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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I'm pretty sure 40% of Americans aren't single-issue voters about guns.
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.
That kind of statement, which is far from reality, is rooted in the inability to understand that a very large number of thoughtful, educated, and engaged citizens are against gun control. It makes those that are for it feel better about themselves, I suppose.
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."
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.
inability to understand that a very large number of thoughtful, educated, and engaged citizens are against gun control.
You can't be thoughtful or educated if you really believe that individuals should be able to be armed at all times. Basic literacy precludes that idea.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
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.
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),