Slashdot Mirror
Obama Orders Feds To Study Smart Gun Technology (cnet.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Today U.S. President Barack Obama rolled out a set of executive actions aimed at reducing gun violence. The most controversial of the provisions requires licenses for those who sell guns at gun shows and on the internet, and forces background checks on buyers. There are also a number of measures dedicated to making background checks more foolproof and universal. Less controversial but more on-topic for Slashdot is that Obama is requiring the departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to investigate smart gun technology. This can include RFID chips, fingerprint scanners, and other bits of technology. Their goal will be to "explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety." The new gun measures include a proposal for a $500 million investment into providing care for people with serious mental illnesses.
Give me the frequencies. I'll have jammers made in China within a month.
One point not made above is that health care providers are now able to report to the FBI the names of patients who are mentally ill. Considering the other new actions are for the most part redundant this is really the most concerning point.
The regulations would hope to create a firearm that only is
a) Shot by good people, and
b) Is only able to shoot at bad people
That way nobody ever needs to worry about guns.
This is as misguided as "encryption that only good people can break"
or "cars that can only hit bad pedestrians" etc.
Smarter guns in the hands of equally stupid bad guys will do equally
stupid bad things.
E
my gun is stuck on "Please do not power off or unplug your gun. Installing update 1 of 106"
I'll bet my life on a smart gun working as soon as law enforcement (and, for that matter, the Secret Service) is confident enough in them to use them too.
Sounds like this could stop all those cop killings with RFID, Fingerprints and other technology to prevent accidental shootings. Oppppppps, this won't be required for law enforcement.
How bout some Smart President Technology?
This won't work with my High wall
or the zip gun someone just made on their lathe
The police need to go door to door and round up all the nutcases -- both those who want to shoot those loveable friendly fuzzy cops, and the ones calling for a repeal of our Constitutional rights.
For all Americans to own guns, sans "smart gun technology" - and to be trained in their proper use.
Everyone will be finally safe.
"The most controversial of the provisions requires licenses for those who sell guns at gun shows and on the internet, and forces background checks on buyers."
It's all bullshit. Those on the right hype it as an unconstitutional overreach. Obama hypes it as a significant change which will help close the "gun show loophole."
They're both exaggerating, extremely. The only thing Obama did was to emphasize already existing law/regulation. It has long been the case that anyone who is "in the business" of selling guns (i.e. regularly for profit) must have a Federal Firearms License, and do background checks on those they sell to. It's never mattered where the guns were sold, it's based solely on whether the seller is doing it as a business. What Obama did changes nothing, except perhaps serve notice that they'll be paying more attention to enforcing existing law/regulation.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
more than going around the world, and shooting people.
how are people surprised that america is, itself a violent place?
The most controversial of the provisions requires licenses for those who sell guns at gun shows and on the internet, and forces background checks on buyers.
Not true. Licenses are already required for those "engaged in the business of selling firearms" and background checks are required for those purchasing from said licensees and this executive action doesn't change that.
And which of these changes would have prevented any single one of the mass shootings that O'bama cried crocodile tears for?
The answer is obvious, of course, but that wouldn't fit the narrative required to achieve the true goal.
Really? Doing a background check is controversial? Crazy americans and their friggen guns, I swear... try to even limit access to gun from the crazies and you have the masses jump on your like a ravenous pack of hyenas.
And then those crazies use the guns to to a mass shooting and the masses calls for better control... Seriously, you guys have like 1 mass shooting EVERY DAY. We have less than 5 a year in Canada and most of our crimes aren't even guns related unlike you redneck idiots.
"Smart gun technology" is sorta like DRM for guns. It absolutely will not work. People who steal guns with the intent of using them nefariously will just modify them to remove the offending mechanism. If the government should have learned anything by now, it's that those who really want a gun badly enough will get one and there's nothing they can do about it.
The primary objection to this package is that it reveals how far the US Constitution has drifted from its moorings; there's no way this sort of decision should be being made by the President.
It's all bullshit. Those on the right hype it as an unconstitutional overreach. Obama hypes it as a significant change which will help close the "gun show loophole."
I think you're missing the point.
The point you're trying to make will be lost on just about everyone. He's not adding much (if anything), but it will be seen by people as "the president can make up new gun laws".
The net result will be to set a precedent in the minds of most Americans that the president can make up whatever laws he wants when it applies to guns.
This is a game of 'something must be done, this is something'. I can show the voters that I'm achieving something. I'm doing anything that comes to hand to show it. The interesting question is what he's trying to hide by getting all the media focused on this.
Why do so many Americans like guns so much? it's so bizarre.
Simple. Looking for the evil bit when firing is the perfect solution. Young child? No evil bit. Cleaning your own gun? No evil bit. Robber trying to kill you? Evil bit! The only problem is hunting or defending yourself against dangerous animals. Mama grizzly? No evil bit.
Any new gun law needs to be confiscatory, no exception. Nobody in the 21st century needs to own a gun.
The 2nd needs to be repealed, and the police need to go door-to-door to round up all the guns.
You have that BACKWARDS (in more ways than one)... Before you can go round up all those guns, you are going to have to repeal the 2nd amendment (Not to mention the 4th). Good luck on doing either of those.
Until you manage to change the constitution and get the 2nd amendment repealed, folks will get to keep their guns. And until you repeal the 4th there will be no "door to door" searching to round up firearms by the police.
So stop with this crazy idea that you can get some law passed that allows the police to confiscate all the weapons out there. It's not going to happen, not in your life time or mine. Try coming up with EFFECTIVE and LEGAL solutions and forget this confiscation idea because the courts won't let you..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
There's still a marked stigma associated with mental illness in the US. It has been eroding over many years now.
The more the stigma erodes, the more people will seek treatment.
It's not as easy as the vast majority of people think it is, seeking treatment. It's a very deliberate move. Akin to pulling the trigger when the sight's on something alive. That's how heavy making that first call is.
Just sayin'. Chip away at that stigma, chip away at the violence.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
As someone who is not a citizen of the USA I have to ask, what do Americans think is the answer?
How do you allow normal, not-crazy, law abiding citizens reasonable access to firearms and keep crazy people and criminals from getting them?
As far as I can tell, the answer is - "You can't do both" and the mass shootings are therefor acceptable because they can't be avoided.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Enjoy smashing into all of those white tailed deer with your car when the hunters aren't managing their numbers....
... because criminals never follow the laws anyway.
You mean like an FFL, a Federal Firearms License?
Tell me more about your novel ideas.
Love sees no species.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Its over. Guns are out there. Accept it. The notion of "but if the guns weren't there" is meaningless. They're there. They're not going away.
Come up with a different idea... if you're able... and if not... maybe you're not an "idea person" and should just be quiet.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
What we'll end up with is a plastic projectile able to change course mid-flight, in rifle caliber.. maybe even in pistol.
*sigh* and then the old-schoolers will bitch and retch that these newfangled 'lectronic steerable plastic bullits are nowhere near as elegant as the JHPs of the past, guided by the eyeball and the rifled barrel.
There's no winning!
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Given that there is zero or negative correlation between gun laws' strictness and the number of gun related crimes, the claim that gun restrictions are worth doing needs to be questioned. Whilst the UK - where there are virtually no guns - is held up as THE alternative, the idea that you can actually get there is silly, and the present situation is appalling. But given that Chicago sees far more gun crime with far stricter laws than Texas cities, there is an issue to consider.
Self defense.
When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
Gone so long now that they are taking the gun out of his cold dead hand.
Does anyone know what goes on behind closed doors?
...who in this case, are law abiding civilians.
You can't possibly stop crazy people from getting weapons - be it butter knives, glocks, or automobiles. What you can do is give innocent, law abiding civilians the opportunity to defend themselves in case of an emergency, while they wait for the swat team to arrive.
This kind of setup won't stop jihadis or the mentally ill from attacking in the first place, but it will limit the damage they can do. Normal criminals, on the other hand, will likely adjust their behavior to non-confrontational types of property crime, than robberies, rapes, etc, as they adjust to the new risk/reward ratio.
Mexico, which has exactly one government owned gun store, where it is highly illegal to own all kinds of firearms, still sees massive amounts of violence because criminals don't follow gun laws. They bribe cops, pay off smugglers, or just wait for the US federal government to come on down and sell them "Fast and Furious"ly.
So, since mass shootings can't be avoided by any laws, the best thing you can really do is make sure that those willing to train and carry, have the opportunity to defend themselves and others.
Enjoy smashing into all of those white tailed deer with your car when the hunters aren't managing their numbers....
Don't have deer here, but I'm sure those places could use poison instead, or, you know, drive more carefully.
"The most controversial of the provisions requires licenses for those who sell guns at gun shows and on the internet, and forces background checks on buyers."
I'm more scared of going to the US now, if this ISN'T a standard requirement already!
Obligatory 4 rules
1) treat every firearm as if it is loaded
2) never point the firearm at anything you're not willing to destroy
3) keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot (target clearly identified, good sight picture)
4) be aware of what is in front of and behind your target
#4, of course, is the "good guy" rule - if you're a terrorist, generally you don't care about that one.
Frankly, firearms safety should be a required course in kindergarten (stop/don't touch/leave the area/tell and adult), with another course in high school or junior high.
Georgetown historian and favorite of Bill Clinton, Carroll Quigley concludes, from a historical study of weapons and political dynamics, that the characteristics of weapons are the main predictor of democracy. Democracy tends to emerge only when the best weapons available are easy for individuals to buy and use. This explains why democracy is so rare in human history.
Come and get them. In the mean time, I'll load my mags and lub my guns.
Nobody in the 21st century needs to own a gun.
Unless you live in America, which is apparently full of gun-toting retards so you need your own gun to defend yourself against those gun-toting retards. Eventually if we get enough guns we will hit a magical tipping point where every man, woman, transgender, transsexual and child has got guns so everybody will live in fear of everybody else and nobody will actually use guns out of fear of being shot by everybody else. The only problem is we haven't reached that point yet so NEED MORE GUNS!
How about letting the CDC do its study?
Well, if you want a damn "smart" gun, just connect it to the IoT... it only works if the dishwasher is set to cold rinse.
That's what they worry about.
Unless you make it a law that no one convicted of a crime can own a gun.
Then you focus on getting convictions. If someone owns a gun, s/he can be found "guilty" of various crimes. Then they lose their guns and cannot, legally, own any more.
People in California are already complaining about this.
This is a complicated subject.
I really don't care if my gun is safe. What I care about is ME being safe.
As a result, I much prefer guns that work.
Yea, you are still going to have to repeal that pesky 2nd amendment if you try this on a large scale. Even the liberals on the Supreme Court won't fall for that idea, at least not yet. Then you have the door to door search problem prohibited by the 4th. Face it, guns are here to stay, we need to come up with solutions that recognize that and deal with the reality.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I'll bet my life on a smart gun working as soon as law enforcement (and, for that matter, the Secret Service) is confident enough in them to use them too.
But think how convenient smart gun technology would be - if carried by cops, federal agents, and military:
- You could make a cop detector, which would detect the signals between the gun and the token (or for any working on other than radio, there would still likely to be tempest-style signals to detect or ways to provoke it into betraying itself).
- You could make a gun jammer, so the cop, agent, or soldier's gun would fail to fire.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Law enforcement would actually love such technology, if it was reliable. Police have been killed when their weapon has been taken and used on them, they'd be very happy with something that stopped it. But, it does need to be reliable.
So I see no problem with the federal government investigating it. They should look in to new technologies that could make things safer. If they decide that ya, this is good, and start implementing it, then perhaps the rest of us should too, and probably would.
I'm all for it, but the police need to turn in their guns first. After that they can go ask citizens to turn in theirs.
Thanks to Australia's draconian gun laws, every violent, rapey, dick-swinging thug has been given an effective free pass to hunt, take down, and rape Australian women.
Maybe when you're a petite woman, walking back to her car alone at night, who picks up that there are five guys heading her way with rape in mind, having a gun is less about "my dick is bigger than yours", and more about "keep your shrimp dick away from me".
The burglars will just schedule their home invasions for the times that Microsoft pushes out a new Windows 10 update.
Have gnu, will travel.
I use my gun exclusively at the target range. It's a fun, if expensive, pastime. I don't really have an interest in using it for self defense; I think that would encourage me towards unsafe behaviors and make me more likely to get killed (compared to fleeing the area / hiding / giving the mugger my money). Staying alive is more important than ego. Also, they tend to get stolen by unstable family members or robbers or otherwise used against you, and I'm not willing to invest the $$$$$ in a super ultra fancy foolproof safe (though we do take lesser precautions).
Therefore, for my use case, having a gun that fails "off" instead of failing "on" is great. Lock it to me, and if it stops working--guess I'm renting a gun that day. Maybe find some way to lock it to certain locations like ranges if the tech can do that. I wouldn't count on the protections being perfect of course, but if they stopped 9 out of 10 accidents, that's a big plus.
When you create a smart gun that will only fire when I'm personally holding it, without any sort of electrical bits, I'll bite. Until then, comparing the reliability of say, a purely mechanical vertical mill built in the 1800s and *still* working today, vs say, any imaginable bit of electrical technology, is like comparing the speed of light to the speed of sound - they're orders of magnitude apart.
Ever try using "TouchID" on an iPhone? Ever have it not work? Yes, smart is "cool", but if I want reliable, I want a mechanical device, not an electromechanical one.
I live in a rural area where pretty much everybody owns multiple guns, and a great many carry them as a matter of routine.
This makes me feel SAFER! I'm sure as hell not living in fear of my neighbors.
If your neighbor owning a gun frightens you, then pack your shit into a U-Haul and move to a decent neighborhood.
Again? That trick never works!
Cue silly music.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Come and get them. In the mean time, I'll load my mags and lub my guns.
Yeah you're a real tough guy with your gun! This is what is wrong with many of you Americans, you willingly accept all manner of civil liberties violations except gun control and if they suggest that you will threaten gun violence and pretend you would be willing to die just to have your gun. You would be perfectly happy for them to permanently put a surveillance camera up your ass just so long as they dont take your gun so you can feel like you have power.
Will manufacturers be required to update their smart firearm firmware until the end of time, or does this become another avenue for planned (or unplanned, I suppose) obsolescence? Just wondering.
And hows all that democracy working out for ya, hmm? Taste the freedom!
From https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153198474377602&set=a.336771462601.150077.681192601&type=3&theater
"Or, hey, how about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every
woman who wants to get an abortion -- mandatory 48-hr waiting period, parental
permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he's about to do, a
video he has to watch about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound wand up the
ass (just because). Let's close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him
travel hundreds of miles, take time off work, and stay overnight in a strange town
to get a gun. Make him walk through a gauntlet of people holding photos of loved
ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy
a gun.
It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns than with women and health
care, right? I mean, no woman getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in
seconds, right?"
Can we apply the same logic to the out-of-wedlock welfare queen toothpaste and the destruction of the nuclear black family giving rise to gangbanging thugs that never had fathers? Let's fix that toothpaste mess before we give up our right to defend ourselves from these thugnificent sons of obama.
That's easy - it's necessary to the security of a free State. Prefatory.
Thank you, comma.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
"shall not be infringed." Operative.
Will it run systemd?
Achille Talon
Hop!
As you've noted, that probably isn't going to happen.
And even if it did, the authority would revert to the states.
The guns are here for the moment.
Like I said, they worry about a "backdoor". Even if it takes a generation or more. Simply convict anyone who owns a gun of a crime that makes it illegal for them to own guns. No "door to door search" needed.
Here is the scenario: If I want to buy a gun, I have to go through the background check. That flags me. I buy the gun but then I'm "investigated" for a "crime" and prosecuted. I'm found guilty and any guns are confiscated and I cannot buy any more.
That is the reason why certain groups oppose mandatory-background-checks-on-all-transfers.
Of course, if you think that that will happen then you're probably delusional and/or paranoid. Which is another reason to remove your gun rights. And it will never violate the 4th Amendment.
Rather than ever more oppressive laws that strip the people of power, it would be more effective to consider the motivations of those who would commit violent crimes. It is the pervasive poverty and egregious wealth inequality that drives most crime, along with our worsening system of injustice. Similarly, we should be considering the causes of terrorism, rather than allowing our leaders to exploit it to cow us with fear.
When the minimum standard of living becomes sufficient to afford everyone a decent existence, such problems will naturally disappear. Desperate and hopeless people will do terrible things, and no amount of force is going to prevent that. Fortunately, outside of the mentally ill, few would risk a comfortable life to engage in serious criminal activities. (Assuming a reasonable set of laws and fair enforcement.) Even the religious fanatics would see their numbers dwindle, with no oppression needed.
With abundant and cheap energy, eliminating poverty is entirely possible. That result will not come from energy conservation and renewables alone though; it will require nuclear power. Objectively speaking, nuclear energy has the lowest cost and least environmental and health impact of any energy source, and advanced reactors can do better yet. The Star Trek economy is within reach, if only people had the courage to embrace a change for the better, and to rein in the special interests.
Nothing smart about guns, until they come up with ones that don't kill. Wouldn't it be cool if they made guns that, after pressing a button, any living target in scope immediately drops unconscious for like 5-10 minutes, and can be used repeatedly if needed. Or have setting for how long you need to put the target out. Low: 5-10min, med 10-20min, high 30min-1hr. Could be something like a phaser in stun mode.
Something like this can be integrated to your iPhone, so we can finally make good use of that useless fingerprint scanner. And I'm sure there will be cool face recognition apps for it too!
The iPhone gun also doesnt have to be so loud. Just Like ring-tone settings, maybe you can choose the sound it makes when fired, play a techno song or something...or silent mode....I'd put the Star Wars laser canon sound, vwooosh.
That would solve all of our gun problems!!!!
And another Supreme court could reverse abortion, gay marriage, Obamacare, or even Social Security and Medicare.
Ever notice liberals depend far more on Supreme Court decisions and can't risk those decisions being overturned? While conservatives rely on what is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in the Constitution? Funny how you can read the second amendment and pretend its not there, but don't notice all the things I listed are not in there but you will argue how they are.
When you rely on the Supreme Court you can be destroyed by the Supreme Court.
Change the law so that all LE officials use them. They represent the largest semi-trained pool of gunhandlers and are most at risk from firearm takeaways. They also have enough buying power to fund development and create a reasonable cost structure. The government has been pushing / legislating smart guns for years but always exempting law enforcement.
Fine guns are collectable. Often people own working guns over 100 years old. Software and electronic systems come and go and in a few short years after being made a smart gun may be worthless and not repairable due to electronic incompatibilities with moe modern electronics or software. Further, the graceful nature of a really good firearm could be made hideous by the addition of safety systems. If you look at a good six- shooter you will find that many were made with no safety at all. They were perfectly safe if used by a trained shooter. You simply never put a loaded round under the hammer. That way if something slammed into the hammer, such as the gun being accidentally dropped on the hammer, the gun would not fire. So a six-shooter as carried was often actually a five shooter. Dr. Porsche made a great point about the beauty of simplicity and the beauty of utility. Designing a product to be as simple as possible should always be a design goal.
Trump should declare that when he is president, he will direct the US Attorneys to fully prosecute (aka seek draconian fines and jail time) for doctors and administrative staff that personally violate HIPAA (and other laws), as written by congress, to provide this information illegally, regardless of any rules or desires expressed by the current president. The very records the FBI would use to deny Americans their rights without due process of law would effectively be signed confessions.
What doctor would take the risk? Obama can't pardon John Does, he can't change what the law actually says, and an executive promise not to prosecute today doesn't mean shit to his successor.
It is big and bold, it assumes and thinks beyond the sale, and it would stop this madness before it starts. It would secure his support among gun owners. It would also show the voters that Trump, not even technically a nominee yet, is already more powerful than the sitting president.
See that "Preview" button?
The 2nd amendment already has limits: can't murder people, or rob people, or kidnap them, or threaten them.
Now, are we going to have background checks on all newspaper editors? Require training to prove they aren't incompetent or a threat to others? Will you apply the same laws to speech, religion and assembly as you would to self defense?
The 2nd Amendment *isn't* any different than the others - and if you want to limit it, please, let's apply strict scrutiny, shall we?
* compelling government interest
* narrowly tailored
* least restrictive means
....I will ever buy a "smart gun".
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
America Doesn't Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem
America's mass shooting capital isn't somewhere out west where you can get a gun at the corner store. It's in Obama's own hometown.
Chicago is America's mass shooting capital. There were over 400 shootings with more than one victim. In 95 of those shootings, 3 or more people were shot.
2,995 people were shot in Chicago last year. Shootings were up, way up, in Baltimore. With an assist from Al Sharpton and #BlackLivesMatter, Baltimore beat out Detroit. But Detroit is still in the running. Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit all have something in common, they're all run by the party of gun control which somehow can't seem to manage to control the criminals who have the guns.
The murder rate in Washington, D.C., home of the progressive boys and girls who can solve it all, is up 54%. The capital of the national bureaucracy has also been the country's murder capital.
These cities are the heartland of America's real gun culture. It isn't the bitter gun-and-bible clingers in McCain and Romney territory who are racking up a more horrifying annual kill rate than Al Qaeda; it's Obama's own voting base.
Gun violence is at its worst in the cities that Obama won in 2012. Places like New Orleans, Memphis, Birmingham, St. Louis, Kansas City and Philly. The Democrats are blaming Republicans for the crimes of their own voters.
Chicago, where Obama delivered his victory speech, has homicide numbers that match all of Japan and are higher than Spain, Poland and pre-war Syria. If Chicago gets any worse, it will find itself passing the number of murders for the entire country of Canada.
Chicago's murder rate of 15.09 per 100,000 people looks nothing like the American 4.2 rate, but it does look like the murder rates in failed countries like Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe. To achieve Chicago's murder rate, African countries usually have to experience a bloody genocidal civil war.
But Chicago isn't even all that unique. Or the worst case scenario. That would be St. Louis with 50 murders for 100,000 people. If St Louis were a country, it would have the 4th highest murder rate in the world, beating out Jamaica, El Salvador and Rwanda.
Obama won St. Louis 82 to 16 percent. ...
(Go read the whole article, it is worth it)
See that "Preview" button?
ANYBODY can design a ship or an airplane or a rocket - the results might not work of course. The engineer is the one who can design the plane that is light enough and has enough power to fly while being strong enough to not fall apart. The engineer is the one who can design the ship that is strong enough to carry its cargo and withstand the stresses of the sea while being light enough to float and shaped properly for stability. Good engineering is, more often than not, knowing what to leave out .
A properly engineered machine contains exactly the right amount of hardware to get the job done reliably... and NOTHING more. The addition of any extra hardware adds costs, complexity, and new failure modes. Federal mandates for such things only prove the fact that they are not needed, because the people who make and use the machines would have added them long ago if they were needed.
After centuries of development, we know what is needed for a proper gun design, and NONE of the new "smart gun" features are required - in fact they are ALL designed to make the gun fail to function in various scenarios. These new bugs/features do not improve the price, functionality, reliability, or usability of the machine; they prevent it from properly functioning. They pretend to substitute an artificial failure mode for human judgement and control. This is like adding an extra system to an airliner to deprive the pilot of control whenever that new system decides to activate - with the outrageous presumption that the new system will always function perfectly and will perfectly anticipate all situations. This is, by definition, BAD ENGINEERING.
cops / armed forces don't want smart bs they want there guns to work when they need them.
Also in the armed forces the logistics will get in the way as well much less can the gun hold like 5K+ different users in it's local storage?
Unless you make it a law that no one convicted of a crime can own a gun.
Such a law would still be in violation of the 2nd.
Oh that's right! More unfunded mandates, in an attempt to legislate by someone who isn't a legislator!
I normally ignore LaPierre and the NRA. But he put up a great point.
People, good people, in Obama's home town, Chicago, get shot day in and day out by gangbangers, thugs, and assorted lowlifes.
So where are the fucking tears for them?
And what's he done for THEM in the last seven years while he was rectally inserting his thumbs whilst seated?
But mention Sandy Hook and WOW! Out comes the waterworks!
We already have SHITLOADS of gun control laws on the books. Most of which simply aren't enforced.
If we're going to throw money at gun control, throw it at the laws already on the books and get the enforcement FUNDED!
No! Let's pour pointless money into STUDIES on shit that's already been studied TO DEATH, resurrected, and studied to death AGAIN.
And let's mandate more shit and basically hope that the magical unicorn farts blow in the right direction and result in money falling out of nowhere!
This kinda shit is why I don't own a gun. This kind of idiocy makes me want to shoot the asshole in charge.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
A person buying a gun is not necessarily EVER going to harm another human being. The vast majority of gun buyers in America NEVER shoot ANYBODY, and the majority of normal people who buy a gun for self-defense do so only ever planning to shoot a criminal if they ever must shoot somebody. Most guns in America never are used to kill ANY human being.
Every single abortion ends an innocent human life. No human has ever given birth to a non-human, and no human ever born was a criminal at the moment of his or her birth. A human embryo has its own unique DNA from the moment of conception and is, therefore, NOT part of its mother, or just a blob of maternal egg cells, or paternal sperm cells which will rapidly die if not interfered with. A healthy human embryo in utero, if simply not artificially interfered with, will be born as a human being even if people deny its humanity before birth. As a society, we actually already accept the humanity of the unborn child everywhere except in abortion clinics and certain political gatherings. Hospitals and doctors perform many surgeries per year on children while they are still within their mother's wombs, assigning them names and medical records and monitoring them as separate human beings. We prosecute murderers for the deaths of unborn children. When unborn children die from accidents, violence, and even late-term miscarriages they are often named and buried as any other human beings.
By highlighting waiting periods and parental notifications you are only noticing that abortion supporters who oppose such things treat the act of abortion as less serious than an aspirin pill for which many institutions require such things for minors. Planned Parenthood, which was founded by famous eugenics freak Margaret Sanger for the express purpose of eliminating black, brown, and poor babies has aborted ten times as many humans as the Third Reich killed. You should not equate this monstrous and deliberate mass-killing with individual Americans seeking an inanimate object to use in their natural right of self-defense, or for hunting, or target practice or even the constitutional purpose of deterring government (foreign and/or domestic) abuse which almost never results in ANY death, not even the death of an embryo.
The first step to murder is in denying that the person you are about to kill is human.
The first step to genocide is in denying the basic humanity of an entire group of people.
By your very flawed way of "thinking", any person buying a piece of hardware that MIGHT be used to harm another person (things like cars, knives, bathtubs, and even food fit in that category) should be automatically treated as though they are about to deliberately kill the most-innocent human being.
Next time, try thinking before posting so that people might actually be fooled into thinking you are capable of rational thought.
Never rely on an agenda-driven propaganda site you agree with for ammunition in an argument. Let me show you a better way:
Here's a left-wing-friendly UN report
that you should read which comes from a source that a lefty like you will even think is credible.
What that oft-cited garbage propaganda map you pointed to attempts to do is confuse many people by disguising many other things as "gun violence" in order to fuel an anti-Constitutional agenda to disarm citizens - a long-time fantasy goal of leftists. If you read the UN report I linked to, you will discover that even left wing globalist wackjobs admit that the murder rates are FAR higher in many places with much tighter gun control and that most "mass shootings" in the Americas (and, yes, that includes the US) are gang and drug crimes. Indeed, the recent mass shooting in California was an act of terrorism. What anybody with a brain and who pays attention to the news knows is that drug, gang, and terrorist violence (which is all already illegal) while often performed with (often already illegal) guns simply moved to bombs, knives, poisons, and clubs when guns are not available. This is how the murder rates are so high in so-called "gun free" places.
If you subtract terrorism, and drug and gang shootings (which usually occur in big cities with many gun control laws and run by liberal Democrats), the US has a remarkably LOW murder rate relative to the rest of the planet, and all the more remarkably given the number of diverse cultures present.
keep insisting it's impossible to round-up and deport 11 million illegal aliens who have no explicit Constitutional right to be here, but thinks rounding up 300+million explicitly Constitutional guns from an armed citizenry is OK, possible, and practical????????
You have not thought this through, have you?
Do you understand that gun tech is centuries old, and there are many thousands of Americans who MAKE guns and ammo, and therefore there are an unknown number of guns and rounds in the nation which can NEVER be found/tracked/counted/grabbed and that more can and will be made faster than any gun-grabber could grab them? The US is not populated by the same sort of compliant sheep that populate other nations.
Oh, and as a Slashdot reader, have you somehow managed to avoid all the articles about 3D printing and milling???
Sheesh! gun control postings on this site sure do expose the lack of intellectual firepower of some netizens.
Better use the No Gun technology.
Far better one. Proven in use by 6,5 Billion people.
aaaaaaa
smarter guns we need smarter people. Period.
If you're worried about your own safety, you should probably not own a gun. It's pretty well-documented that a gun owned for self-defense is more likely to cause harm to you or yours than to a hypothetical attacker.
Let me see - something like 90% of the American population want tighte controls on guns - certainly a solid majority. The President wants to do the right thing, morally and democratically, by introducing some really quite moderate steps to control gun availability. But somehow this is impossible, because one industry, the arms manufaturers, holds the whole country to ransom by paying politicians to oppose anything, however minor, reasonable or even symbolic, that looks like it was against their financial interests. And the really, really amazing thing is - these people and their bought politicians are not rounded up and put on trial for corruption. In all other industrialised countries in the world, what Americans call lobbying, would be called by its right name: corruption.
I won't ask why, and I won't try to argue with people; I know my comments will be attacked wildly and irrationally and I will be called 'troll' and other nice things. It doesn't matter, but I think it is important that people - in this case Americans - with sane, moderate views let their opinions be heards and felt, and that they don't allow the gun extremists to bully them into silence.
if you call requiring a license to sell guns the most controversial, then there is something really wrong with you americans.. Any normal thinking person would think requiring a license to sell guns is a good thing, hell even requiring a license to buy a gun is normal thinking...
Because of people like you.
:
Let's start by saying that I'm generally up for a day at a shooting range... I also like shooting pool... same principle but one is less noisy and I've never had cuts inflicted by mishandling a pool cue filled with GSR and oil which burns for hours.
So, you honestly think that companies like Colt, S&W, H&K, Glock, etc... given the incentive could not, within a few years develop a smart trigger lock that would equal the reliability of the rest of their firearm? Are these companies operated by a bunch of rednecks that think adding a memory feature to a calculator means tying a string around their finger?
You probably already own multiple "reliable" firearms. Of course, you appropriately exercise gun safety by storing you firearms in one locked safe and your clips and ammunition in another. You're not some fool who lives his entire life in fear and keeps one loaded by the bed because you honestly believe you can awaken, obtain the weapon, disable the safety, identify your target in the dark... because he/she obviously would choose your bedroom window.. and safely discharge your weapon.... from bed. Only a moron would live their life spending every night fearing for their lives as they slept.
You're here on Slashdot. I hope that means you're a technologist of some type. If that's the case, it's obviously appropriate to question whether the complexity of such a smart gun device would in fact make the firearm unreliable. The answer is, of course it will. Then you should consider that a firearm is not really a reliable device to begin with. In addition, humans are extremely unreliable, those who believe they can operate calmly and properly aim and shoot within a high stress environment, knowing they are likely to take a human life... they're either full of crap or precisely the people most of the rest of us fear more than the criminals since it makes us realize our society has completely failed when such people are becoming too common.
The possibility of taking another person's life should always be a bad thing. It should always elevate blood levels... it should always make your hand shake. If it doesn't, you need "putting down" as much as the other guy. It means you lost something that makes you human.
So... let's go a step further, as a technologist, you also believe this will not stop the criminals and it will be like DRM and simply a matter of googling how to disable the lock and pushing some buttons. There's a difference.
DRM on non-PC devices held up pretty well. Sure, there are people who intentionally bought DVD players with the region locks removed, but they either needed to have the tools required to flash the units or had to have a 3rd party who did do it for them. DRM on a device like this requires a person to
1) Have access to the device
2) Have access to the tools to reach the diagnostic points of the firearm. These are likely beneath some screws at the very least.
3) They need to have access to debugging equipment. Sure, an Arduino and maybe one extra chip is probably good enough... but you still need one.
4) They need to have the ability to build the interface, operate it and get it working.
5) They will also likely need to test it to make sure it works afterwards... that makes noise.
Will someone release "Diagnostics tools" on etsy or ebay or something... sure... they'll be readily available... but like the 7 day waiting period... it gives a person a chance to cool down and think it through. I know as an impulse shopper, I often will buy things I don't need because they're in front of me and easy to get access to. If I have to wait for it or mail order it, I probably will think "Do I really need it" or simply forget about it. Even getting the tools to bypass the lock will add enough delay that it might be enough to let the person's temper cool down.
As for normal criminals, this obviously won't solve that problem... our role is to keep our firearms stored in
Unless the police and military adopt smart gun technology, then you arent going to get civilians to adopt it.
This is my stand on it. Thus far every 'smart gun' proposal has had even the most anti-gun police department lobby incredibly hard to make sure they were completely exempt from it. Despite police officers having a known rate for being killed by their own firearms taken away from them. It's something like 3 a year.
Personally, I figure that any criminal who manages to gain a firearm will also manage to unlock or rekey it to himself given time, if not bypass the system completely, so it's only useful in the 'immediate' time frame.
Anyways, I've done some research on this. Thus far, I'm familiar with 3 types of 'smart gun'. .22LR, and that kicks a pistol that should cost under $400 up over $2,000, plus the watch is another $800 or something crazy like that. Upside - still generally reliable, you get a pimping watch. Downsides - from the description, if you're struggling for control of the firearm you've likely activated it. IE the criminal who has taken it from you can still shoot you with it as long as he or you doesn't move away quickly enough. If you're instinctively trying to grab the gun, your hand/wrist is likely close enough to arm the pistol. .22lr. Can't be used while wearing gloves, or when it's too cold/hot out.
First, the oldest. Known as 'Magna-Trigger', this system uses a magnetic ring worn on a finger as a safety. Advantages: Non-electronic, reliable, fairly cheap(~$500 for complete setup), works through gloves and such. Has actually saved officer lives. Disadvantages: Only available for a few makes of firearm, it's a retrofit. The 'keys' are actually universal - if you have a magna-trigger ring, you can fire any magna-trigger firearm. So if a criminal manages to disable an officer, take the firearm AND the ring, he can fire the gun. If you want to be able to fire with either hand without moving the ring, you need to buy 2 rings($60 each).
Second, RFID - either a ring or a watch. Substantially more expensive, I only know of models that fire
Third - fingerprint. Just as expensive as RFID. Has the advantage that it doesn't require other equipment. On the other hand, the finger scanners tend to be fiddly - work about half the time per read even when clean, and if they're dirty, good luck. The reader generally mucks with the ergonomics of the pistol - it's no longer as comfortable to hold. Also only available in
A note on the .22lr thing: When I did some math, I figured that going to 9mm, the most common self-defense round, and about the lightest of the 'most common 5', I figured that the electronics of any 'smart' gun are likely to experience about an order of magnitude more shock with each firing - shock being a rapid change in acceleration. Combine this with a demand that the device would have to withstand tens of thousands of these shocks, and I wouldn't be surprised if the main reason they're only offered in .22lr wasn't that the maker has to start somewhere - but because anything heavier rapidly killed the electronics.
Summary: No way in hell are the police, or anybody else interested in protecting things, voluntarily taking them anytime soon.
I don't read AC A human right
What if we just started holding people accountable for their actions?
If someone gets stabbed, no one blames the knife they used.
So why is it that when someone get's shot it's all "ERMAGERD we have a gun problem guys?"
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
You'd be safer if all the guns didn't work.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Notice the weasel words that imply that you'll accidentally shoot yourself. If you discount suicides, the numbers are vastly different- and yes, you should definitely discount suicides, who will, absent a gun, find a different way of offing themselves.
It is illegal to buy a gun "over the internet" (as in provide your address and CC# and have the item delivered to your door). You can of course use the internet to advertise firearms for sale, but they can only be shipped to a licensed dealer. The dealer is then required to perform a background check before turning it over to the buyer.
As for gun shows, all sales are subject to the exact same regulations (including background checks) that apply in a gun store. There is no "gun show loophole". Renting a space at a gun show is expensive, so all the tables and displays you see are set up by licensed dealers.
You can purchase a gun in a private transaction, but buyer and seller must meet face-to-face. No background check is required, but there are still many applicable laws. e.g. No sales of long guns to people under 18, no handgun sales to anyone under 21, no handgun sales to people from other states, etc. A more appropriate term for this type of thing would be the "Classified Ads Loophole".
This promises to be a good show.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It's not clear whether this solves any problems.
More than half of all firearm deaths are suicides, I would expect that most are with the owner's firearm. So this smart gun won't work for that case.
People point to the "it will keep kids from accidentally shooting someone", but a)that's a pretty small number of events and b)there are existing easy, cheap ways to solve that: existing locks work quite nicely for this.
Whatever mechanism has to be easily changeable, so that you can sell,give, transfer the weapon to someone else without needing to "send it back to the authorized service center". If it's changeable at home, then a "bad guy" can also change it. I suppose someone could make a "requires 1 hour to enable after change" kind of thing.
Fingerprints are a losing proposition:
1) gloves
2) 2% of the population has unreadable fingerprints (not always the same 2%, but a fingerprint reader will fail on 2 out of 100 reads)
If you're worried about the "bad guy takes police gun" then one of the magnetic ring schemes might work: they're simple, mechanical, and probably address 99% of the cases.
Statistically, you're safer if your gun doesn't work.
I live in a rural area where pretty much everybody owns multiple guns, and a great many carry them as a matter of routine.
In rural areas of the UK most farmers and a lot of other people have guns for pest control, hunting or whatever. What they don't do is stick a shotgun down their trousers when they go to a pub.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
People who are in the business of selling firearms already have to have a FFL and conduct background checks regardless if at a gun show or online. If you buy a gun online they have to ship it to your local FFL where they do a background check before you can take it home. It has been this way for decades.
You clearly don't live in an area with deer. And why would you poison perfectly good food?
Yeah, nobody around here does that, either.
So your hypothetical choices would be to die by the shooter or die trying to save yourself from the shooter should your DNA lock idea become a reality. And No, this isn't some strawman remark...
Why not? The shooter in Newtown stole the guns from his mother after killing her. His DNA would most likely have been in the database. The guy in Washington state purchased them legally, and the recent ones in California all were purchased by a neighbor and given to them..
It's more than likely that in any of those situations the gun's master database would have allowed the mass shootings.
Those who practice the religion of Gun Idolatry have a peculiarly anachronistic worldview. They apply 17th century law in-situ to 21st century killing technology but reject 250 years of advancement in safety technology. They remind me of the motorcyclists who come up with all sorts of strawmen arguments against helmets or drivers who rejected seatbelts and airbags.
Beyond the obvious improvements such as RFID/fingerprinting (already used by hundreds of millions of people to preserve money but not yet to preserve life). We could have a DNA whitelist a no-fire blacklist and something inspired by Frank Herbert's The White Plague, a device to detect whether the trigger finger has an XX chromosome (female) or XY (male.) While this is a disturbing idea to western minds, imagine what an equalizer it would be in parts of the world dominated by violent people with Y chromosomes. Yet another possibility is SQUID fMRI or face emotional recognition to detect the patterns associated with psychopathy.
While we're constructing straw-men situations for the exceedingly rare situations where guns save lives, let's imagine what would have happened if the guns left behind in Iraq and Afghanistan had been useless to anyone with a Y chromosome. It might not have saved the world but it's difficult to imagine that things would be any worse.
Yeah, because clearly the criminal that is planning to use a gun for murder is going to worry about the charge from possession of a firearm in your magical fairy world where 20% of the Bill of Rights gets repealed.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Right.. when that day comes you're going to throw your life away for your precious, precious gun. Smart.
Clearly you know the truth because you've types words on a website. Why wait? Test your theory now. You want 'em, come and take 'em.
Unlike most issue groups, the NRA is 2-in-1 in that it is both a corporate lobbyist organization AND an citizen activist organization.
They have tons of money, corporate influence in addition to a huge membership of many gullible suckers.
People think the oil industry is powerful--- just imagine if they created a "Motorists of America" front group to get boots on the ground protesting industry positions under false characterizations like the NRA routinely does.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
And that is making the very naive assumption that police and military will comply with the order to confiscate guns from people who have broken no law otherwise. Guess what, people go into armed forces because they LIKE GUNS and support those who also enjoy them.
Obama's actions are an act of civil war. Anonymous and many others previously warned him and Congress and the Courts that any attempt to further infringe would be an act of civil war.
RESIST!
Do not comply with it at all. You are an individual, so no license is required, and mr. Obama's executive order is not a law so ignore it.
If ATF or anybody else tries to enforce it, then those enforcers are criminals engaged in a crime; treat them accordingly.
Georgetown historian and favorite of Bill Clinton, Carroll Quigley concludes, from a historical study of weapons and political dynamics, that the characteristics of weapons are the main predictor of democracy. Democracy tends to emerge only when the best weapons available are easy for individuals to buy and use. This explains why democracy is so rare in human history.
The best weapons haven't be available for individuals to purchase since World War II. But democracy has flourished: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy#Post-World_War_II
Let's see......have a gun and fire back, risking that police will incorrectly ID me as the suspect vs not having a gun and getting killed by said suspect.
I'm gonna go with option A, Alex.
See US; gun control debate.
It's so well documented you can't be bothered to post a link.
Remember: when counting how safe something is, you don't count suicides.
You have obviously never lived in a rural, wooded area. I drive the speed limit or slower at night when the deer are likely to be out and I still average four sightings a week and about three close calls a year. I've only hit one deer in 20+ years of living here, and my wife hit one in the same time period.
Deer are beautiful, tasty animals, but they are not overly bright. Maybe we need to clear more of the woods so there is a wider cleared area close to the edges of the roads, but the current state of the the roads in SC is such that deer accidents are a problem.
Poisoning them is not a good solution unless you intend to kill off buzzards as well. Also, you'd have to ban hunting deer entirely in that case because if the poison doesn't kill the deer it could at least make anyone eating the venison quite sick.
That's right. Humanity lived in harmony before the invention of the musket. Murder, suicide, war, and accidental death was almost unheard of. /s
I don't think that really applies anymore, myself, but there's a big problem for the US if it does.
It is not easy for individuals to get the best weapons available. You can't just go out and just buy a standard Army rifle, even with a background check. It's illegal to get a weapon capable of automatic fire that was made after some date in 1986. There are limited exceptions allowed for the movie industry.
That, in my opinion, was the time when the Second Amendment was disregarded.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"requires licenses for those who sell guns at gun shows and on the internet, and forces background checks on buyers" = He cannot legally Require this, so he is creating a buzz around a gray area where you may be illegally pulled into a court fight funded by your own taxes in which they know they won't win but will still drain you in legal fees to make your life hard. "Obama is requiring the departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to investigate smart gun technology" = He is requesting that they do and hoping that an opposition Congress will fund this Bullshit that consumers have already rejected which he knows he has no legal authority to implement. Little to nothing other than an unintentional consequence of making more of us FFL licensed gun dealers and further propagating gun ownership in America will come of this.
Clearly you know the truth because you've types words on a website.
The truth is Americans will stand up against gun control because having a gun makes them feel tough, but they do nothing when it comes to all manner of other civil liberties violations. The whole point of the 2nd amendment was to prevent civil liberties violations by the government by enabling citizens to have guns, but the governments have realized that allowing citizens to have guns is fine because they're too chicken shit to actually use them to prevent civil liberties violations anyway, they just end up killing eachother with them.
You just like all this intrusive government surveillance do you? You like all these anti-terror acts that strip you of your rights because you didn't do anything about it?
Awesome post...
http://indguru.com/
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hi...
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
By that you will make it easier for criminals (who should not have guns) to hide the armouries that hold their weapons, because the RFID will be unable to be found in an investigation on a suspected criminal's property. You will make it easier for terrorists to carry concealed weapons into public spaces. All because some nigger who thinks he's president made some half-assed tiny efforts to control gun ownership and make it harder for criminals and terrorists and the insane (and for the latter spend money on making them NOT INSANE rather than just pretending they don't exist as a cost cutting exercise) because you are in love with your guns (but not enough to join the reservists or the ACTUAL army, of course!).
Classy.
I really don't care if my gun is safe.
Congratulations, you are part of the problem. How does it feel?
I can see the headlines about innocent men being robbed at gunpoint by extremist women....
Seriously though, women can suicide bombers. Women can be violent, radical wackos. Having a check on which chromosome you have is not any guarantee innocent people won't die at the hands of wackos. Thinking otherwise is just sexism.
A simple gedankenexperiment. Would you want your fire extinguisher to have a biometric thumbprint safety switch powered by a battery that you forgot to change? Or that required up to 3 tries before it locked you out for 15 minutes?
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
The technology was easy, put a 1 wire dallas key in a ring and a reader in the gun, technically it WORKED! Then the lawyers looked at the FMEAs from the Engineers and realized they would get sued for every person shot that was carrying one. Why you ask? The battery died, forgot to put on my ring and so on. Of course the numb nuts that create our laws will give the manufacturers a pass on liability. End result your firearm is far less reliable than ever before... just what the Gov. wants!
Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
They already exist and they already have been found lacking. Just like 'runaway acceleration' for cars did not exist until digital technology was added to a car's drivetrain, replacing manual shifting mechanisms, and many deaths have resulted, adding digital controls to guns will produce unwanted effects, such as not firing when needed, or firing when not expected due to added complexity. I suspect common adaptation of smart guns will result in new and unexpected dangers that do not exist with a mechanical gun. Will a smart gun fire after being submerged in water? Will a smart gun fire when I have to use my left hand because a criminal is controlling my right hand or has just chopped it off? Will a smart gun work at 40F below zero? Or at 130 degrees F? Will a smart gun fail and fire more than once when I only expected it to fire once? I'll keep my mechanical trigger mechanism and mechanical safety mechanism, and mechanical safe for storing it (and my manual transmission), thank you.
As for the gun show loopholes, I already know that many of the few and rare private sellers that sell at gunshows do not expect this new regulation to affect them. They are already exempt, just as they are now. This is all just political theater, designed to pander to the left and villify the right. Otherwise, tears would not be needed during a press conference.
Statistically, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I'll prove it.
Please summarize briefly the relationship between the National Defense Act of 1916 and the NY SAFE Act.
Which method of self defense does the Uniform Crime Reports of the DoJ document as being most effective? How effective is it?
What is the difference between blowback and recoil operation?
You don't know, and you're bleating soundbites.
Democrats/commies are going to once again try find a reason to take away God given right to guns. The solution to reducing gun violence isn't regulation and utilization of technology to improve something. The solution is create an even more extreme gap between rich and poor and make sure every... everyone.. has a gun, As everyone sensible knows giving more guns always equals greater safety. We should equip kindergarten kids with AA-12. Do it for the children.
How am I part of the problem? Simply because I am more concerned about damage to my body than I am about damage to a useful hunk of steel?
If a gun gets destroyed, I can simply get another one. If my body gets destroyed, not so much.
This is the same government that created TSA approved locks to protect your belongings that can easily be defeated and opened and the same government who wants to build back doors into encryption. The back door in TSA approved locks rendered these locks useless and any back door in encryption will most likely render encryption worthless. The government will eventually mandate that all guns manufactured by build with this smart gun technology not giving consumers a choice between buying a "dumb" gun instead of the worthless smart gun. We were initially told that the full body scanners at airports will be optional but these scanners are now mandatory and before this recent decision by the TSA if someone walks out of a line to a scanner, the TSA flags this as suspicious behavior and you are subjected to further screening. We were told the TSA will only be in airports but the TSA is expanding to bus and train stations, roadblocks, entrance to sporting events, and other places. This same smart gun technology would be useful for a corrupt law enforcement organization to disable any resistance by someone trying to defend themselves against abuses of power. In addition, criminals will figure out how to disable smart guns rendering such guns worthless to people who are trying to protect themselves from criminals. A smart gun is a worthless gun and this should only be an OPTIONAL safety feature and not mandated by the government. What is stopping the government from putting surprises in the transmitter like what they have done for smart phones, computers, smart TV's, etc to allow them to further spy on citizens? Do you trust that the government won't abuse such technology? Do you trust that criminals will not be able to figure out how render such guns worthless so that they don't have to worry about someone resisting they attempt to attack someone?
Smart Tech may be sexy, but why not have a simple physical safety to defeat e.g. children, like the child lock medicine caps? Push and twist would be a lot cheaper to implement. Doesn't solve the problem of an adult grabbing your gun and shooting you with it, but not having a gun in the first place solves that issue.