Slashdot Mirror
White House Releases Report On How To Spur Smart-Gun Technology (computerworld.com)
Lucas123 writes: A report commissioned by the White House involving the Defense, Justice and Homeland Security Departments has begun a process to define, for the first time, the requirements that manufacturers would need to meet for federal, state, and municipal law enforcement agencies to consider purchasing firearms with "smart" safety technology. They've committed to completing that process by October, and will also identify agencies interested in taking part in a pilot program to develop the smart gun technology. The DoD will help manufacturers test smart guns under "real-world conditions" at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center in Maryland. Manufacturers would be eligible to win cash prizes through that program as well. In addition to spurring the adoption of smart gun technology, the report stated that the Social Security Administration has published a proposed rule that would require individuals prohibited from buying a gun due to mental health issues to be included in a background check system.
This administration is about to get a very rude lesson in the difference between their imagination of the market desires for firearms, and the actual expectation of those who use them in the real world.
Firearms as devices have been deliberately pressing for mechanical simplicity and minimal failure points for over 150 years. Adding complex electronics that are potentially vulnerable to deliberate subversion from a distance is a non-starter.
The only police forces that might even consider this are highly politicized ones like NYPD, CHiPS, and the New Jersey State Police. The military will not touch these. They've already done experiments and research on this tech and didn't want to touch it with a 40 foot pole that belonged to somebody they didn't like.
If this tech can't get funded and become mandatory for private citizens even in nations with hideously civilian-disarmament fixated politics like Germany, England, and France, it's going to be a non-starter in the US.
A multitude of ways. Such as not having a round in the chamber, leave the safety on, don't cock the hammer, don't put a finger on the trigger, don't aim the gun at something you don't want a hole in?
I'm curious who gets to define what Mental Health issues are and what disqualifies you...
Right. Per TFA,
The technology was initially developed to prevent police officers' weapons from being grabbed in struggles and used against them.
And how many police officers are using "smart guns," exactly? I might consider trading in my handgun for a "smart" one just as soon as all police officers are willing to do the same. In other words, never going to happen.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
This is the kind of reaction that is generated by placing ideological thought ahead of reality. I'm not bashing you, but I am bashing your idea that "smart" tech on a gun is or should be required. There are multitudes of ways for overengineering to fail and that is the last thing you want in a firearm.
Those avenues have been heavily investigated, largely to the point of exhaustion, some methods going back over 100 years. Most major handgun manufacturers already incorporate mechanical safeties that prevent discharges from dropping (Glock and others), inadvertent snagging on the trigger (Glock, Springfield, Walther, others), and pressure on the trigger without deliberate grip on the weapon (John Browning in 1911). There are also transfer bar safeties for hammer-fired weapons, disconnectors for striker-fired weapons that only disengage when the trigger is deliberately pressed, and others.
The bottom line is that firearms have been an extraordinarily iterative product for over a century and their use has always demanded reliability as an absolute design factor, which has driven development to perfect elegant mechanical simplicity and dependability. There is no widespread desire by their actual users to introduce the kind of added complexity and "usage blockade" functions that are being advocated by this political effort. The impetus for that functionality is entirely political from people who genuinely loathe firearms and intend to make them as difficult, cumbersome, and unreliable to use, because in their warped impression of firearm usage, making guns that way will somehow decrease "gun violence". It's an irrational and fallacious notion with no basis in fact or evidence, but the people who hew to it are powerful, well-financed, and zealous, so it continues despite having no basis in the real world.
I'll rely on a smart gun AFTER the Secret Service, FBI, and all other Federal cops are required to carry them as their primary and backup weapons.
...because in their warped impression of firearm usage, making guns that way will somehow decrease "gun violence". It's an irrational and fallacious notion with no basis in fact or evidence, but the people who hew to it are powerful, well-financed, and zealous, so it continues despite having no basis in the real world.
...and in Michael Bloomberg's case, armed bodyguards.
Look, I agree with you to a point, but that point ends the moment you don't have a defined way that you are put on the "mental health list" as well as a defined way in which you are removed from the "mental health list".
Who defined the list of things which constitute "mental illness" anyway? 40-50 years ago we were calling LBGTs a "mental illness" (heck, many places still do). People with Parkinson or MS were considered "mentially ill" back 60-70 years ago as well. Go back a little more and any strong willed woman was also "mentally ill" ("hysterical"... ever look up the root of that word?).
So my point being, as we gain more knowledge, we have found that more and more of these "mental illnesses" are more societal problems with fears of the "not normal" or have actual physical underlying issues (and as such, a physical illness is then just that, physical, not "mental").
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Which other rights do you support letting these "professionals" veto? Free speech? Voting? Security against unwarranted search and seizure? Fair trial?
See that "Preview" button?
A whole lot of history where Governments have used fear mongering tactics and propaganda to frighten their populace into submission giving up all their means of defense. It's really amazing how many Chinese said "Mao will never turn on his own people.", and how many said "Stalin has the Russian people's needs as a top priority.", and how many Cambodians said "Pol Pot is nothing like that Mao guy", and how many Cubans said "Castro is in favor of the people of Cuba".
Take anything you are told by our current establishment controlled media with a grain of salt, and even then I'd consider it arsenic. You are lied to every day all day by the media. It is really easy to prove, just learn a foreign language and read their news.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
The basic point is that firearms are simple, generally well designed, reliable mechanisms.
Adding all this "smart gun" crap is just going to make them less reliable.
And, again, this will do NOTHING to stop criminals from illegally obtaining firearms that don't have these sort of stupid mechanisms in there to inhibit them.
So, again, you're implementing this to punish law-abiding citizens.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
While police officers would be a good start, I'd wait for the Secret Service to switch over. I look forward to the President putting his money where his mouth is.
"the small increase in risk that the gun may not work seems to be outweighed by the benefits"
Spoken like someone who's never required self-defence, and someone who confuses aggregate population statistics for individualized risk self-assessment.
If you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment you are free to propose that. However, stop trying to find ways to make an end run around actually amending the Constitution in the mean time
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Can you cite where the founding fathers believed it was every man's right to own a horse? No you cannot.
As for freedom of travel, you are free to travel, not owning a car does not stop you from traveling.
Not owning a firearm does preclude you from being part of a "well regulated militia" Now being part of the militia is not a requirement admittedly, being part of one, however, is a right.
See the difference?
No you sniveling quim it does not say that, what it says is that there are certain rights that cannot be infringed upon by the Federal government. That any powers not granted to the Federal government are religated to the states, localities and people.
So you ignorant motherfucker learn what a domain of discourse is, get your fucking head out of your goatse looking ass and lose the entitlement attitude you still birthed remains of a parasitical brain amoeba.
See, two can play the name calling game the difference is the argumentation underlying my statement of the constitution is correct, where yours is flat out wrong.
Mod parent up - smart guns won't change the real problem of stupid gangbangers and clever criminals.
The problem is culture - culture that glorifies misogyny, violence, lack of education, and a victimhood agenda. We need inner city gangbangers to be ashamed that they can't speak proper english, or hold down humble minimum wage jobs, or have kids only when they're married.
It's Cosby time.
So...you think that people who own firearms randomly draw them in public?
Let's educate you for a moment - four rules:
1) treat every firearm as if loaded
2) never point at anything you're not willing to destroy
3) keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot
4) be aware of what is in front of and behind your target
Your fanciful scenario is a violation of #2.
That being said, if a criminal signals their intent to kill someone by drawing a weapon, it is a *good* thing if an armed, law abiding citizen can draw her weapon, take careful aim, be aware of what is in front of and behind her target, and gently squeeze the trigger, placing her shot in center body mass.