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.
I don't think those incidents are anything except illustrations of criminal adult negligence. Their use is to forcefully instruct firearms owners how to secure their weapons in a way appropriate to the circumstances.
What do we do when kids drown in a pool, walk out in traffic, ingest something toxic, or otherwise injure or kill themselves with other inanimate objects due to adult negligence?
We punish the negligent adult.
What is it about the emotional derangement with gun control ideology that somehow imbues franchise to that specific inanimate object and demands IT be changed from an already perfectly functional form, to compensate for blatant human negligence?
You wouldn't be making these suggestions if the kids had stabbed themselves with a loose utility knife, brained themselves with a tire iron, or drank a mouthful of brake fluid.
The gun homicide rate in America is half of what it was 25 years ago. That reduction is most strongly correlated with lower levels of exposures to lead. Some urban areas continue to have high lead exposure, and continue to have high gun homicide rates. Flint, Michigan has a murder rate NINE TIMES the national average. If the politicians want to lower gun violence, they should forget the gimmicks, and focus on what has actually worked: reducing exposure to lead. On average, black kids in America have twice the blood lead levels of white kids. That is a national disgrace. We can fix that problem for a fraction of what we will otherwise spend on prisons.
Because so many snowflakes feel it's necessary to legislate regret by making the inspiration for their poor decisions illegal.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
You're wrong. Most users shoot nobody, for the same reason that most fire insurance policies don't result in fire insurance payments.
Also, when the person being shot is a criminal being shot in self-defense, I don't care to give them a say.
That's the thing. MOST people shot are criminals. (Something like 60% have a criminal history, and around 80% of those know the person that shoots them.)
So called "gun violence" is really "crime violence." Or more specifically, "inner city (run by democrats) black and hispanic gang violence."
If you aren't doing stuff that includes all of those groups (just being black isn't enough to increase your risk) you magically, somehow, mysteriously are very unlikely to get shot.
It's pretty clear the folks pushing this stuff actually WANT those criminals to be shooting each other because they can then be used as tools and voting livestock to further their agenda of _control_.
If you don't believe me, go find one of the many charts that outlines what happens when the data is filtered for criminal activity. The easiest way is to take out Detroit, LA, DC, and Chicago (you don't even have to take you NY anymore) and the numbers drop precipitously... resulting in the USA dropping down to the lower middle of the pack for gun violence for industrialized developed countries.
Not only is the "we can make smart guns to solve this" a goddamn fucking lie, but the narrative democrats push about WHO and WHY there are shootings is also a goddamn fucking lie.
Lastly, there are already 400 million guns (notice, the number is up, people are not falling for this shit and buying them like crazy) and already 20 million of them have been stolen in decades prior so they will continue to float around in the inner city democratically run gang-n-violence centers for decades... where the people that have them are already forbidden by law to have them, where they regularly get caught with them and are simply released (by again, the democratically run justice system in charge of those cities). Where the "folks" there will continue to use them to shoot each other for decades to come.
Smart guns will do nothing to fix what the democrats lie about when they say there is a problem.
There IS a problem. The problem is democrats. democrats that don't give a shit when their kept and fed inner city voting livestock kill each other.
http://tracking-point.com/
Helps you with distance, windage, and operator error. Make it easy for even a novice to take accurate, long shots.
Not something I'd put on a pistol, but if the administration wants to work on tools for improved accuracy, I'm all for it.
Test it with the military and LEO first, and if it works out, civilians will want to emulate it.
I wouldn't because it's safer not to. The stats are really clear. If you try to use your own weapon for self defence your likelihood of being shot dramatically increases.
That's not true at all.
There are two main ways of looking at the statistics. Both have their error rates. The first is to look at people who died by a gun who own a gun. This tends to lead to false positives, as it includes (for example) people who buy a gun but don't use it, as well as people who buy a gun because someone threatened them - they were going to end up shot anyway.
The second approach is to look at people who die by their own gun. This leads to false negatives, as there are indeed cases where drawing a firearm escalates a situation where there would not have been a homicide.
In addition to going with data gathering that includes false positives, the anti-gun crowd tends to lump in suicides in the "firearm deaths" statistics, which leads to more false positives (cases where people were going to kill themselves anyway). They also like to compare only "odds of dying from a firearm" between owners and non-owners, which is of course higher, for exactly the same reason that "odds of dying from a car" is higher when you own a car. The problem with this approach, is that it does not include the chance of self-defence, so it's impossible to have any other outcome. Even though the odds of dying may be lower, the odds of dying from a gun go up.
Recognizing that, even using the pessimistic numbers, you're still almost certainly safer with a firearm than without. Here's why:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/med...
In the US, if you are not a 18-25 year old black male, you are actually safer with a firearm than without. That single segment is responsible for a huge portion of both homicide victims and perpetrators.
In addition, there's also the matter of training. Parents who own pools are more likely to have their kids drown (unsurprisingly). Parents who teach their kids to swim are less likely than those who don't, even if they own a pool (also unsurprisingly). Likewise, the firearm statistics include people who carry that are stupid and untrained. Don't be one of those people, and your odds get even better still.
Likewise, if you have children who don't know how to use firearms, keeping loaded guns around the house makes negligent deaths far more likely. If you don't have kids, you're much safer.
On top of that, whether or not you are safer depends on whether you are likely to be a victim, and how strong you are. My 85 year old grandmother (for example) is not in a position to defend herself from a violent attacker. She has no children in the house whatsoever. For her, a bedside firearm is far, far, far more likely to defend her than to be used against her, as she's already in a position of weakness to any likely attacker.
I prefer to defend myself with gun control and a more equal, fair society
So, you prefer rule of the strong and the many. Good for you. Some of us have been assaulted (and have family members that have been, too). What would you say to rape victims - "just sit back and let it happen"? Scream, and hope he gives up? Guess what, he didn't.
On balance, that seems to work better than the American model.
If you subtract the black population, the firearms homicide rate is on the higher end of Europe. If you subtract the Hispanic population, the rate is closer to the low end of Europe.
The US doesn't have a gun problem. It has a minorities with guns problem.