Slashdot Mirror
Surprising Support Among Americans For Purchasing Smart Guns (jhsph.edu)
Lucas123 writes: A new survey from Johns Hopkins revealed that 59% percent of Americans, if they were to buy a new handgun, are willing to purchase a smart gun. More surprisingly, the web-based survey of almost 4,000 people found that four in 10 gun owners and 56% of political conservatives would buy a smart gun. "The results of this study show that there is potentially a large commercial market for smart gun technology," said Julia Wolfson. "This has been one of the biggest arguments against smart guns, that people just don't want them. This research shows otherwise."
How many people surveyed think "smart gun" is some kind of technology where you don't have to aim very carefully; just tell the gun where you want the shot to go. Or maybe a gun with WiFi or an 4K HD screen.
Willingness to buy a smartgun does not equate to support of legislation to require only smartguns. That is the primary fallacy of the submitter.
This isn't a technology site anymore. It's a pro-central power mouthpiece and disseminator of propaganda.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
there may be support to purchase, not to mandate that as the only type of gun. and that support will last until the first time it fails to function. (which might also be the last time it is needed as well)
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I would definitely buy a smart gun if I could. Having a weapon for self defense does have the risk of it being turned on you.
However, I would need to be convinced that it would work when I needed it to. If they try and require smart guns, but the unlock mechanism is faulty and causes me to be unable to use my weapon, I don't want it and I don't want that law.
They need to have a mechanism that is nearly foolproof before I'd ever consider that rule. Otherwise, it's a license for the makers of shitty smart gun technology to mint money while no one is any safer.
Let's see some information on how they did a "web-based survey". I really have a hard time believing the numbers they are talking about. I don't know of a single firearm enthusiast who would buy a smart gun as more then a novelty item.
As far as I'm concerned, when Feinstein's bodyguards are willing to only carry smart guns, then the technology is mature enough for use.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
If I am needing to use a firearm, the last damn thing I want to deal with is some stupid fucking "YOUR GUN NEEDS AN UPDATE, PLEASE WAIT 20 MINUTES." In the mean time, you == dead.
I want a reliable firearm, not some bullshit plastic crap that I'm sure will be able to be remotely disabled.
Go fuck yourself, basically.
What if "smart gun" is backdoored? would they still want to buy one?
We didn't grant the government the authority to mandate or limit our right to have and bear arms in the Constitution. It isn't actually up to them.
Of course people would consider purchasing one. However, only an idiot would do so for a self defence weapon or any other weapon that had to be more than trivially reliable. Gun owners would consider purchasing one for the same reasons one would purchase a tweaked-out .22 or a Desert Eagle -- fun, but not practical. Try asking anyone serious about owning a firearm if they would approve of making smart (i.e., less reliable) guns mandatory. The answer would be a resounding "Hell no".
By the way, you need to pay to read their methodology, so there's no point in debating whether or not their findings are valid.
This screams selection/confirmation bias.
Let the military and police test them for two years, then talk to me about smart weapons.
Need to find the interview, but it seems the US Military is NOT interested in any small arms technology that would preclude a second solider from picking up a wounded comrade's weapon and use it, or which even have the slightest chance of rendering it un-reliable. Most GUN OWNERS are of the same opinion! The concept of a "smart" weapon is attractive to people that have no experience with firearms.
Not sure I care how many Americans support the idea. How about people who know something about guns? Seems to me that most of them hate the idea.
Sorry, but I don't believe this for one moment.
A firearm must, above all things, be reliable. There is no indication whatsoever that the so-called "smart" features (whatever that is) have been developed to anything even close to acceptable real-world performance. Meaning "I pull trigger, gun goes bang every time." I've seen crappy fingerprint recognizing prototypes, some that require an associated bracelet or ring (works great until the battery dies...), GPS-enabled (no signal? stinks for you).
The police won't carry it.
The military doesn't want it.
Neither does the general public.
Of course it's a sample size of only a few but the gun owners I know (including myself) with whom I have discussed this very topic are agreed -- none of us would ever, EVER own a firearm complicated with failure points (aka "electronics"), which, I will add, could easily be jammed.
I say the study is propaganda meant to sway the easily influenced public herd, or encourage some politicians with reading comprehension issues to ignore the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.
It's mostly a place for reactionary old white male nerds to talk about why they're entitled to their job.
Meanwhile Reddit is a place for reactionary young white male nerds and hipsters to talk about why they're entitled to pay without having to work a job.
Times, they are a changing.
Guns that only fire when the owner's Fingerprint is detected, that sounds like a brilliant way of preventing firearms falling into the wrong hands and should be law.
You liberal pukes wouldn't know reality if it punched you in your stupid monkey faces.
Show me a gun owner who would pay a 200% premium on their next purchase to have a gun that could fail to save their life if it runs out of batteries and I'll show you a shill for the gun control movement.
If you have a gun, adding a smart gun to that collection is pretty wise. It's yet another layer of security to prevent the gun from being used by a child, or used against you. It's a definite feature- every layer of security has statistical effects, after all.
The concern is that, once smart guns are around, that someone will try to ban normal guns, pointing to smart guns and being allied with a fascist judge who will check the boxes. As long as we have some assurance that this isn't in the cards, you'll see decent adoption of the technology, and it will assuredly have some beneficial effects on number of accidents per year.
Like this bad boy. http://tracking-point.com/
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
A government, which demands backdoors be built into smart devices and electronic infrastructure, is also demanding mandatory "smart guns" for your protection.
I guess they're from the government and they're here to help you.
... smart guns kill people!
No, wait!!!
I read the link to the story (I know, I know). As they say, their are lies, damn lies, and statistics. 50% of the people surveyed were NON gun owners. I.E. People who appear not to have actually used a firearm, may never want one or understand the need for 100% reliability. Let's do a survey of JUST gun owners and see how they respond to the "smart gun" tech.
Also, this survey was done by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Mr. Bloomberg is an ardent anti-gun nut, so anything having to do with firearms coming from anything associated with him is quite suspect.
Gordon
If smart guns are so great, then once the all LE agencies, local, state and federal, as well as the military, with no option to go back, then I'll consider it.
Sounds like a "poll" of libtards who don't understand what they are voting for, or don't have, or want a gun, but voting as if they do.
I'm sure I could do a study that would show that many people would like to buy flying cars. Lots of fantasy technologies would look very attractive if there was no discussion of the risk of fatal consequences from being an early adopter.
As an avid gun enthusiast I think smart guns are an awful idea and so does everyone i know who shoots. This is /. so I'll start with the technological reasons first.
There are two types of smart gun technology out there.
1) Fingerprint: yeah ok, give me a fingerprint reader that works every time and i'll consider it. Are my hands sweaty? Am I nervous shaking? Covered in dirt? Mud? Sweat? How about Blood? It's winter I"m wearing gloves now what? Will it still work in all those conditions and more?
2.) RFID: this is a wireless signal. Wireless signals can be jammed. If cops/military start carrying smart guns with rfid we'll see this happen no doubt in my mind. Even if they don't people will still figure out how they work and hack them for fun.
But they keep your guns from being used when their stolen. Sure if hackers never exploit the technology, no one figures out how to disable/remove it, and if no one ever posts howtos on youtube... that will never happen...right?
When i carry my gun i need to know it will work every time because if i ever have to use it(very unlikely) it's because i feel my life or someone else's life is depending on it. Even then, I don't know it will work every time. Every now and again you can get a bad/light primer strike not igniting the round, a jam, a misfeed, a broken part like an extractor or mainspring, the list goes on. Guns mostly work all the time, the failure rate is very low, and they're mostly all built on technology that's largely unchanged for over a hundred years for a good reason, it's reliable and works. If you are carrying a gun for self protection, duty, hunting or any other lawful purpose you want it to go bang every single fucking time. Show me a technology that cant be exploited, disabled, and will have zero chance of negatively affecting reliability and then we'll talk. Until then get the hell off my lawn. #'MURICA
A new survey from Johns Hopkins revealed that 59% percent of Americans, if they were to buy a new handgun, are willing to purchase a smart gun
And how, exactly, did they ask this question?
"If you were willing to buy a new handgun, would you be willing to buy a smart gun?"
Well, I'd answer "yes" to that, despite not being willing in the slightest to buy a new handgun. In fact I'd suspect more "non-gun-fans" would answer yes to it than "gun-fans" (to simplistically divide the nation into those two camps for a moment).
And besides all that, who wouldn't want a hypothetically perfect smart gun that never misreads a palm? Because that's what people will assume is being offered to them in this hypothetical situation. In this hypothetical perfect world, to the owner a smart gun is simply a gun like any other.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
It is all how you formulate the question.
Same person asked two questions about so called "smart" technology will give two very different answers. I have to assume that that was the case.
The real test is actual use of so called smart guns. Reality is there are lot of guns that are smart, meaning there is electronic component in those: anti-aircraft and anti-tank rockets and even larger weapons.
Reality is that no army in the world is not using smart weapons, because guns are made to be as simple as possible and as reliable as possible.
Long story short: if someone wants a smart technology she should get a safe box with the finger print reader to lock all the guns.
Scenario one: you come home drunk after a bad day, and in a drunken rage, your thoughts turn to violence and you attack your spouse: Case (a) The spouse grabs the gun and confronts you: Case (b) You shoot your spouse: outcome bad. In both cases, it's a better outcome if the gun doesn't fire.
Scenario two (a favored one for gun owners): You hear someone breaking into your house and stumble out of your bed: Case (a) The burglar, who has armed themselves and is armed, highly strung and anxious (because of stupid befuddled and armed home owners) shoots you. After all, you were still half asleep and they were alert and ready. Case (b) You shoot the intruder, but it turns out to be your teenage daughter sneaking in. Case (c) The intruder snatches the gun off you. Case (d) You shoot the intruder who is unarmed and would otherwise have run away at the first sign of trouble. Case (e) The intruder is really intent on doing you harm and you shoot them.
In cases a-d, the gun not going off is a better outcome.
In case (e) it's better if the gun goes off. But how likely is (e)? Do burglars generally decide to murder someone for no reason? Are burglars more likely to murder someone than the average joe?
So mathematically, it looks like (on average) it's better if the gun doesn't go off.
Bullshit with a capital B.
I'd be far more interested in seeing the exact text of the questions they used, as well as demographic information for the respondents. No sane gun-owning individual would legitimately be interested in any of the currently available "smart gun" tech.
The entire concept is asinine.
Please don't use a black and white "NO increase in gun failure rate is EVER acceptable" as your argument against smart guns everybody.
It depends on the numbers
- how many shots are fired where a good guy stops a bad guy
- what's the increase in failure rate the smart gun produces
- how many crimes would a smart gun prevent (eg the criminal taking the good guy's gun and using it against him)
If a million shots are fired that stop bad guys, and the smart gun has a 1/10000 failure rate, then that's 100 cases where a bad guy could have been stopped but instead gains the upper hand. To say this number MUST be zero is wrong, it just has to be lower than the number of crimes the smart gun technology successfully prevents. It all depends on the numbers.
I'm still not overly optimistic about smart guns because
1. I expect the numbers above are largely unknowable and/or would be manipulated for political reasons, and
2. Systemic flaws in the tech are different than simple failure rates: if sophisticated criminals can carry a jammer that increases the failure rate to 90% that suddenly changes things a lot. The different _type_ of failure is a legitimate concern.
But still, it's not as black-and-white as saying no increase in failure rate is ever acceptable because lives are involved. Lives are involved in both directions.
Surveys are bullshit, when these consumers find out how much more it will cost for this technology they will change their mind. Also when they find out the technology fails and they cannot shoot the gun and die.....
I'd consider buying one, once the military, secret service, FBI, and the police have them standard issue without complaints or malfunctions. And I hate the idea on its face, as a software dev I'm too aware of the answer to "what could go wrong?".
I think that phrase from the "study" says it all. 350 million+ guns in the nation, 40%+ of households have guns, and they post results of a web survey of 4000 anonymous people? Also we have Johns Hopkins, Bloomberg, and The New Venture Fund from Bill and Melinda Gates as the folks involved with this. Um. No.
...and a billion dollars, and a lot of other stuff, too.
I think even die-hard gun owners wouldn't turn down their favorite gun done smart gun style, provided it was the perfect smart gun that only let the people they wanted shoot at the things they wanted shot and worked right every time.
But back in the real world, I can't have a pony, every day isn't my birthday and nobody's going to give me a billion dollars.
And no smart gun will work that way either. They will all have futzy technology that will make them not shoot when they're supposed to, or worse, shoot when they're supposedly not supposed to.
Because gun owners are, by and large, single issue voters. Politically you can do anything you please to then so long as you don't touch their guns. They're also a highly motivated and well organized voting block. They swing elections in our two party system. People in favor of gun control, by contrast, are much less likely to vote and if they do have a host of more pressing issues.
If you care about this country then please, drop the gun control issue. You've lost. Focus on improving folks access to food, shelter, education and health services instead...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
A few questions:
What percentage of American households own one or more guns?
What is this percentage compared to 20 years ago? 40 years ago?
I would hazard to guess that the number of gun owners is markedly down, so the percentage who would get a smart gun are people who don't own one yet because they were scared of them?
Wonder how many of those 4,000 people are actual gun owners today. Also wonder if the survey respondents have heard about the numerous shortcomings with smart guns. http://www.thebangswitch.com/t... - for example, a $1399 .22lr handgun is not going to have much of a market around gun savvy people. EnGadget does a good run down of the technical limitations and issues - http://www.engadget.com/2014/0...
I'm not the slightest bit pro-gun, but even I will concede "smart guns" are a dumb idea. A gun needs to work when you press the trigger, depending on failable electronics is dumb, dumb, dumb.
For all the people saying they don't want a smart gun, and giving a good reason why not...so what? Who cares? The question is really if ANYBODY would. And surely there is a percent of people who do want to buy them.
To use a car metaphor, I would never buy a Ford Explorer, and I can give you lots of reasons why it's not a great car for me....but that's an entirely different question than if they're bad for everybody.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
This survey was designed for the sole purpose of getting the exact headline this post uses.
By their own admission the group most likely to answer "yes" to the smart gun question were self identifying liberals and non-gun owners. Gun owners and those with actual gun knowledge were more likely to respond "no". It was basically like surveying mostly cyclist about commuting patterns and acting surprised when they say the solution is more bike lanes.
They also boosted numbers by being very vague on the use of the term "smart gun" and instead used words like "child proof" so people unfamiliar with the current debates would most likely answer the way they wanted.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
I recently modified my AK after obamas state of the union speech to be a bit smarter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
People probably thought of the Lawgiver when they heard "smart gun."
The smartest part should be the person pulling the trigger. Anything else is just wrong.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Actually that is not a joke. The ability to remotely disable a firearm, even preventing a "legitimate" user from operating it, is something currently being researched.
And the "survey"? Web based.
OK, sure.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Its not just a reliability issue. One of the reasons the anti-gun folks are interested in smart guns and smart gun research is that one of those research topics is how to remotely disable a smart gun. Even so the legitimate user can not operate it. Its not even that hard to imagine the anti-gun crowd eventually wanting the default state of a smart gun to be disabled, only allowing it to enable when at a licensed gun range.
Try? It has already happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
The backlash goes beyond mandating smart guns. There is also the backlash against research because one of the research topics exciting some in the anti-gun crowd is the ability to remotely disable a gun.
There's a big difference between "Would be willing," and "Actually want." And being willing is heavily affected by how easy it is to disable (probably not hard, unless they use a solenoid firing pin, making the gun unusable, to put it mildly.)
The problem is that if the police can disable your gun then so can a government bureaucrat. A bureaucrat enforcing a political decision that no civilian should have a firearm.
"Most Americans Support Smart Guns" says JHU's press release headline. But the subhead says something pretty different: "BROAD INTEREST." (I''m *interested* in them as a curiosity, for now, and very skeptical of their worth.) Too, the actual text gets a few notches weaker than that: Would-be gun purchasers, asked a survey question (rather than actually in purchasing mode) say they "are willing to purchase" a hypothetical kind of gun. Well, talk about a strong endorsement!
That's not "supporting" smart guns, in a political sense; that's like saying that some people say that the next time they visit McDonalds they would be "willing" to enjoy a fish sandwich, or are at least interested. Or, let's say that McDonalds was supposed to be coming out with a really delicious fish sandwich (not yet available), and that's what people say they'd be "willing" to try.
How would that headline read?
AMERICANS LOVE NEW McDONALDS FISH SANDWICHES! THEY'RE HYPOTHETICALLY DELICIOUS!
It's what I'd expect from JHU, so it's hard to get too upset, but it's presented dishonestly.
...for Obama too. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
From the article since it seems many have missed this point in the past:
Gun advocacy groups such as the National Rifle Association and the NSSF have said they do not oppose smart gun technology. They simply do not want the technology to be mandated.
Let's have a safe firearm. After all these people will claim they don't want to take our deer rifles so let's build a "safe" deer rifle.
We don't want this rifle going off without the intent of the user, so we have a thumb safety placed conveniently so the user may enable and disable the safety while in a firing position. We want this rifle to be accurate since we don't want the bullet to hit anything other than the game it was sighted upon. In doing so we will have as standard equipment a proven sighting system with a ring rear sight and a post front sight. This sight shall have simple and easy means to adjust for elevation and windage. For better accuracy let's give people the option to mount any other sighting system they choose, perhaps a laser sight if gaming laws allow.
To make sure the rifle can be controlled when firing, so that the sight does not leave the target when the trigger is pulled, let's have an ergonomic grip. As a rifle barrel can get exceedingly hot upon firing even once then let's put a finger guard around the barrel so that people will not inadvertently burn their finders. This guard should be sufficiently insulated and sturdy so that it can be used to grip the rifle for better control upon firing.
Since this is a deer rifle we should choose a caliber that is sufficient to kill with a single shot but not so large that it imposes unnecessary recoil upon the hunter. We should make it out of a mix of modern materials to reduce weight where we can and keep heavy hardened steel where we must for reliability. This should be a rifle that is simple to disassemble with minimal training for cleaning, a dirty rifle is a dangerous rifle. To assist in keeping the internals clean the ejection port should have a cover, and to avoid the dangers of having the cover closed upon firing it should open automatically when the first shot is fired.
To minimize fire hazards the rifle should have a means to minimize muzzle flash. Reducing muzzle flash also minimizes eye strain for the hunter so that any game shot but not yet down can be tracked. The finger guard around the barrel also minimizes this risk as a hot barrel cannot touch dried underbrush. Additionally the flash ports can be positioned in a way to reduce muzzle climb and dangerous sparks hitting the ground before they cool in the air. Having the ports facing up but on either side of the line of sight can reduce muzzle climb, reduce fire hazards, while protecting the hunter's eyesight.
Noise from firing can also be a hazard. This rifle should have at least an option on the means to reduce the report if it is not standard equipment. A barrel that is threaded on the end would allow a user to remove the standard flash hider and attach something that controls the report as well as the flash. If flash and report hazards are not a concern but recoil is then the threaded barrel allows for the attachment of a recoil compensator. These devices are known to reduce recoil significantly at the cost of some weight and increase in report volume.
As a curious side effect the addition of a recoil compensator, report suppressor, and/or flash control device all tend to improve the accuracy of the rifle. A hunter is more likely to kill the deer than wound it. A hunter is also much less likely to miss and do damage to property or leave lead bullets behind.
The hunter should be able to unload the rifle quickly, the ammunition should be in a container that can be separated from the rifle with the single press of a button. The means by which the rifle is loaded should give indication from afar as to whether the rifle is loaded or not, as such the ammunition box should be visible from the front and sides when mated to the rifle. An addi
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The article about the survey notes of the 33,599 people who died from guns in 2014 more than 21,000 were suicides.
How will smart gun technology prevent suicides?
Strangely enough, the population of the US is suddenly only 4000 people!
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
I want the rifle used by Marines and the sidearm used by Marines. If those are "smart guns" then that's cool.
Yeah, USMC, the organization that teaches recruits that their KBAR with zero electronics and zero moving parts is their most reliable weapon. :-)
FWIW, in Europe a smart assault rifle is being researched. One of the features, the ability to remotely disable it. Its features like this that get some politicians really interested in smart gun research.
I've seen biometrics fail and I've seen software fail, and I'm sure everyone has seen batteries fail. Why anyone would carry a smartgun for defense is beyond me, or why they think it might be safer around their kids than a mechanical lock. Technology fails, and failing open OR closed is the wrong thing for guns; you need then to function when you need them, and you need them to be inaccessible to people who shouldn't have them.
The biggest arguments against smart guns is the assholes at either end of the gun.
This only supports the idea that most surveys are worded to suit the purpose of the surveyor. Propaganda.
Surprising Support Among Americans For Purchasing Guns ?
aaaaaaa
If they try and require smart guns, but the unlock mechanism is faulty and causes me to be unable to use my weapon, I don't want it and I don't want that law.
That won't be a problem. GM is designing them. They have tons of experience with locks, and they never cover up problems with their locks.
I'd buy a "smart gun" like I'd buy any other gadget if the tech was so good that professionals preferred guns that had it. So when the POTUS is guarded by "smart guns" I'll give them serious consideration.
an online survey of 4k ppl is considered "research"
The article is conflating 2 technologies: The child-safe gun with the smart gun. A gun doesn't have to be smart to be child-safe. Just like medicine bottles, make the unlock mechanism too big and 'heavy' for a six year-old to move. For obvious reasons, child-inflicted fatalities involve a handgun, so such technology isn't required on long-arms.
There were thousands of GIs who survived D Day only because they were able to salvage a rifle, ammo and other equipment from a comrade who failed to make it ashore alive because they'd had to abandon their own equipment to keep from drowning when they were forced to leave the landing craft too far from shore. I'm sure that the same thing holds true (if in smaller numbers) for every opposed landing during that war. And, as long as there's a chance that combat troops are going to need to replace their weapons that way during a fire fight, there's no chance that any military's going to go for something like this.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
The question they should be asking is: "Would you prefer a smart gun if it costs than a regular gun and fails to work with high probability under real-world conditions." In particular, the idea that anything that uses a fingerprint sensor can be a reliable tool for self-defense is a joke; even the best fingerprint sensors fail frequently when hands are dirty, cold, sweaty, or dry.
The fact that these "researchers" aren't specific about what they asked and didn't address questions of cost or reliability in their press release shows that they are dishonest, manipulative, and partisan. Also, the idea that a "web based survey" is "nationally representative" is a joke.
A firearm should have artistic aspects to it to be enjoyed as well as increase in value. For example, a revolver with no safety on it is much more beautiful than a bulkier weapon with extra parts. In the hands of a trained shooter that safety device offers nothing at all except one more thing to maintain or break. The nonsense about 30K people perishing from gun shots is just a hoax. Two- thirds of that 30K are suicides. It may be better that shooting oneself exists rather than overdosing on medications. Too many times those overdose cases involve brain damage and years in nursing homes at great expense. Also, some are shot by cops. So in reality, we have less than 10K people a year killed by guns. How many people die every year from using bicycles or motorcycles? So put guns in perspective. Guns surely are less dangerous than your medicine cabinet.
The survey was performed by the New Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Michael Bloomberg is notorious for building organizations to support his anti firearm viewpoints. They will target populations with their poll to get the desired result. I don't trust the poll results because I don't trust the motives of Bloomberg.
More antics from the developing countries. Russia, Brazil, Indonesia, the USA.... theyre always good for a "wtf are those crazy poor people up to now?"
Actually, it's already in use. We just didn't tell you.
That said, your highest risk factor is from a. handguns b. suicide c. family with a.
Choose wisely. Buy a shotgun and lock up the shells. You can always bash them on the head with it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Reliability issues aside, why would I want to make a simple mechanical device a complex electromechanical device that is possibly internet connected
(Because you damn well know police and three letter agencies are jizzing in their pants at the thought of remotely disabling guns).
Neat idea if it can be made reliable, but no thanks. Especially when particular states such as NJ have already passed laws that would effectively make smart guns the only guns for sale.
My safety involves locks, trigger discipline and never pointing it at something I care about. At the moment it has a flawless track record.
Ironically mine doesn't even have a safety, just a decocker.
A gun has to work when you need it.
The real purpose of the "smart gun" push from the leftards is to get people to accept unreliable weapons. Fuck that noise.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And the "survey"? Web based.
All that means is that the questioning was conducted via a web site, as opposed to in person or over the phone. I think you may be making assumptions about how the participants were chosen. (Yes, the participants were chosen.)
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
You never studied statistics, did you. That wasn't a question, that was a statement.
After seeing how the NSA operates... NO THANKS!
This will for sure, 100% be the mechanism to disarm the public. They cannot dictate this technology until we agree. FIGHT BACK.
Johns Hopkins, because they are not politically motivated at all!
This one is just like the complete bullfuckingshit 90% of gun owners that want more gun control from the new york slimes.
COMPLETE fucking bullshit.
My car has plenty of smarts, including a drive by wire system and *gasp* an electronic key that ensures that only I can operate it. This does introduce some new failure mode, but *overall* I am safer and more likely to get where I am going because of all this technology.
If done right, a smart gun can be actually more reliable and accurate while simultaneously reducing accidents. For example, it can have a screen that shows me where a bullet will hit and how many remain in the magazine. It can have redundant ways of unlocking, including a physical key if the battery runs out.
As for government disabling guns, they can already send a SWAT team in bulletproof vests and shred you to pieces. The only difference is that you and innocent bystanders around you are more likely to survive. Plus, we are talking smart, not internet connected.
My keltec has a 9 pound triggerpull.
A child can't pull that. And it's going to fire when i need it. =)
To examine public interest in purchasing smart guns, also known as childproof or personalized guns (WHAT?), the study team conducted a nationally representative, web-based survey in January 2015, getting responses from 3,949 people. The respondents were nearly evenly split among gun owners and those who do not own guns. Among the findings: Fifty-nine percent of all respondents said they would be willing to consider a childproof gun if they were to purchase a new weapon. More than twice as many current gun owners said they would be willing to purchase a childproof gun than would be unwilling. The guns were most supported by political liberals (71 percent), but support was also high among political moderates (56 percent) and conservatives (56 percent).
So the respondents said they would be willing to consider a childproof gun if they were to purchase a new weapon. In the setup in the paragraph quoted above I am told a smart gun is also known as a childproof or personalized gun. I am a gun owner, I actually manufacture firearm components, and those descriptions are definitely not synonymous. I fact, I can't ever recall a smart gun being referred to as a childproof gun or a personalized gun. Were the survey respondents asked specifically whether they would be willing to purchase a smart gun, or were they given some unclear euphemism for smart gun? Why is the survey not linked in the press release? I smell bullshit.
Yeah, i'm surprised more people didn't notice this. Bloomberg is probably getting what he paid for.
Strangely enough, the population of the US is suddenly only 4000 people!
4000 people is way more than enough to be statistically significant. The problem with this survey is not sample size, but randomness. Opt-in web surveys tend to be biased. I also question the impartiality of the researchers. They all come from organizations that tend to advocate big government solutions.
I would not buy a "smart gun". But I would not buy a dumb gun either. I have owned a rifle and a shotgun for 25 years. My dad gave me the shotgun. It is over 70 years old. Both the rifle and shotgun work as well as when they were new, and I don't expect to ever need to replace them. I have a hard time believing that a "smart gun" could ever be that reliable.
I did. The press release says it was a self-selected survey representative of the entire country. I also took English, and that sentence is an oxymoron because the likelihood of a self selected survey being representative of anything but the people that took the survey is extremely small.
It is 'studies' like this and the 'news articles' they generate that lead to the truism of my subject line...though in reality a well done, controlled & documented statistical analysis/study should be quite useful.
Yes its not the 'Slashdot way' but anyone actually clicking the links & following the related ones will soon find that the claims of 'smartgun support' do not at all seem to fit the actual study. First you have the new 'citation' methodology where 1 'news report' simply links to another one with virtually the same wording as if pointing to a 'news article' (NOT the research) is some how 'evidence'...how hard is it really for a supposed 'news article' to point to the actual research its reporting on...in fact a link to another news story as 'evidence' can only be used if the news article is phrased as to be a story ABOUT the news article itself. This seems to be overly 'common place' today, either that's lazy reporting, or more likely it is used as a way to claim there is 'all this evidence' when there is really 'all these articles about 1 study'...
In any case, the closest I can come to the wording of the survey is in one article that says the survey asked whether or not they'd consider or buy 'childproof guns'...that is an entirely separate question, clearly 'biases' the question & as such it in no way can be used to support claims that Americans favour 'Smartgun technology'.
But what the hell...I shouldn't be surprised, its Friday /. needs to get in its share of SJW click bait & argument....
Proponents of smart guns say their widespread use would cut down on suicides, ...
How does having to wear a ring stop suicides? This smacks of belt-way bandit research where the "researchers" are paid to produce a specific result.
"Honey, do you know where the spare batteries are? We have an intruder and gun is dead."
"Just take the batteries out of the remote."
Can you provide ANY evidence of this ? Any ...
Mandatory smart guns.
... to think smart guns should be default disabled until entering approved firing ranges?
"{New Jersey] Assembly Bill No. 700, is a law that makes the sale of handguns "illegal" unless it is a smart gun that "can only be fired by an authorized or recognized user" and would take effect three years after the technology is available for retail purposes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Remote Disabling.
"TriggerSmart has also patented and developed Wide Area Control ( WAC) where weapons can be remotely enabled and disabled using various wireless protocols. Safe zones can be created around schools and airports so that only authorised guns can operate in the designated area. Alternatively, when authorized guns leave the authorised area they can be tracked and disabled outside the safe zone."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Political willingness to confiscate legally registered firearms.
California’s Assault Weapons ban of 1989 allowed those who owned covered firearms the opportunity to register those firearms and keep them. Registration involved fingerprinting and background checks. This ban also outlawed use of these firearms for hunting, and target shooting in many formerly legal venues. California Bill 2013 AB 174 would revoke these registrations and render these firearms illegal. AB 174 would force current owners to render their formerly legal and registered firearms inoperable, surrender them or remove them from California.
"Existing law prohibits the possession of various weapons. Under existing law, certain of these bans exempted from their scope weapons that were possessed prior to the ban, if prescribed conditions met, are authorized. This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this bill to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions."
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/...
Do you really think it much of a leap for politicians who would revoke registrations for fingerprinted and background checked owners, registration for rifles that were arbitrarily limited in terms of where they could be used (no hunting, only certain shooting ranges/sites),
The survey was performed by the New Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Michael Bloomberg is notorious for building organizations to support his anti firearm viewpoints. They will target populations with their poll to get the desired result. I don't trust the poll results because I don't trust the motives of Bloomberg.
Statistical data can't be accurate anymore on pretty much any subject, they have dumbed down the people for so long now they expect to be handed their opinion. Watch as the financial crisis yields martial law, cancelled election and Obama comes for the guns anyway because this is what the banksters want; an unarmed victim.
Can pretty much show overwheming support for just about any topic imaginable.
As long as you get to cherry pick the survey takers or carefully word the questions, it's easy to manipulate the outcome.
are too incompetent to own a firearm of any kind to begin with.
It's like self drive cars.
No one wants one because it's safer, they want one so they can play with their $techtoy while stuck in traffic.
Did I just spend 45 seconds waiting for widget-cdn.rpxnow.com to load while trying to load this story? What ass clown is in charge of this site now?
Let's wait until the "smart guns" have first been used successfully in a war.
BILL NUMBER: AB 174 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY
Assembly Member Bonta
JANUARY 24, 2013
An act relating to weapons.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 174, as introduced, Bonta. Weapons: grandfather clauses.
Existing law prohibits the possession of various weapons. Under existing law, certain of these bans exempted from their scope weapons that were possessed prior to the ban, if prescribed conditions met, are authorized.
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this bill to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Under current law, certain banned weapons are permitted under various "grandfathering in" clauses. It is the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this measure to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/...
As long as you don't force people to buy them. It would have to work 100%, because if it fails to activate, you may be dead because you were not able to fire the gun.
Smart guns would be most useful for police, and parents with idiot/retarded kids who have not had any training with guns. If there is profit in making them, they will be made.
I don't think these smart guns are smart enough to remind idiot owners they aren't allowed to take them aboard aircraft or into Canada.
Some of those computer-assisted long-range smart rifles for sale lately would probably do well in the inventory of a Well Regulated Militia, so what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander!
Americans have lived in a soup of constant fear and loathing since the 50's, a constant diet of murder on the TV every night and the reports back from the boys off fighting the latest war.. But of course they need to arm themselves...because someone might come and take away everything they have and they need to defend themselves, because everyone want's what they've got. Yeah right.
If you stop to think about WHY someone wants or NEEDS to come and take everything away from them then it starts getting murky. Endemic racism and poverty, a lack of socially responsible policy. No real social safety net, no descent minimum wage, a pathological opposition to unions and workers rights, medical bills that run to hundreds of thousands of dollars, I mean seriously, who the hell thinks that's a great place to live?
Yeah Americans need smart guns because the owners sure as fuck ain't that smart.
I don't trust the poll results because I don't trust the motives of Bloomberg.
As well you shouldn't. Michael Bloomberg is a busybody who by virtue of his fame and fortune is more dangerous than most.
Because that really shows why smart guns are a fucking retarded idea.
The synopsis states "The survey findings contrast sharply from earlier estimates. Research from 2013, funded by the gun manufacturers’ trade association, suggested just 14 percent of people would be willing to make their next handgun purchase a smart gun"
This of course makes me question the results. First, it being a web survey is pretty questionable. Second, I could not find the actual question asked. I'm a gun owner and I would buy a smart gun "if" it met my requirements. My requirements would be rather difficult to meet. 1 - The "smart gun" element of the firearm must be more reliable than the mechanical parts. 1 - The smart gun element must function in all foreseeable conditions. 3 - the smart gun element must function in less time than it takes to aim. 4 - any battery or power source must last at least 10 years. 5 -It can't add significant cost to the firearm.6 - It was widely tested and accepted and used by law enforcement. 7 - the technology was not mandatory, and could be disabled with a key or some kind of mechanical lockout.
So yea, if you could do that, I might buy one. I want to see how they worded the question.
If it worked, wouldn't gun control nirvana enclaves like New York and Chicago mandate such a thing for their boys in blue? New York already requires a 12 pound trigger pull on its department issued Glocks (absolutely insane!). The number of officers killed with their own guns has gone down over the years, but it is not zero. There must be a reason why not a single law enforcement agency advocates this stuff except upon the civilian population they are charged with controlling.
Nothing evolves faster than the word of god in the minds of men who think themselves divinely inspired.
Exactly, and that is the leading reason why everyone I've ever talked to, who already owns one or more firearms, refuses to ever get one of these "smart" guns. It is the reliability issue. There is enough concern that such a tool, with a 0.01% failure rate, could strike when it was needed to preserve life.
You could see that failure rate just from ammunition. So, why add another point of failure?
Of the 4000 people polled I would wager less than that 59% of them would actually buy a firearm despite the claims of the poll.
They show a 22 on the article. A gun I would never buy. Just not enough stopping power, but decent for target practice I guess. Still, it is better to practice on a gun that you might actually have to use someday.
If the government really wants to improve gun safety they should subsidize and promote the use of gun safes and other locking mechanisms to make gun theft as difficult as possible. I have three rifles and I even keep the bolts and receivers separate from them to decrease the chance my devices will ever be stolen and used in a criminal action.
Not being from New Jersey, I didn't know about this. That's ludicrous.
Climate trolls have infected slashdot. Climate change is a political statement not a scientific statement.
Anyone doubting climate trolls and their system of beliefs is immediately scored down. Wow!
...I know of no gun owners that I've ever heard say "we don't want smart gun technology available".
What I absolutely HAVE heard, and have said myself, is that it's got to be 100% an OPTION, not a MANDATE.
It's totally cool with me for smart gun technology to be on the market, so long as it's my choice whether to buy it or not. Frankly, I'd be inclined to buy at least one. But, there's some caveats.
First, the cost can't be drastically different than a non-smart gun. I understand we'll have to pay a bit more, but if it's more than about 10-15% of the cost of a non-smart gun then it becomes little more than creating an artificial barrier to entry.
Second, and this is by far the bigger issue: you've got to prove to me that the reliability of a smart gun at least equals that of a non-smart gun. You see, when my life is on the line I trust the guns I own 100%. Am I going to be able to have the same trust in a smart gun? Hmm. Are the batteries dead? Is my hand sweaty and so my fingerprint can't be read immediately? Does the bad guy have some sort of jamming device that makes my RFID wristband not work? Is the software that reads the signal from my watch buggy? You can risk your life on these questions, but I'm not willing to. I want the dead simple mechanical device that I can be all but certain is going to go bang when I need it to.
Maybe the technology will get there some day and none of this will be a concern. I'm totally cool with them being brought to market and evolved over time to get to that point. But the first time someone in authority tells me I HAVE to use these smart guns then that's the point at which they've got to be just as reliable as a conventional gun. We're absolutely not even close to that point yet.
Will that matter to some anti-gun people? Nope, not in the least. They'll want them mandated and conventional guns outlawed as soon as the first one hits the market. New Jersey actually has a law already on the books that says the first time that smart guns are available anywhere in the country then that's all that will be sold in NJ. That's the kind of thing us gun owners are vehemently opposed to, not the notion of smart guns themselves.
So let's be clear: when you show me a (flawed, but that's another story) poll that says most people want smart guns, I've got to wonder if they are informed about the comparative reliability, and more importantly, if they'd have given the same answer if they were told that a smart gun is ALL they will be able to have? I bet if you asked THAT question you'd get a VERY different response (assuming you fix the obvious confirmation bias at the heart of the poll's methodology to begin with).
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
Ten years ago I designed a "smart gun" with the kind of fingerprint detection that could not be fooled (even by cutting off a finger) and a ballistics marking device that identified a bullet to a particular gun, and thus to the owner of the finger that fired it. I thought it was a real sweet system. I called it "the citizens gun" and tried to market it to Colt and S&W. Both refused. S&W wrote me a fairly nasty letter about the whole idea.
On after thought, as a gun owner with a carry permit, they were right. I wouldn't carry such a weapon. When you need it, you need it NOW. There are no second chances, no way to change the battery, and if anything goes wrong your backup plan is to throw the gun like a brick. Anyone who does actual self defense drills learns this real fast.
Anyone realize that even a smart gun does not stop a maniac from killing innocent people with their recently purchased "smart gun"? The only hope is that the gun would freeze and need a reboot. Meanwhile the stand up citizen with the classic gun can waste that nutjob while assailant is downloading updates after reboot. I guarantee that the technology is defeatable and the folks that promote this don't understand the "smart" technology or firearms. Pencils misspell words and forks are responsible for making people fat. Guns are so scary. Lets ban them like heroin and then they won't exist in America anymore. If you believe this policy would work you probably shouldn't own a gun. You are too stupid to possibly know how to use and store it properly. Gun violence is highest where there are outright bans on them. Funny how criminals by definition don't adhere to laws. You won't be able to shoot back if your life depended on it if you libtards get your way. You won't, though. It is a myth that most American's want to ban guns in our society. Stop Watching Television!!
The press release says it was a self-selected survey representative of the entire country.
The words "self-selected" did not appear anywhere in the press release, nor did it imply any such thing. Which is just as well, because if it was, it would be incorrect. The published work makes it clear that the participants were selected from a curated database precisely to make sure the sample was representative.
Opt-in web surveys tend to be biased.
...which is why they didn't use an opt-in web survey. That would be ridiculous.
"We sent an invitation to participate to 7318 adults recruited from a panel of approximately 50 000 respondents maintained by GfK, a survey firm commonly used for academic research, using equal-probability sampling from a sample frame covering 97% of US households. The survey completion rate was 55%, comparable to other surveys administered by GfK, resulting in a final sample size of 3949 (after eliminating 49 respondents who were active duty military)."
Well, we knew that already. They've got the country gibbering in terror. But knocking the population down overnight was an impressive feat. What did they use?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I'm no fan of Obama (I lean conservative, even though I would *never* claim to be Republican, and I have only ever voted for a Democrat once), but I think that if an election were going to be canceled in favor of martial law, it would've been in 2007...
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
a mechanical device with an electronic lock? yeh, there's no way around that...
my phone can't read my thumbprint while i'm sitting on my couch, you expect my gun to read my fingerprint under an adrenaline rush, sweat, possibly blood on my hands? no fracking way...
i'll buy a "smart" gun the week after the military, police, secret service and criminals are mandated to use them....
1) What percentage chance do you want the gun to fail shooting when someone is threatening a family member
2) Would you buy a gun that unlocked with the same percentage (and time) as your current generation cell phone
3) If a gun fails to fire because of a safe lock - who should be responsible for its failure?
There are already trigger locks that do what you want, there are safeties to take care of the gun when the trigger lock is removed. People that actually know gun safety and have trained the people around them don't see the problem. Those that haven't think a tech solution will work - it won't
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them