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."
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."
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.
It's even better than that. From TFA:
Who would NOT be in favour of a "childproof" gun?
The issue is when it comes down to the specific technology. Will the gun function when you need it to?
This screams selection/confirmation bias.
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.
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
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
Perfect example of phrasing the question in order to get the desired response. All this survey tells me is that almost 2/3s of the respondents didn't understand the question.
...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/
Ummm. Anybody sane? We already have things to make guns childproof. They are called "locks" and "safes." I keep mu firearms in a safe with a push-button lock. No batteries to wear out, and a simple design with little to go wrong.
I am not against adding smart technology to firearms. But I am against requiring it. Simply stated, the problem is reliability. Sometimes people use a gun to defend themselves, which means that it HAS to work. Do you want to be defenseless because of a dead battery or a firmware issue?
Personally, I will consider it a viable option when it is good enough for the FBI and police. If it is not reliable enough for them, it is not reliable enough for me.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
If you use it for target shooting instead of self defense (I do), then I'm pretty sure it'll function when I "need" it to. If it doesn't, who cares, I guess I'm renting from the range today.
Not every gunowner has self defense in mind.
they run with finger on trigger, sweep friendlies with aim,etc.
So, just like the cops then
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Anyone who has ever cycled the slide on a semi auto can tell you that it's pretty much beyond a "child's" capability.
A teen, yes, but some toddler or six year old, no. So when you talk "child proofing" you are talking the same thing as covers on the outlets, a fence around the pool and gates across the stairs.
So, an empty chamber and storing above 5 feet high is about as child proof as you need for a semi.
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.
"Willing to buy" is also a lot different from "willing to tolerate it as the only option". Just like any other kind of product, people with guns may have more than one each meant for different purposes or even different people.
I want the rifle used by Marines and the sidearm used by Marines.
If those are "smart guns" then that's cool.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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 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.
Some other things I noticed.
They checked between gun and non-gun owners, but didn't not the proportions, or attempt to determine, like with elections, 'likely gun purchasers'. As they noted, support dropped substantially with gun owners.
Also, they used non-standard terminology and spoke in vague theoreticals - Sure, I'd consider buying a smart gun if they were available. I'd consider buying a self-driving car, if they were available. Neither are yet in a state where they can be commercial sale successes, much less mandated.
Also, for smart guns the use case is currently too limited. For the cost of a smart gun I can buy a regular gun, and a gun safe large enough to hold it and numerous other firearms. Guns that work with gloves, IE RFID, are likely to still fire if I'm struggling with an attacker, and they have their hands on it(though this is rare). Fingerprint scanners are far too easy to foul.
As a matter of course, I assume that if the criminal has any real amount of time with the firearm to work on it that he'll be able to either reprogram it for himself or disable the 'smart' system.
I don't read AC A human right
I fail to see how this makes an argument in favor of smart guns. The situation on the range couldn't have been avoided by one, since the gun was deliberately placed in the child's hand loaded and ready to fire - and she was instructed to do just that.
So how does the self-defense situation work in this scenario? A thug invades your house without notice and then what? Do you get the gun cabinet key out, take out the gun, load the gun only to find that the mugger has already knocked you in the head with his bat? Are you supposed to carry your gun on you at home at all times?
The way "self-defense" works in this scenario is that your realize in the first place that the risk of your child being injured or killed by the loaded gun you leave lying around is far higher than the risk that a "thug invades your house", and you make the rational decision that overall risk reduction takes priority over a thoughtless, brain-stem response to a hypothetical fear.