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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
Not as likely as you think. Supreme Courts are hesitant to reverse rulings of their predecessors.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
Sure, the best US school is called the Marines Corps (or Navy / Army / Air Force)...
That might be one reason.
It's not "gun" they like, it's Freedom and Liberty. Something that [modern] liberals hates.
Why do some people like beer and others don't? Because people like different things. It would be bizarre if we all had the same preferences.
Also, when you need a gun, there's usually no good substitute. When someone is trying to take away your guns, that's one of the times when you need them a lot.
The US founding letters and documents are clear on the issues the US will face.
They lived under the tyranny of British occupation for years. All that taxation induced a fear of the UK returning one day.
At any time the UN could give the UK the role of rebuilding, rehabilitating and caring for its crumbling former US possession.
Free health care, government run prisons, MI5/6 and the GCHQ watching every move of the millions in the returned dominion, government works rebuilding local infrastructure, a massive new role for the The Colonial Office. Fully imported British Leyland cars.
The Treasury restocked with US wealth owed for generations with interest.
Extra letters, Darwinism and vowels been added to the national curriculum. The Church of England becoming the only real faith of advancement, privilege and the professional classes again. Deals done based on what university a person attended.
So the US takes every aspect of its founding, rights and responsibilities very seriously.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Well lets see if you sell a gun on gunbroker you have to ship it to a FFL dealer for transfer unless the person you sold it to happens to be a ffl dealer.
And guess what the dealer you shipped it to gets to do? They get to run a background check on the person who purchased it before disposition Muhahahaha its like nothing has changed at all.
Now people selling guns on craigslist? YMMV.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
No, mass shootings are done by people who are crazy, psychotic, or religiously deranged long before they ever pull the trigger.
Just because you haven't pulled a trigger yet, doesn't mean you're "normal" when you insist on the death penalty for drawing mohammed, or demand that abortion doctors be killed.
That all being said, "mass shootings" are terribly rare - we should be more concerned about the "non-mass shootings" that are overwhelmingly done by criminals with illegal firearms.
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.
I'd like to point out that if you look at "Violent Deaths per Capita" the USA is pretty darned safe place, even with guns everywhere. In fact, Gun violence rates have been in steady DECLINE over the last decade or so...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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
The idea the 2nd amendment isn't an individual right was dreamed up by leftist lawyers in the 1970s. No court with justices who are actually interested in following the constitution is ever going to overturn Heller. I guess if you pack it with Sotomayor types you could get it overturned. We'll pack it the other way if you do.
not what this graph says
The claim was that gun violence is falling. Your chart describes gun deaths, which include suicide. It also does not fail to count those that would have been killed anyway by some other method, like people executed by cops.
If you remove suicide, then gun violence is falling fairly consistently year-on-year, and you don't have the right to tell people that they have to live for your convenience. That's a form of slavery.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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?
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!!!
Better use the No Gun technology.
Far better one. Proven in use by 6,5 Billion people.
aaaaaaa
Eric S. Raymond: Why I joined the NRA - After 20 years of evading joining the NRA, I finally did it last week - 2016-01-03
(Yes, this Eric S. Raymond - Eric Raymond's open-source collection )
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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
"That all being said, "mass shootings" are terribly rare" Sorry What? Rare? They are near Daily! Rare compared to what country exactly? http://www.theguardian.com/us-... Because in Britain and Australia, where they got rid of the guns. Mass Shootings = Zero.
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
However, which way does the causality operate? Are victims of gun violence more likely to support gun control, and thus vote Democrat? or does gun control cause more gun violence?
If its the former, then isn't it unfair that the Republican states are stopping the Democrat states from addressing their problems how they see fit?
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.
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.
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".
If you spent as much time reading the article as you did assembling your talking points, you'd have noticed that Mr. Greenfield mentioned Chicago as "America's mass shooting capital", not "America's murder capital".
Your facebook memes are weak. How many states do you think preempt local firearms laws? Just the three you mentioned? No, 47 states (out of 50!) have preemption laws. 2 of those were partial and I didn't feel like looking up the specifics, so we are looking at 90% to 94% of the states.
Also, the three cities with the highest homicide rates have a lot in common beyond being in a few of the many states with pre-emption laws. For one thing, they have been dominated by Democrat politicians for decades. Obviously, that means they are stuffed full of Democrat voters. Which is the point of Mr. Greenfield's article.
See that "Preview" button?
Between 45 and 47 states, out of 50, have preemption laws.
See that "Preview" button?
I'm trying to avoid quoting the whole article because he is an excellent writer and deserves the traffic (also, I have to manually convert his unicode apostrophes into ASCII for slashdot, which is annoying), but here is another chunk that might address some of your concerns:
See that "Preview" button?
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
They also have massive inner city poverty, and massive inner city drug gangs in common.
But yes, let's all pretend politics is the cause of all this, and having complete unfettered access to all the 2nd amendment offers will somehow solve those two things above.
Dipshit.
Statistically, you're safer if your gun doesn't work.
What you may find interesting is that once you get out into the outer ring suburbs and rural areas there are a lot of people who own firearms yet there isn't massive gun violence or shootings. It is actually extremely rare for there to be a shooting as in it was a big deal last year when there was shooting in my town that hadn't had one in years. For example the small city I live in (an almost outer ring suburb in the Twin Cites area of Minnesota) most my my neighbors have several firearms in their homes. None of them feel they need them for home defense or personal defense while out doing their daily things. However many of them hunt and even a good number of their spouses hunt so 2-6 firearms in a house isn't really uncommon. The difference is that you never hear about these people in the news as we don't cause problems and even if you do it is usually in the local paper on the back page of the sports section around thanksgiving when someone shoots an exceptionally large buck during the deer season.
So what you see and hear in the news isn't the majority of regular responsible gun owners but the few criminal ones. These are mostly from the large inner cities where they have rampant gang, drug, crime, poverty, etc problems which are things that are lacking in Europe. As an American who lived in Paris for a while I never felt unsafe anywhere in that city (Paris proper) while in either of the large cities in my metro area I know the are specific neighborhoods where I would very likely be accosted if I went there at night and walked around (the Crack Stacks in Minneapolis). Even in some of the better areas it is amazing the police presence (Block E) at bar close in those cities while in Paris you just got told to leave once the subway started running the next morning.
Time to offend someone
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
No actually it doesn't change anything. Buy from an online store and they will ship it to the dealer of your choice who will run the background check on you. exactly as it already is. It will not eliminate online sales as any firearm that has to be shipped must go through an FFL and thus requires a background check.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
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.
Good to see that your Canadian smugness goes unchecked even in the face of actual facts.
The President basically just said that he's directing law enforcement to actually enforce the laws that have been on the books since 1998. Without redefining who is "in the business" of selling guns to something prohibitively stupid, this was a press conference for the sake of having a press conference.
Here's a little exercise for you: try to go to a gun show and buy a gun from anyone without getting a background check done. Unless you are buying from some guy who is liquidating an inherited collection at his first and last gun show, you're going to get checked.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
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
Yeah, because every single motorcycle rider drives 180 in traffic. All of them.
Who's the asshole again?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
It is a requirement for anyone "in the business" of selling guns.
What that means is anyone's guess, and that's likely what this administration wants to redefine. If they do it right, they shouldn't have any problem from anyone that isn't a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic.
Example: I have a handgun that I'd like to sell to my friend, because I'm not likely to use it anymore. He has expressed interest in buying it in the past. He is not a convicted felon, and already owns firearms, some legally purchased from a FFL dealer where a background check has already been performed. Do I have to go get some license and fill out a phone book worth of paperwork to do this under the new rules? If I do, then the new rules are complete shit, and I'm just going to keep the gun.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
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.
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.
Tell me, what mass shooting happened on January 6, 2016?
And for Australia, can you tell me how fast the rape rate increased after women were disarmed?
Bueller? Bueller?
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
The amendment isn't completely clear, and that well-regulated Militia clause has been argued over for a LONG time. Don't assume that your interpretation of the Constitution is the only one.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
My point was it hasn't been argued over for a long time. The arguing over started in the '70s, and even then it was considered a fringe view.
"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.
I liked guns way before Obama.
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
I really don't care if my gun is safe.
Congratulations, you are part of the problem. How does it feel?
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.
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.
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.