Slashdot Mirror
Gun Rights Groups Say They Don't Oppose Smart Guns, Just Mandates
Lucas123 (935744) writes "When two gun stores attempted to sell the nation's first integrated smart gun, the iP1, gun advocacy groups were charged in media reports with organizing protests that lead to the stores pulling the guns from their shelves or reneging on their promise to sell them in the first place. But, the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation say they do not oppose smart gun technology, which they call "authorized user recognition" firearms. "We do oppose any government mandate of this technology, however. The marketplace should decide," Mike Bazinet, a spokesman for the NSSF, wrote in an email reply to Computerworld. However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology."
Once the police are happy enough with the technology to use it exclusively, then a mandate is appropriate.
I'm not holding my breath.
No I don't. What do you propose? That all cars should also be "smart cars" which will not start without owners fingerprint for the sake of safety?
You, too, might be upset if the government legislated that all pacemakers run on a derivative of the Win9x kernel.
Sure, if you want to buy a pacemaker running Win9x then I don't care because that doesn't interfere with my choice. However, when you start telling *me* my safety critical device has to have an unreliable technology incorporated into it, then damn right you are going to encounter my indignant resistance.
If I were to buy a handgun for personal protection, I'd like to have the authorized user recognition technology so that the weapon couldn't be turned against me in a difficult situation. But I'd also not like it mandated. I might want a custom gun, I might want something that works with gloves, I might want something more reliable than a funky computer, I might want a non-crippled device for any number of reasons.
But I want to make that choice for myself, weighing each instance.
(Please note: I have never owned any guns, I am not a member of the NRA, I just happen to agree with them in this instance.)
John
However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology.
Let them pass the laws. A few days later, when headlines erupt about stolen "smart" guns being used in murders, or some cop getting killed because his "smart" gun wouldn't fire, the laws will go away soon enough.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
My 1911 is perfectly safe when used in accordance with good firearms safety practices.
This is no different that a car or a chainsaw or pool. Things of all sorts are dangerous in the hands of stupid people.
How this is news to you is what I cannot understand.
Funny how the most virulently anti-gun people tend to be the ones who know the least about 'em.
The unknown is skeery.
And I have no problem with these smart guns for anyone who wants to buy one. In fact, I could see advantages for these guns under certain circumstances if I was in situations where there was a risk my gun would be taken away from me in a struggle. However, personally I would not want one of these. The main reason being that it is another point of possible failure or breakdown that could keep my gun from firing in the event I need to use it. When people need to use a gun in self-defense they usually have less than a second to make that decision and pull the trigger. THere is no time to be fiddling with some gizmo or something that might prevent the gun from firing.
Hitting pedestrians is pretty much this, yes. However, like with firearms, the vast majority of people have little interest in killing random folks.
Support more choices in goverment-Vote 3rd party.
A federal law stating - that the civilian authorities of any given city or state, be subject to the same firearm restrictions, as the civilians themselves. Yes, including the SWAT, and special response teams. Magazine limits, smart guns, etc. After all, if it is OK, for the average citizen to be subject to proposed restrictions, the the police forces should be governed by the same restrictions.
You'll love this!
http://www.newyorker.com/onlin...
Don't show Penn Jillette, though; he might start shouting at you.
Mandates could be a great thing - to those with a lot of old tech guns!
Just think of all the money they can make selling them after the sale of new old-tech guns are outlawed!
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
Don't forget New Jersey passed it's mandate before the technology had even been invented as a functional device. When it was passed it was merely a concept. Beyond that we don't even know how well the technology behind that Armatrex pistol is going to work out. The pistol in question itself is COMPLETELY ill suited for personal defense purposes. Being .22 LR, a round known for piss poor performance and reliably.
You could easily consider this as just kind of a test bed for future proper defensive arms. And we don't really know just how many ways this equipment might be up having points of failure. I personally imagine that it will be a good decade before any gun maker will consider offering this technology in a significant portion of their wares. We, as people of the gun, prefer things that we know will WORK. Reliability. Is. Critical. Case in point the 1911 is one of the biggest selling handguns on the market. A design invented in... 1911. Over a century old.
You already have this special secure token that lets you start your vehicle, and by willingly handing that token over to another person you are assumed to have taken some degree of legal responsibility for what they do with said vehicle.
It's called a key.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The irony is especially sweet here considering you're posting anonymously on an internet forum, exploiting "old fashioned" speech laws (that were drafted with printing presses and quill pens in mind).
Almost certainly true. Consider contraceptives. First they were illegal, then legal (and properly so in a free country.). Now they are mandatory that companies pay for them.
The exact same rhetoric used to get them legalized is now used to justify them as mandate.
So this is not only not a silly conclusion, it is almost a foregone one.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
And I'm sure that you believe yourself to be a rational person.
Yet you could not stop yourself from including denigrating language in a post complaining about the behaviour of others.
You do realize there's and estimated 100 million gun owners in the United States. By basic probability you're going to have a certain percentage of them that are bug nuts. However that percentage is going to be exceptionally low. Otherwise the internet would have probably caught fire from all the hate mail and threats you're speaking of.
Do you make it a habit of using really idiotic generalizations often in life?
Given that the majority of injuries caused by firearms are accidents or non-defensive homicides, I would question your statement that "the most important safety feature of a gun" is its ability to actually shoot. Detroit had about 50 defensive homicides in 2012 against 500 offensive homicides; if the gun literally didn't work half the days out of the year, you would be saving 250 lives at the cost of 25, before you count accidents.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
You're full of shit. The NRA doesn't cater to the crazies but the media makes sure to try and stick them on the NRA every chance they get. The NRA has a membership of over 3 million people. No doubt they have their share of nutjobs just like every large organization but the majority of them are responsible people. No one really has a problem with "smart" guns but most gun owners don't want them mandated. I am actually intrigued by the idea but I'd like the technology to mature a bit more before I purchase one.
Did anyone really think that pro-gun groups would oppose manufacturers giving people the option of buying guns with additional safety devices?
What's really going on is that pro-gun groups are pretty certain (with good reason!) that these smart guns don't work reliably, and likely never will. Plus there's some concern about backdoors that might allow the guns to be deliberately disabled, which could enable smart gun mandates to easily turn into forcible disarmament.
But, given a smart gun that actually works, is very, very close to 100% reliable (meaning it almost never fails to recognize its authorized user, mostly), and isn't subject to control by third parties, I'm sure there would be a great market for them. I'd definitely buy one. I train a little from time to time in techniques for protecting my gun from being taken from me, and while I have considerable confidence in my ability to retain control of my gun, I'd love to have an additional technological backstop.
But it's very unlikely they'll ever be sufficiently reliable. So my response has been from the beginning: Let me know when all of the police forces have adopted them and love them, since cops are at considerable risk of being shot with their own guns. When police are confident that the reliability is high enough they want to carry them, then I'll be interested in looking at the possibility myself.
Mandates, however, make no sense. Build good enough technology and people will buy them. If that's not possible, then mandates are obviously going to meet with stiff resistance.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Illegal is not a possible outcome of the marketplace. You don't seem to understand what that concept is.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr...
S5.1.1Each vehicle must have a starting system which, whenever the key is removed from the starting system prevents:
(a) The normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and
(b) Either steering, or forward self-mobility, of the vehicle, or both.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children, ranging from toddlers to pre-teens.
Cite?
Given that CDP numbers put the total number of accidental shooting deaths annually between 500 and 600 -- for all ages of shooters -- I expect your link to be very interesting.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Being the actual point of the second amendment was to allow the citizens to raise arms against their own government or an other government. (They just completed a revolution from their mother government, the founders heads were filled with a lot of idealism, and a lot of distrust in big organizations) So they created the second amendment as a way to insure the citizens feel free and safe.
Being that the United States is one of the most stable country in the world. The idea of a violent revolution is a rather remote aspect, sure there are some fringe groups, but none have major public opinion, and prefer to work with our current system of government then actually fight with arms against it. Means right now in history the Gun rules seem outdated and leaves us open to citizens being danger to themselves and others because of the gun.
Most people do not think ahead in such abstract reasons, so the pro-gun supporters try to bring up short term threats on trying to show that the gun is useful today and now, as to not have the citizenry get lazy on their rights, and sign away their freedom.
I myself do not own a gun, nor do I have any plans on buying one soon... However the fact that I could get one without having to go threw government approval process to make sure that my ideals match the governments, is a comforting freedom.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Actually, most consumer vehicles are designed to minimise pedestrian injury these days, particularly given that most impacts occur in urban environments and are therefore comparatively low-speed. There are even standards they test against in Europe.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Citation?
Only numbers I could find even close to this are the total number of people who were accidentally shot over a SIX year period. Not just by children, but by adults.
And that reference mentioned in passing that their definition of children was "under 25 years of age".
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I'm not a gun owner either and not a member of any gun related organizations.
I agree the technology sounds useful but mandating a technology that is unproven and not likely to have an impact... I have no idea what the statistics for are for a person being shot by an assailant with their own gun are but I'm sure it's really low. Gun locks are not intended to keep a burglar from using your own gun against you, they are intended to keep accidental discharges from happening and unauthorized users like kids from playing with them.
As for theft, gunlocks or any other system can be circumvented.
The rest are shooting at human silhouettes, basically fantasizing about shooting people. It's really sick.
And here, I see another person who is fantasizing that other people want to be murderers. It's really sick.
If you can't draw a moral distinction between murder and self defense, then I sure you never vote and absolutely never serve on a jury.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Sigh. There is no such thing as an unregulated free market. Unregulated markets are quickly subverted by a few large corporations to prevent competition and stop new corporations from getting a foothold. Can you name me one unregulated free market that has ever existed?
"Shakedown Street"
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The state of CA is not a good example of safety evaluation. They require each model of gun to go through an expensive(IIRC, ~$25,000 per) "testing" process. A gun made in 5 different calibers and 5 different colors or finishes requires the manufacturer to pay 25 times the fee to be able to sell in CA. This process has little to do with safety. It's about income for the state and discouraging gun manufacturers from selling in their state.
Do car manufacturers need to have each color of their cars to be "safety tested" before they can be allowed to sell them? If a new color is introduced, is it inherently illegal to sell until it has gone through the testing process?
In fairness to your point, the 1911 design does lack some improvements that have been developed in the last 100 years. During that time, it was a standard sidearm of our military and used by law enforcement agencies. It may not be a perfect design, but it's clearly not inherently unsafe. The hypothetical situation you describe is due to unsafe handling practices.
if the gun literally didn't work half the days out of the year, you would be saving 250 lives at the cost of 25, before you count accidents
Though you're (deliberately, of course) not counting the thousands and thousands of cases each year where defensive brandishment stops an attack. That number hugely exceeds the number of deaths by any method. I'd be more than happy to fetch out a handgun in such a situation, but would not be happy to find that it can't ultimately work because I've got gloves on, or my fingertips are dirty, or a battery is low, or it's too cold out, or I forgot my magic bracelet. Or it happens to be my wife's gun, since her's was handier than mine.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The people who are most vocal about gun ownership are also the most unhinged.
Classic lazy ad hominem. The usual method of "argument" resorted to by the intellectually lazy and craven nanny statist. An assertion without any evidence, pure empty rhetorical BS. Which you know, which is why you're posting as the coward you are.
The most unhinged people in gun conversations are the ones who have no idea what they're talking about, but do it anyway. Thanks for being today's example.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Few mature libertarians argue that free markets are perfect. Free markets exchange one set of problems caused by government and regulation for another set of problems that people can choose to deal with (or not) through personal responsibility and voluntary cooperation. Human problems exist in both cases, but libertarians tend to prefer personal choice as a response. Painting libertarians as utopians is probably only accurate as far as the college campus goes.
I find it rather surprising, but generally it is a position based almost entirely on fear, and not on fact. They may well be people who are generally rational in their life, but when it comes to this issue fear and propaganda motivate their position, not facts and logic. They want guns banned because they are scared of them, not because they've done any research and concluded it would make things safer.
You can clearly see it in the grandparent post. Not only the name calling, but the complete detachment from the reality of things. The fact that he believes that a small group of crazies are synonymous with the greater gun owning population. Same deal with how people will generalize the nut jobs at the Cliven Bundy ranch to be the greater gun owning populace.
None stop to think that around 40-50% of all households own a gun in the US, meaning that you know someone who owns a gun, even if you don't know it, and that if that behaviour and thought were the norm for gun owners it would be rampant rather than aberrant.
They are the same as people who will point the finger at religious or environmental extremists and declare that all people of that religion or viewpoint must be extremists and scary.
It is sad, because an informed debate on gun control could be very useful, but it is really hard to have when so much of the "control" side is actually wanting a ban and the reason they want it is fear, not logic. They don't do any research, except maybe to try and look up numbers that support their view. They don't want information, since emotion is the driving factor.
Hence, name calling, scare rhetoric, and so on.
I'm burning a well deserved mod point to post this.
I'm not so sure the NRA doesn't use FUD as their primary tactic to keep themselves funded. I'm a gun owner, I have a carry permit, and I own scary 'assault rifles'. I joined the NRA to support my right to own firearms.
Then the NRA started sending me letters.
First, Obama was going to take away all of my guns. Next it wasn't just Obama, but the entire UN coming after my guns. Next the single greatest threat to this nation was Obama. It just kept rolling on and on. Most of the arguments presented in the letters were pure FUD, the kind that would make old Microsoft proud. It was enough to ensure I never give them money again. I've donated to state groups and I'm still looking for a sane national gun lobby.
In regards to the topic of smart guns. I personally don't want one, but I don't see anything wrong with them. I don't think that mandating smart guns will have any effect on gun violence. If I can steal my dads gun to go to school, I can steal the watch it uses to fire. If I'm going to commit a crime with a gun I bought, I bet I bought the device to fire it. That's no reason to stop working on smart guns, but this technology should remain the choice of the end user.
That's to try to replicate a realistic situation. Other humans are the most dangerous thing you will ever encounter.
You may want to re-think that... with heart disease being the leading cause of death... about 10x that of homicides... pick a food high in cholesterol.
You might want to look up some of Niven's laws. In particular, your issue seems to be with #17...
There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.
From http://nyagv.org/wp-content/up..., which is one of the first links that comes up:
Deaths: From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.ii More than a third of the victims were under 25 years of age.
That's less than 800/yr total, and less than 260 are under 25, meaning that accidental shooting deaths are one of the least common causes of death in the US, especially for kids.
Conversely, preventable medical errors kill over 200,000 Americans every single year, and in fact is the third leading cause of death in this country, dwarfing gun deaths and car deaths combined.
That said, after you start advocating for stricter control over doctors, drugs, and hospital procedures, I might consider listening to you make crap up about too many gun deaths.
PS: This is what a source citation looks like. A smart-ass link to Let Me Google That For You? Not so much.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Of course, since availability of "smart" guns doesn't magically cause all other guns to poof out of existence, you're not actually going to get that result.
The people who obey all laws will find themselves with guns that don't work half the time, and the people who don't care what the law says will have guns that work all the time....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
That's your choice. Me, I'd rather have all kinds of options, which could include "RF watch", "NFC ring", "DNA-tester", "fingerprint recognition", or even nothing at all.
I'm certainly not worried about Mr. Radio-Shack-Equipped Burglar, because that's so far from a Realistic* argument that it's not worth discussing. (* pun intended.)
John
Can you name me one unregulated free market that has ever existed?
Almost every black market ever.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Yeah I might be. And if I were I would complain about that regulation, not about the entire concept of regulation.
People who make reasoned, informed arguments against specific regulations -- I'll listen to those people. People who make unreasonable, ignorant arguments against the notion of improving life with market regulations -- those people are kooks who deserve to be ignored.
Mmm hmm. And we license drivers. I think that would be a reasonable step for gun ownership.
Chain saws aren't an existential problem. There are very few instances or murder or negligent death by chain saw. If that number increases then we can consider doing something about it at that point.
If you don't know whether the gun's having an "on day" brandishment is still effective.
My point however is that there's a big margin to sacrifice the gun's ability to fire in exchange for safety.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Unfortunately shooting a burger has very little influence on its cholesterol content.
An unfired gun is the best defensive weapon that exists. The threat of death is the defensive deterrent. Actually firing is the last resort.
If a gang of 10 people are advancing on somebody and the target pulls a gun, all 10 people stop advancing or run away. If you have a taser or stun gun, you're a non-lethal threat to one of them...and you get one shot. Pepper spray is largely in the same boat (plus you have to account for wind). In both scenarios, you have to wonder if the battery has run out or the spray has expired depending on how long you've carried it.
Bullets last pretty much forever. The device is mechanical and has no dependence on a battery. As a defensive weapon it provides the greatest threat to an attacker and the highest degree of reliability to the carrier for those reasons. The second you start shooting it becomes every man for himself.
Up until you shoot, simply brandishing the weapon is an active deterrent without any need to fire. Brandishing a gun is actually considered assault for that reason. People often forget that when talking about concealed carry. It's as if people imagine that the idea is to tote it around so you can relish the opportunity to shoot somebody. I know many people who are not willing to pull the trigger that will carry an unloaded gun just so that they can pull it out in an emergency to diffuse the situation if they need to.
Additionally, when somebody takes a gun to commit a crime or kill somebody, they have every intention of pulling the trigger and are guaranteed to be armed. When somebody is attacked there is a much lower chance of those people being armed and/or able to retaliate so of course those statistics will be skewed.
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
No, free markets really are good, the problem is that they very rarely exist in reality. Dumb libertarians try to apply naive "free market" thinking to everything, including roads, showing why their philosophy doesn't work.
Free markets work great when you have high availability of information, so consumers can make intelligent choices, and when there's lots of competitors and the barriers to entry are very low. So, for instance, you don't really need much regulation for things like landscaping or housekeeping; consumers can make their own choices here, there's no shortage of competition, there's almost nothing keeping someone from entering business as a landscaper or housekeeper, etc. Even better, large companies don't have any real advantages here or any way of keeping smaller competitors out of the market (instead, larger companies end up just having higher prices due to their higher overhead). But internet service, electricity service, water/sewer service is totally different because of the natural monopolies in those markets, and the very high barriers to entry, so regulation in these markets is essential. Libertarians simply cannot understand this due to their simplistic thinking, and just cling to the mantra of "free markets will solve everything!".
Do you have a car with OnStar by any chance?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Let me know when all the major auto manufacturers voluntarily take the sensor technology used in these "smart guns" and puts it in their emergency brakes to prevent unauthorized passengers from pulling it. And as everyone else has said, let me know when the police and military have this technology in all of their guns. At that point, it'd be worth some consideration. Until then, I think anyone buying one of these things for protection is a fool.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I shouldn't need to provide stats to an AC, but here goes...
There are approximately 300,000,000 privately owned guns in the US (estimate by NRA). And those are distributed to about 40-50% of the total households in the US. That is a lot of people owning a whole lot of guns.
Of those 300 Million guns in circulation, and those households that own guns, there were only 12,102 deaths (homicides) from firearms for the year analyzed. That same year drunk drivers killed 15,935 alone, not including other means of aggravated homicide by other means. This translates to LESS THAN 1% of all firearms being used in violent crimes. (if I divide the number of gun deaths, by the number of guns, I get 0.00004034%, which is statistically insignificant).
Of all the firearm homicides committed each year, 2/3rds of them are criminal on criminal violence (aka: gang related). And gangs in general are responsible for 50-90% of all violent crimes (with or without firearms), meaning gang members actually DO have an interest in killing folks and committing violence, but even statistics show, that they even prefer to kill other gang members rather than "random" folks.
Really? There is an open air drug market in DC. Try selling illegal drugs on that piece of real estate. There are bunch of highly armed guys who will show you what real market regulation looks like.
First, Obama was going to take away all of my guns. Next it wasn't just Obama, but the entire UN coming after my guns. Next the single greatest threat to this nation was Obama. It just kept rolling on and on. Most of the arguments presented in the letters were pure FUD, the kind that would make old Microsoft proud. It was enough to ensure I never give them money again. I've donated to state groups and I'm still looking for a sane national gun lobby.
I'm in the same boat (I'm actually glad that I didn't get lifetime membership, at least they cannot claim me as member anymore).
The sane national gun lobby would be SAF. Now, those guys don't concentrate on public propaganda at all, they do only lobbying of political candidates, and participate in lawsuits. But I think their track record on this, especially the latter, is actually better than NRA's - heck, the victory in Heller alone is monumental, and it was a SAF lawyer that secured it.
They are also more pragmatic about engaging in the gun control discussion, whereas the NRA has been all "not one step back" as of late, even when they're clearly wrong, or when there's no real hope to hold your ground. In particular, SAF is willing to expand and strengthen background checks, but wants to use that as a trade card to win some gains on other fronts - in particular, national concealed carry reciprocity, and a well-defined procedure for reviewing and reinstating gun rights for people who are denied them by law (due to mental issues or criminal behavior - as it stands, today, not paying taxes once can make you ineligible for firearm ownership for life).