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.
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.
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
TFS says "explore". Importantly, it also says "other". Rather than hysterical shrieking designed to encourage doing nothing, maybe you could suggest alternative approaches.
Because "nothing" is no longer an option.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
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.
Exactly, this will simply waste tax payer dollars and add complexity to a safety device adding to the likelyhood it will fail to perform when needed.
So instead let's just not have safety devices because they might fail.
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.
How could a federal database of people with mental health problems (instantly searchable during the background check) possibly be in compliance with HIPAA?
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.
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.
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.
How about if we give people due process before we start taking away their civil rights?
If this isn't checked it'll go beyond loons with guns. I think we, as a country, gun-friendly or not, just lost a great deal of protection with this connection between the medical profession and FBI.
What's next? Getting a knock on the door at 3 am because they found THC in a lab sample taken for something entirely medical in nature? (As opposed to a deliberate drug screen)
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
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").
Exactly, this will simply waste tax payer dollars and add complexity to a safety device adding to the likelyhood it will fail to perform when needed.
So instead let's just not have safety devices because they might fail.
Nod. Ok, let's field test them with patrol officers, (because officers having their gun taken and used against them is apparently a real thing) and then gradually make them a requirement for all branches of government. When the secret service adopts them, (according to the news, a secret service agent lost his gun just recently) I'll be right behind.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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.
He seems to be clueless. Guns are ubiquitous in Somalia, which has no functional government at all, much less a democratic one. While England seems to get by just fine with handguns banned.
"Regulated" as in well trained. Not as in governed by laws. A "well trained militia".
The 4th definition of "Regulated".
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
"Militia" = All able bodied males 18 to 45 years of age.
How do you think the Selective Service and Draft are legal? Every male 18 to 45 IS the militia.
SO this is how the law sees it.
"Males aged 18 to 45 well trained in using guns, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Reply to This Parent Share
Do you want to guess who else minds likely work that way? I'll give you a hint. They might be the victims of previous mass shootings. I can only guess but i would wager that most of the dead in France's terrorist attacks and at the mass shootings all around the world wished they had the means to save their own life shortly before being killed by the shooters. Do you think they sat there and said I'm anti gun so kill me and get it over with? Of course you don't. But outside of wishing the killers would leave them alone, don't you think they wished for anything that could help them? Even anti gun people wish someone with a gun (likely the cops ) would show up in time to save their lives.
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
It's called a gun lock... every responsible owner has one for each gun or rifle they have. Gun lockers/safes are good options, too.
One of the major points in the Supreme Court's decision in DC v. Heller was over trigger-locks - Heller, the allegedly "responsible gun owner" didn't want to use a trigger lock, which DC required. SCOTUS held by a narrow majority that the requirement was unconstitutional because it made it "impossible" to use the gun for self-defense.
It's not the government's job to protect you from your own bad decisionmaking by taking away everyone else's freedoms. Suicide is sad. So is drug addiction and alcoholism. Government has no business solving those problems at the margins with a wrecking ball to the middle. I don't want my behavior conditioned by you on other people's sad stories.
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...
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
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
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.
Handguns are the typical home defense weapon. They are unsuitable for several reasons.
- accuracy is limited to non-existent. Shooting on a range has nothing whatsoever to do with shooting in a stressful situation. Any firearm is bad, but the only thing worse than a handgun is a derringer.
- threat to the environment. Every missed shot still goes somewhere and most calibers considered useful for home defense have significant penetration in a domestic environment. It is vanishingly unlikely to hit another person, but it is still possible.
- lethality is insufficient. I've been an aficionado of firearms for over thirty years so I am very familiar with all of the mythology that goes around gun circles as well as the belief system that justifies firearms as home defense.[1] The reality is that the trauma of a gunshot may temporarily "drop" someone (who will ultimately die from the wound), but adrenaline permits continued functioning.
- unsafe if available. In order to be useful during a midnight home invasion the firearm must be ready to hand and ready to use. Which means it is not locked in a gun safe with ammunition locked separately. Most deaths from "home defense" firearms come from accidental discharge where these rules are not followed.
If I was going to advocate for a firearm for home defense I would argue for a "shot pistol" -- you want a short enough barrel to not constrain the pellets to maximize spread. This helps to offset the accuracy issue. The rapid energy loss associated with pellets helps to reduce threat to the environment. Of course, you still have the issues of lethality and safety.
Shooting firearms is fun (I've put a *lot* of rounds down range and fired a pretty wide variety -- everything from a buffalo rifle to a derringer to various handguns, rifles, shotguns, submachine guns, assault rifles and machine guns. So I *know* it is fun to shoot. I also don't pretend that a handgun is good for home defense.
1) The funny thing is that many of these are contradictory -- like the urban mythology about criminals high on PCP ignoring tens (or even hundreds) of shots, and then believing that you are at risk from someone like that *and* believing you can shoot them fifty to a hundred times (with a weapon unlikely to hold more than eighteen rounds) before "they get you".
Many suicides are impulse actions, and the person often regrets the action very quickly and never tries again. Given that, having a handy reliable way to kill oneself is going to increase the number of actual suicides. Razor blades at least normally don't kill that fast, giving time for changing one's mind or intervention from others.
Now, if a person is determined, having a gun is good because it's fast and, if done right, relatively painless.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes