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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
...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.
Why do so many Americans like guns so much? it's so bizarre.
America is a violent country, a country born in violence, and continues to this day to perpetuate the "coolness" of violence. Possessing arms is just a "my dick is bigger than yours" contest type thing.
Although all gun nuts cite the second amendment, what they don't understand is that this supreme court (as of 2015) has intepreted the amendment in a specific way (which is favorable to their views for now). Another supreme court in the future (with a different political composition) could decide to interpret the amendment in a way that makes gun control legit. It is all about legal interpretation. Legal documents are not like computer code. Unambiguous. They're not, and that's why when legislators enact laws the spirit of the law is as important as the letter of the law. The Constitution is like that, full of ambiguities.
Firearms safety and marksmanship should be a section every year through high school.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
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.
Which is exactly the reason why these new rules will only serve to aggravate the situation. They provide strong incentive for people who need mental health treatment to avoid seeking it.
If the goal was really to save lives (it's not), then what you would do is make privacy in regards to mental health treatment iron-clad and airtight.
If the goal is to simply circumvent the constitution (it is), then you do exactly what Obama is doing.
If you want to decrease "gun deaths" - Yes.
If he is severely depressed, owning a gun makes suicide too easy. If you want to have a significant impact on "gun deaths", one of the largest % groups is suicide.
Will they still find another way? Possibly, but if you make it harder they are more likely to reconsider (especially if there is a long setup period for final method chosen or final method is not "clean").
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.
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.
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
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
From European perspective, this discussion is clearly frightening as hell. You guys sound like bunch of cowboys from Wild West saloon (tm). I am already tired of news about mass shootings in US, and I am not living there. Perhaps, just perhaps, owning so many weapons has something to do with it? One guy is even calling Donald Trump do the rescue (of his "rights")! With president Trump You are moving from current "country with two almost same parties" into "country run by crazy person" game, with Russia, North Korea or Cuba. Not that I care, just 2c.
839*929
Chigaco is not, and never has been, the murder capital of the country.
That is a myth.
That FBI releases the numbers every year.
Chicago is not even close to being the most dangerous city in the US.
In fact, the 3 most dangerous cities actually have lows against passing ANY gun control ordinances, whatsoever
6 cities have held the title 'murder capital' since 1985. None was Chicago.
In fact the city most often claiming the title, is New Orleans.
And it's one of those that is barred from crafting any firearms ordinances by state law.
What state is that? Why, Louisiana, the 2nd most dangerous state I the nation, with some of the weakest gun laws in the nation.
And at the other end of the spectrum, one of the safest cities in the country is, repeatedly, New York City, replete with its very strict gun control.
Located in New York state, one of the safest states in the nation, a state with tough gun control, and already closed the gun show loophole among other things.
Funny how you types always leave that out.
And some more reading:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
http://www.kansascity.com/opin...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
no.
as usual you're wrong and ignorant.
these initiatives all operate through existing mandates for existing government agencies and those agencies' jurisdictions.
they are neither unfunded, no 'rule by decree'.
in fact, most of the things Obama stated were things that Republicans used to support...until Obama supported it too.
According to reporting by the Huffington Post, in January 2013 Ryan called closing the so-called gun-show loophole in background checks "reasonable" and "obvious."
In fact, Ryan told the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that he recalled thinking the loophole was a problem when he first arrived in Congress. "There is a loophole here. We should address that," Ryan told the board in the 2013 interview.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/...
As usual, they'd self-asphyxiate out of spite if Obama declared Oxygen important.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Statistically, you're safer if your gun doesn't work.