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 $500 million investment into providing care for people with serious mental illnesses.
How about if we give people due process before we start taking away their civil rights?
I know we're all talking about mass shootings here (which makes a change), but the overwhelmingly more likely scenario is that they will kill themselves. If you own a gun, the most likely person that it will kill is yourself, statistically speaking.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Gun ownership is up and gun crime is down has to be the most single dimensional means of thinking I've ever heard of. As if there's a single variable involved... add more guns and less will be used.
... minor impact to shift
1) It's likely the methods we used for measuring gun crimes has changed.
2) Law enforcement has in fact gotten much better
3) The US has placed a measurable percentage of their population into prisons during this time.
4) The criminals are more afraid of getting caught because of mass surveillance, better forensics, etc...
5) Gas stations now have thick bullet proof glass surrounding their cash registers... only in America haha
6) Cash is becoming less common. There is also less than $50 in a cash drawer anymore. The risk vs. the gain doesn't add up
7) The guy in the nice suit one the street has change for a parking meter in his pocket. The teenager with the Nike Airs has a credit card. There's no money to be had anymore from a hold up.
8) Banks have buttons under every counter to call the cops in an emergency.
9) It's easier to simply steal money in large sums through other forms of fraud... why use a gun?
I can go on for a long time... but your argument about more guns = less gun crime is pure stupid. I honestly have no problem with people owning guns for hunting and sport shooting. I do have issues with idiots who think guns are the answer for protection and also think it's really idiotic when people think that if they have enough weapons at home, they can overthrow a tyranny run by a guy with luxury bunkers, armored tanks, drones, etc... it would be like a hoard of flies trying to knock over an elephant.
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