Slashdot Mirror
The US Gov't Could Become the Biggest Customer for Smart Guns (computerworld.com)
Lucas123 writes: Smart gun developers have faced pushback from opponents who fear adoption will lead to mandates. But this week, President Obama embraced the technology, creating the biggest customer of them all for smart guns: the federal government. He instructed several departments to "review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety." Joel Moshbacher, national co-chair of a gun safety advocacy group, said the move this week is "a game changer." Smart gun developers he's spoken with need only a few million to move their prototypes to market, so $20 million would be a windfall for several developers. Donald Sebastian, senior vice president for research and development at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), said federal dollars are the only way to advance the technology because of pushback by opposition groups. For example, when Armatix, a German startup, tried to introduce a smart handgun in the U.S. two years ago, it was met with vehement protests, including threats to burn down a Maryland store that was going to sell it. A second store in California that was carrying it also pulled it from its shelves citing pressure from those opposed to the tech.
Honestly that sounds like New Jersey's problem, so why should I care.
They went and instituted a moronic law, they can deal with the fallout.
The problem is your constitution's second amendment.
Instead of working an end run around what is meant to be a fundamental right to bear arms, what you should actually be discussing is how you amend the constitution. The framers of that document put in place specific mechanisms recognizing the need may arise to do so in the future.
This has been done in the past, even the recent past. (e.g. prohibition).
Why can't it be done now?
If the amendment is not possible, then you will have a discussion about weapons, and as a nation, accept the consequences of those actions - it may will be that the defense of liberty is such that the collateral damage is acceptable to many. This seems fundamentally more honest than the approaches being put forth by the executive branch.
I haven't heard this in the discussion, and it's puzzling.
$0.02 cdn.
..don't panic
I had GM rental few years back, going around a highway turn at 60 mph in North Carolina the Chevy shutoff. Power steering locked solid as result. I applied breaks, but road straighten before car completely stopped. I ended up in a corn field about 15 feet off side of road. My wife and I were lucky, produce not so much. Turns out that was the problem GM hid that killed other people. Thanks for example proving how dumb smart guns are.
PS - I wrote this while open carrying an extremely reliable S&W in Texas. God Bless.
Respect the Constitution
They don't want body-cams ...
Yet another blanket statement that is untrue. Most statements that begin with "they" and assume everyone in the category are identical are usually untrue. Most police want body cameras so they can prove that the suspect was in the wrong.
Not just cops, when the Secret Service detail who protects Obama after he leaves office starts carrying only 'smart guns' at his request... I still won't consider it, but at least then we will know he's not the sort of total hypocrite he is today.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
If criminals didn't frequently obtain their firearms by stealing them from legitimate users I might buy your argument a little more.
There's an insurance classification for swimming pools and other things that attract outside attention, it's called "attractive nuisance." Homeowners with swimming pools are forced to pay extra for their insurance because of the insurance companies' position that a property with a swimming pool will attract unauthorized use, and that this unauthorized use will open-up the property owner to liability, and thus the insurance premium needs to cover that liability. The homeowner can do things like install fences and covers, or if wealthy, to have an indoor pool, as means to reduce the attractiveness of the pool and to reduce liability, but they cannot completely get rid of that liability so long as there's a pool.
I would not be surprised if, some day, liability for firearms had an attractive-nuisance provision associated with it, and that the legitimate owner of the firearm would have to maintain insurance on that firearm that covered the liability of that firearm's misuse until that firearm were legally transferred to a new owner or until that firearm were documented as destroyed. Firearms owners could reduce the liability by having a proper safe and by taking firearms safety courses, but they could never absolve themselves of it. And worse for the firearm owner, if that firearm is stolen, unlike vehicles that are generally stolen to be disassembled for parts, the liability of the firearm would probably never go away and if they discontinued insurance then they would still have a degree of liability for what transpired for a firearm that they let get out of their possession.
The biggest problem is the lack of personal responsibiltiy at every stage of the process, right up to the legitimate owner. Absoutely there are owners that are quite responsible, but on the other hand we routinely hear of incidents where children have shot people, be it a young friend, young sibling, a parent, or in extreme cases a firearms instructor with an UZI, because firearms have been left out where people too young to understand their usage manage to get ahold of them. We routinely hear of people's homes being broken into and their firearms stolen. We routinuely hear of spousal shootings. We routinely hear of gun-cleaning accidents where someone didn't clear the chamber after removing the magazine. That we have all of these incidents among legal firearms owners is shameful, and that's before we even get to the issue of firearms used publicly for violence.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
States like NJ who already have laws on the books mandating all guns sold in the state must use smart tech once it becomes widely available
NJ's law isn't even "widely available". It's "30 months after ONE model is available for sale". Police are completely exempted, of course. So let's say that I create a system that works, sort of. It's $2k for a .22lr pistol, and the pistol can't be anything stronger because the shock from firing calibers .380 and up is enough to destroy the electronics.
30 months after that, even if NOBODY else has released such a pistol, legally speaking, my firearm would be the only one legal to sell in NJ. Restricting everybody to a $2k .22.
I don't read AC A human right