (i.e. malfunction, it being taken, etc).

This is why the police don't use technologies made to help them prevent criminals from gaining the upper hand like magazine safeties and such. It's just another thing that could get in the way of when you need it most.

If the professionals aren't willing to use this type of stuff, I don't see why average citizens should be forced [Note the "forced"] to as well personally. It's fine as an offering, but even then, it's still terrible for the same reasons.

Re:Gun nuts

[shutdown -p now]

There are several lawsuits in flight to force them to adhere to the standing interpretation of the federal Constitution.

In fact, we already won that battle in Chicago - Illinois is now a shall-issue state, precisely because the Constitution said that they cannot be no-issue.

Re:Gun nuts

[chiefcrash]

the 2nd amendment isn't an absolute either. To use a classic analogy: free speech doesn't mean you can yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. By extension, having a right to own and carry a gun doesn't mean you can shoot it however/wherever you want.

However, in the same vain, we don't execute prior restraint on 1st amendment rights, do we? We don't duct tape people's mouths shut upon entry to theaters. So why should the 2nd Amendment be subject to prior restraint?


If you don't want your kids to be at a school where everybody is armed, you're free to do that. You have the right to choose where your kids go to school. However, you don't have the right to demand the school system be changed to suit your comfort. Isn't that what we [attempt to] tell the "I don't want my kids learning evolution" and "don't teach my kids gay stuff" folks?

Re:Gun nuts

[Hognoxious]

Meanwhile, there are people in the US who fear the things so much

Argumentum ad timiditatem.

An old schoolmate has used guns so big you couldn't lift the ammunition. He doesn't think that having every Tom Dick & Harry running around playing at cowboys and indians is generally a good idea either.

Gun banning laws are threats too.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. But every gun banning law being proposed, including the ones that would ban guns that don't have such devices are a direct threat of violence against every otherwise law abiding gun owner that simply wishes to be left in peace to possess the gun they see fit to defend themselves with.

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

But if the safety fails to disengage? The weapon is a useless lump of metal. And this is not a toy. If you need it and it fails your life and/or the lives of your loved ones are threatened.

Okay. Is that a viable concern in this case? I could see where RFID signals could be coincidentally or intentionally jammed, so a finger/palm print scanner on the weapon might be more reliable. If the device is reliable, what's the downside?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not threatening. Endangering perhaps, but not threatening.

Just because an action endangers someone else, even if that was the intent of the action, does not mean that that action was threatening.

Re:Gun nuts

[DNS-and-BIND]

Because anything that we don't agree with must be a racket. Yes, there is no other way to interpret these events. Anyone who disagrees with me never, repeat never, has a valid reason for doing so. It's always because they're being deceived, or are too stupid, or batshit insane. Never give them the satisfaction of being fellow human beings who might dissent. Yes, it's all about TEH PROFITZ of the gun manufacturers.

Honestly Obama with his intentionally frightening ways has done more for gun sales than any NRA propaganda. You're giving the Right way too much credit for being able to string together coherent sentences. Remember, these are people who are being lied to or are too stupid...and suddenly when we need it, they acquire the ability to be frighteningly effective?

Re:Gun nuts

[chiefcrash]

A flash suppressor is designed to redirect the muzzle flash out of the shooter's field of vision. This allows the shooter to still be able to see after firing a shot in low-light conditions. That's it.

Why would someone want such a thing? For me, personally, it makes target shooting at the range after work (at night) a lot more comfortable. Not to mention prevents damage to my eyes, as staring into bright lights tends to be bad for them.

The fact that you don't know why somebody would buy a flash suppressor, yet seem to want to ban it anyway, is a big chunk of the problem right there...

Re:right handed people wear their watch on left ar

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This gun interlock supposedly has a 10 inch range. Why is no one commenting on that?

Possibly because using two hands is part of a proper gun stance.

Extra unnecessary failure mode as "design feature"

[Anonymous Coward]

So on the day I need to protect myself, or my wife and kids, I'll have to also worry that the battery in my watch might be low? Will the President and all the people on capitol hill and all the rich-and-famous celebrities be exposed to this extra failure mode? More-importantly: Will every criminal, and every federal agent who might end-up serving some future tyrant face this extra risk of failure?

The problem with a deceptive scheme like this is not just an engineering issue (as-in "use as much hardware as needed, no more, and no less") but it is a political problem as the supporters of these things always know. Here's how it goes:

1. Once a gunmaker pushes something like this, and one of these is successful in the market, then the anti-gun politicians push laws only allowing these crippled weapons (pointing out that they're "proven to work" and "proven available"). Of course, for them "proven" means less-likely to be fired (whether the owner needs it to fire or not).

2. This is almost always a crony-capitalist play by a smaller manufacturer (who frequently has a patent on some aspect). This has happened in many fields before (other than guns) and it goes like this: Lacking market share, and a legitimate way to get market share, they design a newer "safer" product using the patented feature and then convince the politicians to mandate the feature (so the other makers need to buy licenses to the patent, and all customers pay higher prices)

3. If this is done via some electromagnetic scheme, there will be a push to create "jammers". Oh, rest assured... the jammers will only be available to the police and only for use against bad guys..... just like all the spying and groping that we currently only apply to terrorists....

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

What Whatsisname said.

In theory, it's a win/win. In practice, it's not.

As someone else said, when you need a gun, really need it, you don't want something technical like a dead battery or a bug from stopping you on top of the other things that can happen (i.e. malfunction, it being taken, etc).

This is why the police don't use technologies made to help them prevent criminals from gaining the upper hand like magazine safeties and such. It's just another thing that could get in the way of when you need it most.

If the professionals aren't willing to use this type of stuff, I don't see why average citizens should be forced [Note the "forced"] to as well personally. It's fine as an offering, but even then, it's still terrible for the same reasons.

I get it. But I'm not sure where the "forced" part comes in. Even the NJ law (AFAICT, the only law in the US that could "force" anyone) doesn't require that existing guns be modified. And folks could just buy their guns in another state, no?

And if folks aren't being forced to use such technologies, I'm not sure why folks are terrorizing a marketing drone from a manufacturer that isn't even selling the weapon in the one state with such a law. So much hate for so little real reason. That's sad.

Re:Gun nuts

[shutdown -p now]

Who do you think gives the NRA most of their money? It's not the members.

I don't know if you're hopelessly pedantic, but if so, you're pedantic at being wrong. Half of all NRA money comes from member fees, and a good part of other half is from individual donations (esp. point-of-sale, since a lot of gun shops advertise "donate to NRA" when they ring you in).

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure how else you level someone's life, than with violence. I'm not sure what else that could mean other than the person posting that comment intends to hurt harm else.

I'm not sure either, but try re-reading the quote. No where does it say that they would do those actions. They are merely stating that they will not lose sleep should someone else do those actions. Hence, not a threat.

Re:Gun nuts

[chiefcrash]

In a strictly technical sense, the purpose of a gun is to launch a projectile. That's it. Choice of project is left to the intent of the user, as is the target and the intended use of the gun.

An olympic target pistol is just as lethal as a "saturday night special". A simple change of ammunition turns a deadly shotgun into a less-than-lethal shotgun.

Nobody has yet to explain how a $0.50 pistol grip magically makes a gun more dangerous. They've offered lame hollywood-inspired suggestions, but nothing that pans out. Perhaps you know something I don't? How does a thumbhole stock make a rifle better at harming people?

Re:Gun nuts

[harrkev]

It is paranoia if nothing of the sort ever happened. That's the definition of paranoia.

1) Some US senators have actually stated that they would take away all guns if it was within their power.

2) Some cities and states have make it very difficult to own guns, and would make it even harder if the courts had not told them to stop.
How can you say that nothing of the sort had ever happened when there are a lot of people trying very hard to make it happen. Just because you don't want to see what some people are trying to do does not mean that it is not happening.

The limiting of magazines after Sandy Hook was suggested not to prevent ALL crimes with guns.

In fact, those laws would prevent almost NO crimes. Similar laws were actually IN EFFECT during the Columbine shooting, which still managed to somehow happen despite these ineffective laws. Most shootings only involve one or two bullets. Magazine limits would have applied to ALL Americans in a futile attempt to lessen damage done by crimes that happen, on average, only about once or twice per year.

Why is it when it comes the 2nd Amendment, you think your gun rights are entirely absolute?

It is NOT absolute. However, if speech were regulated like guns were, the word "fire" would be illegal to say because somebody might yell "fire" in a theater. I would also only be allowed to say 10 words at a time before stopping to take a breath, and to buy a book would require a background check.

I have to get a background check to buy a gun. I have to get a background check, get fingerprinted, and pay over $100 for the privilege on carrying a gun in my pocket. My state has "universal" background checks. We also happen to have a few military bases. So, if a soldier goes overseas, he has to get a background check for his live-in fiancee every month, or they are both criminals -- despite the fact that most dealers will NOT do these checks if no sale is involved. When we had over 200 homes wiped out by a wild fire here a year ago, you can imagine what the "universal background" check did to the people who lost their homes and had no place to store their guns.

Saying that the 2nd amendment is not absolute is completely crazy given how much regulation we ALREADY HAVE on gun ownership in this country. If we had as much regulation on speech as we did on guns, you would yearn for the freedom of speech that they have in China.

Re:right handed people wear their watch on left ar

[Anonymous Coward]

The Trayvon Martin type was being stalked by a crazy person in a neighborhood where he lived. I'd be much more afraid of some hack self-appointed security guard type who runs around with a gun chasing people who don't "look like they should be there".

Re:Gun nuts

[Cl1mh4224rd]

As for the people you speak of? As long as they do not commit a felony, so what? The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best.

It's obviously not the law-abiding citizens that people fear, otherwise no one would own or advocate guns for self defense in the first place.

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

one, why do you hate on a company exploring new gun technologies? free market, man. so what if they want to develop aeon flux dna identifcaiton handguns that only work for the owner. what do you care? why do you want to stop this company from pursuing their interests? that's not very freedom loving.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

There are only a very few obvious prohibitions, namely against convicted felons and those declared mentally incompetent or ill.

Why is that "obvious"? I see nowhere in the 2nd amendment that allows for that.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously the bracelet will not stop the gun owner from suiciding with the gun. However, it will stop the owner's kids from doing so.

Another thing about suicide: while many suicides are attempted, people who use guns in the attempt are far more likely to succeed than people using other methods. Taking pills, etc., allows time for regret and possibly calling a suicide hotline to be saved.

And you are damn right I have an agenda. I see the NRA and their ilk as stoking fear in the public in order to increase sales for the gun manufacturers (Glock, Beretta, etc.). Who do you think gives the NRA most of their money? It's not the members.

Here's a quote from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre at the latest NRA convention:

We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers [sic], haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all. I ask you. Do you trust this government to protect you? We are on our own.

http://home.nra.org/pdf/waynel...

Can't you see that this is all an attempt to make people be afraid, very afraid? And to also not trust any external agency to protect you from all these threats. Why? Because that fear motivates people to buy guns, which enhances the profits of all those gun manufacturers that bankroll the NRA.

It a wonderful racket.

Not that it matters but LaPierre is very much a tail wagging the gun industry dog. He has made it clear that the NRA will represent the interests of gun manufacturers that support the NRA, to maintain their sales at the expense of anyone else in the industry. The NRA needs the gun makers way more than the gun makers need the NRA.

Re:Gun nuts

[DaHat]

I'm sorry your reading comprehension is so poor.

You made a statement, I replied to some of it.

Did I mention the women? Did I say she was to blame for anything? Did I attempt to justify the actions of those who posted her info (assuming you wish to throw this out there as well)? No, I simply cited news of a law which you ignored which runs contrary to part of your initial statement... that no one is being forced to buy this type of firearm. A law which is similar to others being pushed in other states that would one day require purchase of such items.

Would you like me to spell it out again... and using smaller words?

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

... as usual go ape shit at slightest reason. Calm down morons, nobody is taking away you dick extensions.

Aye, because an anti-gun nut would never stoop to outing the personal information of gun owners for malicious purposes...

I think the lesson here is that regardless of what side you take in a particular debate, somewhere out there a lunatic jackass agrees with you.

But the free market....

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the Free Market (tm) fixing a problem! The invisible hand of the market and all that. Isn't this what all the RightWing Gun lobby people want? Free Market (tm) economics and the second amendment coming together in some freakish way to solve a gigantic problem?

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you, that any support of America, the 2nd amendment, and our God-given constitutional rights would ever say anything against a market-driven solution.

Shame! Shame!!!!

Re:Gun nuts

[shutdown -p now]

Because there is no way to make an interlock that is sufficiently reliable for the intended operation of the firearm.

Besides which, we already have such interlocks. They're called trigger locks. An embedded electronic lock is only useful when carrying, but there's no real issue of someone else shooting your gun while you're carrying it.

Basically, if you trust people to own and carry firearms in general, this law doesn't do anything good. And if you don't trust them, then it doesn't do anything useful.

Re:Gun nuts

[RenderSeven]

Even the most cursory review of campaign donation records would show that Democrats equally serve corporate overlords. Im sure its a subject of much hilarity and mirth among Democrats that you've wholly bought into this myth.

Re:Gun nuts

[BronsCon]

You must be confused if you think I was advocating for that. Maybe read the whole thread?

Re:Gun nuts

[Minwee]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't having a "smart" gun as described in TFS be a win/win for everyone? Gun owners can use their guns, but it someone steals it or disarms the gun owner, the gun is useless. Not sure why folks are complaining. Anyone want to enlighten me?

Because the evil gub'mint could also render the gun useless with their special Freedom-Destroying-Rays, and then force everyone to drink tea and other evil things.

Really, you need to learn how to think like an American to understand them.

Re:Gun nuts

[Cederic]

It appears that my reading comprehension beats your ability to read in context.

I replied to someone stating, "The iP1 is a not-so-veiled threat against gunowners." by challenging that assertion.

Your comment on the New Jersey gun law does not refute my argument that the iP1 is not a threat (veiled or otherwise). In the context of my post and the post to which I was replying your reply was directly relevant to the threats to the woman.

So yes, spell it out again, and use smaller words. Maybe ones you can understand too. Because you still haven't told me just what the fuck sort of threat the iP1 is, or why that would justify retaliatory threats against someone involved with it.

vote out all Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

From gun control, to the minimum wage, to importing millions of illegal voters, to propaganda media in the form of public TV and Radio, the Democratic Party needs to be excised from American politics and reformed from the ground up.

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

cmon man don't be a tool. you're being purposefully obtuse. every gun and accessory is designed for and used in certain scenarios. it is reasonable to place limits on guns equipment designed to hurt people. I don't know the difference between a thumbhole stock and having my thumb up my butt, but I know that reasonable people will agree that some guns are designed for sport, some are designed for self defense, and some were designed to kill humans.

Stop calling them hi-cap magazines

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your comment except you called what was always a standard capacity magazine a 'hi-cap mag'. Those are standard cap and the new regulated models are reduced capacity.

I've also never understood the need to reduce a magazine's capacity. If I can't buy a 20 round mag, I'll buy 2 10 round mags. If I'm a nut job determined to 'mow down crowds of people' having to take 2-3 seconds to swap magazines isn't going to stop me. I would assume said 'nut job' would have a bag with tons of magazines already loaded.

Re:Gun nuts

[speed_rrracer]

"nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.) "

The above is exactly wrong, and two of the locales you mentioned are proof of that fact. D.C's regulations were ruled an unconstitutional ban on firearms in the landmark Heller case, and the civil rights gains from the Heller case were applied to all 50 states (the legal doctrine is called "incorporation") thanks to Otis McDonald in McDonald v Chicago.

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

Your problem is that you believe such a militia must be organized and commanded by the government. That is something the framers clearly thought should be avoided.

Really? What does "well-regulated" mean?

In 1770's terminology? Properly functioning.

For example, a "well-regulated" clock keeps the time correctly.

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

well maybe there's room for new technology that improves gun safety. like the company in this post that is trying to innovate new weapon technology, but got shut down by zealots why?

Re:Gun nuts

[BiIl_the_Engineer]

Nonsense. It is due to the speech. If you said something completely innocuous ("Hello!") and it caused everyone to panic as if you falsely claimed that there is a fire in the theater for some strange reason, nothing would happen to you.

Words are just words; they can't make anyone do anything. If someone decides to panic and trample over others, *that's on them*. They should be force to pay for any damage they cause, regardless of what nonsense they decided to believe.

Theater owners, however, are well within their rights to kick out anyone screaming random things in the theater.

As for the guy you replied to, I am one of the people of the people who think that the first amendment is being ignored.

Re:Gun nuts

[internerdj]

"To want a gun is in a way proof that you're unfit to have one." So if a woman wants one after being raped and subsequently stalked, she is unfit? So if a prosecuter wants one because of how successful his career has been, he/she is unfit? If my grandfather wants one because the old man a block over was beaten to death by three teenagers, he is unfit? Don't imagine that the people who most vocally call for gun freedom are the people who benefit the most from it.

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

The militia as the word was defined at the time meant every able bodied man.

Still is, as a matter of fact. The only term in that sentence whose meaning has changed in the last 250+ years is "well-regulated."

"Arms" is still a generic term for "armaments," "State" still refers to the individual states, and "The People" still refers to individuals. Amazing that certain "well-educated liberals" don't know that. Guess they should have studied harder.

Re:Gun nuts

[harrkev]

It is paranoia if nothing of the sort ever happened. That's the definition of paranoia.

Let's assume, for a second, that you WERE actually right about this. Just because is has NOT happened does not mean that we should not be vigilant...

When I was a kid, I used to have this naive trust of the government. I used to thing "the government would never take away the guns of honest citizens." I would also think "the government would never spy on every phone call and mail message." At the time we used regular mail instead of e-mail, but the concept is the same. I also used to think "we would never open a prison where we torture prisoners for information. We are the good guys." Ever heard of Guantanamo? How about the naive though that all citizens deserve a trial before being executed. Obama's statements about the use of drones crushed that sentiment too. I also believe that crap about needing a warrant before a search. That no longer applies if you are even near the border.

Honestly, if you were to tell me that the government was crushing puppies and kittens to make a youth elixir for the political elite, it would not surprise me. The actions of the government (both parties, mind you) over the last couple of decades have eroded all of my trust in the government.

Simply stated, if you want to keep a right, you have to be prepared to vocally defend it.

Re:Gun nuts

[Kaenneth]

"Today, we have standing armies."

which is also unconstitutional.

The founders didn't foresee the US being aggressive policemen (to put it nicely) of the world.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

We just need severe negligence laws for not properly securing your guns.

We also need a populous that understands that the government requiring people to be responsible with their firearms does not violate the Second Amendment! Yes, they could say "you have the right to keep and bare arms, as long as you store them in a diamond-decorated safe made out of Unobtanium". But just because they can say that, does not forbid them to say "you have the right to keep and bare arms, and we recommend storing them in this manner. But should something terrible happen that involves your firearm, and it is discovered that you did not store it properly, well... say hi to Bubba for us".

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

Guns aren't banned in NYC. Just very heavily regulated and restricted. Unless you can provide a very good reason, you will not be able to get a license to carry.

I presume "Because the murderous Stasi you refer to as the NYPD carry them" isn't considered a good reason?

Too bad - if the OWS kids packed as much heat as Tea Party protesters do, I doubt the NYPD would have kicked the living shit out of them so thoroughly.

Re:Gun nuts

[Arker]

"Okay. Is that a viable concern in this case? I could see where RFID signals could be coincidentally or intentionally jammed"

I think your second sentence answers your first, obviously it is a concern, and not simply because normal atmospheric interference can cause radio signals to be less than reliable.

It's theoretically possible that a system like this that was reliable enough could be developed, but I do not think it is possible with currently or imminently available technology. Not with anything like the required level of reliability. Because what it is going to be judged against are simple, robust, reliable mechanical systems that reflect more than a century of refinement. I have been working with computers since my cousin got a TRS-80 and computers have many wonderful qualities, but reliability has never been their strong suit.

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

You realize that, when the Constitution was written, "well-regulated" meant "properly functioning," not "wrapped in red tape," don't you?

Etymology - it matters.

Re:Gun nuts

[shutdown -p now]

Mainly because there is a perceived tie-in with legislation that purports to mandate such technology. Basically, as soon as this appears on the market, it becomes mandatory in at least one state. There's no potential for free market driven bake time to iron out the kinks etc.

Thing is, people already got burned on a similar thing in California, where the state has recently mandated all new pistols being put on the register of allowed handguns to use microstamping technology - another holy grail that is pushed by a few dubious startups and most gun control groups. The argument there was the same - since the tech is already available, surely it's better to use it? Well, it turned out that the tech actually doesn't work, so in practice no handgun manufacturer can comply - and they have all withdrawn all new submissions to the allowed handgun list, and once the existing entries drop off it, California will have banned all handguns in practice.

derp

[Anonymous Coward]

How often are people locked out of their car because the key doesn't work?
Not often enough for it to be an issue.

you're dense. the acceptable rate of failure for a self defense weapon is infinitely lower than the acceptable rate of failure of a car door.

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't having a "smart" gun as described in TFS be a win/win for everyone?

As much as having a car whose brakes only work when the ECU detects that there isn't a cell phone in use would be "win/win."

A gun is something you should rarely-if-ever need, but when you need it, you need it to work without fail. Like the brakes on your car.

Re:Gun nuts

[DaHat]

The courts have ruled against Bundy repeatedly and demanded that he pay grazing fees and fines. He refuses to pay...

I don't think anyone is disputing that... other than perhaps Mr Bundy.

Perhaps the government had other options that would have worked better, but the one they chose is well within the constitution and the history of this country.

So because something has been done in past... it should be the first choice when more modern, reliable and less threat of violence prone means are commonly employed?

Nonsense!

When you default on your student loan, credit card or child support payments... the government *generally* doesn't come kicking down your door and seizing the property from your home or business... they tend to garnish your wages... or even march down to the court house, get a court order, fetch the local Sherriff, then go into your local bank and have your bank account frozen and it's contents seized up to the level of the order.

Maybe Bundy is a cash only man, or doesn't actually have a penny to his name either in a bank or under his mattress... I don't know.

The attempted seizure of his assets (which by some estimates would have cost the BLM about as much as they were hoping to get out of it) was poorly executed and even more poorly thought out. Period. Quit trying to make excuses.

Re:Gun nuts

[shutdown -p now]

Sure, but the limitations aren't arbitrary, either, and they're not based on "I don't want to". They have to pursue a meaningful societal goal, and it has to be important enough to override the constitutional right to some extent, and then that extent has to be the minimum necessary to achieve that goal.

(FWIW, as far as banning guns in schools goes, the standing interpretation is that it is a sufficiently important goal to warrant an override, though I find it dubious - no-one has clearly articulated what the problem is with a person inconspicuously carrying concealed in a school, and certainly no-one is proposing to arm the kids themselves.)

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

But if the safety fails to disengage? The weapon is a useless lump of metal. And this is not a toy. If you need it and it fails your life and/or the lives of your loved ones are threatened.

Okay. Is that a viable concern in this case?

If the difference between staying alive and being murdered is a matter of split seconds? You tell me. Keep in mind, the villain you're theoretically facing probably didn't bother to steal a smart gun. His is definitely going to fire; are you sure it's worth your life to risk the chance that yours might not?

shitifornia.

[Anonymous Coward]

a few months ago, agun owner 20 miles away, in San Bernadino, got killed when he interrupted a home invasion (by unarmed people) He got two, the third strangled him.

perhaps if he didn't live in such a shit state, he might have had a firearm with a standard capacity magazine and been able to save his life.

LEL IF YOU NEED MORE THAN TEN ROUNDS TO STOP AN ATTACKER YOU SHOULD GET MORE TRAINING

Re:Gun nuts

[Isaac-1]

I too am supporter of the 2nd amendment, but have concerns about the private resale market, and wish someone would offer a sensible option for the private seller to do background checks. Note I said OPTION, not MANDATE, as it is there is no way that a private seller can do a background check without going through a federally licensed gun dealer and paying fees, I would prefer it was done in an anonymous check system. Perhaps something where the potential buyer could fill out an eligebility form online which generates a security key good for something like 14 or 30 days, potential sellers could enter this number on a web site or send a text message with it, and get an authorized buyers name as a reply. The checking does not provide feedback that a sale occured, just that someone checked to see if the buyer was eligible to make a purchase, and the person doing they checking does not have to enter any personal information.

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

Really, you need to learn how to think like an American to understand them.

I hate to break it to you, but I am an American. As such, I think like one. So I guess I don't understand myself? Sigh. I sense long years of psychotherapy coming my way.

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

And folks could just buy their guns in another state, no?

Well, if NJ law is anything like CA law, then yea, they could, but if they don't have special permission from the state to own a non-compliant weapon, they're going to be in deep shit with Johnny Law.

And if folks aren't being forced to use such technologies, I'm not sure why folks are terrorizing a marketing drone from a manufacturer that isn't even selling the weapon in the one state with such a law.

Because morons exist on all sides of all debates - remember the asshat who came up with the Gun GeoMarker app?

Try to not let fringe lunatics color your view of the majority, who disagree with their actions.

Re:Gun nuts

[LF11]

I want everyone in my family to be able to use my guns without a moments' hesitation. Furthermore, I want perfect strangers to be able to use my gun if I am injured and cannot use it myself. Finally, I want my gun to be absolutely 100 percent reliable.

That reliability concern is the most pressing. Many gun manufacturers still haven't worked out how to make guns operate with >99% reliability (i.e. in a box of 100 cartridges, I will experience no more than one failure to feed or failure to eject). Reliability is hard, and electronics are infamously unreliable.

Electronics are particularly known to be unreliable in the kinds of conditions that concealed firearms experience, such as hard shocks, exposure to strange chemistry, and high humidity.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

The responsibility isn't to be well regulated, it is to regulate the militia. As in the right of the people to bear arms is a responsibility to regulate the militia.

Gun laws

[Shadowmist]

A large part of illegal guns in tight control places like New York, originate from legal purchases at gun shows which are specifically exempt from the tracking and controls that would be done elsewhere. Likewise there are gun stores in Pennslyvania which are ONLY legally allowed to sell to people coming in from out of state. The problem is that loopholes like these are deliberately created to make end runs around gun control laws which show the problem of leaving this thing to the states. We need a Federally imposed standard of gun regulation which can't be circumvented by gun shows and Pennsy gun shops. We need to stop deliberately inhibiting the AFT from doing the job it's supposed to do.

Re:Gun laws

[Entropius]

Given that the presence of guns is far more weakly correlated with murder than the presence of crack cocaine, why don't we create a Federal law banning smoking crack instead? I mean, it's not even grown here, and crackheads need a constant supply. It should be easier to keep out the crack than the guns, I'd think.

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

Mainly because there is a perceived tie-in with legislation that purports to mandate such technology.

nobody is mandating anything! here is a private company that wants to make a product. A company that manufactures guns, by the way. they should be allowed to develop products and bring products to market without the interference of gun zealots. and if it turns out that these gun accessories meaningfully contribute to gun safety, then as a society it behooves us to encourage their adoption. how about vouchers and free upgrades for gun owners? tax breaks? that would be cool, huh?

Re:Gun nuts

[LF11]

You have a remarkably well-thought-out post, but you are missing one important point.

Have you considered the "opportunity cost" of removing that risk to your person? i.e. what your personal risks will increase if said gun owners no longer own guns?

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

It's since been INTERPRETED to mean "each American individually"

Where else in the Constitution is the term "the People" used, where it doesn't refer to individual citizens? FYI, the correct answer is "nowhere."

...nor was it referring to anything but 1-shot muskets.

Right, and the First Amendment only referred to quill pens and printing presses, so I guess that means you don't think people have a right to free speech online?

Re:Gun nuts

[shutdown -p now]

A weapon intended for target practice, sport, or self defense has absolutely no need for a flash suppressor.

Um. Have you ever shot a 20" Mosin? Or, better yet, stood next to one being shot? How about night-time hunting?

There are plenty of reasons to want to suppress the firearm muzzle flash. In virtually all cases it is an inconvenience, ranging from minor to severe depending on the firearm and the circumstances of its use - but there's nothing specifically "assault" about it.

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

I have been working with computers since my cousin got a TRS-80 and computers have many wonderful qualities, but reliability has never been their strong suit.

I've been working with computers since my brother got a TRS80 Model I back in '78. Those cassette drives were murder. But once we got a 5.25" SSDD (360KB, FTW!) floppy, the sky was the limit! And you are correct about reliability. However, what general purpose computers have to do with RFID tags is beyond me.

Your point, however, is well taken. As I mentioned (why did you leave this part out, BTW?): "a finger/palm print scanner on the weapon might be more reliable." So. Is your concern with the specific technology (RFID) or the concept of personalized weapons?

Re:Gun nuts

[bigpat]

Actually it is pretty clear from the historical context that the reference to militias has an intended double meaning. Militias made up of local citizenry are both necessary to the common defense and therefore must be armed and armed militias are recognized as a danger to liberty so they must be regulated by an armed citizenry.

overreaction

[Shadowmist]

"This would only be true if said gun owner started taking his firearms out and handling them carelessly, which is so rare that you stand a better chance (by at least an order of magnitude) of being hit by a car driven recklessly (yet for some odd reason, no one is calling for a ban on automobiles.)" No one's calling a ban for guns either, but I don't think that you're looking to have all regulations lifted on auto safety, are you? The NRA gets into a frenzy whenever ANY regulation is brought up, or even any technology that might restrict the free use of a firearm. They're apparently in a major panic on smartguns because they assume the existence of them will lead to mandated confiscation of non-smart weapons.

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

Look up the term "stochastic terrorism."

Considering that said Google search provides no cite-able sources outside extremist, left-wing blogs, I would probably refrain from using the term in the future if I were you.

That is, unless you want to be viewed as a sociopath.

Re:Gun nuts

[LF11]

Actually, very nearly all the NRA's money comes from individual members.

Their top contributors (as I recall) are MidwayUSA and Cabela's. But if you know how those organizations work, you would also know that very nearly every penny of that money comes from individual people's tiny contributions. This is because MidwayUSA has a "round up donation" feature, where you can round up your order total to the nearest dollar, 5 dollars, or 10 dollars, and that additional amount will be donated to the NRA.

I round up every order. Everyone I know does the same. At the end of the year, you get a massive donation to the NRA.

Re:Gun nuts

[Insipid Trunculance]

Text of 2nd Amendment - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Where does it prohibit felons from being gun owners?

Re:Gun nuts

[Isaac-1]

For those are following this, at the time this was written the term "militia" meant men of potential military service age and regulated meant trained

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

As much as having a car whose brakes only work when the ECU detects that there isn't a cell phone in use would be "win/win."

A gun is something you should rarely-if-ever need, but when you need it, you need it to work without fail. Like the brakes on your car.

And so I should always leave my car keys prominently displayed in my unlocked car as well?

Re:Gun nuts

[shutdown -p now]

A flash suppressor, as the name implies, suppresses the muzzle flash of the weapon. This lets you see the target more clearly for repeat shots, preserves night vision if shooting in low-light conditions (e.g. at night), and prevents people standing on either side of you from being similarly affected. Basically, it is something that removes one of the general inconveniences associated with the operating mechanism of a firearm.

It's not usually something that you go out and buy on your own, but many guns do come with them these days, and not just "assault weapons". E.g. here is a bolt-action rifle (practically the antithesis of the usual assault weapon cliche) with one.

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

There's no Constitutional right to drive a car.

Kinda different.

Re:Gun nuts

[shutdown -p now]

Also, here is a video that showcases why suppressing the flash is a very desirable feature to have on some firearms. Imagine being 20 inches away from that, it going off right in front of your eyes. It's even worse when dark.

Re:Gun nuts

[Cederic]

Creating this gun is in itself not a threat.

Creating a law mandating that it must be purchased may be a threat, but that's a separate activity entirely.

As far as I can tell, the iP1 threatens nobody, except possibly when it's used. That it triggers a clause in a law that people don't want to change isn't an issue with the iP1, it's an issue with either the law or the people that don't want to change it.

Focus on the issue, not the fucking symptoms.

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

The fact that Japan has almost no guns in private hands, yet maintains one of the highest suicide rates in the world, kinda destroys your gun-suicide link premise.

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

If the difference between staying alive and being murdered is a matter of split seconds? You tell me. Keep in mind, the villain you're theoretically facing probably didn't bother to steal a smart gun. His is definitely going to fire; are you sure it's worth your life to risk the chance that yours might not?

You're making the assumption that such a security device is not reliable. Is there evidence to support that?

Just one additional point. I do not carry firearms because I'm not prepared to kill people. I've lived my whole (almost half a century) life in a large urban area, at times in high-crime areas, and that's never been an issue. What are you afraid of?

Re:Gun nuts

[shutdown -p now]

Here's the fact: the purpose of these "cosmetic features" you mention is to make the gun good at harming other people.

If you don't know what a muzzle flash suppressor is for, how did you arrive to that conclusion, so much so as to claim that it is a "fact"?

Are you aware of the features that were in AWB, or in any of the proposed new AWBs? Do you know how they work and what they're for (a serious question, by the way - if you do not, then I'll be happy to explain).

Re:Gun nuts

[wisnoskij]

No, there is no way that this is a good thing for anyone.

If you cannot secure your firearm you should not have one in the first place. Period. If losing your gun is a plausible outcome, then you are doing something very wrong.
And if you ever go to actually fire a gun, there absolutely should not be some dinky computer chip in the way, because you are guaranteed to be in a life or death situation. If you wanted to make the US like Canada, and only allow hand guns for collections and range practice, that system would work great. It probably would not accomplish very much, as it would simply make the guns more expensive and breakable, and would be incredibly easy (if illegal) to remove, but it would not get in the way, because we already do not have the right to defend ourselves. But outside of a range type situation, "smart" guns make no sense.

Re:Gun nuts

[LF11]

I am amazed at how caught up you (and so many others) are in the details of Bundy's fee payments, while completely and utterly missing the bigger picture.

The police and BLM were violently harassing protestors. Lots of people got angry and showed up. The police *backed down.* There were no mass arrests, no pepper spraying, no beatings, nothing. Here a protest happened, and the protestors unquestionably won.

Is that good? Is it bad? The government's blatant failure to stop this armed protest guarantees similar altercations in the future. Take labels and judgments out of the picture. How does this event change our political landscape? What does it mean that while Putin annexes Crimea and the Ukraine, Obama fails to crush a (small) armed rebellion at home?

What will happen the next time?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bl9ERZQIgAA9CMU.jpg:large

You don't have to agree with Bundy. But you should be aware of the importance of what is happening.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Rhywden]

Right. Equally plausible scenarios:

They beat him up but let him live.
He gets the hell out of their way and the burglars get away

You're forgetting one fact: He already shot two burglars - which choice exactly does the 3rd one have? Surrender and hope for the best? Naw. The situation had already escalated to one involving lethal force which makes a peaceful outcome pretty unlikely. It's pretty rare for violent situations to de-escalate without involving an outside force.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

More likely he wouldn't have tried to stop them -- one unarmed man against three who may or may not be armed, not very good odds. Then he would be dealing with some property damage and some stolen items, which in the grand scheme of things is a whole lot better than being dead.

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

And folks could just buy their guns in another state, no?

Well, if NJ law is anything like CA law, then yea, they could, but if they don't have special permission from the state to own a non-compliant weapon, they're going to be in deep shit with Johnny Law.

And if folks aren't being forced to use such technologies, I'm not sure why folks are terrorizing a marketing drone from a manufacturer that isn't even selling the weapon in the one state with such a law.

Because morons exist on all sides of all debates - remember the asshat who came up with the Gun GeoMarker app?

Try to not let fringe lunatics color your view of the majority, who disagree with their actions.

The NJ law(again AFAICT, the only such law in the US) only addresses the manufacture and sale of guns *in* NJ, not possession.

Re:Gun nuts

[shutdown -p now]

nobody is mandating anything!

Wrong.

A company that manufactures guns, by the way. they should be allowed to develop products and bring products to market without the interference of gun zealots.

Oh, absolutely. As a gun owner and gun rights supporter, I do not condone the kind of harassment that is described in the TFA.

if it turns out that these gun accessories meaningfully contribute to gun safety, then as a society it behooves us to encourage their adoption.

The track record on gun control is not particularly encouraging in that regard. Out of all the laws regulating the kinds of guns and their features that we have on the books, something like three quarters serve no meaningful purpose and does not improve safety of anyone. E.g. most of the NFA-regulated items (short-barreled rifles and shotguns, as well as suppressors - basically everything except for machine guns) falls in that category. Most of those laws were put in place not through careful deliberation of safety implications, but as a knee jerk reaction to a moral panic - e.g. NFA directly followed from the mob violence of the Prohibition.

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

It is NOT paranoia if they really are out to get you. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. First, you ban large magazines. Another shooting, Then, you ban all semi-auto firearms. Another shooting. Time to ban them all! This is a slight exaggeration, but my point still stands.

It is paranoia if nothing of the sort ever happened. That's the definition of paranoia.

The NFA happened.

The Brady Bill happened.

Diane Feinstein happened.

Re:Gun nuts

[wisnoskij]

So because freedom of speech and freedom of the press are both "Rights" that means that both need to be heavily regulated?

You can say/print whatever you want, as long as you ask us first and follow any revisions we suggest? Sort of thing?

Re:Gun nuts

[Isaac-1]

I know you wrote this to be a troll, but at the time the 2nd amendment was written in 1787 private ownership of cannon by wealthy land owners was somewhat common

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

And what do you suggest to properly securing your guns? So called gun safes are not actually all that safe.

So, you read an article about one model of one brand of gun safe that was fundamentally flawed, and extrapolate that to include every model of every brand of gun safe?

Your high school science teacher must be ashamed.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[TangoMargarine]

I'd call that a decision that only the guy who intervened could make. And he did, so it would appear that he considered the risk to his own life to be worth it.

I applaud that.

Re:Gun nuts

[LF11]

It is because the people proposing such controls are not acting in good faith. They wish to confiscate all firearms. They are on record -- repeatedly and without ambiguity -- as being opposed to all civilian firearms ownership (except, perhaps, collectors).

If they were actually, honestly interested in increasing safety, then I think they could garner quite a lot of support from the gun crowd. But to do this, they would need to become acquainted with the actual details of firearms, how they work, and the moral questions surrounding them. Furthermore, they would need to actually pay attention to what gun owners want.

For example, we want access to the NICS background check system when making private sales. Why don't we have access to NICS? Because the anti-gunners block it every time it is proposed. They want it to be mandatory. Well, mandatory NICS checks are a de-facto gun registry. We are allergic to gun registries because we are aware of history and stand appalled and aghast that supposedly intelligent people could be so ignorant.

They don't listen and they don't want safety. They want guns removed from the population. And every law or regulation they propose or modify is aimed at that goal.

That's why gun owners are adopting a zero tolerance attitude towards new regulation.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[AC-x]

But if you have children how would you juggle keeping a gun accessible enough to actually use in self defence but not accessible enough for your children to easily access it?

Re:Gun nuts

[JesseMcDonald]

I need a license, registration, and insurance to drive a car.

Only on a public road. You don't need a license or insurance simply to own a car, transport it, or drive it on private roads, and the registration just shows that you've payed your taxes. There is no point in licensing the use of guns as the use of cars on public roads is licensed; they're something you carry only for emergencies, in the hope you won't need to use them. You shouldn't need anyone's permission just to manufacture, buy, sell, or own one, carry it around, or practice with it on a private firing range. If the time comes that you do need to defend yourself with it, that should be treated no differently than defending yourself with any other tool which happened to be at hand.

Re:Gun nuts

[LF11]

Not dishonest at all. Anti-gunners such as Biden have repeatedly and publicly stated that their eventual goal is the banning of all firearms from civilian hands. Laws such as the one you describe are merely stepping stones towards that eventual goal.

It has zero bearing on public safety, if for no other reason than criminals don't use rifles to commit crimes. So if it has no bearing on public safety, why else would he want it? Like I said, he has publicly stated his intention to ban firearms from civilian hands, so it isn't much of a jump that maybe this law has to do with his previously-stated goal.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[TangoMargarine]

He assumes that the home invaders are never going to invade someone else's home and end up killing *them*, too, which seems to prove the very view he's arguing against.

Re:Gun nuts

[khasim]

I don't know the difference between a thumbhole stock and having my thumb up my butt, but I know that reasonable people will agree that some guns are designed for sport, some are designed for self defense, and some were designed to kill humans.

"Reasonable" being defined there as "agree with this statement".

No. You are wrong.

Once you get away from fully automatic/burst (already regulated) there is NOTHING (see below) that differentiates a weapon used for hunting/sport from a weapon (as you claim) "designed for" ... "kill humans".

There are excepts such as an "elephant gun" and such for hunting larger animals. But by that logic a weapon designed to "kill humans" (as you claim) would be less effective.

Re:Gun nuts

[Isaac-1]

Buying handguns across state lines is already illegal, even in the more free states. Removing the more restrictive gun control states from the statement, it is already a federal crime (I think gun control act of 1968) to purchase handguns across state lines. If you do so you MUST buy from a licensed dealer who will SHIP it to a licencsed dealer in your state who will do the background check and approval paperwork, etc.

Re:Gun nuts

[cheater512]

You are assuming that the number of illegal guns is constant regardless of whether guns are easily available legally or not.

Here in Australia its a pain in the butt to get guns - legally or illegally.
So much so that *every single time* a gun is used in a crime, it makes the news.
You can't exactly say that about the US.

This gun may be compat-ready more quickly

[Anonymous Coward]

I read through the comments and many people don't seem to realize that this gun is potentially combat-ready more quickly than others in case where weapon and ammunition have to be stored separately (by law provisions). Not so with the Armatix systems.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeating firearms predate the 2nd amendment.

Re:Gun nuts

[sjames]

If you said something completely innocuous ("Hello!")

That's because a reasonable man wouldn't expect "Hello!" to cause a panic. Note that if I make a general announcement in the theater that in 5 seconds I will yell "FIRE!", and nobody should worry, All would be well, because in that situation, I wouldn't expect to cause a panic even though I yelled "FIRE!" in a theater.

If someone decides to panic and trample over others, *that's on them*.

NO. It will be on whoever yelled fire because a reasonable person may believe the theater is on fire if someone is shouting fire.

Re:Gun nuts

[Isaac-1]

The real problem though with this bracelet tech is that it requires some sort of signal be sent to the gun, and the gun defaults to do not fire. The next step will be proximity no fire transmitters in "gun free" zones, police cars / officers, etc. These transmitters WILL be stolen by people with violent crimal intent. Imagine how safe this would make robbing a liquor store, just go in wearing your personal jammer

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

Are you aware of the features that were in AWB, or in any of the proposed new AWBs? Do you know how they work and what they're for (a serious question, by the way - if you do not, then I'll be happy to explain).

to tell you the truth i know very little about guns. 80% is from action movies and 18% from news reports or newspapers. 2% direct experience. I had to think a bit before I realized that AWB is assault weapons ban.

Re:Gun nuts

[Arker]

"a finger/palm print scanner on the weapon might be more reliable."

Only I really dont think it would be. It would be more complicated, which means more possible points of failure. A little mud or oil on your hand might interfere with the reader, or it might fail entirely for any of dozens of reasons.

Personalized weapons would be great in abstract, if you just imagine them perfectly formed, all technical problems worked out, and just as reliable as regular weapons. But for the foreseeable future that is a pipe dream.

Godsend to police and secuity guards

[Anonymous Coward]

In Washington state a naked man, high on drugs was sprayed with pepper spray by a deputy sheriff. It had no effect. He then wrestled the cop's gun away from him, and shot the cop to death with his own gun. I saw the funeral precession for Deputy Richard Herzog personally. If this technology had existed back then, it would have saved his life. If baffles my mind these gun nuts would fight against these kind of things. It just shows they're more about crazy conspiracy theories than gun safety.

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

Technically, the prohibition on yelling fire in a movie theater and death threats is not due to tyhe speech but the effect of causing (respectively) a panic likely to hurt or kill people or placing someone in fear for their well being.

Precisely.

One has the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, very much so; however, if there isn't an actual fire, the person yelling it is violating everyone else's right to life.

I think people take that whole "you don't have a right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" thing entirely to literally, which leads to other, nonsense misinterpretations.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppressors are legal in much of the US for exactly the reasons you claim they aren't needed. Where the population is dense, a sport shooter's hearing protection doesn't protect others from the noise, a self defense shooting shouldn't require you to go looking for earmuffs to protect your hearing, and while hunting, you can get a second shot sometimes if you have a suppressor. Target practice, self defense, and sport, all good reasons for suppressors. No reason to ban a useful improvement to a tool because someone could misuse it.

Assault weapons are a joke category made up by democrat gun grabbers, it basically creates a meaningless artificial separation between groups of rifles so they can ban them piecemeal, since they know they'll never get a blanket ban on rifles. Suppressors are already in a separate category, requiring registration, approval, and a tax stamp.

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

I want everyone in my family to be able to use my guns without a moments' hesitation. Furthermore, I want perfect strangers to be able to use my gun if I am injured and cannot use it myself. Finally, I want my gun to be absolutely 100 percent reliable. That reliability concern is the most pressing. Many gun manufacturers still haven't worked out how to make guns operate with >99% reliability (i.e. in a box of 100 cartridges, I will experience no more than one failure to feed or failure to eject). Reliability is hard, and electronics are infamously unreliable. Electronics are particularly known to be unreliable in the kinds of conditions that concealed firearms experience, such as hard shocks, exposure to strange chemistry, and high humidity.

I'm just amazed. This doesn't apply specifically to you LF11, but WTF!?!?! What makes all of you so afraid? I don't (and never have) need a gun to feel and be safe. This has been borne out by almost fifty years of living, some of it while engaged in activities which can (and has) attracted a violent element.

I feel sorry for those of you who are so terrified of the world around you. It's just sad.

Stop being cowards, hiding behind your death machines and grow a pair, folks. Guns don't make you safer. Your brain (when used properly) makes you safer.

I don't begrudge you your right to bear arms. But you certainly aren't welcome in my home. Your fear makes you much more dangerous than the vast majority of bad actors in this world, IMHO.

This makes the point, I think:
“Dwayne's bad chemicals made him take a loaded thirty-eight caliber revolver from under his pillow and stick it in his mouth. This was a tool whose only purpose was to make holes in human beings.”
-- Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions

I have quite enough holes already, thank you very much.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution ostensibly prohibits congress from passing laws that restrict gun ownership. There is no such restriction on local counties, and in fact by the 10th amendment the right to pass such restrictions resides solely with the states.

Re: Gun nuts

[Nodsnarb]

The Second Amendment enshrines an Americans right to wear T-Shirts...Why ? Because the Second Amendment gives every American the right to bare arms.

As a recreational land owner and gun owner..

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, people who are afraid of guns have a misplaced fear. Doctors, cars, and prescription meds are more dangerous.
Secondly, people who feel afraid when they do not have guns on their hip have misplaced fear. Doctors, cars, and prescription meds are more dangerous.

I wanted to take a moment to beat back the crazies as any gun debate brings them out.
- it is not wrong for someone to develop a gun that has this proximity mechanism. It is in fact innovation. You might not like it but if someone's purpose is to buy a gun(for whatever reason), then this might fit their needs just fine while providing additional protections to those around them from accidents.
- I am for federal laws, but only federal laws. When each municipality can make its own rules, then transporting a firearm for hunting/shooting competitions in another state can get you into the wrong side of the law if you pass through the wrong communities. Make for sensible uniform, NON TINFOIL hat laws.

Lastly as it relates to self defense: up until recently, ONLY Wisonsin and Illinois were the left holding out on concealed carry. Wisconsin was not a high crime state and crime did not precipitously drop once CC was approved. By the NRA's logic, criminals should have flocked there because people were not carrying weapons. IOW, it is a myth that carrying guns changes anything in terms of being a crime influencer.

PS. Before you quote how I do not understand risks, read "The Science of Fear". People spend too much time worrying about stuff that does not matter.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[laird]

If he hadn't had a gun, he wouldn't have done something stupid like confront robbers face-to-face. Instead he would have called the police and waited a few minutes for them to arrest the unarmed robbers.

By having he gun, he made a foolish choice that resulted in his death.

Re:Gun nuts

[JesseMcDonald]

You're not quite correct on a couple of points.

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

The 2nd amendment qualifies that right with words about a "well regulated militia".

First, to the GP: "for self-defense" does not appear anywhere in the 2nd Amendment. It's the right to keep and bear arms, period. There's no need to justify why you want to keep and/or bear arms; for hunting, sport shooting, whatever.

Second, while there is language about a "well regulated militia", it's not qualifying the right—it's providing the justification for it (one of many). It is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia. At the time these were essentially the same thing, but the right was never limited to the militia. How could it be? Rights are universal, not restricted to certain groups.

If you read the amendment from a neutral point of view and not as someone who wants to find a justification for banning firearms, it's really pretty obvious. More so if you read contemporary commentaries on the subject. The only "debate" on this issue is due to a number of people, including some judges, who want to simply ban firearms but (fortunately) lack the support to repeal the amendment outright. Since they can't change the text they try to sow confusion and twist its meaning instead.

Re:Gun nuts

[Isaac-1]

So you are saying you tend to kick in the doors of your friends houses in the middle of the night?

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[drinkypoo]

To me, you are the perfect person for this type of gun. Your gun currently sits at the range. With a standard gun, if it gets stolen, they can then use it for anything they want. You don't have to worry about using it in your home for self defense or anything like that. So with this type of gun you can still use it at the range when you want but if it ever is stolen, the thief couldn't use it for anything.

Sigh. Making it clear that you've never been into the guts of a gun. There's not much in there. There will always be a simple way to defeat these mechanisms. If a mechanism becomes widespread, the means will become known to criminals rapidly. Legitimate gun owners will defeat it, and they will share the information with other legitimate gun owners. It's worthless, and it makes the firearm less reliable.

If you want to improve firearms responsibility, here's a method which can also be easily defeated but which doesn't impinge on their function: a camera should be attached to the gun which takes a picture when the weapon is fired. (It's activated by the mechanism just before the weapon fires.) Every cop's gun should have to have this camera. It might well be reasonable to integrate them into all handguns as well, but that's a whole other argument. Let's see just what they're looking at when they fire.

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

If the difference between staying alive and being murdered is a matter of split seconds? You tell me. Keep in mind, the villain you're theoretically facing probably didn't bother to steal a smart gun. His is definitely going to fire; are you sure it's worth your life to risk the chance that yours might not?

You're making the assumption that such a security device is not reliable. Is there evidence to support that?

Yes - cops refuse to carry them. Now, why would a cop refuse to carry such a weapon, if not for the fact that they believe it to be unreliable?

Just one additional point. I do not carry firearms because I'm not prepared to kill people. I've lived my whole (almost half a century) life in a large urban area, at times in high-crime areas, and that's never been an issue. What are you afraid of?

Strawman - fear has nothing to do with the decision of carrying something a person can use to defend themselves. If you choose to not carry a means of defense, on the off chance that you find yourself in a life threatening situation, that's your right and decision, and I won't demean you for making it, just as I expect you to not demean my right and decision to provide myself the means to defend myself and my loved ones, if the need ever arises (which, like the majority of people, I pray never happens).

Accusing me of being "afraid" is disrespectful, and seems an obvious attempt at marginalizing a point-of-view you disagree with.

Re:Gun nuts

[Isaac-1]

No you don't you only need keys, and maybe not even that if you have certain skills

Re:Gun nuts

[Kalriath]

It's the same in New Zealand. For some reason though, a crossbow is A-OK (and requires no permit).

Re:Gun nuts

[Noah Haders]

what is the purpose of an extended clip handgun? or a military sniper rifle? any military weapon? bombs? assault grips?

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

As much as having a car whose brakes only work when the ECU detects that there isn't a cell phone in use would be "win/win."

A gun is something you should rarely-if-ever need, but when you need it, you need it to work without fail. Like the brakes on your car.

And so I should always leave my car keys prominently displayed in my unlocked car as well?

Non sequitur - has nothing to do with the results of a potential and unexpected system failure.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

> He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.

It still would have happened, but the only death would have been his.

Or it is just as likely that if he had been unarmed, he wouldn't have confronted the invaders, and all of them would have lived. Without knowing the specifics, we can't say.

Re:Gun nuts

[laird]

No, the 2nd Amendment gives states the right to organize a citizen militia armed with guns. It does not give all individuals the unrestricted right to buy guns. Guns were regulated when the US was founded, and have always been regulated. There have always been laws about what kinds of guns you can buy, who can buy them, where you can carry them, etc. The only debate is what the regulations should be. For example, the NRA's position is that felons should be able to buy unlimited quantities of any guns they like, anonymously. Most people oppose those positions, because they think it's a good idea to keep felons from buying guns, and would like to be able to track gun sales back to dealers in order to prevent them from selling guns to felons.

As for the "if you want to restrict guns, move somewhere that people agree with you", we already live there - 90% of Americans disagree with the NRA's most extreme positions. But apparently huge piles of cash from gun manufacturers affects politicians behaviors more than the opinions of the voters.

Re:Gun nuts

[Penguinisto]

Why is evidence required?

...because if you're going to paint someone as a representative of a certain group of people, then proving that the person is indeed a member of that group is a good start. ;)

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

Your self-delusion and unoriginal bullshit notwithstanding, the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses say otherwise.

They meant "regulated" in exactly the same way we mean "regulated."

Constitution.org, or rather the Oxford English Dictionary, disagrees with you.

Now, if you can provide a source citation that supports your argument, I'll consider it.

Oh, and do try to keep the childish name-calling to yourself. Such nonsense has no place in discussion, and only serves to denigrate your own position.

Re:Gun nuts

[gnoshi]

Neither parent said anything about restricting guns at all.
One said that 'gun nuts go ape shit at the slightest reason', which depending on your definition of 'gun nuts' can certainly be absolutely true. The main problem here is that people often define gun nuts as those people who go ape shit at something like this so it can become a circular definition. There is no avoiding that there are people who do go ape shit at the vaguest smell of the possibility of maybe adding safety features to guns even voluntarily.
The other said 'Why yes! Those kind of people sound *exactly* like the kind of people that should have guns!' which I don't think is unreasonable either. Of all the people who could have guns, those who would employ these sorts of standover tactics and threatening behaviour toward someone who has developed a safety-related technology for firearms are the kind of people who I am dubious about having guns.

All that aside, there are varying interpretations of the second amendment (mostly hinging around membership of a militia, so far as I can tell) so what you're presenting is an interpretation. It is the one that is generally recognised by law, though, so it seems fair to run wit that.
Also, some of the proposed laws (e.g. mandatory background checks on all gun sales, better auditing of gun sales and the associated background checks) are improved coverage of the 'obvious prohibitions' you don't seem to mind. That doesn't stop 'gun nuts going ape shit' about them.

There is no "reasonable" restriction in the eyes of those who wish to promulgate these laws, save for complete abolition.

This is hyperbolic nonsense. It probably is true of a subset of people who wish to promulgate 'these laws' but it is obviously not true of all of those who would like more restrictive gun laws.

Re:Gun nuts

[laird]

Let's look at it another way - gun deaths in the US are 10x higher per capita than other countries. Are gun owners unwilling to accept even minimal requirements for gun safety, even at the cost of many people's lives?

Re:Gun nuts

[gnoshi]

Oh, and:

As for the people you speak of? As long as they do not commit a felony, so what? The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best.

Part of the problem is that the person may not have committed a felony until they shot you in the head. Every murder, at some point, wasn't a murderer.

Re:Gun nuts

[geekoid]

"There are only a very few obvious prohibitions, namely against convicted felons and those declared mentally incompetent or ill.
which are weakly enforce, and when people want to make enforcement of those laws stronger gun nuts go freaking ape shit.

", there are people in the US who fear the things so much, "
That they need to carry a murder weapon everywhere they go.

"and IMHO should not be taken, lest it set a dangerous precedent "
There are a lot of weapons you are not allowed to own.

" The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best.:
That will make sense as soon as you can guarantee law abiding citizen will stop being law abiding any time in there life.
Until then, it's logically fallacious.

"If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so":
as soon s you do that, fucktwads^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Gun Owners come out of the woodwork and try to live their to force the local community to change their ways through abusing the court system.

We can't even have a person make a gun that only fires when it's near a device without people threatening the life of the person who does it,
And I guarantee you their are 'law abiding citizen' applauding the person making the threats.

"The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best."
The belief that someone will be forever law abiding, never have a weapon stolen and forever be mentally stable is irrational.
In fact, the belief that everyone is out to get you and the only way to deal with it is to kill them is irrational, yet it's the most widely used excuse.
For the record: I have fired pretty much every weapon in civilian use as of 15 years ago, and many military weapons. I am not afraid of guns, I understand how they work very well, and at the time my accuracy was pretty good.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

I see your point - the methods used by the Department of Homeland Security are so much more effective.

Re:Gun nuts

[laird]

Exactly - the founders made quite clear that they were referring to The People as a whole having a right to bear arms, through their state militia. They quite clearly opposed the idea that everyone had a right to unlimited guns - they killed anti-American rebels (e.g. Whiskey Rebellion). Remember, they founded the United States, they didn't hate it!

Re:right handed people wear their watch on left ar

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you are blazing away one-handed like you think you are a goddamn action hero, shouldn't you, a responsible and well trained gun owner, be using your firearm with a two hand stance?

Re:Gun nuts

[geekoid]

We can get rid of guns. Just takes time and will.

Re:Gun nuts

[Minwee]

There are almost a billion Americans in the world, and three hundred million citizens of the USA, including Florida Man. Trying to understand them all as a single entity is guaranteed to cause head explody, to use the medical term for it.

Re:Gun nuts

[geekoid]

IT's an option now. No one does it. That's why it need to be a mandate.

Re:Gun nuts

[Firethorn]

An accurate watch might also be called well regulated.

I remember reading some stories about clocks and watches were only allowed to be marked 'regulated' if they met requirements in accuracy of telling the time, rather strict ones for the time.

Back in the 18th century it was common to have to reset your clock/watch every day. A regulated one you'd only have to adjust by a minute or so.

Re:Gun nuts

[drinkypoo]

Most gun-enthusiasts support restrictions on felons and the mentally ill owning guns, but there are a good number of true gun-nuts that don't

As long as we have victimless crimes which are felonies, and we do, automatically taking away felons' constitutional right to bear arms is pure, unadulterated bullshit. By all means, deprive them of this right if they are involved in a violent crime. Otherwise, that's just another example of traitorous behavior.

Witness the latest law in right-leaning Georgia to allow concealed carry in bars where people will be intoxicated while armed. I mean, why did anyone think that was a good idea?

I agree, it's pretty dippy. They should have to give up their guns at the door. On the other hand, I would exercise self-restraint and not go to bars full of guns. On the third hand, what's a guy to do when he goes out to the bar? Leave his gun home? Can't leave it in the car, that's terrible, unless you have both lojack and a bitchin' little safe and not just a lockbox.

Re:Gun nuts

[BiIl_the_Engineer]

That's because a reasonable man wouldn't expect "Hello!" to cause a panic.

1) "reasonable" is 100% subjective.
2) Irrelevant. The point is, they *are* punishing you for your speech. If you hadn't said anything, or said something completely innocuous, nothing would have happened. There's literally nothing else to punish you for. Punishing you for the 'effects' (the vibrations in the air?) of your speech doesn't even remotely make sense.

NO. It will be on whoever yelled fire because a reasonable person may believe the theater is on fire if someone is shouting fire.

Oh, so the words magically took possession of people's bodies and caused them to panic and trample over others? Amazing; I didn't know that was possible.

If you choose to get up, that's on you, and it's 100% irrelevant what you think a "reasonable" person would do; if you break something, even by accident, you have to pay for it. The people who are hurting others or breaking things are the ones who trample over others.

Again, if the theater owner wants to kick them out, he/she can do so.

Pretending that this has nothing to do with the speech is just absurd. This is the *exact same* sort of logic the Supreme Court used in the 'fire in a crowded theater' case, which led to war protestors being arrested. You literally cannot separate the 'effects' (really, other people's actions, which isn't an effect of the speech) of speech from the speech itself, and attempts to do so have historically led to oppression.

Re:Gun nuts

[MightyYar]

It is because the people proposing such controls are not acting in good faith.

Some of them, yes. Just like some gun proponents are threatening this poor sales rep. But most people who are not on some extreme should be able to have a conversation without instantly laying into one another.

That's why gun owners are adopting a zero tolerance attitude towards new regulation.

I'm afraid that strategy will fail catastrophically as people urbanize.

Re:Gun nuts

[geekoid]

Actually it doesn't show that at all.
You've have bought into the 'balance' myth.

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

If the difference between staying alive and being murdered is a matter of split seconds? You tell me. Keep in mind, the villain you're theoretically facing probably didn't bother to steal a smart gun. His is definitely going to fire; are you sure it's worth your life to risk the chance that yours might not?

You're making the assumption that such a security device is not reliable. Is there evidence to support that?

Yes - cops refuse to carry them. Now, why would a cop refuse to carry such a weapon, if not for the fact that they believe it to be unreliable?

Just one additional point. I do not carry firearms because I'm not prepared to kill people. I've lived my whole (almost half a century) life in a large urban area, at times in high-crime areas, and that's never been an issue. What are you afraid of?

Strawman - fear has nothing to do with the decision of carrying something a person can use to defend themselves. If you choose to not carry a means of defense, on the off chance that you find yourself in a life threatening situation, that's your right and decision, and I won't demean you for making it, just as I expect you to not demean my right and decision to provide myself the means to defend myself and my loved ones, if the need ever arises (which, like the majority of people, I pray never happens).

Accusing me of being "afraid" is disrespectful, and seems an obvious attempt at marginalizing a point-of-view you disagree with.

Not a strawman. My apologies if you were offended by my characterization. However, if it isn't fear (of the unknown, of some notional threat, or of your own mortality) that drives you to the conclusion that the threat of deadly force against others is the way for you to feel secure in your person, then what drives you to (at least in your mind) threaten anyone who may stand in your path with gruesome, painful death?

That may strike you as hyperbole, but that is, in fact, how your choice appears to me. The act of carrying a deadly weapon for "protection," to me, implies a willingness to inflict death, or at least grievous bodily harm on another human being. Such extreme measures suggests a strong driver -- in my mind, most likely fear.

Please understand, I'm not trying to demean you or your choices. It's just that I honestly don't get it. And I'd like to understand your point of view. If you would explain, I would much appreciate it.

Guns are for girls...

[jopsen]

... I keep it loaded. It isn't much use in a home invasion if it isn't loaded.

Guns are for girls... I always carry a dead man's switch to the 500 pounds of TNT I keep under my bed.
Nobody robs me and gets away with it...

I think of it as the nuclear option (patent pending).

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

As much as having a car whose brakes only work when the ECU detects that there isn't a cell phone in use would be "win/win."

A gun is something you should rarely-if-ever need, but when you need it, you need it to work without fail. Like the brakes on your car.

And so I should always leave my car keys prominently displayed in my unlocked car as well?

Non sequitur - has nothing to do with the results of a potential and unexpected system failure.

I was merely using a different car analogy to represent a personalization device on a weapon. As such it does follow, IMHO.

Re:gun cleaning

[JayBat]

I'd venture to say people are just as unlikely to clean and oil their gun and install fresh ammunition..

Au contraire! Every year, thousands (thousands!) of good responsible gun owners unintentionally shoot themselves or their buddies in the hand, or foot, or ass, or crotch, or head (that last one seldom turns out well!).

In about 2/3 of those cases, guess what they were doing? Wait for it.... they were CLEANING THEIR GUN AND IT JUST WENT OFF! So there are gun cleaners everywhere, I tell you, and my hat is off to them, having the courage to clean their gun when it is (apparently) such a risky activity.

Jay

Re:Gun nuts

[khasim]

assault grips?

A quick Google search brings up bicycle handle bars and World of Warcraft. What are you talking about?

bombs?

A bomb is not the same as a rifle. Nor a carbine. Nor a pistol. Bombs are covered under different laws.

any military weapon?

That's Claymores to cruise missiles. Looks like you're just flailing around now.

or a military sniper rifle?

Still flailing. Adding words like "military" or "sniper" does not change the functionality.

what is the purpose of an extended clip handgun?

You mean "magazine", not "clip". And "handgun" is redundant.

The purpose is to have more rounds available without reloading.

to tell you the truth i know very little about guns. 80% is from action movies and 18% from news reports or newspapers.

So the basis for your position is Hollywood fantasy. And you can't tell the difference between the real world and a Hollywood fantasy.

So you're going to argue based upon the Hollywood fantasies that you've watched.

Re:Gun nuts

[BronsCon]

I wanted my gun for target practice, not even for self defense, even after being robbed twice at gunpoint. My solution to the robbery problem was to move out of the ghetto. The CCW is mostly a benefit to me when my buddy wants to meet up at the range to put holes in targets and I just so happen to be closer to the range than I am to home, and I sincerely hope that never changes (e.g. I hope I never have to take aim at a living thing). But, that all boils down to "I want a gun". Am I unfit to own one?

Re: Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

You might think that, and you would be completely wrong. I suspect that's a common experience for you.

Re:Gun nuts

[drinkypoo]

How shall we regulate the militia if they are armed and we are not?

Re: Gun nuts

[DrewMoore6756]

Sorry, wrong, you lose. Thank you for playing

Won't fire 10 inches?

[ai4px]

Will fire 10 inches.... so the bad guy holds my wife by the neck and she clutches at his arm choking her trying to pull it away... where is her arm? within 10 inches of the gun pointed at her head. bang goes the supposedly safe gun.

Re:Gun nuts

[DaHat]

When did you get your /. account? When you were 6? Your UID suggests you've either been around for a while... or got it from someone older.

In either case, it's quite clear that the age of the UID is not a reflection of your own maturity.

I replied to someone stating, "The iP1 is a not-so-veiled threat against gunowners." by challenging that assertion.

I saw that... you assertion was incorrect, something I commented on.

Your comment on the New Jersey gun law does not refute my argument that the iP1 is not a threat (veiled or otherwise).

So not only do we have a reading completion fail on your part... but a failure to cite anything or give supportive arguments of your case.

This whole conversation can be pretty much boiled down to:

AC: "The iP1 is a not-so-veiled threat against gunowners"
You: These guns don't pose a threat to legal gun rights
Me: They do, consider this law in New Jersey.
You: What the fuck are talking about? I'm fucking full of myself
Me: Smaller words explanation
You: Fuck you've fuck not fuck refuted fuck a fuck word fuck of fuck my fuck argument.

You initially replied with a baseless claim which I disproved with a single link... then you go on to claim that it does not in fact refute your claim... interesting logic, care to explain how that works?

Yes, the existence of the iP1 gives the excuse to more states to pursue measures which would require that kind of technology is mandated in firearms going forward... which is a direct threat to those of us who prefer reliable firearms that we ourselves can easily service & control.

It is the same as if we had legislation being pushed in multiple states (and passed in one) which required DRM for all digital media after a certain date... and the understandable outrage from those who prefer to be in full control of what they purchase whenever a newer/better system is being pushed forward by this group or that... the reaction to is something that is on display on /. quite often.

What does this have to do with the woman? I don't know? She's a convenient target of those who wish to be more active/aggressive? Though again, you do not see me defending such actions here.

If you wish to attempt to move to the goal posts or change the context argument, that is your right, at least be honest enough about it.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe not. Instead of confronting the burgles he could have hid, barricaded himself somewhere, or ran away (if he's so concerned with home safety he has those portable fire escape ladders for every window right?).

Personally, if I had a gun I'd barricade myself and shoot anyone who attempted to get to me. I wouldn't go confront the enemy in their area. Too many people act like they're invincible when they're holding a gun.

Re:Gun nuts

[geekoid]

Nope as passed by congress:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's a horrid sentence. Add to that what many states signed was different.

then:
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

And of course everything has changed since then. Technology, society, military, police force. It is in no way the same world.
If they had used coordinating conjunctions things would be much more understandable.

Re:Gun nuts

[DarwinSurvivor]

Maybe because you only get 1 shot?

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

There are almost a billion Americans in the world, and three hundred million citizens of the USA, including Florida Man. Trying to understand them all as a single entity is guaranteed to cause head explody, to use the medical term for it.

So, what you're saying is that thinking like an American is not akin to this?

Re:Gun nuts

[Firethorn]

It was probably this bit:

Gun nuts usually threaten to murder anyone that even questions them.

I'm a self-confessed gun nut and I refuse to wear the gag gift t-shirt my parents bought be that says "The first rule of gun safety: Don't piss me off" because it implies I might shoot somebody for merely upsetting me.

I'm not going to shoot somebody unless they present an imminent deadly threat.

I believe that I and my friends threaten people with death a whole lot less than most of the 'liberal' types do.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[blackraven14250]

It could also be that having a gun prompted him to be confident in interrupting the invasion himself. Without a link to the story, we don't really know if he was sitting at home and the door was burst in, or if he was arriving home and the gun is what allowed him the confidence to walk straight into a dangerous situation.

Re:Gun nuts

[JesseMcDonald]

The term "arms" at the time the amendment was written was a bit narrower than the modern term "armaments", referring to the sorts of weapons which would traditionally be carried and used by an individual soldier. I don't know of any army that would issue WMDs or artillery to individuals. However, that would certainly include rocket launchers, RPGs, and C4.

(For that matter, C4 isn't necessarily a weapon. It has industrial uses in mining, demolition, etc.)

Re: Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny any one should be able to walk in and get a gun.
But you need to register first and now get an ID to vote.

So the basis of democracy you need to opt in. But guns have less restrictions.

Re:Gun nuts

[geekoid]

Tthe Supreme Court has ruled on it twice.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

  "United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)". Cornell University Law School. Retrieved September 5, 2013.

CRS Report for Congress District of Columbia v. Heller: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment April 11, 2008 Congressional Research Service T.J. Halsted,Legislative Attorney,American Law Division. Order Code RL34446

Everything since then as been pretty much Lies and fear spread by the PR company that runs the NRA.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good thing that Obama made an executive order to do another study on guns. Ooops, better not talk about it:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/20...

Re:Gun nuts

[Payden K. Pringle]

Because the US is moving slowly more and more towards a police state. Between the NSA doing what it does, Net Neutrality being butchered, Police brutality and authority overreach occurring more and more often, and other similar events, people don't want anything that can help the situation get worse.

And while I agree terrorizing a marketing drone is unreasonable and unacceptable, at the same time, I also don't think it's unreasonable or unacceptable for us to be so "against" this type of technology.

It existing and becoming prevalent in society will just give politicians with agendas ideas about enforcing it upon us. And their track record tells us they can do such things fine on their own as it is and are willing to. Extra initiative is bad. We have enough to deal with and giving people technology like this can make things worse more than it can make things better imo.

I personally wish this technology wasn't even a thing and that the people who own this company didn't want to make it mainstream. I'm not going to go as far as terrorizing them for it, but I stand by that choice to be completely against the idea of these type of weapons.

As is said, "Keep it simple, stupid."

Re:Gun nuts

[kaatochacha]

Your fallacy rests on the idea that guns can only be used for inflicting harm on others, which is entirely untrue.
In my mind, I parse your statement as equally ridiculous as " Nobody who wants a pineapple should have one", and move on.
Guns are well made pieces of machinery, capable of propelling small amounts of metal large distances. Most are extremely durable as well, and being able to handle them correctly requires patience and skill. Why wouldn't someone find them interesting. People like cars, coins, airplanes, all sorts of things.

Re:Gun nuts

[geekoid]

Funny thing is, according to the supreme court of the US, it is NOT unconstitutional

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”

Nice slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

The weapons you suggest lack the stopping power of a gun.

The melee weapons lack the necessary range. The bow and arrow lack the necessary draw speed.

A revolver represents a much better trade-off between complexity and effectiveness than your suggestions.

Re:Gun nuts

[geekoid]

Do you ever get tired of being wrong? is the idea of research and changing a narrative based on facts foreign to you?
The PR company that sets talking point for conservative have been spreading that law, but that doesn't excuse you of the fact that you swallow it with out verification. You are being a bad thinker, shame on you.
Here is the definition of the time:

well-regulated (adj.)
1709 (Shaftsbury), from well (adv.) + past participle of regulate (v.).

regulate (v.)
early 15c., "adjust by rule, control," from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare "to control by rule, direct," from Latin regula "rule" (see regular). Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s. Related: Regulated; regulating.

well (adv.)
"in a satisfactory manner," Old English wel "abundantly, very, very much; indeed, to be sure; with good reason; nearly, for the most part," from Proto-Germanic *welo- (cognates: Old Saxon wela, Old Norse vel, Old Frisian wel, Dutch wel, Old High German wela, German wohl, Gothic waila "well"), from PIE root *wel- (2) "to wish, will" (cognates: Sanskrit prati varam "at will," Old Church Slavonic vole "well," Welsh gwell "better," Latin velle "to wish, will," Old English willan "to wish;" see will (v.)).

Re:Gun nuts

[geekoid]

Ignore Arker, he is a troll and an attention whore.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[AC-x]

Who said you need a modern battle tank? You can get demilitarized T-55s for less than $50,000. They're infinitely more accessible to a single person than a warship in your example, which would need a fortune to own and a considerable crew to run it.

But then, even if you think a live round capable tank isn't realistic for someone wishing to do harm to own, what about shoulder mounted anti-aircraft missiles? What level of military equipment do you allow in private citizens hands? Everything?

Besides, if someone *really* wants to inflict mayhem, they will build a Killdozer

Well, it didn't actually kill anyone though did it.

Re:Gun nuts

[kaatochacha]

I would mention that, more than likely, her personal information was also publicly available in some way.
Both results should make us question harder why such things are public.

fight laws, not people

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like your laws, vote. If you're outvoted, shut up or move out to where you'll live with more likeminded people. Threatening vendors of gun locks or claiming that a new kind of gun lock somehow violates constitution is beyond stupid. If you're for literal interpretation, how about we ban any weapon except 18th century pistols and muskets that were around when the constitution was written.

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

Because the US is moving slowly more and more towards a police state. Between the NSA doing what it does, Net Neutrality being butchered, Police brutality and authority overreach occurring more and more often, and other similar events, people don't want anything that can help the situation get worse.

And while I agree terrorizing a marketing drone is unreasonable and unacceptable, at the same time, I also don't think it's unreasonable or unacceptable for us to be so "against" this type of technology.

It existing and becoming prevalent in society will just give politicians with agendas ideas about enforcing it upon us. And their track record tells us they can do such things fine on their own as it is and are willing to. Extra initiative is bad. We have enough to deal with and giving people technology like this can make things worse more than it can make things better imo.

I personally wish this technology wasn't even a thing and that the people who own this company didn't want to make it mainstream. I'm not going to go as far as terrorizing them for it, but I stand by that choice to be completely against the idea of these type of weapons.

As is said, "Keep it simple, stupid."

Your points are well taken. Our government is being run by those continuing to advance an agenda to increase the wealth and power of a small group, At the expense of the rest of us. It is very scary.

However, history teaches us that the technological genie cannot be put back in the bottle. That goes for firearms technology just as much as any other. As such, I suspect we will need to find ways to deal with this as constructively as possible. "Smart" weapons are not going to go away. We need to deal with that reality, IMHO.

Re:Gun nuts

[Bartles]

I'm still looking for the version that does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" shall not be infringed. The framers could have used militia in place of people, yet chose not to. Your argument fails.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't get the "unarmed" part. These were people intending to steal from him, not kill him. The reason they were unarmed is that being caught after an armed robbery carries a much longer jail sentence. Murder is obviously even worse, it's not something they intended or wanted to happen because that will make the police actually try to catch them. You may be living in a Mad Max style fantasy world, but most criminals don't. They want to maximize profit and minimize risk/cost just like anyone else.

Self Defense shouldn't rely on code.

[Anonymous Coward]

Having needed to draw and fire once in my 28 years on this planet and 6 years of having my CCW, I will say the following:

I will not allow my life to depend on some poorly contrived embedded devices utilizing code written by the same kinds of contractors that threw together the healthcare website. I take painstaking care of my carry piece. Every time I get back from the range (about twice to three times a week), I clean it, condition it, check the metal for signs of wear, oil it and cycle the slide to ensure smooth operation. In the tens of thousands of rounds that have gone through this firearm, I have had less than 50 failures to fire, I have had exactly one failure to feed, and two failures to eject. All of which were at the range, cleared in a second or two, and normal operation resumed. The firearm in question is a Beretta PX4 Storm Compact chambered in .40 S&W. It's a very light, compact, easily concealed, and comfortable. It's also a safe firearm. It has a type-F ambidextrous thumb safety. When safety is turned on, it decocks the hammer, ensuring it won't fire. And, when the safety is on, the rear part of the firing pin rotates out of alignment with the hammer, and in addition, there's a hammer drop catch that prevents the hammer from contacting the firing pin when safety is on. It also has an automatic firing pin block, so the firearm will not function unless the trigger is pulled fully back. This prevents accidental discharge if the defense weapon falls.

The one time I had to regrettably draw and fire, there was a man approaching me with a rather large knife, demanding my wallet. Noticing tracks up and down his arm, I did not trust him to not utilize the knife on me once I did indeed give him my wallet. So I began to back away, left hand in the air, right hand reaching back for what I told him was my wallet. When I drew the firearm, he lunged at me with the weapon. I fired twice, as per training. (Controlled pair.) Both rounds struck center of mass. He survived, but there was a six month period of my life I will not get back, as I had to go through the court system defending my action. All because some drugged-up individual decided my life was worth less than his next fix. I've drawn in one other situation, but thankfully did not have to fire. It was a home invasion. The individual had a gun in his waistband, but I had already drawn. One movement toward that weapon and I would have fired. This individual had perpetrated three prior home invasions, one in which he raped a woman at gunpoint and had several warrants out for his arrest. His firearm was purchased from an illegal source.

This is all anecdotal, yes. But in my mind, as long as there are human beings who choose to act more like animals than people, I will not resign my safety to the lag time of police response or the unreliability of poorly coded, poorly implemented embedded device safeties. In a time where milliseconds mean life or death, minutes are simply too long to wait, and a failure rate of 1 in 1000 is still a worse set of odds than I'd like to base my life on.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

So how exactly is a burglary possible without "forcing their way into a home"? How do you know that these people knew there was somebody in the house, let alone someone with a gun that they ignored because they were "fearless"? You're making some huge assumptions there without much to back yourself up.

Darwinism at work.

[Anonymous Coward]

... No way I would rely on such a device! ...

Please feel free to use a pacemaker powered by walking or beer. I look forward to your demonstration.

Well, if you can't attack the facts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you can't attack the facts - attack the author.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

So next time someone puts a gun to your head, you'll start fumbling around and try to draw your own weapon. What do you think the criminal holding a gun to your head will do then?

Re:Gun nuts

[RenderSeven]

I will not argue but instead try to find common ground. Depending on the election cycle and the business sector, business sometimes favor the right and sometimes favor the left. Unions obviously favor the left by a substantial margin but they are not included in many statistics, which is either fair or unfair depending on your political leanings I guess. The differences are substantially smaller than either side would like to admit, and claims to the contrary seem to cherry pick the data or are patently false. From Politifact "The Democrats’ best edge was 55 percent to 45 percent in 2008, far from even a 2-to-1 margin. The Republicans’ best advantage was 59 percent to 41 percent in 2012".

Lets pick 2008 (or you pick a year I dont care), during which very roughly $1 Billion was donated to each party by "business". OpenSecrets shows close parity between parties going back 20 years or so. I dont understand the common assertion that Republicans get a billion dollars and are corporate lackeys, while Democrats get a billion dollars and they are not.

I hate both parties almost equally, though Ive come to believe Democrats hate me slightly more than Republicans (Im a middle aged middle class white guy that owns a business), even though I was literally kicked out of the Republican party for being too liberal (Im an atheist that's pro-choice pro-environment pro-gay-rights). So, Im asking honestly, how is my thinking flawed? What statistics am I overlooking that I should consider? Even if we disagree I want to understand what we are disagreeing about.

Re:Gun nuts

[maz2331]

Then get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures to go along with removing it.

Re: Gun nuts

[Badblackdog]

No, this is another step in the incremental process of gun prohibition. The anti-gun crowd knows they can not just outright ban guns in one move. They are going about it by chipping away at the rights of gun owners a little bit at a time. Kind of like the way cigarette smoking is now banned just about everywhere. It didn't happen overnight, but it happened. (In the US)

Re:Gun nuts

[Valdrax]

On the other hand, I would exercise self-restraint and not go to bars full of guns.

Kind of like avoiding smoking in bars, you may find that the choice simply becomes "don't go to bars." On the other hand, you can tell a smoky bar upon stepping in the door, so those are easy enough to avoid. However, with concealed carry laws, you have no idea if anyone is carrying while drunk until it has become a situation unless the bar has a very clear sign on the door.

Re:Gun nuts

[Firethorn]

regulated meant trained

It also meant 'came equipped with functional weapons, equipment, and with certain minimal supplies'.

A modern equivalent would be that if called you'd be required to show up for militia duty with a sighted-in semi-automatic .223 rifle with 2 loaded 30 round magazines. It might be required that the rifle be compatible with AR-15 type magazines(there are dozens of types of rifle that are compatible with them). He would also be required to have a belt and pouch suited for carrying of same.

I based this off of the 1792 Militia Act: That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

Re:Gun nuts

[Montezumaa]

"Well regulated" doesn't refer to restriction or control; it refers to being well trained, prepared, and equipped, more or less. When interpreting constitutional issues, or other legislative matters(through the courts, usually), how language was used at the time of the passing of any amendment, law, etc, is all that matters. How language is used in society currently means nothing. This is how we protect from the uneducated "busy bodies" from stripping away our rights.

I also feel it's necessary to add that the "Bill of Rights", nor any other legal document, gives us any rights. We have no First Amendment rights, no Second Amendment right, no Fourth Amendment rights, etc. The "Bill of Rights" only serve to protect per-existing rights from legislative(and/or executive/judicial) fiat. The "Bill of Rights" don't enumerate our only rights(individuals do have more rights than are listed); it only serves to protect the rights that the Founders believed government might attempt to modify or completely restrict. I am very thankful for that, as the United States would have been far worse, had it not been for the US Constitution, the "Bill of Rights", and the succeeding amendments.

One large issue is getting individuals to stand up and protect their rights. That is something only we citizens can do, not some arbitrary governing body.

Re:Gun nuts

[LF11]

I'm not afraid, do not live in fear, and am unconcerned about being threatened with violence. Not only do I live and work outside of inner city environments, but I am white. Statistically speaking, the likelihood of me personally being a victim is extremely small.

It isn't about being afraid. If it was about being afraid, then it would be a terrible and dangerous thing. Instead, it is about liberty and social equality.

“This was a tool whose only purpose was to make holes in human beings.”

This does indeed make the point quite perfectly.

Sometimes, certain human beings need to be perforated. Adolf Hitler, for example. Can we agree that Hitler ought to have been perforated, preferably BEFORE disarming, rounding up, and killing several million Jews?

There can be no "master race" when the "lesser races" are armed. Social equality. Race justice. This is what it is about.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have to agree- if they were willing to tackel and strangle an armed man to death things only could have gotten worse had he been unarmed and dealing with three people capable of strangling a man to death.

What's worse then death? Being horribly tortured for days until you die from your accumulated agony while your tortured out bank codes are used to completely deplete your savings. Potentially surviving being tortured for days before being rescued could be 'worse' depending on how you view it.

Re:Gun nuts

[Montezumaa]

Correct, the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution applies the "Bill of Rights", among other legal protections, to all citizens and equally binds the US Government, and various state governments from infringing on the protected rights(though that has been violates a numbers of times). See Mcdonald v Chicago for the US Supreme Court finally clarifying what I, and many others already knew: The Second Amendment applies to the states, just like the other "Bill of Rights" already do.

There are a number of states that restrict local(city, county, etc) governments from enacting firearm restrictions through state constitutional restrictions. Georgia(the state I live in), does this, but specifically restricting firearm laws to the General Assembly. Though, the Georgia General Assembly(bicameral legislative body in Georgia) is restricted by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.

Re:Gun nuts

[LF11]

> But most people who are not on some extreme should be able to have a conversation without instantly laying into one another.

The problem is that you have groups like Mom Demand Action who are masquerading as "most people" when they are actually paid PR reps being employed by a small number of people who are trying to accomplish a complete civilian disarmament. (Michael Bloomberg in particular.)

Frankly, if you want to have a reasonable conversation, take it offline. I have had many fruitful discussions with neighbors and local people about gun safety and firearms legislation. Online, we have trolls. And the ones masquerading as "reasonable people" are being paid to sow dissent and trouble, as often as not.

> I'm afraid that strategy will fail catastrophically as people urbanize.

You needn't be afraid. Police departments continue to lose funding and staff, and their income from Drug War confiscations is about to dry up (it already has in some jurisdictions such as Colorado). Urban people are buying guns more and more for their own protection, and they are not interested in laboring under increased regulation.

The first rulings made by the Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment in 70 years both featured urban black male plaintiffs.

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

And they will get shot down in court just as fast. I'n not exactly pro gun but even I can see this is a stupid law that violates the constitution.

Pennsylvania gun sales

[Firethorn]

originate from legal purchases at gun shows which are specifically exempt from the tracking and controls that would be done elsewhere

Citation please. The 'specific exemption' you talk about is that sales at gun shows are regulated exactly the same as they are NOT at gun shows. IE a dealer with an FFL is required to do a background check, log the sale into his bound book, etc... A non-dealer selling a firearm is NOT required to log it and can't legally do a background check using the NICS system.

Likewise there are gun stores in Pennslyvania which are ONLY legally allowed to sell to people coming in from out of state.

Again, citation is required. The laws regarding an interstate sale - and the feds care about state of residence for considering it 'interstate' are complicated and restrictive enough that I don't imagine that a legal gun store would be able to survive on the exemptions. For the first restriction, I know that they wouldn't be able to legally sell handguns at all.

We need a Federally imposed standard of gun regulation which can't be circumvented by gun shows and Pennsy gun shops.

Sure, just as soon as you show that 'gun shows' and gun shops are actually circumventing anything.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[stoploss]

The difference between burglary and home invasion is whether occupants are present—this is a standard definition. The most affronting type of home invasion is the deliberate kind, as in the Wichita Massacre. The invaders forced their way in after the occupants opened the front door when they rang the doorbell. This is an example of what I meant by "rabid".

In the end, though, the person/people forcing their way into my home are not accorded the benefit of the doubt and are (yes) assumed to intend harm upon my family. Thus, the use of deadly force is appropriate and legal. Yes, I know this means that "simple" burglars may end up being killed. If people don't want to risk getting shot, all they have to do is... not force their way into my home.

This really isn't hard to comprehend.

Re:Gun nuts

[Shakrai]

You fail to understand either of those cases. Cruikshank was a reference to natural law rights, "neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence". Further, limiting the applicability of the 2nd Amendment the Federal Government was a direct violation of the 14th Amendment, one which the McDonald ruling later rectified.

Miller doesn't mean what you think it means either. More to the point, it was incorrectly decided, because the weapons in question (short barrel shotguns) were in common use by the military of the day, which was the criteria that SCOTUS used to determine whether or not a particular type of weapon could be regulated. If you're opposed to the right to keep and bear arms you should be leery of citing that precedent, because applying it today would undermine the so-called assault weapon bans so desired by the anti-rights crowd. Common military use? Check. Useful to the militia? Check.

You also fail to acknowledge the political reality of the United States, where gun rights remain popular, and all of the enthusiasm is on the pro-RKBA side of the fence. Few people will base their vote on gun control, but millions regularly base it on gun rights. You couldn't even get UBCs through the United States Senate, because nobody trusts the motivation of the people (Feinstein, Schemer, et. al) who were pushing them, with good reason if you look at what their political allies have done in their home states.

Re:Gun nuts

[hackus]

Fear is not irrational.

1) However, a lot of the points you specify are. For example, the probability of you getting accidentally shot.

You have no way of defining the probability of you getting shot in real terms, so it cannot be compared with nobody owning firearms for example, or only the government owning firearms.

We of course know which of the two is worse historically and since NOBODY owning firearms is a fantasy world we do not live in, your fear is indeed irrational, if not a complete refusal to acknowledge the reality we all live in.

2) If you are mistaken for an intruder that would be bad.

If your government mistakenly misplaces the law of the land, that is far worse.

Read your history books if you think I am lying.

Or don't you people read?

3) Skill in the use of a firearm is important. Perhaps practice would be in order.

Form a neighborhood get together, say with your neighbors and use targets to practice.

I would not suggest using these targets:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/...

because well, criminals shoot those sorts of targets. We as citizens do not condone criminality for example in the use of firearms so targets such a pop cans or bottles might do well enough. You can also just get targets from the internet and print them out.

4) Gauging the facts about ones own safety is a tricky business.

You either arm yourself, or SOMEONE ELSE will make that decision for you. Again, read your history books on armed conflict in ANY period of human history.

5) Law abiding citizens do not use their guns for intimidation. Not only that, if everyone is armed, that sort of human behavior is simply unheard of. Nobody would do what you are suggesting who is a rational law abiding citizen if they wanted to live.

You have no idea what you are talking about here, sorry.

6) Yes, storing firearms is a big problem. Especially with children in the house. Luckily there are lots of off site alternatives as well to accommodate these concerns.

Your points are irrational in a lot of ways in a reality that is based on fear and probability. Ironically, that is the exact type of climate of fear when only the government can be armed, and the citizenry has no idea at any time, one nutcase in power can change their lives over night.

That won't happen in the USA because if it does, there will be civil war. Civil war in a country with Nuclear weapons and I can rest assure you nobody will survive it.

Re:Gun nuts

[Cederic]

No, think I'll point out that you're a cunt and move on. You aren't worth my time. You fail at basic logic, conversation, intelligence and engaging my interest.

Re:Gun nuts

[kaatochacha]

I think the worry, and it's reasonably credible, is that if you let the market decide, then even if it comes out half-working and prone to failure, lawmakers will point at it and say "See, that technology works", and mandate it's use.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[stoploss]

"Criminals gonna commit crime."

Hm, that doesn't really roll off the tongue, but the point is valid.

This debate is rapidly devolving to a consideration of how much money people are willing to spend to inflict massive casualties. Terrorists like McVeigh can do a lot with a relatively low budget. I will note that ANFO and Ryder trucks are legal to own, and yet this has happened only once. Technically, Mohammed Atta et al managed to do a lot more with just a few box cutters.

Your concern appears to be that if regular, private citizens had arms they would use them for mayhem. You know that a modern MANPADS costs hundreds of thousands, right? The firing unit is very expensive. Okay, so are you suggesting "cheap" RPGs or grenades would be an issue? We know the terrorists can get them already, so the concern is limited to law-abiding citizens that go crazy once they have said weapons, right?

As you correctly surmised, there is really no point banning the ownership of warships and other expensive weapons. If someone has that much money and is determined to inflict mayhem, they will succeed. Were you aware that three of those miniguns that Jesse Ventura used in The Predator are legally in private citizens' hands? Does that worry you? What if I told you that their going price is well over $100k and they can fire $1000 worth of ammo in a minute or two?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

1.) All people who own cars own a car, and nearly all own gasoline. This means that simply being around a car owner or at a car owner's house I am dramatically more likely to get run over accidentally. This is perhaps not so much a fear of the car owner as it is fear of the car itself.

2.) MANY car owners believe in using their car for driving on the freeway. This also increases my likelihood of being run over around a car owner because the car owner may mistake me for a freeway.

3.) HARDLY ANY car owners (and this includes police officers and members of the mass transit) are sufficiently skilled to drive a car on a crowded street situation with multiple stressed people and possibly a few bad drivers in such a way that they correctly identify and avoid the bad drivers but do not harm the good drivers. If an individual has multiple years of experience working as a cab driver they probably fall into this group, but even then they may not fall into this group when driving a sedan.

4.) FAR MORE car owners believe they fall into group 3 than actually do. This makes them a danger to others when they incorrectly gauge either the facts of the situation they are in (see #2) or their ability (see #3.)

5.) SOME car owners believe cars are a good way to solve interpersonal problems besides those involving driving to work. These people WANT their ownership of a car to be a form of intimidation to some individuals. I rationally consider these people to be a danger to everyone.

6.) MANY car owners are responsible with their cars and how they are stored. They also understand the risks of driving a car and the limits of their ability. For these individuals the increased risks come primarily from items 1 and 2, and not items 3-5.

This is how IRRATIONAL you actually sound to someone that isn't irrational about guns. You are far less likely to be killed by your gun than by your car. You are extremely more likely to be killed by your doctor than by your gun. If you're talking about rifles, you are more likely to be killed by a neighbor's hammer than by his rifle. As long as you drive a car safely, people do not need to duck and cover whenever they see someone behind the wheel. As long as you handle a gun safely, people do not need to duck and cover like paranoid delusional maniacs.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

A weapon intended for target practice, sport, or self defense has absolutely no need for a flash suppressor. This type of "feature" is intended for covert use of the weapon, which I'd argue falls under what most would categorize as an assault weapon.

Saying a sport or self defense shooter has no "need" for a flash suppressor is like saying a foot ball player has no need for a helmet. Flash suppressors are a safety feature that prevents a huge ball of unburnt powder from blinding you and igniting dry materials. If you are worried about "covert" use maybe you should consider how loud a gunshot is.

Skull Gun

[taucross]

Now everyone will see why I needed a skull gun. -- Gunther Hermann

Depends on the state

[guevera]

And as for the "what if this is the only gun you can buy" counterargument: there are a few hundred million guns in the USofA, and the people that make them have considerable clout. The notion that suddenly all those other, conventional firearms will disappear, and that gun manufacturers will be forced to make only this type of gun, is delusional.

Ruger has already been forced to quit selling new guns in California because of a requirement that all new pistols include 'bullet stamping' technology -- technology that is not near ready for regular use and will make pistols at least two to three times more expensive than they are now when it is finally reliable.

Other manufacturers will be affected by the new regulations as they refresh their model lines (and in Cali, that can include things like a different color finish).

Change the nouns and watch the fallout :D

[nehumanuscrede]

Take away " guns " and replace it with " smartphones ". Use the same tech as the watch, to prevent any use of a smartphone ( other than emergency calls ) while inside a running vehicle. No exceptions.

Watch how fast folks lose their MINDS when you try to change something. Even if you're only trying to do the right thing. ( prevent deaths )

I would say 75% know not to use their phones while driving, yet the tech will impact 100% of all drivers. ( So, to fix what is clearly an issue with a minority of users, we'll just screw everyone over )

Would you be ok with this ?

Suicide of owners kids...

[hackus]

and what makes you think buy coming up with an ID bracelet for a firearm this is going to prevent some kid from suicide?

I didn't realize firearms bans had such magical powers to prevent everyone from hurting themselves.

Why not genetically engineer human beings at birth so only those among the elite class are born with legs and arms?

The rest of you who are so afraid to live your lives as a free person because someone is going to come up behind you and shoot ya, can be born without legs and arms.

There problem solved.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[AC-x]

This debate is rapidly devolving to a consideration of how much money people are willing to spend to inflict massive casualties. Terrorists like McVeigh can do a lot with a relatively low budget. I will note that ANFO and Ryder trucks are legal to own, and yet this has happened only once.

You're right it is relatively easy to make high explosive, but in that case why not sell it ready made? Is that making it too easy?

Were you aware that three of those miniguns that Jesse Ventura used in The Predator are legally in private citizens' hands? Does that worry you? What if I told you that their going price is well over $100k

Maybe because there are only a dozen or so in existence that are legal for citizens to own? Would you be comfortable if these were mass produced and sold more affordably?

This debate is rapidly devolving to a consideration of how much money people are willing to spend to inflict massive casualties.

I will happily give you that for someone smart and determined enough they can create casualties whatever restrictions you place, but my point is how easy should we make it for people to do that? How low should the barrier to entry for creating mayhem be? Should it be higher than it is now to prevent things like opportunistic mass shootings etc.?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

the WHY is not relevant to the situation today

Fuck your retarded shit. Within the last 100 years alone, over ON HUNDRED MILLION people were murdered by their own governments. Over 60 million of those citizens were murdered AFTER gun control legislation as passed against them. Tyranny, Genocide and Despotism are NOT sins of the past. Go ahead and name one of the rights in the Bill of Rights that ISN'T currently under attack -- and the Bill of Rights was basically prefaced with "If the government starts fucking with these, RED ALERT!!!"

And this is why gun nuts are against...

[publiclurker]

background checks. there is no way anyone with that level of psychosis and general nut-baggery could pass even the most basic mental stability tests.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if the home invasion was specifically to kill him.

Alternatively, he could let them take his stuff, call the cops once they leave and claim his losses on insurance. That's how it happens in other countries where we don't have bloodlust.

(Disclaimer: I live in Australia)

with a good TV show in the background.

[publiclurker]

I don't know if Rambo or Apocalypse Now would be more manly though.

Re:Gun nuts

[unimacs]

Let me explain some other things about current reality in America.

Democracy in the US has been severely eroded by big money. Federal gun control legislation that would not violate the 2nd amendment often doesn't even see the light of day due to threats from the NRA, - an organization that had $256,000,000 in revenues back in 2012. It doesn't matter if the legislation would be supported by the majority of Americans or not.

As to the "Gun Nut" comment. The constitution rightfully states that you can't take away somebody's right to bear arms because their behavior is merely "suspicious", or you don't like their politics, or you don't like their hobbies. As long as they have no previous history of felonies and they are mentally competent, they have that right.

Reality is though that lots of folks are shot for no legitimate reason by people with no felony record,- either intentionally or even accidentally. So, what to do? Fortunately the Constitution doesn't prevent the development of technology that would limit the ability of a weapon intended for self defense to be used for another purpose. Why would anyone be against that as long as using it for self defense is not unreasonably inhibited?

Note: I'm not saying wearing a watch is the right solution.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you own insurance of any sort?
I do.
I also have never been involved in an automobile accident. Shouldn't I should consider that insurance to be unnecessary? In fact, I've occasionally driven in areas with highly unsafe speed limits.
“I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different.”
  Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without a Country

Re:Gun nuts

[tri44id]

If you want to refer to the founders' intentions about militias, I refer you to Article II, Section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; " The Constitution does not refer to any intent to authorize its own overthrow by any means except elections and amendments, despite the ravings of Second Amendment crazies.

Re:Gun nuts

[Bazar]

I'm not american, but i understand your constitution.

There is no mention of "self-defense" in the 2nd amendment.
It is implied that the right to bear arms is necessary for the security of the nation. But nothing mentioned or implied about the security of the individual, let alone self-defense.
It is also implied that those who have guns be disciplined "A well regulated Militia".

I see no reason why preventing a firearm from firing unless its near the owners watch is detrimental. It is little more than a safety lock located on the owner rather than on the gun.

At the very least, it should be a choice a buyer can make when buying a gun. I know if i had both children and guns in my home, i'd like the idea of that safety lock.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a silly argument.
There's also a 0% chance of being stabbed in a house with no knives.
a 0% chance of being crushed by a giant boulder in a house not standing next to a giant boulder.
Plus , you betrayed your bias by bringing out that old tirade of "the only purpose of guns is to kill puppies and babies".

Re:Gun nuts

[another_twilight]

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms

That seems to be the gist of it

for self-defense

... and that's one (perhaps even the most common) interpretation. Argument about the intent seems lively.

 

there are people in the US who fear the things so much, they want to restrict who can and cannot have a firearm

and

There are only a very few obvious prohibitions, namely against convicted felons

is an interesting juxtaposition - at least to an outside observer (caveat, I'm not from the US). They did their time, served their sentence, why should they be denied a right granted them in the Constitution? If you can justify why one group should be denied such a right, then it simply becomes a game of 'norming' where the line between the haves and have-nots gets drawn. Either it's a right or it's not. Either it applies to all or you end up negotiating who does and does not get that right.

There is a route by which this can be accomplished, but it would require amending the US Constitution,

Or working around it, such as the restrictions that apply to felons.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Citations needed. Not irrational fears.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[stoploss]

I will grant you that no one is happy about these massacres. However, there is no reasonable discriminator function that will prevent people intent upon destruction from accomplishing their goal while also allowing law abiding people to live with liberty.

I mean, it really doesn't get much easier than "fertilizer plus diesel". Hell, McVeigh made a shaped charge out of it by using a sheet of plywood. Years ago, well before the post 9/11 terrorism paranoia, you could indeed buy ANFO premade (and why not, given it is so easy to make?).

In the end, though, I have stated my rationale for why I believe it is legitimate and appropriate to allow private citizens to own modern firearms (self-defense, and the Constitutional basis of using the armed citizenry to offset the prospect of tyranny). You appear not to agree, though I am inferring this from your line of questioning. What is your position? Complete abolition of firearms ownership?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's play a game:

An AR-15 fires a .223 cartridge from a 16 inch barrel semi-automatically from a detachable magazine. It is widely regarded as an "assault weapon"

A Ruger Mini-14 fires a .223 cartridge from a 16 inch barrel semi-automatically from a detachable magazine. It is widely regarded as a sporting rifle

Two guns that shoot the same bullet, with the same speed, in the same way. Identical function, identical legality. Why should one have a different legal status than the other?

17 year police veteran here...

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]Sounds like a good gun for the police to use. Get back to us when every police officer in the country has one of these and is forbidden to use a traditional weapon.[/quote]

Been with the department 17 years now... trust me, everybody who has the guts and gumption to defend themselves with deadly force ought to get a CHL and a high quality reliable handgun, and practice with it often. Despite the fact that violent crime rates have been decreasing a lot over the past couple decades, you would not believe the number of nutcases who are still out there who would do you or your loved ones harm... just for a thrill or to take the few dollars out of your pocket that you happen to have on you at a given time. We the police cannot defend you. That's not our job anymore. We're here to clean up the mess afterwards. However, if you don't have the 'right stuff' to defend yourself, then you do NOT need a firearm. Instead you need to practice being the snivelling whining submissive crybaby victim that Hollywood is teaching you to be. You're just as easy to clean up after as the thug who tried to rob or rape the wrong person and got a .45 thru his skull for his attempt. As for myself, I really don't care anymore one way or another. In 3 more years, I'm retired and gonna spend my time fishing and restoring old furniture. And I'll be well-armed.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[AK Marc]

They only strangled him out of self defense. Had he just run away or started screaming, they wouldn't have felt threatened.

Re:Gun nuts

[Immerman]

The distinction was inherent in the concept at the time - a milita consists of non-professional combatants, citizens directly defending them-and-there's from an enemy. That the enemy might be the erstwhile legitimate government is implicit. Yes, the president may be the commander so long as he bears the title legitimately, but if it were expected to at all times obey him, then why do you suppose the founders specifically defended the viability of the militia from abridgement by the government?

Re:Gun nuts

[DaHat]

No, think I'll point out that you're a cunt and move on.

So first you fail to support any of your arguments, and after being called on it, opt to instead break out personal ones which are even harder to prove? Well played!

You aren't worth my time.

Yet you just had to come back and spend your precious time to say that.

Doesn't that kind of demonstrate how little what you say is actually based on facts?

You fail at basic logic, conversation, intelligence and engaging my interest.

I'm still waiting for evidence of any of those... yet the existence of the above post proves the opposite of the last one... as you just had to come back one last time.

It's ok, I'll wait... I'm always quite patient with children. ... or would you like to act like a rational and mature adult and specifically say how I am wrong in my claim that in fact the OP was correct (and you wrong), that "The iP1 is a not-so-veiled threat against gunowners" based on the New Jersey law, as well as those proposed in other states?

Don't worry, I'll be back to check on this thread a today and tomorrow... and if you still find yourself unwilling or unable to answer... we'll know the truth.

Re:Gun nuts

[sjames]

1) "reasonable" is 100% subjective.

You may not be aware, but a reasonable man is a legal standard.

As for the rest, are you claiming if someone yells fire, you will just sit there until you notice that it's getting a bit stuffy and you smell rump roast?

Sophistry and corruption of the courts is what lead to war protesters being arrested.

Re:Gun nuts

[chiefcrash]

I'm not being purposefully obtuse, I'm trying to illustrate that the only true purpose of a firearm rests with the intent of the user.

The 1911 was designed as a military sidearm. Nowadays, it's rarely used by the military (except some special forces units), but it's the most popular "race gun" (competitive rapid-fire target shooting) at the ranges these days.
The SKS rifle, with it's built-in bayonet, was obviously built with the intention of being a battle rifle. But for the last few decades, it's seen more use as a poor man's deer and hog gun.
The trusty old shotgun was originally meant as a hunting gun, until some WWI soldiers figured out they worked well in trench warfare
Military sniper rifles are literally just hunting rifles, just with tighter quality controls and a camouflage paint job.

You also hold fundamentally conflicting views. You seem to think that a "self defense" gun is reasonable, but a gun designed to "hurt people" isn't. Isn't the whole "hurt people" thing sort of necessary for the "self defense" part?

If some guns and gun equipment are bad because they were supposedly designed to "kill humans", then why do we issue said equipment to law enforcement officers? It's not the police's job to run around killing people, right?

Re:Gun nuts

[chiefcrash]

The purpose of a handgun magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds is simple: it allows you to fire more rounds before having to reload. Some would try to say this is more dangerous somehow, but after watching a man fire 12 shots from a 6-shot revolver in about 3 seconds, I have to wonder why...

A military sniper rifle is simply a hunting rifle, just built with better quality control and a camouflage paint job. Seriously: the most popular hunting rifle and the most popular military sniper rifle are both Remington Model 700's...

The purpose of "any military weapon" is impossible to say, seeing as there is such a wide variety. Or are you saying a bayonet and a landmine fulfill the same purpose?

Same with the bombs: flash-bangs and nukes are both technically bombs, with completely different purposes.

"assault grips" is a new one for me, but I guess you're talking about pistol grips and secondary vertical grips. The purpose is simple: to allow an ergonomic hold of the weapon, providing better aiming and control. Same as non-"assault" grips...

I Think You Need to Refresh Yourself on the News

[Anonymous Coward]

I laughed my butt off when I read your comment. Yeah I would really be worried that my gun might not work when a "Trayvon Martin type" (innocent black child) doesn't like my looks. Or what if a baby in a stroller suddenly looks at me funny! Here, let's make this easier for you. Instead of Trayvon Martin just put Hitler. There's no way you are going to screw up and mix up an innocent child with Hitler.... I hope.

Re:Gun nuts

[BiIl_the_Engineer]

You may not be aware, but a reasonable man is a legal standard.

You may not be aware, but that doesn't make it any less subjective.

As for the rest, are you claiming if someone yells fire, you will just sit there until you notice that it's getting a bit stuffy and you smell rump roast?

What I would or would not do is 100% irrelevant. People who break things or trample over others are at fault, no matter how scared they were, or whether or not it was an accident. Gotta pay for what you break.

Sophistry and corruption of the courts is what lead to war protesters being arrested.

Strange how this 'fire in a crowded theater' thing came from that same exact case, then. Your logic isn't different from the logic they used to prosecute war protestors. They were just arresting people for the 'effects' of their speech, after all.

Re:Gun nuts

[maxmutt]

A firearm may have ben purchased legal at some point, but there was a very good chance it was stolen at some point too.

Instead of stricter gun controls, why don't we try something that hasn't been tried, but a variant has. We increased laws for those crimes that occurred with the use of a gun, assault becomes aggravated assault, robbery becomes armed robbery, etc. This is fine for going after the crime, but doesn’t stop the firearms from getting into the black market. So why not increase the penalties for possessing a stolen firearm, and even better for just stealing one. Say theft of a fire arm or possession of a stolen one, is minimum 20 years in prison served consecutively to any other conviction.

This way we triy to make it more painfull for the people who steal guns to sell them rather then for just the people who buy them and use them.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Re:Gun nuts

[mjwx]

Meanwhile, there are people in the US who fear the things so much, they want to restrict who can and cannot have a firearm,

And the crazies that come out in defence of unrestricted firearm ownership are proving them right.

Re:Gun nuts

[mjwx]

Well said.

We even have restrictions on free speech, even though the 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech...". It seems to me that my right to free speech is being "abridged" in that there's an effective ban on death threats, yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc. And yet, I don't really see people going on about the death of the Constitution with respect to this aspect. Of course, I happen to think that death threats should *not* be protected under free speech just as I think gun laws should, in some way, be reformed, but I suppose that's my opinion and all...

The thing is, free speech is not "you can say whatever you like" it's "the government cannot arrest you for saying things". To be more accurate, free speech is "the government cannot arrest you for criticising the government" and a lot of people dont understand this.

Free speech does not protect you from the consequences of your speech, it's not an open license to say whatever you want to whomever you want with no recourse. If I walk around with a sign that says "Gooks go home" should I be entirely surprised when someone punches or stabs me? Of course I shouldn't. Free speech does not protect you from the consequences from your actions and is not unlimited, nor should it be.

Re:Gun nuts

[yndrd1984]

If an ordinance read: "A pack of rabid wolves being situated near our town, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.", would that imply that having rabies is a prerequisite to having this right?

Why do you think that "militia" and "the people" are referring to the same thing? And why does "the people" in every other amendment always mean "people in general" - why does this mention need to be interpreted differently?

Re:right handed people wear their watch on left ar

[Anonymous Coward]

a problem that I don;'t want to have with a gun when a Trayvon Martin type decides he doesn't like my looks

You mean the stalking-an-unarmed-person-through-back-streets-at-night-with-a-gun-drawn look?

Yeah, how dare those fuckers take a dislike to that?

Re:Gun nuts

[by (1706743)]

I certainly agree that free speech does not protect one from the consequences of said speech. However, if one sends a death threats to a prominent government figure, then wouldn't the "consequence" be, in effect, that you are "arrested for saying things"? I certainly think this is an appropriate consequence -- but I do perceive it to be a (perfectly acceptable) "infringement" on the right to free speech. To each his own, though.

Re:Gun nuts

[harrkev]

Ah yes. The famous "gun deaths" myth. Let me use a simple analogy (apparently I will have to keep it simple so that you can follow along).

Suppose that you have a relative that was run over by a red car. So, you go on a "red car" crusade and manage to make red an illegal color for cars. Soon, the number of deaths due to red cars plummets to zero, so you loudly trumpet success. You did, in fact, eliminate deaths due to red cars, but is anybody really any safer?

I feel that it is necessary to point out what is obvious to most people: somebody shot to death is just as dead as somebody stabbed or beaten to death with a club. In fact, if I had to choose, I would rather be shot dead instead of bludgeoned to death.

Russia has far fewer gun deaths due to the fact that civilian guns are very scarce, yet their murder rate is much higher than ours. Would you prefer that our crime statistics were more in line with Russia?

Now, if you want to talk overall violent crime rate and murder rate, that is fair game. Australia make gun ownership MUCH harder a few decades ago. The end result is that their murder rate, which was already rather low, went down a little. However, overall violent crime increased by 40%. I calculated that for each person NOT murdered that the tradeoff is that approximately 660 additional people were the victims of robery, assault, or sexual assault. Yes, 660. That is NOT a typo. I used data from the Australian government and adjusted for population. Gun deaths did indeed go down, but stabbings went up, making up most of the difference.

Re:Gun nuts

[blang]

Waving that gun around when being held up by hardened criminals might not be the fantastic idea that you think it is.
When they have the upper hand, they will be happy to take the loot and be on their way.
Have you killed someone before? Will your hand be steady?
Or are you hoping it will just scare them off? If you're going for the last option, a toy gun would serve the purpose.
And your 6 year old won't blow his own head off after finding dad's gun that he had left under the pillow while taking a shower.

I am glad I am not so afraid of life that I need

[Anonymous Coward]

A gun. We use to call that yellow.

Re:Gun nuts

[blang]

You either support this law or are against it.
Are you saying the insane and the criminals should not be afforded their full constitutional rights?
You cannot refer to the constitution and pretend it doesn't apply to all.

The reason you were distinguishing between the insane/criminals, and the rest, is that you know this law describers a privilege, and not a right.
You don't have a right to drive a car. It is a privilege that you must earn by passing a test. And you can't drive the car everywhere.

The second amendment has been mislabeled a Right, and not a privilege, which is why people are so confused about it..

A privilege can be revoke easily. A right is something that can never be revoked. You will always have a right to a fair trial , no matter how many times you've been to jail.

I claim that the second amendment does not belong in the constitution. It is no longer relevant. The founding fathers opened for the constitution being changed. Creation of the 2nd amendment was situational, based on recent events. They thought they codl prevent saem from happening agains by putting it in the constitution as a right. They din't really elaborate much on that. If the same brains had been writing a constitution in 2014, they might have had an amendment describing the right to live free from the perils of private guns.

Re:Gun nuts

[sjames]

Since we are talking about the actual law, not some ideal, you're stuck with the reasonable man.

I imagine you're speaking of the Schenck case. That case did NOT establish that yelling Fire (falsely) in a movie theater was to be considered incitement to riot. That case used a great deal of sophistry to extend the already well accepted principle to war protesters. It was that (impermissible) extension that made it an abridgment of free speech. Not long after, the judge in that case came to believe he had made an error. Eventually the holding was reversed.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Shakrai]

He already shot two burglars - which choice exactly does the 3rd one have?

I think you'll find it's rather impossible to plead self-defense when you were engaged in the commission of a felony in any of the 50 United States. What choice did he have? Did you seriously ask that question? Here's a notion: Try not breaking into houses.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Shakrai]

But if you have children how would you juggle keeping a gun accessible enough to actually use in self defence but not accessible enough for your children to easily access it?

Any one of the dozens of handgun combination safes on the market would do the job. I can open mine in about three seconds.

Of course, the most important thing is education, not gun locks/safes. In fact, you should be teaching your kids gun safety even if you don't own any firearms, because guess what? One or more of their friend's parents do.

Safer gun ... yea, right

[American Patent Guy]

So, if I own an ordinary gun and the bad guy wants to steal it, he takes the gun. If I own this special gun that requires a wristband, then he hacks off my wrist just before he takes the gun. Unless this gun is going to require a hidden microchip embedded within my body, then it won't provide any safety at all against a personal theft.

I suppose that this is supposed to provide an automatic safety should the owner leave the gun in their car, etc. where it could be stolen. So now the bad guy disassembles it, takes out the safety device, installs a fake one, and has what amounts to an ordinary gun.

What a useless, stupid idea!

Re: Gun nuts

[Izuzan]

And do what about the anti gun people screaming for people to be killed for wanting to own guns ? Or perhaps the people wanting the bundy supporters killed by drone.

I rarely see LEGAL gun owners saying they want to see people killed. I see and hear it all the time coming from the anti gun people. Who comes off as violent when gun owners take abuse and insults and threats from anti's ?

Constitution.

[Firethorn]

Are you saying the insane and the criminals should not be afforded their full constitutional rights?

Fifth Amendment - "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

They're being deprived of the liberty to own firearms via the due process of law - IE a court trial. I'm really not happy with anything less, and even then in the case of the mentally ill they should have their case periodically reviewed, and in the case of criminals they should be able to have their rights restored after getting off of parole at the latest. If they can't be trusted after their parole ends, they shouldn't be out anyways.

Even then, as you say - you still have rights no matter how badly you've acted. A felon still has the right to a fair trial for his second offense, etc... Heck, he still has the right to defend himself against attack.

Re:Constitution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. Everyone can make a mistake, including founding fathers.
Your argument is upheld only as long as gun ownership is considered a fundamental right.
When gun ownership is considered a privilege, your argument is gone by the wind.

Property right does not mean the right to own all kinds of property. Then you should be allowed to own a nuclear bomb as well, or an arsenal of cyanide, arsenic, or a smallpox strain.

Re:Constitution.

[HornWumpus]

Amend the constitution or STF up.

Re:Gun nuts

[lilrobbie]

Your answers are fine, but your post demonstrates one of the key problems with many gun advocates.

There are responsible gun owners like you out there... but your answers completely fail to acknowledge the ample proof that there are large numbers of *irresponsible* gun owners as well (e.g., how many Americans died as a direct result of guns in the US last year?).

Your airliner analogy confuses me. America has had numerous shootings, and very few airliner accidents, and even less that would have required someone other than a pilot to land a plane. Doesn't this prove that the odds are extremely stacked towards gun violence?

Equally, the comparison to automobiles is a bit of red herring too. Though we don't ban them, we do MANY things to ensure improve the safety of automobiles. For example, relatively strict licensing, safety features in cars, breathlizer ignitions, etc. Obviously, we do the same for guns... so stalemate.

A rational person *should* fear danger from automobiles, and do their best to avoid automobiles. After all, you don't play on the freeways do you? In the same way, a rational person *should* understand that you can only suffer a gun-related incident if there are guns in your immediate vicinity.

The fundamental perspective that I find is often missing from pro-gun arguments is any discussion about how many times a DOMESTIC CITIZEN with a gun has done something positive for society, vs. how many times a domestic citizen with a gun has done something negative for society. A car is used by millions of people for many useful things. Yes, deaths result from ownership and operation, but it is clear that society has net gain in spite of the down sides. I haven't yet seen compelling evidence to suggest that large numbers of gun owners leads to a corresponding improvement in my own quality of life.

Re:Gun nuts

[BiIl_the_Engineer]

Since we are talking about the actual law, not some ideal, you're stuck with the reasonable man.

There's no other choice. But people need to realize it's not objective. And things like the miller test are 100% unacceptable, much like obscenity laws. And the FCC's censorship. Free speech is being attacked in a number of ways.

Eventually the holding was reversed.

But apparently not the rest of the nonsense, sadly.

Re:Gun nuts

[brantondaveperson]

Out of interest, BronsCon, how do you imagine those robberies would have gone if you'd had a gun of your own? I mean, would you have been able to point a gun back at them? And if so, what would have happened then?

I mean, it must be reasonably terrifying to be robbed at gunpoint, but I don't think putting an additional firearm into the situation is likely to improve matters.

Perhaps I'm wrong. It certainly seems that you Americans are altogether too fond of your guns.

Re:Gun nuts

[brantondaveperson]

That's not completely true. Crossbows are categorised as offensive weapons, and the police are going to take a reasonably dim view of you if you start carrying one around in public. From the nz police website:

"Bow and arrows should only be carried with a lawful, proper and sufficient purpose, for example you are taking your crossbow to archery practice or hunting."

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

The 1st amendment says you have the right to free speech. There is no restriction in place however on how easy or hard that should be.

If it works for one amendment, it will work for more. Remember that.

Re:Gun nuts

[BronsCon]

Considering that in the first instance, I saw my assailant running at me from across an empty parking lot (as I was leaving work at 11:00 at night), he would have been stopped dead, possibly quite literally, in his tracks. Furthermore...

I'm sure it would have happened more than twice if it was widely known by criminals that I'm highly unlikely to be able to defend myself.

That was intended to be read as: When criminals (who already have guns) know the average law-abiding citizen is, beyond a doubt, unarmed, what is left to stop them from attacking at random? Nothing; that's what.

Re:Gun nuts

[brantondaveperson]

balancing the need to live in a peaceful society with the needs of the individuals to defend themselves

Well I'd opine that they rather fucked that balance up. Bit late now I suppose. And what kind of bent thinking sees a link between arming everyone and a peaceful society? It's the same logic that led to nuclear proliferation, and it makes no sense whatsoever.

Re: Gun nuts

[bigpat]

We would all be better off without the need for guns or weapons, but we haven't figured out how to make that work yet so the next best thing is to be prepared to defend yourself in the hope you never will.

Re: Gun nuts

[brantondaveperson]

Most other countries have figured that out actually.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if you're American or not, so I'll try to explain:

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

2nd amendment text: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It was the supreme court that interpreted this as an individual right and, like Roe V. Wade, it can be reversed by the supreme court.

Re:right handed people wear their watch on left ar

[Anonymous Coward]

Trayvon Martin was the innocent child gunned down by some gun-owning white guy. I think you have him mixed up with someone more menacing.

Armatrix

[Anonymous Coward]

""I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote.""

Why doesn't that person try to do something to the employees of Armatrix?

Re:Gun nuts

[amxcoder]

This is why Chicago, and recently California had major higher court decisions made against their anti-gun policies. They violated the Constitution. The Supreme courts "Heller" case overturned one of Chicago's bans, and the recently the 9th Circuit just overturned a California CCW policy with the "Peruta" and also the "Richards" case. I know that there are several others in California still making their way through the court system as we speak, dealing with hand gun rosters, and waiting periods. I'm sure NY and other gun unfriendly states each have their own cases making their way through the court system as well.

Re:Gun nuts

[amxcoder]

The constitution doesn't prevent the nation as a whole from deciding which sort of weapons are appropriate for self defense and which aren't. Nor does the constitution restrict anybody from developing a weapon that has safeguards built in designed to prevent it from being fired by anybody other than its owner.

The constitution doesn't list "self defense" as the reason for the 2nd amendment either. Nor does it list hunting, or target practice. The reason listed is to protect freedoms. It's the last resort to stop Tyranny from our own government, or from a foreign invasion.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

> And to also not trust any external agency to protect you from all these threats.

The agencies have done very well demonstrating that not only are they incompetent to protect from threats (9/11, Boston, etc) but that they ARE the threat a good portion of the time, like when LAPD shot up that delivery truck or the totality of the War On Drugs and prison-industrial complex.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yes, I'm willing to bet the guns that were used against you were purchased legally at one point.

Theft kinda breaks chains of custody ya know, which is why registration is pointless and only hurts people that care about laws. With our current tech level, if we make guns harder to buy and sell, it'll just put more evolutionary pressure on improving tools used to *make* them, which ends up making guns even less controlled.

You can't effectively regulate clockwork and basic chemistry in 201X, and obtaining materials/making things gets easier every day. Easy enough that even if guns were outright banned, they'd still be imported by the thousands thanks to our wonderfully global supply chain. If you can't stop containers full of bricks of coke, you can't stop containers full of hunks of metal.

Re:Gun nuts

[amxcoder]

Again this technology does not address any of these nor was it supposed to. It is supposed to prevent accidental shooting and weapons theft.

"Only 2% of gun deaths are from accidents, and some insurance investigations indicate that many of these may not be accidents after all." http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...

Meanwhile, you are:
Five times more likely to burn to death
Five times more likely to drown
17 times more likely to be poisoned
17 times more likely to fall to your death
And 68 times more likely to die in an automobile accident
And a whopping 286 times more likely to die by a 'medical mistake' at the hands of a doctor or nurse

Looking at the stats, I think we have bigger problems to worry about than accidental firearm deaths, but because people "fear" guns irrationally, guns get focused on more, instead of any of the other categories above.

Re:Gun nuts

[amxcoder]

Really? You don't read the same news articles I do if you haven't heard people ragging on the new concept of "free speech zones" that the government has started using more and more when it's convenient for them. Many despise this idea just as much.

Re:Gun nuts

[amxcoder]

Actually, he agreed to pay the fee's, but only to the county/state, not the feds, citing from the Constitution that the Federal government doesn't have any power to actually own/hold land other than the small confines of DC (for the capital) and other limited zones around the country for military bases. His claim, is that basically all of BLM land is illegitimately owned by the Feds, and should actually belong to each state. (according to the Constitution). This is why he supposedly offered to pay the county/state the fee's, but BLM had other ideas.

Re:right handed people wear their watch on left ar

[Anonymous Coward]

Die in a fire, you racist fuck.

A few questions

[KingSkippus]

I'm curious, how did you know that the guns that they used were illegally purchased? Were the assailants both caught and convinced of illegal possession of firearms? Did you manage to look at and remember the serial numbers or something? This just smacks highly of a hypothetical anecdote; not that you weren't robbed, but that your assertion relating this to gun control holds any water.

That aside, how exactly how those weapons were procured? Were they stolen? If so, from whom? Wouldn't it have been nice if there were some law mandating that the person from whom the guns were stolen had to keep them stored safely so that maybe they wouldn't have been stolen? Wouldn't it be nice if the guns were registered so that when the police recovered them, they could track them back to the original owner and possibly take away his permit so that he doesn't let even more guns flow into the hands of assailants? Would it be nice to have a law mandating that all gun owners prove their proficiency in the safety and use of firearms, like a driver license but for gun owners, so that maybe the original owner would have been more responsible?

Or maybe the guns were bought at a gun show, where in many places you can buy firearms without so much as even showing an ID. CNN recently did a segment in which they sent a reporter out to some gun shows to do precisely that, and he was extremely successful. Wouldn't it be nice if we had universal background checks to makes sure that even when Bob sells a gun to Steve, we have some assurance that Steve hasn't recently been convicted of mugging BronsCon in a parking lot? Or to keep Steve from just going to a gun show and buying military-grade weaponry?

Even most liberals I know aren't against "legal gun ownership." All we want are some common sense laws to ensure that the people who are buying guns are mentally competent and aren't violent criminals, that people who own guns are proficient in their safety and use, and that when guns are used for crimes, they can be tracked back to find out where they're coming from so that, hopefully, the flow of guns into the hands of lawbreakers can be stopped. If you really are a responsible gun owner, you should support these laws too.

When right-wing gun nuts and the NRA oppose things like universal background checks, training and/or testing to obtain a license, registration, and bans on military-grade weaponry, it makes people like me EXTREMELY skeptical that all you're interested in is being able to protect yourself. None of those laws would prevent you from doing so, unless you're not mentally competent, a convicted criminal, grossly irresponsible, or you think you might have reason to shoot up an elementary school someday. And if that's the case, to be blunt, yeah, I don't think you should be able to own guns.

And please, don't start with the "first step to confiscation" bullshit. We require no less to legally drive an automobile; in fact, there are thousands more regulations on that activity. Yet somehow for more than a century, we've managed to keep the government from confiscating all of our cars, go figure.

Re:A few questions

[Lord Kano]

bans on military-grade weaponry

You just lost everyone with any knowledge of the current firearms industry.

You're not talking about "military-grade" anything, you're talking about "scary looking" guns.

We require no less to legally drive an automobile; in fact, there are thousands more regulations on that activity. Yet somehow for more than a century, we've managed to keep the government from confiscating all of our cars, go figure.

That has something to do with the fact that there isn't a sizeable, vocal minority who wishes that to happen.

We have sitting members of congress who in fact do want to remove all firearms from civilian hands, coincidentally these are the same members of congress who push bullshit like "universal background checks", which are backdoor registration and semi-automatic gun bans.

LK

Re:A few questions

[KingSkippus]

You're not talking about "military-grade" anything, you're talking about "scary looking" guns.

No, I'm not. I'm referring to weapons that meet certain criteria such as maximum rate of fire, maximum accurate firing range, muzzle velocity, etc. "Scary looking" doesn't have a damn thing to do with the weapons I'm referring to. Do you honestly think that the only reason I have an issue with people getting their hands on, for example, a Bushmaster XM15-E2S (the weapon used by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary School), is because it's "scary looking"?

This is why we need a policy that doesn't depend on cosmetic appearance or that consists just of a list of weapons, but one that specifies objective measures of destructive capability.

We have sitting members of congress who in fact do want to remove all firearms from civilian hands...

So? We also have sitting members of Congress who want to repeal Social Security. We have sitting members of Congress who want to do away with the capital gains tax entirely, which would basically reduce the tax on super wealthy people to zero. We have sitting members of Congress who want to do away with minimum wage laws. Hell, we probably have sitting members of Congress who would love to repeal the 13th Amendment and re-institute slavery, though hopefully most of them who want that are smart enough to keep their damned mouths shut. I'm not particularly worried about these things happening because it doesn't take just one, a few, or even a lot of sitting members of Congress to get a law passed, it takes a majority. (Or as is the case on any bill that's even a little bit controversial and many that aren't today, a supermajority.)

The fact is that Congress will never be able to "remove all firearms from civilian hands" without a complete repeal of the Second Amendment. And if those sitting members are able to eventually get enough support behind them to pass a repeal in 2/3 of BOTH houses of Congress and 3/4 of all of the states, then who the hell are you to dictate that it shouldn't happen? Or do you only believe in the Constitution when it's personally convenient to you?

Of course, you and I both know that this argument is just a shitty "slippery slope" argument that will never actually come to pass. I heard the same argument in 1994 when Congress passed the Assault Weapons Ban, and of course, it never came to pass then, either. No one ever showed up to confiscate all of your guns then, did they?

...coincidentally these are the same members of congress who push bullshit like "universal background checks", which are backdoor registration and semi-automatic gun bans.

...Except that it's not. You say this like universal background checks is this weird unsupported idea that only a few kooks in Congress want to see happen. At one point, polls showed that over 90% of Americans supported this law. Now that it's out of the public eye, the number has gone down, but it's still in the high 80s, something like 87% today.

The only people who DON'T support universal background checks are pretty much paranoid idiots who think that the gub'ment's out to get them and that they need semi-automatic weapons to defend themselves against some imagined tyranny.

What's that, you don't think you fit that description? Then tell me, why do you not want your weapons tracked? Are you really so grossly irresponsible with them that you're genuinely afraid that you'll lose them or they'll be stolen and used in crimes? Do you plan to use them in crimes yourself? Why do you feel like you need a semi-automatic weapon so badly that it's worth, for example, 20 children in Connecticut being mowed down? I don't have any semi-automatic weapons; in fact, I don't even own a gun, and somehow I've managed to get through several decades of existence without ever once thinking, "Wow, this is a situation in which having a semi-automatic weapon sure would be warranted!"

Re:A few questions

[Lord Kano]

Do you honestly think that the only reason I have an issue with people getting their hands on, for example, a Bushmaster XM15-E2S (the weapon used by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary School), is because it's "scary looking"?

Yes, that's precisely why you have an issue with it. More than that, you don't know what you're talking about.

I'm referring to weapons that meet certain criteria such as maximum rate of fire

Lanza's rifle was semi-automatic. That's one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. The maximum rate of fire is nothing like the 750-900 rounds per minute of a "military-grade" rifle. You don't know what you're talking about.

And if those sitting members are able to...

I have taken it as my personal responsibility to never let it get that far. That's why we fight for every inch. That's why we push back.

I heard the same argument in 1994 when Congress passed the Assault Weapons Ban, and of course, it never came to pass then, either.

Yes. You're welcome. I joined the NRA that year and worked hard to retire as many of the assholes who voted for the Clinton Gun Ban as possible. We did great work.

No one ever showed up to confiscate all of your guns then, did they?

They failed but they tried.

The only people who DON'T support universal background checks are pretty much paranoid idiots who think that the gub'ment's out to get them and that they need semi-automatic weapons to defend themselves against some imagined tyranny.

No, those of us who oppose backdoor registration are people who understand how our enemies work. Registration leads to confiscation. It has played out several times all over the world, even a few times in this country. We're not going to make it easy to do that on a national scale.

Why do you feel like you need a semi-automatic weapon so badly...

That's the thing about rights. I don't have to justify my desire to exercise them to you or anyone else. To answer your question 'None of your fucking business." I like the first amendment too.

I don't have any semi-automatic weapons; in fact, I don't even own a gun

BIG surprise there...

I own several. The only way my guns pose any threat to you are if you pose a threat to the safety of my family or if you're the poor dumb slob sent to try to take them from me.

LK

Re:A few questions

[KingSkippus]

...you don't know what you're talking about.

As long as you insist this, then I am completely unmotivated to continue any argument with you, as you have already made up your mind that anyone with a contrary opinion "doesn't know what they're talking about."

That's why we fight for every inch.

That's why ultimately you will lose this battle, because you have exactly zero interest in passing reasonable gun laws based on facts or data. You activities are based solely on a zealous ideological bent driven by beliefs that you cannot back up.

The only way my guns pose any threat to you are if you pose a threat to the safety of my family or if you're the poor dumb slob sent to try to take them from me.

...Says every dumbass whose kid or other innocent victims of deliberate or accidental gun violence ends up dead because "I had no idea that this could ever happen to my family!" Read up on the Sandy Hook massacre. Nancy Lanza thought the same thing. Or just open up your local paper and read about the latest four-year-old kid whose twit of a parent said exactly this before the ensuing tragedy.

Re:A few questions

[Tyndmyr]

The NRA spends more money on providing training than politicizing. You're merely repeating popular advertising memes from the gun-control lobby with no verification of fact. Of particular note is the rote repetition of the phrase "common sense". This has become a catch phrase for "you should support this, but we are not going to justify why". Merely listing all the factual errors in your post would be lengthy, but the greatest lie is that folks aren't against legal gun ownership. Lengthy lists of occasions where proponents have outright admitted they want complete bans and confiscation can be trivially found via google.

Re:A few questions

[Lord Kano]

As long as you insist this, then I am completely unmotivated to continue any argument with you, as you have already made up your mind that anyone with a contrary opinion "doesn't know what they're talking about."

Pretend that you're taking the high road if you like, the truth is that you're outclassed. The few hours you've spend listening to Rachel Maddow are nothing compared to the more than twenty years I have spent in the gun culture. I have debated the nuances of American gun law with BATF agents and won.

I do not say that you don't know what you're talking about because you have a different opinion. I say it because you're parroting demonstrably false talking points like "military-grade" firearms in reference the the clearly civilian-grade Bushmaster rifle.

That's why ultimately you will lose this battle

That remains to be seen. If we do lose, it'll be because the liars were able to convert enough dupes to push their disarmament agenda.

because you have exactly zero interest in passing reasonable gun laws based on facts or data.

Does that mean that the 3,000-20,000 gun laws that currently exist in the united states are not reasonable?

Your made up talking points are neither facts nor data.

Says every dumbass

Is this ad hominem "facts" or "data"?

LK

Re:Gun nuts

[amxcoder]

Yes, we have a "RIGHT to bear arms". Not a privilege, a right. How come liberals don't mind putting all kinds of hurdles to jump through for this right, but then use the argument that a telephone is a right, so people who can't afford one, need to have it subsidized by taxpayers? Never mind the fact that phone service, or electricity is never mentioned in the Constitution as an inalienable right, by the logic of a liberal... Since gun ownership is actually is a right, if I'm poor, or can't afford my own, do I get one subsidized by the taxpayers? If so I'm waiting for my free "Obama-gun"

Re:Gun nuts

[catmistake]

Your dishonest and beguiling insistance on the meaning of this phrase is what we in the business of intelligent discourse label a red herring. It does not mean that Congress does not have the right to regulate the militia, nor is it saying Congress does not have the right to regulate firearms. Congress does have the right, and Congress does indeed absolutely have the right, among other overarching rights it has over militias, to regulate firearms!!!! .

Instead, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to forbid Congress a very specific and particularly excessive extension of Congress' authority to make laws "necessary and proper" for exercising its control over the militia. No matter what Congress decides or does or does not do regarding militias, by the order of this Amendment, Congress is proscribed from disarming them. And that's all it says! Congress cannot and must not disarm militias, as a whole, in their authority to regulate militias. It speaks only about Congress' authority over this group, this certain armed collection of people (and certainly is not a reference in any way to "We the People of the United States,") and it says nothing about an individual right to anything! Congress can't disarm the entire militia! Get it?

Oh, and do try to keep the childish name-calling to yourself. Such nonsense has no place in discussion, and only serves to denigrate your own position.

More important than the 2nd Amendment is the 1st Amendment! You stupid and dishonest, deceptive and arrogant, intentionally misleading, borderline-retarded waste of everyone's time, space, energy and undoubtedly, air. Please don't take my words personally, because on the whole, this is how we all feel about you and have always felt about you. Jackass.

Re:Gun nuts

[dave420]

When law-abiding citizens don't have guns, criminals don't need them, and so don't have them (as the massive jail terms for being caught with one do act as a deterrent). That means your robbing-at-gunpoint would have been a robbing-at-knifepoint or robbing-at-threats-of-fisticuffs. If you seriously think being robbed at gunpoint is better than the alternatives, well, you might want to think this through a bit more.

Re:Gun nuts

[dave420]

Your belief is specious and unfounded, based only on your prejudices of the "'liberal' type". You do see how mass generalisations are not a great idea, right? They make you look the knee-jerky type you (judging by the rest of your comment) seem to not want to be.

Gun nuts aren't people

[Anonymous Coward]

That frankly sounds like something only a nut would write or agree with. But I'll chalk it up to a misguided attempt to pass weak snark off as pithy wisdom.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Falconhell]

Yeh, its nice to live in a country where guns are well controlled. It seems we don't have as many men with tiny dicks as the US does. The gun nuts roll out the same tired discredited arguments when all of the evidence clearly shows other countries such as ours laws work well, cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Re:Gun nuts

[delt0r]

So someone has a gun to your head. Please explain how the gun in your holster is going to make any difference at all?

Fact is that violent crime is not correlated with gun ownership. It neither perpetuates violent crime nor prevents it.

Re:Gun nuts

[delt0r]

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

I was under the impression that that it was for against the government and that it does not say anything about self defense.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Yep, nothing about self defense at all. Of course to take on the government your probably going to need tanks. Good luck affording to buy even one.

Re:Gun nuts

[delt0r]

It won't matter how many guns you have. Unless you have some tanks, the government will win. Well at least the Generals. If its all about militia and revolutions or illegal wars, its just completed outdated and not applicable to modern warfare. Even if tanks etc are legal there is no way you could afford them.

Re:Gun nuts

[delt0r]

Some of your claims are backed up buy some statistics. I can't be bothered digging them up. And gun nuts won't believe them anyway.

1). In the US, owning a pistol or similar sidearm that is loaded in the house for "self defense", means you are something like 47 times more likely to get shot.

Almost all of these are accidents and "domestic escalations", its not always easy to tell the difference. That is having a loaded firearm in the house is just not as safe as not having one, and for most people far more dangerous than some sort of violent B&E. In some countries like NZ where i owned firearms, we must have them secured with ammo and bolts under separate locks and keys. This makes it hard to steal, and makes heat of the moment cases harder because you have probably calmed down with the 10mins it takes to get your gun ready to shoot. Not so much if you have a loaded pistol in the top draw.

2). This seems to be quite specific to the US. I don't quite understand the ridiculously rare case where having a firearm would save you rather than just cause an escalation. They come in at night when your sleeping? They car jack you? they whatever. Its not TV, it doesn't end up being some quick draw Mexican standoff every time. The one in a million case, is well up there with getting hit on the head with a meteor. That can happen of course. But that doesn't mean you don't go outside.

3). This is very true. Also one reason why non lethal weapons appeal to me for law enforcement. I don't think anyone is trained for that. In the military some collateral damage is acceptable. And if some percentage all pull out their side arm and add to the mix. Yea can't see this helping at all really.

4) Ok this is a non sequitur or whatever its called. We all also think we are awesome drivers and its everyone else that is bad :D.

5) This is rather subjective and i think even collecting a statistics on this would be pretty impossible. The US people i know that own firearms are not in this category. I wouldn't put collectors in this either. Proud gun owners may just like guns. Like some people like cars. Don't think there is anything wrong with that.

6) I think the hard fact is that even a self defense nut will with almost zero probability ever have a situation where being armed is going to make a difference. Leaving guns primarily as a increased risk situation. You may think the risk is worth it. But the math does not agree.

So long story short. The case where a firearm would help is so rare that its not worth arming yourself for, since now a accident is far more likely. Of course many people are not making the argument that it makes you safer. Just that its a constitutional right.

Re:Gun nuts

[catmistake]

FWIW, I really really worked hard on this troll, used a thesaurus and everything, and I am very proud of it! It is ignorant, and insulting, and probably the meanest thing I have ever written, as though encapsulating a flame war that never actually occurred. In this case, I employed a simple and yet mildly enticing set up, once I located the specific annoying argument I was anticipating, to draw the parent in, and already realizing and expecting the definitional type of response (maybe I wasn't playing fair), and of course the parent walked right into my trap! And I realize and understand the extent of insignificance I am directing you to, in that it is so very very weak and even egotistical of me to want to create and deconstruct and explode such an inconsequential thing as a comment trolling a gun nut attempting to utilize *deterrent* and "final-say" cleverness on a site like Slashdot, as I have on occasion done in the past, but I believe it an emerging and humble art form worthy of just the merest acknowledgement, and I've been waiting for a story like this to pop up so I could deploy this reasoning, and I hope that there might be someone out there that can appreciate a troll that is .... this... paradoxically, inappropriately foulmouthed, and deliciously, intellectually pugilistic and, if I may say so, decadently over the top and engorging insult. This guy or gal is going to think twice about trying that tired argument of misdirection again I can tell you that much. HA! :D

Re:Gun nuts

[delt0r]

Glock is an Austrian gun manufacture. Austria also has very low gun crime despite the fact it has fairly lose gun control laws.

Re:Gun nuts

[John.Banister]

Probably, because they're not very interested in meeting you at all. There's several large parts of the country, and especially large urban parts of the country, that have strong restrictions on people carrying privately owned firearms in public places. If you live in such a place, it should be very easy for you to avoid being in the presence of legal privately owned firearms. If you do live in such a place, why try and impose rules for the benefit of your personal local feeling of comfort on people who live somewhere else?

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't own a gun. I've deterred attacks without threatening people, after they've started acting aggressively toward me.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting that, if I have no gun in the house, the odds of being injured or killed by a gun in the house are 0%, but if I have a gun in the house, the odds of being injured or killed by a gun in the house are also 0%? There's clearly something wrong with your reasoning.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

You've made considerable pronouncements about how "IT is not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you."

You know they're out to get you. THEY are out to get you. Who are out to get you? Why, THEY are. Bad guys. Guys with guns. Some from the government, who are trying to take your guns away. Some from outside the law, who are trying to kill you.

But they are there, and they are out to get you.

There is another name for this: paranoia.

I have no gun. I live in a country with low gun ownership. The only ones out to get us are neoliberals, who scream "communism by stealth!" any time anyone tries to empower the poor, right before they take more of our employment rights away.

If we had a high level of gun ownership, do you think they'd worry? Hell no. They have the army, they have the air force, they have the cops, all standing between them and their gated communities, and the rest of the country. If the poor had guns there would be a lot more shooting of the poor, because the cops would be even more paranoid about late night stops, and because the poor would be shooting at each other.

You make a damned good presentation as to how you see things, though. You see firearms as power. You see yourself as weak when you don't have access to one.

You should probably seek a therapist to help you through these issues, but ultimately you'll reject this in the same way my paranoid schizophrenic uncles would.

(During the 1950s my uncles had their firearms confiscated by the police after they started threatening everyone around the place for interfering with their property.)

Protip: the "King of England" probably isn't going to come back and try to tax you. You face a much larger threat from the neoliberal bullshit you're forcing on the rest of the world.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Some US senators have actually stated that they would take away all guns if it was within their power.

So?

2) Some cities and states have make it very difficult to own guns, and would make it even harder if the courts had not told them to stop.

So?

How can you say that nothing of the sort had ever happened when there are a lot of people trying very hard to make it happen. Just because you don't want to see what some people are trying to do does not mean that it is not happening.

Seriously, get some therapy. You have major security and paranoia issues to deal with.

Think about it: they can already do whatever they like, and some nerd with a gun isn't going to stop them, whoever "them" may actually represent. The biggest threat that you pose is that - if this "them" came for you, you might shoot one, perhaps even two of "them" before the rest turn you into a chunky red salsa. Even if you had a really long corridor and they just ran toward you without firing, you just don't have enough bullets you paranoid fool.

No, your gun won't stop "them," it won't even make "them" think twice. People who train a lot more than you, who have actual combat experience, and are a lot better than you, will just toss a flashbang in the door, and then a quick double-tap to your head: you're fucked.

I have a problem seeing either as a big deal.

[John.Banister]

The product isn't a big deal. It's just another firearm feature. Lots of people who buy guns won't buy it. Lots of people who buy guns only buy revolvers because they consider semi-auto's not to be sufficiently trustworthy. That's fine. Another product in the market is all it is. Death threats by idiots are fairly common also. I imagine any politician in favor of abortion or gay marriage has received a few. If I remember the psychological rules for adult kindergarteners correctly, it's best not for feed them any attention. The only place where I can imagine this sort of firearm successfully being required is for the specific use-case of concealed carry pistols, and then only after the technology has been shown to be sufficiently reliable so that law enforcement is happily using it also. Of course, there will still be objections. Law enforcement frequently favors semi-automatic pistols, and lots of people still only buy revolvers.

Re:Gun nuts

[Saint Fnordius]

There is always a non-zero chance. If you are getting a gun for self-defence, though, this gun makes it harder to use it against yourself, or for someone to steal it. If someone wants that option, then let them have it.

Or to put it another way: just because you don't like iPhones doesn't mean you should be able to keep them off the market. Fnord.

Re:Gun nuts

[internerdj]

I've known CC holders do the same while they carry, even when the other person starts a physical altercation. Having a firearm doesn't mean I have to use it to solve an altercation, it means having the option if things get to that point. Maybe you've got a skill, maybe you're in a good place in your life to not be as vulnerable, maybe you've just missed that situation where what you are and what you say is deterent enough. That isn't a one size fits all shoe you are wearing. Your experience doesn't change the idea that the primary purpose of a personal defense weapon is deterent.

ratseal

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks to me like chiefcrash answered the question. Since you don't like the answer, you come back with a witty reply about research.

So, what's the value of pi to the 10 place? You have to calculate it now, no googling! If you do, no one else can accept that value as real.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

As a supporter of gun rights myself, I have to say this response is completely off-topic given what it's responding to.

The original comment pointed out that this was a disproportional response to an act that doesn't affect gun owners in the slightest. Indeed, it's a positive thing for gun enthusiasts, as it provides additional options.

Both the OP and the respondee were pointing out that the fact that many gun owners act like they're having their weapons taken away if anything vaguely related to safety that wasn't present in a weapon 50 years ago is designed and sold demonstrates that such gun owners aren't really the kind of reasonable people you'd want to own things that can easily kill other people that require enormous degrees of judgement.

They're right, of course.

Whether George Soros is trying to take your guns away has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Nobody's doing that. Nobody in the story is even forcing you to own a gun with this safety device. Moreover, there's nothing wrong with a private citizen, concerned that something is designed in such a way that it regularly kills the wrong people, creating a product, to be bought voluntarily, designed to reduce such deaths.

Hysteria from gun nuts - I'm not talking about reasonable gun owners here, just the fanatics that want to ban safety devices, yes, there is a subset of gun owners one can reasonably call "gun nuts" - is ultimately going to result in more wrongful unnecessary deaths, and perhaps even sweeping gun control if gun owners as a group don't call them out on this BS.

Weapon used most

[Anonymous Coward]

The hammer is by far and away the weapon used most in murders. Let's license those now!

Re:Gun nuts

[BronsCon]

Rather than answer the same stupid question a hundred times, I'll simply ask that you read the entire thread. It's been answered.

You're also missing the point about the possibility of the victim being armed being a deterrent.

And no, the fact is that every country that has enacted a gun ban when their citizens already widely owned guns saw a sharp increase in violent crime, not just gun-related crimes, but all violent crime, across the board. And rather than answer all the "it works in Austrailia/New Zealand" people who are also going to chime in, I'll do that here, as well. No. You can't tell me a gun ban is working where there is no gun ban.

If you really don't believe there's a correlation between people possibly being able to defend themselves and criminals thinking twice before committing a violent crime, just look at Switzerland. On of the highest gun ownership rates and lowest violent crime rates in the world. I also fully agree with mandatory weapons training; it's just as important top know when and how to use your protection weapon as it is to actually have it.

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

FWIW, I really really worked hard on this troll, used a thesaurus and everything, and I am very proud of it!

I can tell; the semi-random bolding in the next-to-last paragraph was an especially nice touch, although I will say you forgot to mis-spell anything, and there weren't nearly enough swear words.

Still, as far as trolls go, I'd give that one an 8.5 out of 10.

Re:Gun nuts

[BronsCon]

I never said one was better than the other, I just said it would have happened more than twice. To a crackhead looking for his next fix, no, jail time doesn't act as much of a deterrent; but, I'll follow your logic anyway, in the light of the point I was actually trying to make. I didn't get shot, stabbed, beaten, knocked out, or even tickled during either robbery. I was probably very lucky for that. Would that have been the case for robbery #3? I have no clue and neither do you. Maybe, in a gun-free society, robbery #3 would be the one that got me a blade through the kidney.

I'm good, thanks.

Please see my other posts in this thread for some real-life data about the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime.

Re:Gun nuts

[Phisbut]

Having been robbed at gunpoint twice, I fully support legal gun ownership. Neither of the guns that have been held to my head were legally purchased

You've been robbed at gunpoint twice, yet you are still here to tell about it

Had you had a gun of your own, what would you have done? Pulled it while the other guy pointed his gun on you? How mentally stable were those people? The odds of him shooting you would have been much higher if you attempted to pull a gun on him. You really want to take such a chance with your own life, just so you can have revenge and kill the robber yourself?

and I'm sure it would have happened more than twice if it was widely known by criminals that I'm highly unlikely to be able to defend myself.

If that statement was anywhere close to being even remotely true, jurisdictions with highly restrictive gun-control laws would exhibit a much higher crime rate than the US. Up here in Canada, Most people are not allowed to carry a weapon on a daily basis. That is a well known fact, so every robber knows that everybody is a prime target unable to defend themselves. Why am I not being robbed on a daily basis if the big bad government is making me so vulnerable with those gun control laws?

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Truth_Quark]

Well, if we're going to do the stats, if you get a decent sample size, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.

Re:Gun nuts

[Phisbut]

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

No, it does not. The second amendment ensures "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", because "A well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state." (Emphasis mine)

It says so, right there, in the amendment itself. Regulated. The right to keep and bear arms was never meant to be a free-for-all. It is for the purpose of forming a militia in a time when a state cannot raise an army. It was never about self-defense.

Re:Gun nuts

[BronsCon]

Had you had a gun of your own, what would you have done?

Answered elsewhere in the thread.

Why am I not being robbed on a daily basis if the big bad government is making me so vulnerable with those gun control laws?

Because Canadians are generally awesome-nice people. No, seriously, I gave some real thought to becoming a Canadian citizen back in the early 2000's because I saw the writing on the wall for this country; at the time, though, I would have been more of a burden than a benefit, and now I have a wife who's happy where we are.

Re:Gun nuts

[BasilBrush]

You really think Stalin, Kim Jung Il, Pol Pot, or Fidel Castro were "sharing" with the rest of their so-called equality societies?

Point 1) None of those societies were called "equality societies". So they aren't "so-called equality societies".

Point 2) WTF are you talking about? That's a non-sequiteur.

What exactly is wrong with cutting and pasting?

Nothing, so long as you attribute it. But putting "Shall I go on" at the end instead implies that you actually wrote something already when you did not.

The fact remains a lot of politicians swore to uphold the constitution (which, at its core says that government doesn't decide what government is) then make a career of armed robbery to buy votes and championing ideas like disarmament of the public.

Well, that's not a fact. That's another problem with randomly copy/pasting long lists of claimed quotes, without context. We don't know their legitimacy, and neither do you. We only know that you read it somewhere and want to believe it.

Here's the real irony: Liberals say that only the police and military should have guns. Liberals at their core really hate the police and military.

Some liberals say that. Some liberals hate the police. Some hate the military. They are not usually the same liberals. When you classify everybody to the left of George W Bush as a liberal, that covers an awful lot of diverse opinions.

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

Not a strawman. My apologies if you were offended by my characterization. However, if it isn't fear (of the unknown, of some notional threat, or of your own mortality) that drives you to the conclusion that the threat of deadly force against others is the way for you to feel secure in your person,

Ironic that you earlier criticized me for making an assumption about the reliability of "smart" guns, then proceed to make a number of your own assumptions about my motivations and rationale. Pot, say hello to kettle.

That aside, what "drives [me] to the conclusion that the threat of deadly force against others is the way for [me] to feel secure in your person," is the fact that there really are other people out there, who would intentionally harm you, me, our loved ones, or anyone else, if they feel they can gain some sort of advantage from it, whether it be by theft of our property, a feeling of self-justified murder (like someone shooting someone else for cutting them off in traffic; it happens), or for no good reason whatsoever (a la Adam Lanza/James Holmes), and I refuse to be victimized without a fight.

Are such occurrences relatively rare? Yes, but they do happen, usually when you least expect them, and as the saying goes, "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it."

then what drives you to (at least in your mind) threaten anyone who may stand in your path with gruesome, painful death

Again with the assumptions. For your information, the death caused by a gunshot from a trained person (which I am - unlike some folks, I actually practice with my weapons fairly regularly, and pride myself on being a pretty damn good shot) is far, far less gruesome and painful than other possible methods; would you prefer that, instead of a .45 caliber handgun, which can kill a person instantly, I carried my 12" hunting knife, or maybe my retractable steel baton? Just so you know, I've seen someone run through with such a blade, and "gruesome and painful" doesn't begin to describe the situation.

Ranting aside, to answer your leading question, I have no drive to "threaten anyone who may stand in my path," presuming that person isn't threatening me. Where do you get the idea that 2nd Amendment advocates are violent aggressors, anyway? Because FYI, that's a total myth.

That may strike you as hyperbole,

Because it is. Just like if I asked you why you didn't value your life, and wanted to be a victim would be hyperbole.

But I won't ask that, because I prefer my arguments to be based on logic rather than emotion.

but that is, in fact, how your choice appears to me.

Yes, it's quite obvious you have a preconceived notion about the motivations of millions of gun owners you've never met.

The act of carrying a deadly weapon for "protection," to me, implies a willingness to inflict death, or at least grievous bodily harm on another human being. Such extreme measures suggests a strong driver -- in my mind, most likely fear.

Let me ask you this - why are you so adamant about not carrying a deadly weapon, if not for fear?

Please understand, I'm not trying to demean you or your choices. It's just that I honestly don't get it. And I'd like to understand your point of view. If you would explain, I would much appreciate it.

I'd like to think you'd like to understand my POV, but if you really mean to, you're going to have to let go of your prejudices and pre-conceived notions about gun owners and their motivations, then go talk to some from an objective standpoint - something you've failed to do thus far in this conversation.

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Do you ever tire of being an asshat with nothing better to do than troll Slashdot?

http://www.constitution.org/co...

Oh, yea, and you're wrong. As usual.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

        1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

        1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

        1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

        1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

        1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

        1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

Go find someone else to troll, douche.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

This happened in the UK. Guns existed, then they were restricted (had to have "good reason") then restricted again (self defense was no longer "good reason") and they they are virtually gone (only naughty people (few, I've never seen a gun based crime and I live in the shit area of London) and farmers have them now).

But the UK is tiny, has nice watery boarder and virtually none of its citizens gave a shit about gun ownership. The US is the opposite.

Re:Gun nuts

[delt0r]

I currently live in Switzerland. There is almost no CC. Its mostly compulsorily assault rifles that every Swiss man is suppose to have in his house, under lock and key. They no longer are allowed ammo. There are other countries with very low gun ownership and low violent crime rates. There are examples and counter examples. There is no correlation.

The US has a gun problem. You don't believe facts, but they are there if you would bother looking for them.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

In which case you would expect somewhere like the UK to be overrun by gun crime as guns are "easy for bad guys to get" are you can be 100% sure no one (including most of the police) will have a gun.

But that is not the case. The UK has a higher violent crime rate than U.S. does, but then the UK define violent crime as "looking at you funny". Skepticallibertarian.com guesses at about double the rate of violent crimes in the UK to the US if you compared the same numbers (I don't know how neutral that is as a source). But then only 1/2 the number of murders.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

So lack of guns make people generally awesome-nice people.

Great.

Re:Gun nuts

[Firethorn]

They make you look the knee-jerky type you (judging by the rest of your comment) seem to not want to be.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly. It's just that in my experience those NOT in the habit of carrying deadly weapons tend to be a lot looser with their lips. Like bleh said - it's nothing but empty threats, but it might be considered not so empty if I did it.

I believe that part of the reason for the phrasing is that the AC's comment struck me as politically charged.

Re:Gun nuts

[by (1706743)]

Good point, I should have clarified.

I think that although an effective ban on death threats, etc., is in some way "abridging" freedom of speech (which the 1st Amendment seems to protect against), I don't find this at all offensive to my sensibilities, nor would I say that this alone constitutes an "attack" on the 1st Amendment. Whether or not there are other examples of 1st Amendment infringements is a different issue.

Re:Gun nuts

[modecx]

Again, the problem is the same companies making the biometric and electronic safeties are lobbying governments around the world for the mandatory adoption of that technology for all new civilian owned guns, often also arguing for retrofitting of older guns, with the addition of an electronic bore-lock.

Do you deny that Anchutz and Armatix are not out there doing both? Since when does a seperate, immoral activity not indict all of the activities of that firm? Nazi doctors made scientific advancements using real, live, unwilling participants in their experiments. We don't like to use their data, even if it's relevant to modern research, because it's ethically tainted.

Here's the computer analogy: you have to wear a watch with a unique code to log in to a computer, and to access sites that are arbitrarily deemed to be 'unsafe' to some segment of the population. The new technology is both made by Intel, and actively lobbied for mandatory adoption.

Remember Processor ID? Clipper Chip? Boot loaders that won't start unsigned operating systems? The bottom line: if the something like this were happening in the computer world, nerds the world over would likewise act as if their hair was on fire. Also, social problems arenâ(TM)t amenable to technological solutions.

Re:right handed people wear their watch on left ar

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't worn a watch for years. Not because of cell phones, but because the straps or where the strap mounts kept breaking on me.(a problem that I don;'t want to have with a gun when a Trayvon Martin type decides he doesn't like my looks.)

I haven't worn a watch for years. Not because of cell phones, but because the straps or where the strap mounts kept breaking on me.(a problem that I don;'t want to have with a gun when a George Zimmerman type decides he doesn't like my looks.)

Fixed that for you. Obviously you weren't paying attention to the case when it was being tried or the problems Zimmerman has had with law enforcement since. It was obvious that Zimmerman was the one who "didn't like the looks" of Trayvon from the 911 call and continued to pursue him when the 911 advised him not to. You do realize Trayvon Martin was the victim in that case, right?

Aside from that. Yeah, this "watch required" thing is a ridiculously stupid idea and there is no way it will be accepted. This is the kind of thing that the NRA should be involved in stopping -- not the sensible implementation of background checks. But then again, NRA has been infiltrated by dumbasses who think Trayvon Martin was the one who decided he didn't like the looks of Zimmerman.

Re:Gun nuts

[Hans Adler]

Your hypothetical example *would* in fact set implicit bounds on the constitutional right to keep and read books. An absolute right to keep and read books would simply leave that justification out. But with it, it is clear that the state is prevented from restricting this right only in so far as democracy could be affected.

Under an absolute right to keep and read books, books detailing state secrets, how-to literature on serious criminality and hard pornography (to give only some examples) would be constitutionally protected. But they are generally not necessary or even helpful for a working democracy, and so - due to the justification part of your right to keep and bear books - a simple law on the federal, state or local level could restrict them, as long as it is specific enough and maybe has a few necessary exceptions.

Similarly, the US constitution only protects the right to keep and bear arms to the extent that it is beneficial for well regulated militias. Given the very limited number of occasions for unorganized shooting practice in downtown Chicago or New York City, it is perfectly reasonable to have strong restrictions there. These restrictions are not going to affect the fighting power of the National Guard at all.

Here is another example:

A well trained army, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and drive Cars, shall not be infringed.

This would not imply that people can drive while drunk or without a license, that they can drive where they want or as fast as they want (I am actually writing this from my home country, where people *are* allowed to drive as fast as they want on a large part of the motorway system), that children can drive, or that someone's driving privileges cannot be suspended. It just means that everything is organised so that normal people normally have no trouble buying cars, getting the necessary permits, and finding roads where they are allowed to drive.

However, this example shows that even without the prefixed justification such a right always comes with implicit restrictions. Even under an amendment to the effect, "The right of the people to keep and drive cars shall not be infringed", you would still not be allowed to drive drunk, without a license, or off-road on public land.

Re:Gun nuts

[Hans Adler]

The 2nd amendment is very explicit that it's about *collective* self defense, not *individual* self defense. Here is how it must have worked: People had guns on their farms and were well trained with them because they were using them all the time. In cases of armed conflict (with England or France, say, or with those pesky people who had older claims to the continent, or with a bunch of unhappy slaves), these well trained civilians formed militias that were more efficient than they would have been if they had had no guns at home.

Re:Gun nuts

[athenaprime]

So if the gun does not "shoot itself" then all those cases (about 30-50 a week) where the gun accidentally "goes off" are not, in fact, accidents, and are rather negligence, which clearly indicates that the owners are not, in fact, *responsible* gun owners at all.

Re:Gun nuts

[athenaprime]

Handguns probably get people up in arms (seewhatIdidthere) because of the handgun manufacturers. Follow the money. Sell the fear, and the guns sell themselves. When you've got 'em convinced that there's a crazy with a gun lurking behind every bush and that nothing more than fifty bucks can buy them Rambo skills, they'll line up and beg you to take their money. Cha-ching!

Re:Gun nuts

[brainchill]

Clearly you don't understand what bear arms means .... it doesn't mean own it means CARRY ... the second amendment specifically says that our US governments can pass no law or policy that infringes our right to keep (own) or bear(carry) firearms ... period .... and as you say restrictions that make it harder clearly DO infringe these rights. And more importantly ANY state or municipality that pass a law preventing someone from not just owning but CARRYING a firearm are breaking this ultimate law of our land

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

Ironic that you earlier criticized me for making an assumption about the reliability of "smart" guns, then proceed to make a number of your own assumptions about my motivations and rationale. Pot, say hello to kettle.

Fair enough. Nice to meet you, kettle.

That aside, what "drives [me] to the conclusion that the threat of deadly force against others is the way for [me] to feel secure in your person," is the fact that there really are other people out there, who would intentionally harm you, me, our loved ones, or anyone else, if they feel they can gain some sort of advantage from it, whether it be by theft of our property, a feeling of self-justified murder (like someone shooting someone else for cutting them off in traffic; it happens), or for no good reason whatsoever (a la Adam Lanza/James Holmes), and I refuse to be victimized without a fight.

Are such occurrences relatively rare? Yes, but they do happen, usually when you least expect them, and as the saying goes, "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it."

I do see your point. According to the FBI, there were 4.8 homicides per 100,000 (14,400) in the US in 2012. I guess there is always that possibility. However, according to the CDC death by homicide isn't even in the top 15 causes of death, which (relatively speaking) makes death by homicide fairly rare.

Given that there were 10.8 automobile deaths per 100,000 (34,080) in the US the same year. That means that you're ~2.5 times more likely to die in an automobile accident than by homicide. Since you are much more likely to die in or by an automobile, what steps do you take to avoid that? Stay off the roads? Live in a place with limited access for automobiles? Since you appear to be concerned about your safety, I'm sure you've done the research and have taken whatever (presumably at least 2.5 times more) steps are necessary to protect you from death by automobile. I'm sure you also expend the appropriate time and resources trying to minimize the impact of all the other more likely causes. If not, then your argument seems to be somewhat specious.

Again with the assumptions. For your information, the death caused by a gunshot from a trained person (which I am - unlike some folks, I actually practice with my weapons fairly regularly, and pride myself on being a pretty damn good shot) is far, far less gruesome and painful than other possible methods; would you prefer that, instead of a .45 caliber handgun, which can kill a person instantly, I carried my 12" hunting knife, or maybe my retractable steel baton? Just so you know, I've seen someone run through with such a blade, and "gruesome and painful" doesn't begin to describe the situation.

Ranting aside, to answer your leading question, I have no drive to "threaten anyone who may stand in my path," presuming that person isn't threatening me. Where do you get the idea that 2nd Amendment advocates are violent aggressors, anyway? Because FYI, that's a total myth.

You're right. I'd much rather you shoot me to death than stab me to death. How magnanimous of you. Can I send you a gift as a thank you?

The phrase "...anyone who may stand in your path" was meant to to mean that they made you feel threatened. In retrospect, I should have been more explicit. My apologies for the confusion.

I don't (and didn't say) believe that 2nd Amendment advocates are violent aggressors. What I did say is that if you *carry* a gun, you are making the decision (in advance) that you are (for whatever reason) willing to take another person's life.

I don't know you. It's conceivable that you are a kind, caring human being who wouldn't harm another person except for clearly defined and objectively deter

Re:Gun nuts

[Hans Adler]

Well, I have never been robbed at gunpoint and the only people I know who were, are friends who live on a different continent. (It happened in Columbia.) In fact, the only guns I have ever consciously seen outside the media were *always* held by uniformed police or soldiers. And most of these were not even in the countries where I have lived for longer (Germany, Austria, UK), where you see very few soldiers and to the extent that the police are wearing arms these are generally quite unobtrusive and extremely rarely used. No, most of these were in Columbia and in Israel. (I have never been in the US.)

In most of Europe, when you are dealing with violent crime, the thought of firearms usually does not even arise because they are so rare. Criminals have knives, people who want to be prepared for a criminal attack have pepper spray. This works because neither side has an expectation that the other side has, let alone will use, a firearm.

The total number of people shot dead by the German police since 1978 is less than 500. That's less than 15 per year and would correspond to 60 per year in the US, after adjusting for the higher population. (The number of shots fired by police on people was about five times the number of people shot dead, corresponding to 300 such shots per year in the US.) The situation in most other European countries is quite similar due to the relatively strict gun laws. Not just in the UK, where most police officers are completely unarmed.

Re:Gun nuts

[rezme]

I believe someone above mentioned that if one wants gun control in their state/community, then they can work to institute it, and if they can't do so in their community they should move away. Wouldn't the same hold true with the New Jersey situation? If the gun owners don't like the restrictions that living in New Jersey places on owning a firearm, they can move away. Why do I only hear that advocated as a solution for "someone else"? What's good for the geese is good for the gander.

Re:Gun nuts

[Robb Swanson]

2.) MANY gun owners believe in using their gun for self-defense. This also increases my likelihood of being shot around a gun owner because the gun owner may mistake me for an intruder.

If you break into my house, yes - expect to be shot if it's dark, and held at gunpoint if it's daylight. If you are not an intruder, you have nothing to worry about. Under what condition do you expect to be mistaken for an intruder, anyway?

Ask Renisha McBride, who was shot knocking at the front door of a over-zealous gun owner after her car broke down, what those conditions might be. Oh wait... you can't ask her. She's dead.

Re:Gun nuts

[rezme]

I was reading that quote and noticed this...

... terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers [sic], haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all.

So he's including "haters" in among the terrorists and "rapers" and carjackers and drug cartels... I guess you have the right to use lethal force against someone who talks shit about you now?

Why have Guns

[lsatenstein]

When does the USA expect a civil war, in which the population will have to arm themselves against a band of other states.
America is the last country in the world to move forward from the days of the wild wild west.
Americans are no better than anyone else for anger management, and if, in the hight of anger, the person loses his cool and uses the gun, what happens is death on one side, and life or injection on the other.
American minorities who are wacko, have easy access to guns. Sellers don't care about wacos doing the purchasing, it is the buck that counts.

Imagine what the USA would be like if for every death, the arms dealer was made an accomplice. Perhaps we should include the NRA in that accomplice role.

Re:Gun nuts

[rezme]

I would imagine the same people that think it's ok to destroy the life of someone trying to come up with a technology that allows the option of a safer gun would have no qualms about destroying the life of someone who would prevent them from packing heat while they knock back a pitcher or six of budweiser...

Re:Gun nuts

[Sciath]

That's a hopelessly narcissistic view of self defense. It completely ignores situations and individual circumstances in which being (legally) armed makes complete sense. For example in the case of those who have physical limitations and/or the elderly. Oh, wait, how about I politely ask a perpetrator to cease their actions while I punch up 911. There are many people who don't have the capacity to run away from needlessly aggressive anti-social Neanderthals. I myself have encountered them in public. Some if them are willing to crush your face in just because they don't like the way someone looks at them. Usually they're in the 18 - 35 year age group. Punks that think they are "all that". They're more plentiful than one would normally believe until something happens.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

The home invasion in Cheshire a couple years back was by a couple "unarmed" guys too. Very nice neighborhood, no one worried about crime.

Unfortunately, no one came to help them. Teenage girls raped and burned, Mother strangled and burned, Father beaten and left for dead with massive head trauma.

Good thing you're certain no one would have been hurt....too bad it's a moronic argument.

Re:Gun nuts

[JoeMerritt]

You're being purposefully antagonistic and pretending to be retarded. Of course the 2nd amendment is currently being infringed.

The tank cannon is considered a destructive device by the BATF, if you can get them to approve it, that is another $200 tax stamp, but the import rules would probably still require disabling it, and then you'd have to build your own to replace it. Modern tank shells are explosive, and so another destructive device, and each one is a $200 tax stamp. In theory you could do it legally.

In theory nothing comes before the constitution when it comes to laws in the USA. In practice clearly things do. I don't think it should be that way.

No, I'm saying anyone who wants a bunch of sarin gas is probably a murderer. It is a reasonable conclusion given the parameters of use of the item. It would be very difficult to use in a targeted manner without incurring collateral damage. Anyone willing to kill innocent people along with their target is a murderer. So I'll say again, that is why 2A supporters aren't clamouring for the things you're listing, because they desire to be able to protect themselves, not murder anyone. They're willing to focus their fighting on the laws that limit what they want to accomplish and will let other areas slide.

There's a balance to be found in our military structure, as I said, it could be moved much closer to the original concept without significantly degrading our defence abilities - but because of the high cost+training time of advanced equipment and the rapid movement capabilities of troops and weaponry you could not eliminate all active segments of the military.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us go ahead and assume there are more thieves than there are people who randomly break into homes to attack people. I think that's reasonable. Without a gun, is he really going to attack 3 people? No, he's going to hide upstairs and call the police. Chance of death is waaay lower.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

People who "attempt suicide" aren't really trying to kill themselves. It is a cry for help. There are many effective, low-tech methods to "turn yourself off" that are pretty much guaranteed to work, so long as you are ACTUALLY attempting suicide.

Taking a bunch of pills without performing due diligence on how much is required for a lethal dose, how to get that dosage absorbed into your system (suppressing stomach evacuation), and how to prevent anyone from rushing you to the hospital, is pathetic. It shouldn't be categorized as suicide at all. I'd call it: stupid ape found its way into the medicine cabinet.

Re:Gun nuts

[Minwee]

So, what you're saying is that thinking like an American is not akin to this?

But sometimes it's like this.

Jamming could be possible....

[TaxDoktor]

If it needs to be in proximity to a watch, there must be some kind of signal reception going on. So.... depending on the method, there is a reasonable chance of a signal jammer being developed (by the police or the bad guys.) It would really suck to go for your gun to find a jamming field was present and you were screwed. Not very cool.

Re:Gun nuts

[MightyYar]

See, now that's just doing the same thing from the other side. I know some very thoughtful people who are really into guns. I've even been to the range, and have to admit that it is a lot of fun. I even think it is reasonable to have a gun at home for property and personal protection. I just have trouble coming up with a likely scenario where a pistol fills that role better than a long gun.

Re:Gun nuts

[cwsumner]

"I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote." ...The above quote is a not so veiled threat and yes the poster has a right to question whether the person behind the quote is somebody who should be trusted with a gun, - constitutional rights aside.

That is indeed a veiled threat, but you do not know who that was that said it. Considering the actions taken, in the past, by zelots who want to disarm the public, it could very well have been said by one of the "gun-banners" as a psy-op.
And if you see gun owners as crazed ignorant savages, then you have already drunk the "kool-aid" of the psy-op war.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, I don't really see people going on about the death of the Constitution with respect to this [free speech] aspect.

You are either blind or disingenuous. Those of us who are un-anesthetized enough to be paying attention have come to the conclusion that the constitution of the US no longer offers any restraint on the political class. There is no rule of law. There is populist rhetoric aimed at a carefully cultivated population of ignoramuses.

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

So, what you're saying is that thinking like an American is not akin to this?

But sometimes it's like this.

I'd think you should be a little more circumspect about that. Folks might decide to blame Canada.

Re:Gun nuts

[cwsumner]

... Can't you see that this is all an attempt to make people be afraid, very afraid? And to also not trust any external agency to protect you from all these threats. Why? Because that fear motivates people to buy guns, which enhances the profits of all those gun manufacturers that bankroll the NRA.

It a wonderful racket.

The police in most countries are not tasked with protecting the citizens, even though they do their best at it. Instead it is their job to arrest criminals, which is actually quite different. It is assumed that citizens protect themselves.
There are countries where the police are tasked with protecting individual citizens. They are called "police states", and it is generally agreed that no-one really wants to live there. Look it up...

Re:Gun nuts

[cwsumner]

... Witness the latest law in right-leaning Georgia to allow concealed carry in bars where people will be intoxicated while armed.

I mean, why did anyone think that was a good idea?

Because any place that is designated as a "gun-free zone" thereby becomes a place of danger. Nowdays they are refered to as "Rob Me zones". Just look at what happened to the schools !

Re:Gun nuts

[yenic]

"If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative "

Again for those that aren't Americans, and apparently some that are... The above statement is WRONG. Local laws MAY NOT supersede the constitution.

Yes we do this is an issue of STATES' RIGHTS!!

Re:Gun nuts

[cwsumner]

The term "well regulated" in the constitution refers to "using the same supplies and hardware". It means that citizens need to be able to own military arms so that in time of war they could be supplied through the regular supply systems.

Re: Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

And with that said I'm sure you are including the guns that are being carried byblaw enforcement and military personnel as well...

Re: Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course a responsible gun owner wouldn't leave a real firearm anywhere a 6 year old could access it. It doesn't take but 5 seconds to put the gun in a safe and even less time to retrieve it when needed. You can get single handgun safes for under $90 and 2 gun safes for only a $20 more. I have 2 of the former. One on my side and one on my girlfriend's side. Both cabled to the bed frame and both containing a loaded handgun and 1 extra magazine.

Suicide by gun

[Firethorn]

However, it will stop the owner's kids from doing so.

Only if they're not an authorized user. Crazy, I know, but many gun-owning adults trust their kids enough to let them shoot. Even in the case of this RFID system, there's a good chance that the watch will be stored right next to the gun. Safety systems only work if you use them... With me and my parents? You need the key and combination to the safe. I'd rate that as at least as effective as most biometric systems I can picture.

Alternatively, the teen could decide to commite suicide by another way. The most horrible I can think of that can actually happen would be the 'deliberately veer into incoming traffic on the highway' one. That asshole actually ended up surviving - he was in a premium SUV. The family in the car he struck, not so much.

which enhances the profits of all those gun manufacturers that bankroll the NRA.

Gun manufacturers are a minor component of NRA funding, and the NRA is more moderate than you think.

District 9

[Anonymous Coward]

Why dont we make guns that fire by reading your genes like in District 9? that worked pretty well, and those aliens were very advanced. why reinvent the wheel?

Re: Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

" Never mind the fact that phone service, or electricity is never mentioned in the Constitution as an inalienable right..."

It doesn't mention having a TV as a right but I know at least 1 state that will pay for one if you don't have one when you get on welfare. Ridiculous.

Re:Gun nuts

[cwsumner]

... We already regulate the sawed-off version of shotguns, fully automatic rifles, etc. ...

The court case that banned sawed-off shotguns was a mistake in fact. The judge ruled that, because sawed-off shotguns were of no use to the military, then they could be banned. But he was wrong, shotguns (sawed-off and not) have been used in every war by our military.

And banning the rifles is double-wrong, because they sited the previous shotgun case. But the rifles are the same as used by the military, so the decision did not apply !

Re:Gun nuts

[Firethorn]

Being afraid of a loose tiger is rational. There are very active organizations with political power attempting to ban/further restrict firearms. A certain amount of 'tizzy' is justified.

I really wouldn't describe my thoughts on it as 'fear' though. Concern, certainly, but the results of that is tossing the NRA $20 every so often and writing my representatives.

I personally would not want to be out with anyone who feels the need to carry a gun, because I don't know what might trigger this person to draw the weapon, and who knows who might eventually get shot. We are all human. We all make mistakes.

Right back at you - "You need some lessons on how to evaluate risk."

Rate the friend/associate. If they're not trustworthy enough to carry a firearm around me, I think they're not trustworthy enough to hang around with anyways.

I personally would not want to be out with anyone who feels the need to carry a gun, because I don't know what might trigger this person to draw the weapon, and who knows who might eventually get shot.

I suppose you avoid police like the plague?

Re: Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

1st amendment is restricted. Many of the same people who want even more restrictions on the 1st somehow think the 2nd is a mandate from god and can have no restrictions at all.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

The phone number and the PO Box were both listed on the publicly available FFL form for the US branch of the gun manufacturer. The FFL is needed for importation of the German made gun into the US. The picture was taken from Google Street view based on the address on those forms (so no, that's not her unless it's really coincidental timing). Why anyone would put their personal cell phone down as the business phone number, especially when you work for an international company that could easily front the money for some call center receptionist, is beyond stupid.

Re:Gun nuts

[MightyYar]

Whatever the case history, the fact is that we are currently in a situation where we have some weapons that are allowed and some that are not. I think we can have a grown-up discussion about what this mix should be without reverting to tribal insults.

If you want to talk about constitutional violations, the whole 2nd Amendment is a mess. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was that leaders of the time were very distrustful of a standing professional army, and so preferred the idea of an armed citizenry that could be called up when needed. This whole idea was quickly proven to be unworkable (at least in the opinion of the leaders of the time). So the whole thrust of the 2nd Amendment was discarded perhaps 20 years after it was ratified, when congress started to fund standing armies. Hell, the very first time they tried to call up the militia, it was a disgrace. Even when they tried to keep some federal armories instead of relying on the militia to have their own arms, the British spanked the militias hard in the War of 1812. So now we are in this situation where we have to pretend to be honoring the constitution, but in reality we are just coming up with ways to work around the parts that don't really make any sense.

Re:Gun nuts

[Firethorn]

Again, this technology was not meant to stop most "gun deaths". It addresses a very specific set of circumstances.

I posted earlier that it turns out this feature runs around $1k. It replaces a $300-600 firearm with a $1200 one and you have to buy a $400 watch along with it.

When you say 'very specific', it's a very true statement. It won't stop authorized users from committing suicide. It won't stop an authorized user from committing murder. What it WOULD stop is an attacker tacking the firearm away from the owner and using it on the owner.

However, how often does this occur? very rarely. Turns out it's tough to take a gun off of somebody willing to shoot you with it rather than give it to you. The highest rate I can think of would be the police, who actually have to handle dangerous people while armed(higher risk than standing off and waiting for police to arrive). In the last decade, 25 police officers were killed by their own weapons, out of 535 killed. That's 5% of murdered officers, yet police departments will conduct intense campaigns to be exempted from the requirements.

After Sandy Hook, there was talk about limiting magazine sizes. Suddenly Obama was coming to take every one's guns according to them.

They did get a little overheated, didn't they? Still, it's not like limited magazine sizes are likely to have saved anybody in that case.

I'll note that given the firing rates that come out in a lot of spree killings many gunnies can match the shooting speed using revolvers. I remember one incident where a very talented invidual managed to meet the firing rate with a black powder weapon(at a range, done safely).

Suicide

[Firethorn]

Men on average in the US are 3-10x more successful at committing suicide than women.

This reminded me of a 'freak' statistic - More women attempt suicide than men, but more men actually committ suicide, precisely because of this. Though it's evening out. Women are using more effective methods. :(

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Reziac]

"...how easy should we make it for people to do that?"

I think that's the wrong question. It assumes that the =average= person *wants* to go forth and commit mayhem, AND has no social brake on his behavior.

Reality is that only rare individuals have such a desire (most of us have =fantasized= about doing away with some jackass) AND lack the social brake. The right question is -- is that microscopic incidence worth restricting everyone's ability to own whatever? (Isn't this the same nonsense that assumes every airline passenger is a terrorist?)

Chemistry being what it is, there's always an alternative. If you can't get diesel and fertilizer, there's always ammonia and propane, or even just propane by itself. Should we restrict millions' ability to heat their homes because some nutjob =might= use a propane tank as a bomb?

[And if you don't think that's doable, my propane dude told me of a case where a portable cylinder fell off a shelf, knocked its valve askew, and the resulting explosion flattened a motel. Yep, something the size of a Gatorade bottle took out a good-sized building. Having seen the aftermath of a neighbor's misadventure with propane, I'm not too astonished.]

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

You couldn't even get UBCs through the United States Senate, because nobody trusts the motivation of the people (Feinstein, Schemer, et. al) who were pushing them...

Funniest (and most apropos) typo of the entire topic.

- T

Re:Gun nuts

[Firethorn]

Witness the latest law in right-leaning Georgia to allow concealed carry in bars where people will be intoxicated while armed.

I mean, why did anyone think that was a good idea?

1. It doesn't force the bar to allow carry, the bar can still ban it under their own rules.
2. Bars are not necessarily violence free
3. Georgia has laws against having a firearm while drunk. Designated drivers are also a thing.

My take on it: Don't bother banning locations that serve alcohol for carrying. Ban being drunk while carrying.

Re:Gun nuts

[catmistake]

Thank you! I find parody not exactly easy nor easily detectable. And it is nice to be appreciated in seeking that incredibly rare and elusive +x Troll moderation, which I'm not sure I have earned for the reasons you describe and which I'll keep in mind if the opportunity ever presents itself or I have a plan to draw one out. Nevertheless, I really do appreciate your gracious acknowledgement! It feels wonderful and you've really made my day, as I have often enough been accused of being a sockpuppet for more infamous trolls, such as the great APK, which as flattering as it is, is kind of anticlimactic for me.

Do a proper threat assessment there.

[Valdrax]

Because any place that is designated as a "gun-free zone" thereby becomes a place of danger. Nowdays they are refered to as "Rob Me zones".

Generally speaking, bars are rather filled with people, so robbing people inside is impractical and a bit silly of an idea even when everyone is supposed to be disarmed.

Robbing them in the parking lot is a possibility -- bars seem to attract crime of all sorts -- but the typical target you want to mug is someone who can't defend themselves. For a bar, that most likely means drunk people, who would be in no condition to defend themselves if they did have a gun; you'd just end up with an escalation of the situation that would most likely work against the armed patron by encouraging the mugger to attack while the patron attempts to draw.

On the other hand, the threat of impulsive, alcohol-fueled murders in a flash of anger is massively increased when you let someone carry a weapon into a bar. 50% of all murders are committed under the influence of alcohol. Allowing guns into bars is a recipe for raising the local homicide rate.

Just look at what happened to the schools !

Over 99% of schools will never have a school shooting throughout their lifespan. There were 38 school shootings in 2000-2010 resulting in the deaths of 33 victims (not including the shooter). This number does not include colleges but does include a handful of non-public schools. There are just under 99,000 schools in America, meaning that around 4% of 1% of schools had a shooting, and of those most were single-target attacks or very short opportunistic attacks rather than the slow, deliberate Columbine or Virginia Tech style massacre that people hold up as an example of where a gun might help.

On the other hand, 606 people died of firearms accidents and 19,392 people died of suicide just in 2010 alone. So with that in mind, what exactly do you think would have been solved by bringing guns to a building filled with curious children and emotionally wrought teens other than a lot of opportunities for tragedy.

You have to do a fair threat evaluation. Guns in schools are a far bigger threat than they are a threat neutralizer.

Re:Gun nuts

[Firethorn]

Well regulated at least means There would be 50 people with rifles, and 250 rounds each, even if they weren't all .223, but a mix of .223, .308, 30-06 and other calibers.

The original Milita act specified 24 rounds* and an eventual standard of a caliber of 18 lead balls per pound.

My modern take on that would be a .223 rifle that uses with 2 loaded 30 round AR-type magazines and an ammo pouch for them. Requiring additional rounds is a minor point. 60 rounds is about $15 of ammo, 250 would be $62.50.

"Designated Marksman" types would have to qualify for that in order to report with a different caliber such as .308.

*Even if a 'round' back then was a paper package of powder and ball that was disassembled in the process of loading the rifle. Tear the ball off, pour powder into firearm, stuff paper into rifle, insert ball, ram home.

Re:Gun nuts

[stoploss]

I don't begrudge you your right to bear arms. But you certainly aren't welcome in my home. Your fear makes you much more dangerous than the vast majority of bad actors in this world, IMHO.

I disagree with your line of reasoning, and I doubt we would associate with one another due to incompatibility in our basic outlooks. However, I do respect your right to your opinion and viewpoint because you are not attempting to meddle in the affairs of others by calling for laws to strip away rights. Returning the favor, as it were.

Your viewpoint does trend toward denigrating those who disagree with you, and I will withhold my rejoinders except to ask: have you ever spent much time shooting firearms? Many people (though perhaps not you) fear what they do not understand. Find someone to take you to the range for an afternoon if you have never been. Don't be xenophobic and prejudicial against those who use firearms. Learn the safety rules and give it a try with a friend who will give you a demonstration.

  At the very least, you will be able to claim you applied an open, critical mind to your chosen philosophy.

Re:Gun nuts

[CanHasDIY]

Hey, any time bud.

And FWIW, I personally feel that good parody should be undetectable, as it forces the audience to actually put some thought into what's been said.

uhhhh have you looked up lately???

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything that puts us closer to a gun registry or the ability in this case, electronic confiscation of your gun, is a bad thing.

You don't have to extrapolation very far to see how this tech will be abused just like all tech by the "government".

Flash suppressors

[Firethorn]

This type of "feature" is intended for covert use of the weapon, which I'd argue falls under what most would categorize as an assault weapon.

A flash suppressor is mutually exclusive of a noise suppressor aka 'silencer'. As such, you'll still have the full report of the rifle, as stated, all it does is cut down the flash a bit so it's less likely to blind the shooter.

As for 'completely changes the weapon's intended use', it's a small metal part that does more than just suppress flash. It also protects the end of the barrel('crown') from damage, which is critical to accuracy.

Today use is shifting towards 'compensators' that use a different hole pattern - besides suppressing flash and protecting the crown, it also helps fight muzzle rise and reduce kick-up if you're shooting over loose sand/gravel.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[DQKennard]

> He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.

It still would have happened, but the only death would have been his.

Possibly, but probably more likely is the burglars tell him not to move, and he sits quietly while they take his stuff, then they leave and he calls the police and his insurance company.

Re:right handed people wear their watch on left ar

[Anonymous Coward]

Trayvon Martin was the victim & shot dead. George Zimmerman was the "type" who decided he didn't like Trayvon's looks.

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

I disagree with your line of reasoning, and I doubt we would associate with one another due to incompatibility in our basic outlooks. However, I do respect your right to your opinion and viewpoint because you are not attempting to meddle in the affairs of others by calling for laws to strip away rights. Returning the favor, as it were.

Your viewpoint does trend toward denigrating those who disagree with you, and I will withhold my rejoinders except to ask: have you ever spent much time shooting firearms? Many people (though perhaps not you) fear what they do not understand. Find someone to take you to the range for an afternoon if you have never been. Don't be xenophobic and prejudicial against those who use firearms. Learn the safety rules and give it a try with a friend who will give you a demonstration.

At the very least, you will be able to claim you applied an open, critical mind to your chosen philosophy.

I do not fear guns. And I do understand what they are and how they work. I am not a xenophobe at all. I live in what is probably the most diverse place in the US and have friends and acquaintances from many different ethnic groups, creeds and viewpoints.

I don't like golf. I'm not big on going to movie theaters either. Does that make me a xenophobe or prejudiced? Just because I'm not interested in the same things you are doesn't make me so. I don't even object to gun ownership. What I object to is the premise that it's okay (for anyone, police included) to prepare to use deadly force in a non-combat situation. Sentient life is precious and every attempt should be made to preserve it, even when the object of those attempts doesn't share those beliefs.

My experiences in the last half-century have shown me that in normal civilian life that deadly force is unnecessary and that the threat of deadly force will generally make people more dangerous, not less so.

If you want to use guns for target shooting or hunting, more power to you. Knock yourself out.

However, what I don't want around *me* are people who are either unable or unwilling to live their lives without the psychological shield of a deadly weapon against notional bad guys, which makes them feel safer even though they are not. Such a person is more dangerous to those around them.

Statistically speaking, situations where using a gun to defend yourself would be useful are quite rare, and even in those cases using a gun will often escalate or otherwise make the risk of injury or death even higher. The chances of such a situation are vanishingly small compared to the risks of injury or death by other means. And so, if you are carrying a weapon for self-defense against the possibility that you might find yourself in such a situation, do you also expend proportionate resources to protect against the myriad of other, much more likely, situations which might cause injury or death? If not, why not?

I'm not sure what you mean about applying a critical, open mind to my chosen philosophy. I am an empiricist. And the evidence I've collected over the years tells me that I'm much more likely to have additional holes (and I have quite enough of those already) in my body in the presence of guns than when not in the presence of guns. I have also found myself in a variety of life-threatening situations, both with and without the presence of guns. In all of those situations, having a gun would not have made me any safer.

If carrying a firearm to "defend" yourself outside your home (let's be clear, I'm not talking about owning firearms or using them responsibly for hunting, target shooting, etc.) makes you feel safer, the statistics show that's a false sense of security. And if you feel you have the right to kill people and endanger others by discharging your firearm in public, then I suggest you get some professional help, and insist that you stay the hell away from me.

If you disagree, rock on. If you think I'm wrongheaded, boo-yah! Good for you. But your guns are not welcome around me. Have a nice day.

Re:Gun nuts

[cwsumner]

... The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was that leaders of the time were very distrustful of a standing professional army, and so preferred the idea of an armed citizenry that could be called up when needed. This whole idea was quickly proven to be unworkable (at least in the opinion of the leaders of the time). So the whole thrust of the 2nd Amendment was discarded perhaps 20 years after it was ratified, when congress started to fund standing armies. ...

That's true, pretty much. But keep in mind that the criticisms of the militia at the time were from regular military people who saw it as undiciplined, meaning lacking "spit and polish". Many Militias were less than effective and short on training, but some critics just objected to "non-European" fighting methods.

However, the distrust of a government standing army still exists (with reason). So the need for citizen militia still exists.

The point, though, is that every country that has disarmed the citizens has had very bad things happen, much worse that any dangers listed in this thread.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

You may want to check the historical use of the phrase "well regulated". At the time the Constitution was written, "well regulated" simply meant "properly fuctioning" - and not "controlled" or "restricted" as you imply and current usage has it.

The 2nd Amendment simply states that militias are necessary, and that in order for any militia to function properly, the people that make up that militia must have access to weapons, and therefore access to weapons should not be restricted.

Re:Gun nuts

[stoploss]

I enjoy interacting with those who hold viewpoints that differ from my own, especially if the discourse remains rational. Though we are unlikely to convince one another of our chosen viewpoint, perhaps increased understanding can be accomplished for both of us.

I am curious: do you know anyone who owns a firearm for self-defense, or does firearm ownership for this purpose preclude your association with a person? Would you terminate a friendship if you subsequently discovered the person had a concealed carry permit?

I can attest that you are applying prejudicial stereotypes to those with concealed carry permits/weapons (I am stressing that these people are of the law abiding type rather than criminals who concealed carry illegally). Standard training includes the appropriate use of deadly force. For example, there is a duty to retreat in public places if possible, which implies that drawing the firearm is the last resort. I sense you presume that concealed carry people will draw down on an unarmed mugger, or boldly stride into dangerous areas due to the false security of carrying a firearm. This isn't the case. In fact, training also indicates that if you draw a gun you must be ready to use it (i.e. brandishing and threatening with a firearm is not allowed). You are supposed to hand over your keys/wallet if mugged, as these are just possessions. Only if there is a legitimate fear for your life or someone else's is deadly force allowable.

So, that means if I had a CCW, I would surrender my possessions during a nonviolent mugging and let the mugger walk away without ever knowing I had a firearm. By the same token, if someone breaks into my home at night, they have forfeit their right to live in favor of my right and duty to protect my family.

As you claim to be an empiricist, I suggest you research the amount of crime perpetrated by those with concealed carry permits. You seem to believe they are highly dangerous, mentally imbalanced people. This should be borne out in the crime statistics if true, don't you agree? They should have a higher rate of violence, etc, than the normal population "controls". I can give you some statistics, but I sense you are the type of person who would prefer to do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

You will find that the concealed carry permit holders will respect your wishes for them not to bring firearms into your home. I mean, aside from being trespassing to do otherwise, it's just inappropriate to not comply with your host's wishes. I do know some that might decline an invitation to your home due to the restriction, but that's due to a political statement.

Finally, you have misstated the perspective: it's not that people with a concealed carry permit believe they have a right to kill people. Is this what you honestly believe they think? Rather, they believe that they have a right to self defense (i.e. that we all have a right to try to prevent ourselves from being killed by the aggression of others, and that this trumps the right of life-threatening aggressors to live unharmed).

I wish you a nice day as well.

Re:Gun nuts

[Firethorn]

80% is from action movies and 18% from news reports or newspapers.

Hint: Cars don't explode like that. Action movie depections of guns are generally WORSE then the pyrotechnics they engage in with vehicles.

Seeing stuff blow up like that is still cool though...

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of your claims are backed up buy some statistics. I can't be bothered digging them up.

Simply pulling random statistics on this topic off the internet, or dredged from your memory, is highly likely to retrieve erroneous information on the topic. This is because certain gun control fanatics have a long history of creating false or misleading data regarding gun control, effectively propaganda. They have even been caught paying researchers to lie about historical patterns of gun ownership. This pollutes the information available.

Someone interested in this topic needs the ability to filter the substantial amounts of garbage out there from the legitimate scientific work.

If you have a strong background in research design, it's easy to penetrate the arguments and see the underlying falsehoods. If you don't, you are likely to be gullible and easily mislead.

Take a class in research design, or at least read a few books.

If you want to discuss a social science topic in public, you should have a minimum basic social science education, so as to not waste other people's time.

In the particular case you can't be bothered to cite, the study actually showed that gang members who owned guns were far more likely than law abiding citizens to be killed by guns. What a surprise! These people are also more likely to be killed by knives!

The chance of being killed by a gun -- for people outside the illegal drug trade -- is minuscule, with the vast majority of gun deaths being suicides.

The US having a suicide rate comparable to (and often lower) than many countries that prohibit gun ownership, it seems likely that the gun is merely being used as a convenient alternative to a drug overdose, and altering gun ownership would have no effect on the suicide rate. Further, not all suicides are bad (unless you happen to come from certain religious organizations, and want to impose the beliefs of your religion on society in violation of the 1st Amendment).

You can see the same kind of "gun control fanatic propaganda" in the original post. For example, note the claim "dramatically more likely". Really? What criteria is the poster using for a statistical difference to be considered "dramatic"?

Assuming the poster isn't visiting the house of a gang member involved in the drug trade, there is no evidence of a difference in danger of even 1%, hardly a dramatic difference. The word "dramatic" is pure propaganda.

Further, there is considerable evidence that strong public gun ownership reduces many categories of violent crime (see the studies by economist John Lott, for example). Thus, one can argue that the danger of visiting a region containing many houses with a gun is actually less than it would be otherwise, when one takes all the facts into account, and again assuming a low level of drug trafficking.

Re:Gun nuts

[HuguesT]

Were you robbed for a lot of money? Are you quite sure that by pulling out your own gun next time, the criminals will just turn tail and flee? what if they are dumb enough and crazy enough to try and shoot first? Are you fully prepared to go down that route?

Safe Safety

[Firethorn]

On the other hand, I challenge you to find a 3 year old that can open my safe.

Reaching the dial would be challenge #1...

I'll agree with dyslexicbunny, they shouldn't be marketed as a 'safe'. At most it should be marketed as a 'residential security container', and one that, depending on how it failed* should leave the company open for some liability.

Even a RSC should provide sufficient protection to keep a pre-teen out of it. It just that it would provide minimal fire and theft protection.

*Setting a password of 1,2,3,4 doesn't count as a failure if the kid actually pushed the buttons.

Re:Gun nuts

[MightyYar]

Perhaps you are right and the need for a militia still exists, but we certainly don't have one now. Personally, I think it was a very bold idea at the time, but like some other bold ideas in the constitution it just didn't really pan out the way they thought. They were smart but they weren't infallible.

The point, though, is that every country that has disarmed the citizens has had very bad things happen, much worse that any dangers listed in this thread.

I don't think that is really true. I think there is some selection bias at work. I think what you see is a tyrannical regime disarms its people when it comes into power. Make me dictator tomorrow and I'll have this whole country disarmed in a few weeks. I'll go on TV and tell everyone to drop their gun at the local police station or face summary execution if caught with a firearm. There would be some resistance at first, but a few very public demonstrations of what happens to violators and it would be over. The handguns that Americans are hoarding wouldn't really pose much of a threat to our professional army. The founders knew this, and that's why they didn't want a standing army. Well, we've had that for 200 years now and haven't had a tyrannical government.

Re:Gun nuts

[jwhitener]

Curious, do you know if the SCOTUS ever attempted to define the term 'Arms'?

I guess if I am interpreting the second amendment correctly, the purpose of owning the Arms is to ensure the freedom of a State (against a federal gov and/or tyrant). If that is true, then the Arms in question would need to be powerful enough to ensure that freedom. And in that case, Arms should include things like jets/tanks/nukes right?

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, not necessarily - even the most nonviolent criminal is probably going to attack if you just killed two of his friends and are about to kill him if he doesn't do something. The fact that they were unarmed and didn't even have a knife probably says something about how violent they were.

Of course, it's not reasonable to expect that a home invader isn't going to try and harm you, but assuming that all burglars are going to murder you isn't quite right either.

Re:Gun nuts

[Lord Kano]

If you are not a member of the National Guard then you aren't in a militia.

Basically, you don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

• (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
  (b) The classes of the militia are—
  (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
  (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The National Guard is one class of militia. Many/Most of us are in the Unorganized Militia.

You try again.

LK

Re:Gun nuts

[Lord Kano]

So that sorta blows that "we're all part of a militia - so we can all have all the firearms we want" argument away...

No. No, it doesn't.

• (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
  (b) The classes of the militia are—
  (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
  (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I will admit - I *AM* a firearm owner in the United States. I *WOULD* consider a smartweapon that safed itself if more than a foot away from me.
Why? Simple - statisitics.

You considering one of these things isn't the issue. The issue is (for lack of a better term) trigger laws, like NJ and California that will mandate all new guns have these "features" withing (X timeframe) of them becoming available to consumers.

Antigun lawmakers from antigun districts have little to fear at election time from gun owners but any company who enables their nonsense laws by bringing this technology to the consumer market has much to fear. If your business plan includes actions that will really piss off the people who would be your customers, you likely won't be in business for long.

LK

Re:Gun nuts

[Lord Kano]

Who do you think gives the NRA most of their money? It's not the members.

Where is your proof of this assertion?

The NRA has upwards of 5 million members, each paying between 25 and 35 dollars per year. At the minimum the NRA has 125 million per year in cash that comes only from membership dues. You are also apparently unaware that some older members designate the NRA as beneficiaries of their life insurance policies, some members donate extra money, the NRA has fundraising activities of many varieties of which you're obviously unaware and the NRA's income from merchandising (T Shirts, Sweatshirts, Hats, Magazine Subscriptions, etc).

Basically, you're either making things up or simply repeating lies that you heard from someone else with an agenda.

LK

Re:Gun nuts

[Lord Kano]

I personally would not want to be out with anyone who feels the need to carry a gun, because I don't know what might trigger this person to draw the weapon, and who knows who might eventually get shot. We are all human. We all make mistakes.

If you're in the USA, you don't know how often you are out with people who are armed every day.

LK

Re:Gun nuts

[Lord Kano]

Honestly Obama with his intentionally frightening ways has done more for gun sales than any NRA propaganda.

There are gun stores all across the country with pictures of the current President captioned "Salesman of the week/month/year/century."

If the Democrats can't take the House in November, the push for national anti-gun legislation is over for another 8 years, if they lose any seats in the Senate it's over for 16-20 years.

LK

Re:Gun nuts

[Lord Kano]

Again this technology does not address any of these nor was it supposed to. It is supposed to prevent accidental shooting and weapons theft.

No. This technology is intended to make guns expensive. Punitively expensive.

LK

Re:Gun nuts

[Lord Kano]

Why is it when it comes the 2nd Amendment, you think your gun rights are entirely absolute? Please answer that. No other freedom whether it is for speech, press, religion, etc. is absolute. Yet you won't accept any limitations on the 2nd Amendment.

Because our enemies are trying to completely remove the rights protected by the second amendment. When your enemy is an absolutist, you must oppose them absolutely.

If someone were intent on sodomizing you, would you compromise with a handjob or would you demand that you be left alone?

LK

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

I enjoy interacting with those who hold viewpoints that differ from my own, especially if the discourse remains rational. Though we are unlikely to convince one another of our chosen viewpoint, perhaps increased understanding can be accomplished for both of us.

yes, that can be useful.

I am curious: do you know anyone who owns a firearm for self-defense, or does firearm ownership for this purpose preclude your association with a person? Would you terminate a friendship if you subsequently discovered the person had a concealed carry permit?

Yes, no and no.

I can attest that you are applying prejudicial stereotypes to those with concealed carry permits/weapons (I am stressing that these people are of the law abiding type rather than criminals who concealed carry illegally). Standard training includes the appropriate use of deadly force. For example, there is a duty to retreat in public places if possible, which implies that drawing the firearm is the last resort. I sense you presume that concealed carry people will draw down on an unarmed mugger, or boldly stride into dangerous areas due to the false security of carrying a firearm. This isn't the case. In fact, training also indicates that if you draw a gun you must be ready to use it (i.e. brandishing and threatening with a firearm is not allowed). You are supposed to hand over your keys/wallet if mugged, as these are just possessions. Only if there is a legitimate fear for your life or someone else's is deadly force allowable.

You can attest anything you like. If there are no guns around me, there is a zero probability that I will end up with extra holes from gunshots. If there are guns around, that probability is non-zero regardless of who is in possession of the weapon.

I don't know what people will or won't do. When it comes to humanity, experience tells me that betting on stupidity is usually the best option. That said, I'm pretty sure that most of the folks I know who own and carry firearms are responsible with them and would only use them with serious provocation. But again, that assumes that those people have the absolute ability to maintain control of the weapon (not a good assumption to make, yes?). What is more, the decision that deadly force is *required* is always a subjective one. Is everyone always rational at all times and under all circumstances? I think not.

Regardless, if a weapon is present, the probability of being shot is non-zero.

So, that means if I had a CCW, I would surrender my possessions during a nonviolent mugging and let the mugger walk away without ever knowing I had a firearm. By the same token, if someone breaks into my home at night, they have forfeit their right to live in favor of my right and duty to protect my family.

I understood the first time, thanks. And I'm sure that everyone with a CCW is as cool-headed and decent as you are. Especially the police. Yeah.

What you do in your own home is none of my business unless I'm there with you. Although I would point out that there are many non-lethal weapons that could incapacitate an intruder without killing them. And this brings me to the place where I have the biggest qualms: I understand your desire and responsibility in protecting your home and loved ones. But life is precious friend. Have you ever killed anyone? If so, do you feel the weight of your actions?

I did. And I do. The events of that day had an enormous impact on me and that will be with me for the rest of my life. And I had no intention of killing (or even harming) anyone. It was a straight up accident. It was my fault, but an accident nonetheless. Even so, I feel the weight of my actions. Do you have so little empathy that taking someone's life wouldn't affect you? I suspect not. Even if that person threatened you or someone under your protection.

I almost never quote from movies to make a point, but as Clint Eas

Re:Gun nuts

[NotSanguine]

In my previous post I said:

I *never* said that I thought that those with a concealed carry permit believed they have the right to kill.

That wasn't quite true. However, I didn't say those with a CC permit believed that, I said:

...if you feel you have the right to kill people and endanger others by discharging your firearm in public, then I suggest you get some professional help, and insist that you stay the hell away from me.

I can see, given the context, that folks might think I was painting all CC permit holders with a broad brush. I was not and apologize for not being more cogent in my earlier statement.

Re:right handed people wear their watch on left ar

[Anonymous Coward]

Use two hands?

Re:Gun nuts

[Old97]

So you're a lawyer and you've researched this completely or you've latched on to a snippet out of context and are misinterpreting it to favor your own prejudices. Snopes has a nice objective write up of misinterpretations of the Dick Act (Militia Act of 1903) including yours. http://www.snopes.com/politics... Specifically, the Dick Act does not void gun control laws or address any right to bear arms. Try again. BTW, for those who assume I'm against gun ownership, try again because I'm not. I just don't think the 2nd amendment is a slam dunk obvious argument in favor of a universal right to bear arms - any arms. Personally I believe I have an inalienable right to self defense.

Re:Gun nuts

[Optali]

"Weapons for self defense" against what if I may ask?

If a guy comes with the intention of mugging or raping you he will most surely have a gun pointing at your heat / balls already. Can you make the mental calculation of how long it would take you to: Get your gun from your holster/bag/pocket, release the safety latch, mount the gun, point and shoot?

There's no need for much thinking here: By the time you would have done all that you would already have a full magazine worth of 9mm slugs in your body.
Add to that that most "gunslingers" are of the rather fat couchdweller type.

Can you recall this lady from the Democrats that were shot in her face by a Teabagger? There were some armed security people there and they didn't stop the shooter. Neither they security stop the shooter of Ronny Reagan. And these were PROFESSIONALS.

So now, again, tell me how would the average lazy fatass bag of lard exactly excert his/her constitutional right of self defense with his/'her beloved gun-dildo?

Mind you, I'm not against fire arms, I have probably seen and used more and bigger ones than you will ever have the chance of seeing together in your life (I served in the Army, artillery to be precise) and I understand the attracrtion that these excert. I just don't like lazy fatasses excusing themselves and tryinig to look badass when they don't deserve the right to bear arms or to breath for that matter.

Re:Gun nuts

[RockDoctor]

Well, that's great. The next time that your inattention allows a mugger to get a gun to your head, then the mugger ends up with your phone, wallet and car keys AND another gun. Way to go!

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends. Am I the dead homeowner, either of the dead burglars, the incarcerated burglar, or the tax payer who is paying to incarcerate the burglar? Come to think of it, I don't think it's better for any of those people.

Funny you never considered the perspective of the burglars' potential future victims, now spared the traumatic and potentially life-threatening experience of having three men break into their homes. I would be surprised if this was the first house they broke into, and am glad that they won't be breaking into any more. It's a shame that someone had to give his own life to make sure of that.

Re:Gun nuts

[Lord Kano]

No, I'm not a lawyer. I am educated and can read.

I never said that it voided anything. I was simply proving that you were wrong when you said "If you are not a member of the National Guard then you aren't in a militia."

I am a member of the Unorganized Militia, which according to the US Code specifically excludes the National Guard.

LK

Re:Gun nuts

[Entropius]

You'd be wrong about that, then.

Most Arizonan gun-rights advocates see the right to be armed as an extension of personal property rights, and the right to exclude armed people from your own property is also an exercise of personal property rights. They won't raise a legal objection to someone saying "no guns on my property, please", because they think that people can exclude anyone from their property, and that's their choice to make.

Re:Gun nuts

[BronsCon]

You assume a lot... read the rest of the thread.

Re:Gun nuts

[Sciath]

Ludicrous. Making light of the destructive capabilities of a vehicle is evidence of blatant bias. Regardless of any "intent" of an apparatus, it's the end result that matters. Statistically, vehicles kill and maim more people every year in the U.S. than firearms. Your also assuming that the mature of an apparatus dictates its uses. Just because a vehicle is intended to transport does not necessarily it is utilized responsibly and safely. Drivers ignore school zones more often than firearms owners ignore the safe handling if their weapons. Drivers ignore speed limits and driving conditions far more often than (legal) firearms owners ignore the laws governing the handing and use of deadly force with firearms. In the book More Guns Less Crime" the authors demonstrates that firearms injuries and deaths are exaggerated, overblown and embellished compared to injuries incurred by vehicles and other means. Nationwide statistics bear out and have always bore out that deaths and injuries caused by licensed firearms owners are (and have been) below 1%. All things being equal, licensed firearms owners (and homes for that matter) are no more likely to be struck by violent tragedy than households that own vehicles. In fact families are more likely to be struck by (vehicle) violence than are homes with firearms. Are you willing to give up your motor vehicles (including motorcycles) for fear of being killed? If not, why not? You're more likely to die in a vehicle accident than in the home of a licensed gun owner. And if your not, you position is mere hypocrisy.

Re:Gun nuts

[stoploss]

If there are no guns around me, there is a zero probability that I will end up with extra holes from gunshots.

Stipulated. However, the difference in perspective is that we cannot control whether the criminals will be armed. I have seen untrained people who do not respect proper handling rules for firearms and I would not wish them to be near me, either... much in the same way that I want to be nowhere near a drunk driver.

I understand your desire and responsibility in protecting your home and loved ones. But life is precious friend. Have you ever killed anyone? If so, do you feel the weight of your actions? I did. And I do.

I can respect that. Of course, you are entitled to your perspective even without such an experience. No, I have not killed anyone.

I can see, given the context, that folks might think I was painting all CC permit holders with a broad brush.

Thanks for acknowledging this. The common stereotype we face is people suggesting we are bloodthirsty people "looking for any excuse". Everyone I know who is armed hopes to live life in peace and never have to use the weapon for defense.

I know from personal experience that, depending on someone's agenda, the same data can be used to support diametrically opposed points of view.

...which is one reason I didn't start tossing stats. It would have changed our qualitative discussion into a quantitative debate, and that wouldn't further our exchange of ideas. Furthermore, I understand the point you were tendering with your thought experiment, but thought experiments are just that. Converse thought experiments are readily available.

However, can you say with certainty that every law-abiding, gun carrying individual can maintain absolute control over their weapon?

This is an impossible standard to meet, and it is not a necessary one. Demanding perfect safety would rule out nearly every aspect of modern life. I do agree that individuals should hold themselves to very high standards. As an aside, it is illegal to carry while intoxicated (in my state this means "nonzero BAC" for CC purposes), not that the law is the only thing stopping responsible people from doing so.

in situations where there is a clear and imminent threat to life or health, or in fairly common life situations, things aren't necessarily as cut and dried as you *appear* to be making them out to be. I may have misunderstood. If so, please enlighten me.

Some situations are cut and dried, some are not. Everyone must do their best to ascertain the best course of action given the information available at that time.

I agree that we have a right to protect ourselves from harm or death. I have had to do so several times. However, I do not believe that guns are the best way to do so.

I respect your perspective. I think we all would favor Star Trek phasers with a perfectly reliable "stun" action. I have considered firearm alternatives for self-defense and have concluded they were not the best way to protect myself or my family.

Re:Gun nuts

[Ksevio]

That's kind of irrelevant though, since guns and cars aren't comparable and cars aren't guns.

We're allowed to focus on more than one thing at once to prevent deaths. Are you also going to shut down the agency stopping baby toys with lead paint from being sold because cancer kills a lot more people?

Sure people get hurt with cars, but cars serve a useful purpose that isn't killing. The purpose of guns (the reason 99.9% of them were designed) is killing.

Re:Gun Enthuients

[Sinesurfer]

I guess that given the choice between protecting your constitutional rights or fellow citizens desire to not be randomly killed that each side as made a choose however are there are two problems, secondly both sides are right. Firstly, both sides are also wrong.

* Pro-gun is correct to protect all citizens constitutional rights because erosion of a single right could easily cascade to removal of some or all rights. Trying to remove gun crime from society without removing a citizens right to bear arms is impossible when Anti-gun ignore the unintended consquences of their arguments. (Refer to Anti-gun is wrong).
* Pro-gun is wrong to assume the USA is a despotic hell-hole where fully automatic weapons are required for protection in a civilised society. Other similarly well armed nations control weapons, outlaw fully automatic weapons are have a level of gun crime several orders of magnitude less that the USA. (Refer to Anti-gun is correct).
* Anti-gun is correct to desire the same level of safety from gun death as other well armed countries (such as Canada, Switzerland and Australia) because protections demanded by pro-gun are unnecessary. The likihood of being killed by a stolen weapon is far, far more likely than the USA will (1) turn into a hellish, totolertarian fascist state overnight. (Refer to Pro-gun is wrong).
* Anti-gun is wrong when they fail to consider the unintended consquences of their attempts to limit the 4th amendment (for the reasons which pro-gun is right).

Two sets of interdependant logic creates two examples of circular logic (it's very difficult to break one circular logic cycle, this problem has two sets circular logic). I don't know which side will win however the outcomes for anti-gun failing are far, far more likely to be horrible than if pro-gun is wrong.

Re:Gun nuts

[delt0r]

I would show you the stats. But you are clearly unqualified to read them, or participate in the debate. Please present verifiable credentials first. Mr AC.

Re:Gun nuts

[rezme]

A fine theory, but while your logic is sound this is an emotional issue and people rarely apply logic when their emotions get involved. Case in point, the exposure of a woman's private information all because she's trying to sell a safer gun. Also, you cite the reasonable behavior of gun owners in Arizona. This may be entirely accurate, I have no experience with gun owners in Arizona to base any opinion on, but I do have experience interacting with Georgia gun owners. A number are perfectly sane. Some are truly frightening.

Re:Gun nuts

[cwsumner]

... Well, we've had that for 200 years now and haven't had a tyrannical government.

In the history of human civilization, 200 years is a -very- short time.
And we may already be seeing signs of it...

Re:Gun nuts

[MightyYar]

In the history of human civilization, maybe 200 years is a long time. But in the history of a universal and formal definition of a state, let alone representative democracy, 200 years is pretty much the entirety of history.

Re:Gun nuts

[MightyYar]

[sigh] I meant "maybe 200 years isn't a long time". Use the preview, use the preview.

Re:Gun nuts

[cwsumner]

... But in the history of a universal and formal definition of a state, let alone representative democracy, 200 years is pretty much the entirety of history.

Um... I think the Greek and Roman republics were before that. They fell into kingdoms, but they were there more than 200 years, each, before they did. And there have been others, smaller but there.

Re:Gun nuts

[Kalriath]

That is true - just as they would take a dim view of you carrying a sword in public. The point I was making though was that it's relatively easy to purchase one ($600 at Fishing Camping & Outdoor), whereas a gun would be significantly harder.

Re:Gun nuts

[MightyYar]

Sure, but the Greeks and Romans controlled, what, 10% of the world at their peak and were active in conquest... hardly a universal or formal definition of a state? They also were "representative democracy" so long as you were a free, landowning man.

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

He died knowing he stopped two of his three murderers. This act also stopped them from moving on to new victims -- not to forget the possibility of past victims, if any, getting retroactive justice. I doubt it was there first effort.

Now try to imagine being afforded that same dignity in your own unjustified death to the millions of people in Europe during the last World War; or the millions of people in Thailand during the 1970's; or the millions of children and their parents being beheaded in present day Africa.

Re:Gun nuts

[HornWumpus]

The OWS kids would have made them into bongs.

Re: Gun nuts

[BronsCon]

Well, yes, that's part of not existing, isn't it?

Re:Gun nuts

[BronsCon]

Correlation is not causation.

Aaaaah run away

[Anonymous Coward]

Of the US could not have fewer gun deaths. People might buy less guns, which would lead to even fewer people die!

Oh the horror!

How will gun manufactures and salesmen pay for their private jets? (Yes I think americans are this stupid)

Re:Gun nuts

[UnknowingFool]

It wasn't one model. It wasn't one manufacturer. You would know that if you read the 2nd paragraph:

You should know how unsafe these gun safes are. Both small and large gun safes are sold at all major sporting goods stores and on-line retailers, including Walmart, Cabelas (37 stores), Scheels (24 stores), and Dicks Sporting Goods (450 stores). These safes typically cost $75-$200 depending upon manufacturer, retail outlet, container size and alleged “sophistication and method of locking.” There are three leading brands that are sold by these retail outlets: Stack-on, GunVault, and Bulldog.

Maybe you learned the facts more before you call out someone for making a false conclusion. Pot meet kettle.

Re:Gun nuts

[UnknowingFool]

Well I also think that smart watches are underpowered and under-featured. At the moment, they are not worth my money I won't stop anyone else from buying them. I put these guns in the same category. I don't see much potential in terms of sales but if the manufacturer wants to make them, I'm not getting a pitchfork and torch to lead an angry mob to stop them.

Re:Gun nuts

[UnknowingFool]

Who said anything about blindly trusting the government? I certainly don't, but I don't believe that they are out to get me when they want to impose some new rule or regulation. Going off the deep end does not help your cause and it is up to you to choose your reaction. 1) "I think that the limits on gun magazines won't solve the problem they are being proposed to solve, and I will oppose such a move." or 2) "Obama is coming for your guns. Arm yourselves." One of them is paranoid; the other is not.

Re:Gun nuts

[UnknowingFool]

Because our enemies are trying to completely remove the rights protected by the second amendment. When your enemy is an absolutist, you must oppose them absolutely.

What? You didn't answer the question. Every single right in the 1st amendment has limits, yet you feel that the 2nd amendment should have no limits. That's a logical contradiction.

Re:Gun nuts

[UnknowingFool]

Please tell me when the federal government came in to your house and took your guns away.

Re:Gun nuts

[jsrjsr]

If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.)

Might want to look into that part a little more. While SCOTUS has said that there a many acceptable restrictions, DC's ban is gone, Chicago's ban has just gone and others will surely follow. Note that officials in DC and Chicago are still attempting to come up with something that will be acceptable under the standards set by the courts, but that's to be expected.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Your yammering about "military snipers" completely invalidates the rest of the comment. What makes snipers experts in CQB? What do many members of the military, some of which may have been snipers, but most not, know about CQB having deployed and fought in urban environments through over ten years of COIN warfare?

In summary: Shut the fuck up until you know what you are talking about.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, fuckwit. You know what's funny? I've got a bunch of Soldiers in my unit that have seen combat and shot plenty of fucking hajjis, and they happen to be female.. And they all have more balls than you! You aren't in any fucking militia until you grow a pair and sign up and ship out. Until then, do us all a favor and go suck start whatever shiny piece of metal you bought so you could feel cool running around in a three cornered hat, pretending like you are going to throw the limeys out if they invade again or something.

Some of you may also be under the false assumption that women do not participate in combat. Wrong! Doubly wrong if they happen to be Military Police.

Re:Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

" Obviously in a house without a gun, there is a 0% chance of being shot by the owner's (non-existent) gun. Are you saying there's also a 0% chance in a house with a gun?"

I have owned multiple guns for years. I also own ammunition for those guns. I have a permit to carry, and do, in fact, carry.

None of the rounds that have been fired out of *any* of my guns have ever shot anyone. Run the statistics on that and tell me what the probability is that you'd be shot if you happen to be near me.

Hint: It's less than would justify any of the statements you made in your post.

SCOTUS Opinions...

[jsrjsr]

SCOTUS also ruled in United States v. Cruikshank that the First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens. Reaching back to a case before SCOTUS began enforcing fundamental rights protected by the Bill of Rights doesn't really carry much weight these days.

United States v. Miller could also be read with "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" indicating that the "arms" most protected by the Second Amendment are those which are in use by the military. After all, how can the militia get training in use of those weapons if they are not available for use?

The actual text from United States v. Miller of "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." seems to support the position I mention above at least as well as the one you put forth.

Re:Gun nuts

[Lord Kano]

I did answer your question. You're just pretending I didn't because you didn't correctly anticipate my answer.

My defense of the second amendment is absolute because it's the only amendment that faces this level of assault.

People seek to cut back the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendments' protections. There are people who are seeking to eliminate the second amendment.

LK

Re:Gun nuts

[UnknowingFool]

No you didn't. Why do you believe that the 2nd amendment rights is absolute? "They're trying to take our guns!". That's not an answer. That's paranoia. A fundamentalist Mormon could say the same thing about how he can't marry six wives. It's not an answer at all.

People seek to cut back the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth amendments' protections. There are people who are seeking to eliminate the second amendment.

No they're not. They want limits like every other amendment. It's only your paranoia.

Re:Gun nuts

[Lord Kano]

No they're not. They want limits like every other amendment. It's only your paranoia.

It's not paranoia if they're really trying to do it.

Perhaps your allies haven't gotten the memo but they are trying to eliminate the second amendment, like that quote from a sitting United States Senator.

How about asshole Bruce Perens take on the issue?

Or how about this one from a sitting United States Congressman saying "I sure wish they would" when asked why his party won't come out against the second amendment?

Or what about this editorial from the Detroit Metro Times entitled Ban all guns, now?

The primary difference between them and you is that they're telling the truth about the ultimate goal.

I'll phrase it this way, for the hard of thinking, I adopt an absolutist position in my defense of second amendment rights because my enemies are absolutists about the destruction of those rights.

For example, I don't think that people should carry guns on airplanes. I don't think that people should have guns in courtrooms. That said, I'll oppose any and all effort to codify into law and and all further restrictions upon the types of firearms I may or or from whom I may buy them. They are not the end, they are a means to the end of an absolute prohibition on civilian gun ownership.

LK

Re:Gun nuts

[yakovlev]

First, I want to be clear, I am NOT calling for a ban on firearms. I'm simply saying that when a firearm is around, I'm more careful, due to a rational fear. I'm also more careful to watch for cars when crossing the street than when on a sidewalk, due to a rational fear of getting hit by a car.

That said, I am also against calls for increasing the amount of firearms present in public places, particularly schools and hospitals. These are both places where people's judgement may be poor (due to either youth or stress) and as a result the risks of a firearm are disproportionate to those in a private home or a shooting range.

Wrong, and here's why:

1.) All people who own guns own a gun, and nearly all own ammunition. This means that simply being around a gun owner or at a gun owner's house I am dramatically more likely to get shot accidentally. This is perhaps not so much a fear of the gun owner as it is fear of the gun itself.

This would only be true if said gun owner started taking his firearms out and handling them carelessly, which is so rare that you stand a better chance (by at least an order of magnitude) of being hit by a car driven recklessly (yet for some odd reason, no one is calling for a ban on automobiles.)

Again, not calling for a ban on guns. Just saying that I'm more careful when I know one is around. I'm really more concerned about children or teenagers mishandling the gun than I am about the owner or myself. Kids can be pretty crafty. If a toddler can climb on top of my refrigerator then a teenager can potentially find a way into a gun safe.

2.) MANY gun owners believe in using their gun for self-defense. This also increases my likelihood of being shot around a gun owner because the gun owner may mistake me for an intruder.

If you break into my house, yes - expect to be shot if it's dark, and held at gunpoint if it's daylight. If you are not an intruder, you have nothing to worry about. Under what condition do you expect to be mistaken for an intruder, anyway?

The situation is if I knock on your door at 2am because my car broke down and my cell battery is dead. Another potential situation would be if my teenage son is sneaking, invited by your daughter, into your daughter's bedroom (see point #5, below.)

HARDLY ANY gun owners (and this includes police officers and members of the military) are sufficiently skilled to discharge a firearm in a crowded indoor situation with multiple panicked people and possibly a few assailants in such a way that they correctly identify and harm the assailants but do not harm the bystanders. If an individual has multiple years of experience working as a military sniper they probably fall into this group, but even then they may not fall into this group when using a handgun.

Hardly any human being is sufficiently skilled to safely land a crippled airliner - and yet the odds of either happening are roughly the same, if not slightly in favor of the crippled airliner. Your point?

This point really had to be taken in context with the point after it, about more people thinking they can than actually can. I know several gun owners who when they hear about things like Columbine say that "If I had been there I would have put a stop to that." I don't see a lot of people making similar boasts when a plane crashes. My point is that such situations are not nearly as simple as they might seem. Moreover, I've seen trained police officers take defensive action (ducking and throwing another person to the ground, not brandishing a firearm) on things that turned out to be innocuous.

My overall point was twofold (and my original wording tried to reflect this, though perhaps unsuccessfully): 1.) If such a situation were to occur, the average gun owner shooting back would likely make things worse, not better. 2.) The person who thinks they

Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll see your reference and raise you one:

http://www.spiegel.de/internat... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05...

So what's your point? Both situations are possible. And unlikely. Oh and for the love of god, please strip out the "m." in your website reference.

Re:right handed people wear their watch on left ar

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

But when I did wear one, like most right handed people, I wore it on my left wrist. This gun interlock supposedly has a 10 inch range. Why is no one commenting on that?

Why would you shoot a gun with one hand? Are you trying to miss?

Re: Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

In the old west they knew a practiced man's draw and fire time was shorter than reaction time.

Re: Gun nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

It turns out that referencing an eighteenth century decision results in arms being defined as any weapon that one man can wield and carry.

Self-demonstrating

[Arancaytar]

"I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote."

In any discussion about gun control, the kind of people who oppose it inevitably show themselves to be the prime example for why it is needed. Bunch of Adam Lanzas and Anders Breiviks waiting to happen.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Gun nuts

[BronsCon]

The instance in which it would have been useful was one in which my assailant ran at me from across an empty parking lot, giving me plenty of time to draw, aim, and if necessary, fire.

The instance in which it would not was one in which my assailants, 3 of them, didn't bother to search me past my back pocket, where my wallet was, and would not have found the gun in the first place. In that instance, I'd have drawn as they fled, taking out the one armed assailant first, and kneecapping the two unarmed accomplices.

Were I armed, it would have happened once, not twice; and recovery would have been immediate.

And before you ask if I'd actually be able to pull the trigger, consider whether you really want to know the answer.

Re:Gun nuts

[Tyndmyr]

Yes, because screen locks on cell phones made stolen cell phones useless. And keys made stolen cars useless. Now, imagine that adding a key to your car made the car FIVE TIMES as expensive, and occasionlly made it cease to work entirely. Win/win, right?

Re:Gun nuts

[Tyndmyr]

Only holes in humans, eh? Nobody has EVER shot a gun at non-humans? Like, maybe a target? Or a clay pigeon? Go forth, find out how much ammo is sold, and realize that the VAST majority of guns are being used tfor other purposes.

Re:Gun nuts

[Tyndmyr]

This argument fails when one realizes that the owners of these companies are working to entact laws requiring one to not purchase their competitors product. Much like a more evil Comcast. Why, New Jersey already has such a law. Once a smart gun goes on sale anywhere, two years laster, a ban on all other guns kicks in. They are actively fighting freedom. Of *course* people are upset.

Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

Not one of you gun touting spineless bastards, should be allowed to live. Big brave man you are with your gun trying to quantify your own useless carcass.
Be a man and settle it accordingly, but oh no! The spineless turds that you are hide behind you fucking pathetic gun laws. More people killed in one year that a whole war lasting years children gunned down wives husbands killed over a fucking bag of popcorn. You useless dicks not one drop of courage in all of you with your pop guns. The world laughs at you and how sad an pathetic you all are. Guns yeah that will solve it . Fucking Morons.