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.

Comments

Errrrrrr, NO

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

NO, I do not want a gun that relies on a battery.

When I pull the trigger I want it to go "bang" instead of displaying a "low battery" message.

No thanks.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the kind of reaction that is generated by a lack of thought. I'm not bashing you, but I am bashing your idea that "smart" tech on a gun requires electronics. There are multitudes of ways to make it more difficult to accidentally discharge a weapon. Mechanical logic, being just one example.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Drethon]

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?

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[epyT-R]

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.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[He Who Has No Name]

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.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Rick Zeman]

...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.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[drinkypoo]

My gun is designed to be carried 'cocked and locked', you insensitive clod!

It does have more safeties than are actually even necessary, though, and one of them is a common point of failure, so the rush towards additional safeties has already made my firearm less reliable.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Chas]

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.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Anonymous Coward]

He Who has no name said
"There is no widespread desire by their actual users..."
But what about the other people involved in gun use? The "usees?" What do they want? To make it more or less likely to be shot.
A usee in this case are the people shot at, or actually shot. I think, correct my logic if I'm wrong, that since some users shoot more than one person, there are more usees than users. Unless this is countered by more than one user shooting one usee. The later is common when the police are the users, but I'm making an education guess based on news reports that one gunmen are much more common that gang/group users.

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[sims 2]

Sounds like the deal with smart phones.
They have yet to make one that also works as a phone.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Jiro]

A usee in this case are the people shot at, or actually shot. I think, correct my logic if I'm wrong, that since some users shoot more than one person, there are more usees than users.

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.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Can't drive a car without wearing seat belts, can't sell a car without seat belts, but you can buy revolvers with no safety and no hammer. That is kind of messed up.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Anonymous Coward]

No hammer on a revolver? Does the bullet fire by magic?

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't drive a car without wearing seat belts, can't sell a car without seat belts, but you can buy revolvers with no safety and no hammer. That is kind of messed up.

Don't know your $locale, but here you can both drive and sell a car without seat belts, if it was manufactured before seat belts became mandatory.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[fche]

"Can't drive a car without wearing seat belts, ..."

That is an act of oppression. The nanny state is protecting you from yourself, which it should not do.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Alumoi]

No, no, no, we don't want to 'punish' law-abiding citizens. We just want them to have less than reliable firearms as it seems we can't stop them from having them.
You know, just in case the sheep... erm, the citizens wake up.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[fche]

"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.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Hylandr]

Way to deliberately misunderstand the statement.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Hylandr]

I would love to see what kind of safeties the Ministry of Magic tries to legislate for Wands that might fall into innocent or not so innocent muggle hands.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Hylandr]

Because so many snowflakes feel it's necessary to legislate regret by making the inspiration for their poor decisions illegal.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[He Who Has No Name]

There are "hammerless" revolvers that have no exposed hammer, and I believe there is at least one striker-fired revolver design.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[jafiwam]

A usee in this case are the people shot at, or actually shot. I think, correct my logic if I'm wrong, that since some users shoot more than one person, there are more usees than users.

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.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[jafiwam]

I knew YOU would show up.

No.

There is NOT a statistically significant chance you could be shot in a situation "like a toddler" where a smart gun would save you.

Go get those numbers, and come back here. And I'll point out where you are lying.

Incidentally, those "toddler shoots parent" stories are in the news because they are NOT usual.

Meanwhile, in Chicago, convicted criminals shot one another at a rate of tens per day. Don't you care about black criminals AimiMoo?

Racist.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[fche]

"I prefer to defend myself with gun control and a more equal, fair society."

Where is this bastion of equality and fairness where violent crime does not occur?

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[Izuzan]

How do you think a mechanical one is going to work to prevent someone else from using them. A key ?
Or go to electronic where you run into battery problems and electronics and wireing connections not standing up to the recoil ?

So how do you figgure it will help ?

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[drinkypoo]

The stats are really clear. If you try to use your own weapon for self defence your likelihood of being shot dramatically increases.

The actual question is whether it increases your risk of injury or death. People who are attacked are more likely to use their weapon for self-defense. If they had a knife, they'd be more likely to have it taken away from them and used against them than if they didn't have a knife, too. But that's not really interesting, because if you don't have a knife, you're also likely to get beaten instead of stabbed, and you can certainly beat someone to death. The same is true of a gun... if you have a gun, you may have it taken away from you and get shot with it, instead of stabbed by your attacker which is also deadly. Not really interesting or useful.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Attila Dimedici]

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

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Attila Dimedici]

Others have argued the flaws in your logic. However, the KEY flaw is that "smart" tech is used in current discussions to refer to electronics. By using the word "smart" Obama was clearly referring to some sort of electronics to prevent the gun from firing.

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[Imrik]

I imagine electronic, with the identification system failing, causing the gun not to fire and allowing the criminal to overpower the cop. The criminal will then leave the gun because it didn't even work for the person for whom it was supposed to work.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[fche]

"The nanny state is also providing the roads and underwriting the health"

So wait, are you suggesting that because taxes are extracted from us to pay for roads & the socialized health care system, we should therefore be considered subjects of the state, so we don't burden it too much, and don't take advantage of all that "universal" service?

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[yuriklastalov]

And where does it say that "Anything not mentioned as a right in the constitution is not a right"?

Oh, right... IT SAYS THE EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE! GOLLY GEE WHIZ! Looky here, another deluded authoritarian statist douchebag. Go die in a fire you twat.

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Or hypocritical celebrities like Sylvester Stallone having a concealed carry while preaching that the common man shouldn't be allowed to, after all he's much more important than the rest of us.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Rather than rejecting it outright, why not look at the stats and think about how this could actually work for a moment.

I'm not rejecting it outright. I've carried every day for over 30 years, and I've thought about this sort of thing far more than you know. Where do you come up with the notion that I've never considered this idea?

-

So on balance, the small increase in risk that the gun may not work seems to be outweighed by the benefits.

No offense, but what part of "I do not want a gun that relies on a battery" seemed unclear?

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Spoken like someone who's never required self-defence, and someone who confuses aggregate population statistics for individualized risk self-assessment.

Exactly. I love how those who don't carry or even own a firearm always feel compelled to pontificate on the subject self-defense as if they were experts.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

If you try to use your own weapon for self defence your likelihood of being shot dramatically increases.

So begging, "Please don't kill me or rape my wife" works better than shooting your attacker? How does that work, exactly?

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Where is this bastion of equality and fairness where violent crime does not occur?

It's between Happy Unicorn Land and Rainbow City. You know, just across the River of Love & Sunshine, right next to Free Candyville.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[hey!]

Speaking as a someone who's actually developed products that were successful in the market, this is not the right way to think about a technology. A technology has to meet some identifiable group's self-identified needs, not necessarily what everyone needs, or especially not what you think they should need.

At one end of the spectrum there are people who could use a handgun but don't because the danger of having a handgun taken from them and used against them. For example, prison guards. At the other end of the spectrum are people who routinely carry firearms in situations where daily maintenance is a challenge. For example deployed officers in places like Afghanistan.

On either end of the spectrum the smart gun question is easy. But most people who want to carry a gun fall in between those extremes; they have to weigh the probability that they'll actually pull the trigger and get a "click" against the probability that someone other than them will pull the trigger. There's likely no one-size-fits-all answer.

Now there's a marketing problem though, in that people are demonstrably irrational in their weapons choices. I've seen arguments that for personal self defense you need to carry an automatic with an eighteen round magazine, plus a spare magazine, plus a backup gun. I've seen some people claim that one ought to carry at least forty rounds to be adequately protected. This is fantasy, but nobody dares to say so. Statistically when handguns are used in self-defense seldom are more than one or two shots are fired. I think one would be hard pressed to find a single instance where any law-abiding citizen has had to fire more than three or four rounds in self-defense. On top of that if you're a law-abiding citizen your chance of needing to fire even a single shot is comparable to your chances of winning the lottery. Given all that the most practical weapon for most people would be a small to medium caliber double-action revolver -- especially if you buy the "I want to make sure this goes bang in a hurry" argument. In the astronomically unlikely case you need to fire four or five shots, it's less likely to jam. But despite this people choose automatic pistols with high capacity double stack magazines.

What this tells me is the self-defense handgun market is driven by the need to feel safe, not by any statistically defensible notion of what it takes to be safe. It's also clear to me that the feeling of empowerment people get by arming themselves is an important marketing factor too. I have nothing against that, by the way. If it makes you feel safer and more powerful to carry a gun, I don't have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with people carrying if they can't be bothered to inspect their weapon and secure it properly every time they arm themselves.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[hsthompson69]

How about microstamping the four rules on every slide? :)

1. Treat every firearm as if it is loaded
2. Don't point at anything you're not willing to destroy
3. Don't put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire
4. Be aware of what is in front of and behind your target

That's smart :)

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[hsthompson69]

Revolvers with shrouded hammers have heavy trigger pulls to avoid negligent discharge.

That being said, you should only carry it in a holster that prevents accessing the trigger - *that* is your safety.

So, maybe we shouldn't sell revolvers without holsters - I'm good with that.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[hsthompson69]

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.

NAACP representatives weren't laughing during Bill Cosby's remarks Monday night at a D.C. gala commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Cosby, who was honored for his massive donations to black colleges, had organizers gasping when he contrasted the '60s civil-rights pioneers with some of today's African-Americans.

"These people marched and were hit in the face with rocks to get an education, and now we've got these knuckleheads walking around," he declared. "The lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids - $500 sneakers for what? And won't spend $200 for 'Hooked on Phonics.'

"I can't even talk the way these people talk: 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth!"

Turning to criminal justice, he said, "These are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake and then we run out and we are outraged, saying, 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand?"

Cosby's blunt appraisal left Howard University President H. Patrick Swygert and NAACP President Kweisi Mfume looking "stone-faced," The Washington Post reports. Theodore Shaw, head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, was quick to tell the crowd that most people on welfare are not black.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[hsthompson69]

I've carried every day for over 30 years

Thank you. I hope you never have had to draw, and I hope you never will, but thank you for being ready to.

As someone who doesn't live in a free state, my personal options have been limited, but I'm hoping things change with Peruta.

Thank you again.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[fche]

"No, by requiring YOU to wear seat belts, the state is protecting ME from the elevated legal (and psychological) consequences of having killed someone in a car accident"

What a fascinating theory.

By that reasoning, would you also support mandating that pedestrians be encased in crash-absorbent giant balls when they cross a street? That bikes be prohibited? That you wear peril-sensitive sunglasses (q.v.)? Or just that after any crash, you remain in your car, eyes tightly shut, ears tightly covered, yelling "la la la la la" at the top of your lungs, so your fragile constitution won't have to fend with the reality outside?

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[karmatic]

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.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

At one end of the spectrum there are people who could use a handgun but don't because the danger of having a handgun taken from them and used against them.

I understand there are niche applications for this kind of thing. At the same time, it may not be appropriate for general use. For example, what if someone wants/needs to be able to hand their firearm to their wife or son or daughter (or even a complete stranger) to be used in an emergency? What if that person isn't "registered" in the firearm's memory or authorized user list?

This might be a great application for prison guards and similar environments, but the problem is that many see this as a cure-all for gun violence in general, and it's not.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I've carried every day for over 30 years

Thank you. I hope you never have had to draw, and I hope you never will, but thank you for being ready to.

As someone who doesn't live in a free state, my personal options have been limited, but I'm hoping things change with Peruta.

Thank you again.

Thank you for understanding what personal carry is all about.

I've only had to display my firearm once in 30+ years, and fortunately I've never had to fire it. To be honest, shooting someone is the very last thing I ever want to do.

It's not just for my safety- I would definitely come to the aid of anyone who needed help, and sadly that's the thing that so many people simply do not understand. Most people think it's some macho kind of dick-waving or tough-guy thing, but it's just the opposite. I avoid trouble whenever I possibly can and using my sidearm would be a case of absolute last resort, basically when I have no other options.

A personal firearm shouldn't be something that gets pulled out and waved around over an argument about a parking spot or because someone is talking shit, it's for use when imminent harm is about to occur. It's not to protect property, it's a means of preventing personal harm or injury, and that's that.

As for me, I'm one of the mildest, politest, soft-spoken guys you'd ever meet. I don't start trouble, I don't start shit, I don't take offense at every little thing and then feel like I gotta be the bad ass dude with a gun to "settle a score". No, I'm the guy standing quietly in line next to you at the supermarket, or taking a walk through my neighborhood, or just going about my business. I carry concealed and don't flaunt or display my firearm, I don't make a show of having one, and some people that have literally known me for years have no idea I carry.

Fortunately I live in Washington state where a concealed carry license is available to most people. There are a *lot* of people who carry in WA state, you'd probably be surprised at just how many. I just found out that one of the bank tellers at my bank also carries. She's a nice little old lady, not someone you'd ever suspect of carrying (I didn't and I've known her for 5 or 6 years).

Thank you again for understanding what personal carry is all about.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[hey!]

Well, the cure-all for gun violence seems to be (in the large part) to ignore it. Your chance of suffering from it has gone down across the developed world regardless of gun ownership rates, which have gone up in the US and down in other places.

If you believe in evidence based approaches then there doesn't seem to be any grand, overarching scheme needed to achieve overall reduction in gun violence. Specific measures for specific situations (e.g. school shootings) are of course a different measure; what's needed in aggregate isn't necessarily the same as what's needed in some specific situation. And Grass Range Montana doesn't necessarily need the same measures as the Bronx.

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I do like the magnetic ring design, though.

And what if you're injured and your wife needs to use it to save your life? Just tell her (in the heat of a close quarters assault), "Here, put this ring on, quick!"

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[Toonol]

The constitution made it expressly clear that the federal government had no ability to restrict individuals from owning a horse. It was silent on the ability of states to restrict horse ownership.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Toonol]

For example, you have more to fear from toddlers with guns than from terrorists.

Counts? For example, how many killed by toddlers between 2010 and 2015, compared to terrorism?

Your feelings of moral superiority and fervent desires do not allow you to disregard facts.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Chas]

Note that I said "almost nothing".

Not "nothing".

And that's assuming that such technology is foolproof (which is highly optimistic). Most fingerprint readers used in setups like this tend to be rather inexact and thus easily bypassed.

And if it's chipped so that it won't work except in proximity to a mated fob of some kind, well, if the two of them are wrestling around for the gun, how close is it to said fob? *BANG!*

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Agripa]

Since I have been pulled over for not wearing a seat belt even though I was and the officer just needed an excuse, the real rule is different than you describe.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[goose-incarnated]

The stats are really clear.

They really are, over the last three decades: Violent crime has fallen while handgun ownership has risen. Tell us all - how do you manage to reconcile your worldview when the facts are in direct opposition to your position on any subject?

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[Hognoxious]

I've seen the passage (or something similar) before. Tipping Point or Freakanomics, something like that.

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[ShanghaiBill]

Maybe we should consider removing the lead from bullets to improve the situation?

America bans lead shotgun pellets for hunting waterfowl. Some states ban lead shot for all types of hunting. Steel shot is used instead. But so far none ban lead from rifle or pistol ammo. There are some proposals to replace the lead with bismuth, and some bismuth based shot and bullets are available.

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[techabuse]

I solve this problem on double action revolvers by leaving one chamber empty. First trigger pull is a dry fire.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Bartles]

Right. And clearly no firearms company has ever put safety features on guns.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Bartles]

I'll tell you how it works. Some enterprising company makes a cool gun that identifies the owner and locks out everyone else. They do it without grants, loans, or regulatory subsidies. Then i decide if I want to buy it or not. Done.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[jellomizer]

The thing is a Gun designed for self defense needs to be designed in hopes that you will never need to use it. But if you do it will function as needed.
Smart Guns makes sense in theory, but if the battery dies because such a gun had been sitting idle for months or years. Or your "Mechanical Logic" which would mean either a large weapon, or a lot of fine tuning to make an unpredictable gun.

Controlling gun violence in't an easy fix where a few laws solve all the problems.
1. Gun usage and safety education is necessary. Teach this stuff in schools. If a child learns to respect the gun at an early age, there is less of a chance of them being irresponsible with the weapon when they are in their teens and early adult where their judgement centers are in flux.
2. Insuring that irresponsible people do not have guns. Punishment for irresponsible gun usage.

Those who live in cities or suburban areas see guns as a weapon. Those who live in more rural areas see guns as tools.

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[kwbauer]

Until criminals realize that a screwdriver and hammer allow them to tear the gun down to the point the electromechanical "lockout" can be removed so that the smart gun is now an ordinary dumb gun and usable by anyone. Seriously, how stupid are people to not understand how easy it will be to circumvent the technology?

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[kwbauer]

Exactly. Nobody wants them. Police officers do not want them. Soldiers do not want them. Obama's bodyguards do not want them. Why should anyone else want them?

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[slazzy]

Special snowflake logic seems to write the laws these days.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[jedidiah]

> If you try to use your own weapon for self defence your likelihood of being shot dramatically increases.

If you think you need one, chances are that you are going to be a victim of violent crime with or without the gun.

> with gun control and a more equal, fair society.

Good luck with that as you seem intent on importing large numbers of people unwilling or unable to assimilate into your society.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[jedidiah]

> Iceland.

About the size of any number of US municipalities that have plenty of guns and as much physical safety or equality while being LESS homogeneous.

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[jedidiah]

...because it matters so much just how you became a victim and the fact that you're a victim at all is irrelevant.

If your neighbor isn't an animal, you don't have to worry about him shooting you, beating you, burglarizing your house, or setting your car on fire.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[jedidiah]

My opinion on this subject is not out of hand dismissal.

I want to carry the same weapons as the Marines. That means the same rifle as they carry and the same sidearm. If those are "smart" guns, then I'm fine with that.

I don't view Judge Dredd devices as a means to sidestep the law and deprive other people of their rights.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[jedidiah]

If you are some cowering affluent bleeding heart, you are more likely to get bitten by a dog than shot. You are also more likely to get struck by lightning or contract some rare disease.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[drinkypoo]

So wait, are you suggesting that because taxes are extracted from us to pay for roads & the socialized health care system, we should therefore be considered subjects of the state, so we don't burden it too much, and don't take advantage of all that "universal" service?

If you were as great as you think you are, you'd have your own roads, with hookers and blackjack.

It's inconvenient for everyone when you splatter yourself across a public road. At minimum, if you are thrown free from the vehicle, someone else may have to suffer the emotional trauma of removing you from the gene pool by running over you. That's not fair to them. Wear your seat belt.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[AmiMoJo]

OT so feel free to mod me down, but this is a great example of the cancer that is destroying Slashdot. My post is modded to -1 Troll. Clearly it's not trolling, it's stating a genuine opinion that isn't even controversial outside of the US. It's got a lot of good responses, most of whom took it in the spirit it was intended.

Slashdot has always had a problem with people using down-mods as -1 Disagree, or getting personally offended at arguments that go against their person beliefs. It's time the moderation system was altered so that down mods were much less powerful. Perhaps make it so that a single up-mod results in a minimum score, or dramatically reduces the value of down-mods.

At the moment people are using -1 mods are their personal censorship tools.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[turbidostato]

It's funny how you got modded "+4 Insightful" for an obviety while I got modded down "troll" for another one. It is as if having a constitutional right to own guns was not an "ideological thought".

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[fche]

"someone else may have to suffer the emotional trauma"

Amazing, this reliance on someone else's "emotional trauma" as a reason to override simple freedoms. You really don't see what crazy implications that has?

Self-defence? outlawed - after all, a passer-by might see violence and blood.

Curtains on windows? outlawed - after all, someone might get emotional trauma from not being able to spy.

Curtains on windows? mandated - after all, someone else might feel inferior after spying.

The mind boggles that anyone could seriously think someone else's feelings should override freedoms.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Attila Dimedici]

It is not an "ideological thought" to believe that the 2nd Amendment says that people have the right to own guns. Which therefore means that it is not an "ideological thought" that one has the constitutional right to own guns.
If you had said that the idea that the 2nd Amendment should not be repealed was an "ideological thought", you would have been correct.

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[Izuzan]

or the Criminal realizes it wont go off, and beats the cop to death with the now relatively heavy steel club in his hand.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[lsatenstein]

NO, I do not want a gun that relies on a battery.

When I pull the trigger I want it to go "bang" instead of displaying a "low battery" message.

No thanks.

I am grateful that I live in a peaceful country that does not require me to keep a handgun or machine gun at home for defence. In fact we don't have the right to have handguns, unless we are in an employment situation that requires one or can justify owning one. Hunting rifle ownership is permitted, if the owner has a license. (Hopefully, the license for the gun will include the providing of a sample fired bullet and shell.)

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[lsatenstein]

My gun is designed to be carried 'cocked and locked', you insensitive clod!

It does have more safeties than are actually even necessary, though, and one of them is a common point of failure, so the rush towards additional safeties has already made my firearm less reliable.

And you did not mention that it is kept away from the kids.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I am grateful that I live in a peaceful country that does not require me to keep a handgun or machine gun at home for defence.

Me too. There's no requirement that I keep a firearm, but unlike in your country, I have the freedom to do so if I want to.

-

In fact we don't have the right to have handguns

That's too bad that you and your fellow citizens don't have the freedom to do what you want. To be frank, I'd hardly count the lack of rights as a "win".

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[rpstrong]

Let's hope not, or you're leaving the hammer on a live round.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[turbidostato]

"It is not an "ideological thought" to believe that the 2nd Amendment says that people have the right to own guns."

It isn't. That's a fact.

But the thought that there must be a 2nd Amendment and therefore, that there's an intrinsic right to own guns of any kind (much more so above rights to own anything else so it has to have special recognition in any Constitution) *is* an ideological thought.

In fact, the answers I received by making an obvious statement makes my point painfully obvious.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Attila Dimedici]

Your original post was most certainly a troll, even if it was a call for repeal of the 2nd Amendment, because you were calling out as "ideological thought ahead of reality" someone who said that the idea of requiring "smart" tech on a gun was a bad idea (for most uses of a gun, "smart" tech is a bad idea because it introduces at least one more potential point of failure in a system where failure is life threatening).

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[GungaDan]

"you're leaving the hammer on a live round." which hasn't been a problem in a double-action revolvers for eons now. Hell the vast majority of single action revolvers have transfer bar safeties now to make hammer-down-on-loaded round perfectly safe.

I'd worry more about the dry-fire first trigger pull in a situation where defensive use is required. Double-tap through heavy DAO trigger pull is tough to do with any accuracy.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[beastofburdon]

I fully agree. The government has no right to tell me what I have to do to protect myself. It does have the right to tell manufacturers to include a safety feature such as a seatbelt, but it has no place telling me I have to use it.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[fche]

"It does have the right to tell manufacturers to include a safety feature"

Well, let's not use the word "right" for that sort of thing. It's a "power" they've given themselves via the commerce clause and pieties. IMO even that particular power is questionable. By forcing particular safety features, e.g., they are smothering competition in relation to alternative safety features that the market may demand.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[beastofburdon]

I'll concede that.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[fche]

Thanks!

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[beastofburdon]

From the way our police act we need their guns to have a voice activated safety that does not release the safety for at least 30 seconds after the cop says "stop or I'll shoot".

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[beastofburdon]

Precisely.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[beastofburdon]

Particularly the remote kill switches.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[beastofburdon]

Nope. Yuppies are almost universally against gun ownership.

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[sfsp]

> Not owning a firearm does preclude you from being part of a "well regulated militia"

Errrrrrr, NO.

According to US law, you probably ARE in the militia. If you are an able-bodied male, 17-45 years of age, and are or intend to become a citizen, or you are a female in the National Guard, YOU ARE THE MILITIA.

See "10 U.S. Code  311 - Militia: composition and classes"

"UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

                                Ãf 311. Militia: composition and classes

                                (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

                                (b) The classes of the militia are --

                                (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;

                                and

                                (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

As a member of the national militia, do you own a weapon or weapons similar to standard military issue, and are you familiar and proficient with their operation and maintenance?

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[beastofburdon]

I'm really starting to wonder if you are just a second account for cold fjord. You are certainly the same type of bootlicking coward.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[beastofburdon]

They stick their fingers in their ears and pretend the facts are on their side.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[beastofburdon]

Have you ever noticed how almost all of the authoritarians are extremely racist?

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[beastofburdon]

The problem with such devices is that they will have a way to disable them from a distance, wether it be a built-in method or just a frequency that disrupts the communication between the gun and what it is paired with. If the government can disable your weapon then it is useless.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[beastofburdon]

I'm perfectly fine with this, but if it becomes mandated, or mysteriously all the guns being sold start having such which cannot be easily removed, then it is time to use our guns to eliminate a corrupt government.

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[Coren22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Is that so the target thinks "ooo pretty" just before having their head removed? Also, from reading about it, it looks like bismuth shatters instead of lead expanding, wouldn't this cause interesting issues in ammo?

What does bismuth ammo look like? If it was bismuth oxide, you could probably sell it to rednecks easily as they always seem to go for the pretty rainbow knives.

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[Coren22]

Just buy your wife her own gun...

I have seen open carrying women (southern Virginia, in a supermarket). I am sure there are many concealed carry women around as well. Or is your wife to fragile to carry her own firearm?

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Coren22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/26/...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Yeah, show how it is done Australia and Venezuela!

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Just buy your wife her own gun...

Oh I've tried, believe me. I've offered to get her one of those cute, hot-pink Ruger LCP 380's to no avail.

-

Or is your wife to fragile to carry her own firearm?

No, it's more of a cultural thing with her. She's from SE Asia and although she's not against guns per se, they're just not her thing.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[turbidostato]

"Your original post was most certainly a troll"

It wasn't. It was just stating the rational flaw on the parent's underlying argument by showing how unacceptable it became (to him) by just changing the subject on its very own sentence.

Of course "smart guns" are pushed by a political agenda (aka "ideological thought"); my point was that "the unalienable right to bear arms" is *also* pushed by a political agenda (aka "ideological thought"), which means "ideological thought" cannot be brought into the argument one way or the other.

On a side note, the responses to my message show clearly how irrational some USA people come to be when "their" second amendment enters on stage, which is funny, since this kind of people usually are the kind of the Republican this, the Constitution Fathers that, conveniently forgetting that the 2nd Amendment is exactly that: an amendment -it didn't came brand new with their Holy Constitution, which should be a clear indication that "the unalienable right to bear arms" maybe is unalienable, but it certainly is not obvious, or else it would have been right there, in the first version of the document. Maybe that's why I looked like a troll since for the one that can't think clearly, any argument against his preconception probably will look like " inflammatory, extraneous and made with the intention of upsetting people" to his eyes.

Re:Errrrrrr, NO

[Attila Dimedici]

Yes, the "unalienable right to bear arms" is pushed by a political agenda...the political agenda who thinks the U.S. Constitution is a pretty good document for governing a country. On the other hand, those who want to do away with that right rarely, if ever, actually come out and SAY what they think of the U.S. Constitution. Which is that it is that it is terrible because it is designed to allow people to live their lives free of government interference. You appear to be one of the latter.

You clearly have no understanding about how the U.S. Constitution came to be. The first Ten Amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) were incorporated into the Constitution in order to overcome some of the opposition to ratifying it. In other words, without the first ten amendments the Constitution would have never been ratified by enough states to go into force. Further, the only reason the Bill of Rights was not included in the Constitution as it came out of the Constitutional Convention was because the bulk of the representatives at the Convention were afraid that the rights thus laid out would be seen as the extent of the rights citizens had, rather than just the most important ones in the eyes of the Framers of the Constitution. Everyone at the Constitutional Convention agreed with the rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, some of them just thought that enumerating them was a bad idea.

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[Coren22]

That gun is adorable, it needs hello kitty stickers all over it :)

I can understand the cultural issue, I just wonder if in the situation her response would be to grab a gun, as culture is pretty ingrained.

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I can understand the cultural issue, I just wonder if in the situation her response would be to grab a gun, as culture is pretty ingrained.

That's a good question....I don't know about her, but one time we took her mom to the gun store to do a little browsing. (Keep in mind that in Cambodia, citizens can't own guns, period. Police and military only.)

Up to now her mom's experience with guns was limited to having them pointed at her by angry Khmer Rouge soldiers while she was being death-marched to one of Pol Pot's concentration camps (yes, she was one of the people swept up and marched at gunpoint into a concentration camp when he came to power).

We pulled a Remington 870 Express Tactical off the shelf and let her hold it....now, having one pointed at you and being the one pointing it are two very different things, and it was clear as day that if she'd had an 870 to point at the Khmer Rouge back in April 1975, she would have used it to good effect. She would have blasted the fucking shit out of the Khmer Rouge all day long. She probably wouldn't have even taken a bathroom break.

She also liked the Benelli M4 Tactical Shotgun with the pistol grip. If she'd had one of those I can guarantee you that there would have been a pile of dead Khmer Rouge soldiers a dozen high at the door to her home in Phnom Penh.

Re: Errrrrrr, NO

[rpstrong]

"you're leaving the hammer on a live round." which hasn't been a problem in a double-action revolvers for eons now. Hell the vast majority of single action revolvers have transfer bar safeties now to make hammer-down-on-loaded round perfectly safe.

Agreed, and the same applies to autos. I have no problem carrying my .45 (Mk IV, series 80) "cocked and locked".

But did you call out single actions here for a reason? My understanding was that the laws applied equally to double actions.

I'd worry more about the dry-fire first trigger pull in a situation where defensive use is required. Double-tap through heavy DAO trigger pull is tough to do with any accuracy.

I think you're referring to single/double actions autos here. not revolvers. Unless, of course, you're firing a Mateba Autorevolver.

Do police and military use them?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll do what they do.

Re:Do police and military use them?

[Motherfucking Shit]

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.

Re:Do police and military use them?

[flatt]

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.

Re:Do police and military use them?

[Firethorn]

And how many police officers are using "smart guns," exactly?

It depends on whether you'd consider the 'Magna-trigger' system to be a 'smart gun'. If not, 0%. If so, under 0.01%. I put the criteria in there because the only deployed 'authentication' system for firearms is a modification to some S&W revolvers, and maybe a few 1911s.

The trick is though, is that the safety is about as much of an authentication as the keys to paper towel dispensers. All it consists of is a magnetic ring worn on the hand - and that ring will unlock every single magna-trigger out there. So if a police officer's partner has a ring, he can fire his partner's gun. If the crook has or takes the magnetic ring, he can do as well. To be fair, the system is older than me.

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.

Exactly. What really irks me about the NJ law is that the police are specifically *exempt* from the law, when the police are the ones with actual statistics for being killed by their own weapons outside of suicide!

Re:Do police and military use them?

[Agripa]

Exactly. What really irks me about the NJ law is that the police are specifically *exempt* from the law, when the police are the ones with actual statistics for being killed by their own weapons outside of suicide!

Police are always exempted from these laws. They are also exempted from the firearm "roster" laws.

Re:Do police and military use them?

[beastofburdon]

If such are mass produced I'd give it less than a month before someone figures out how to disable every one of these guns within half a mile using off the shelf parts that fit in a small backpack or briefcase. The government knows this, in fact it is the main reason they want this technology in your gun, but not theirs.

Re:Do police and military use them?

[Mike Van Pelt]

My across the board gun control proposal:

If the police can have them, law-abiding citizens are free to have them too, no exceptions, at all, period.

If law-abiding citizens are not free to have them, then the police can't have them either, no exceptions, at all, period.

LOL WTF no.

[He Who Has No Name]

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.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[bugs2squash]

I've read a few recent stories about kids firing their parents' gun while they were in the back of the car (a couple of them shooting their mothers at least). I would think that incidents like that should weigh on the matter. Then there's legislation and litigation - if your kid shoots someone, did you take reasonable steps to prevent it...

Re:LOL WTF no.

[fustakrakich]

Adding complex electronics that are potentially vulnerable to deliberate subversion from a distance is a non-starter.

Really, you grab the remote and the gun goes off.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[KiloByte]

Except in the US you have a lying {b,w}itch that's quite certain to be the next president, and she's hell-bent on making this mandatory even if the tech doesn't work -- especially if it doesn't work, as long as it fails the "gun doesn't fire" way.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[He Who Has No Name]

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.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[He Who Has No Name]

Hopefully she'll be indicted here shortly for high crimes with national intelligence, and we can finally watch all her decades of prior crimes catch up with her in karmic glory.

The alternative is having a female version of George W with a slightly different set of political connections at the helm for 8 years... Yecchh.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[Motherfucking Shit]

I've read a few recent stories about kids firing their parents' gun while they were in the back of the car (a couple of them shooting their mothers at least). I would think that incidents like that should weigh on the matter.

It already does weigh on the matter. Store your gun irresponsibly and you or your loved one might get shot (and even killed) by your own child, there's your punishment. In the most recent case I believe the lady's boyfriend left his firearm under his car seat and the child found it while the girlfriend was driving. The boyfriend should and most likely will be charged. No new laws or technology needed.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[Orgasmatron]

We learned that you ghouls have no shame and that there is absolutely no tragedy that you are unwilling to gleefully spin to your political aims. That count?

Re:LOL WTF no.

[drinkypoo]

Hopefully she'll be indicted here shortly for high crimes with national intelligence, and we can finally watch all her decades of prior crimes catch up with her in karmic glory.

The DoJ is essentially controlled by the president. The current president is not about to do that. She is not going to do it to herself. So... don't hold your breath. I'd like to see it too, but I'm not expecting to.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[drinkypoo]

It already does weigh on the matter. Store your gun irresponsibly and you or your loved one might get shot (and even killed) by your own child, there's your punishment.

Yes, but alas, sometimes they kill someone who is not a member of the family, and shouldn't have to bear responsibility for their parents' stupidity. So-called 'smart guns' are not a great idea anyway, but there's still a problem with your argument.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[SirSlud]

And boy did that lady and that child get punished good!

Re:LOL WTF no.

[Anonymous Coward]

We learned that you ghouls have no shame and that there is absolutely no tragedy that you are unwilling to gleefully spin to your political aims. That count?

People are responsible for their own choices and actions. The fact that some people are irresponsible is not justification for the abrogation of our constitutional rights.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[PinkyGigglebrain]

Apple:oranges.

Cars are for transportation and therefor need to be safe. Guns are for killing and therefor need to be deadly.

You weaken your argument by using invalid analogies.

Idiots + cars kill people.
idiots + guns kill people.

Consider that Switzerland has about the same gun ownership rate as the USA but less than half the gun homicide rate. Why? Partly its the culture, the rest is because they have, and enforce, laws about gun training, gun and ammo storage. Don't store your gun/ammo correctly or fail a training refresher you loose your guns.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[He Who Has No Name]

Your analogy would be valid if somebody was reacting to street racing deaths (human behavior) by shouting for speed governors that prevented speeds above the speed limit, tiny gas tank sizes (to require more frequent fuel stops), and convoluted electronic interlocks that had to be painstakingly disabled every time you wanted to use the full performance of a "unregulated racing car" (aka, anything more powerful and sporty than a Nissan Leaf).

There absolutely have been deep investigations of defective and faulty firearm designs. Look at the investigation that was done following the disastrous budget-oriented changes to the M-16 technical data package after the DoD adopted the initial Eugene Stoner design from Armalite (later Colt). The M1911, Browning's masterpiece, was almost entirely a response to the performance and technical failures of existing US Army handguns in the Philippines against the Islamic Moros. The list goes on.

Firearms designers have been very rapid to iterate on failures that are legitimately because of design or technical flaws. They'll even incorporate human factor issues in the designs. But they have absolutely no obligation to purposefully hobble and mangle a sound design based on logical fallacies that claim the changes will somehow (we're not sure how) reduce human negligence.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[Jiro]

Just like sick fuckers who spin the tragedy of terrorism into a crackdown on Constitutional rights in the name of stopping terrorism.

Which of course is a real thing, and one that I hope you're opposed to.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[damn_registrars]

That surprises me not at all here that my comment was swiftly moderated down while your comment - which appears to be the product of not even reading my comment in its entirety - was moderated up through the stratosphere.

Please, tell me, why do you support irresponsibility? I thought gun owners were supposed to be responsible? Why are they not held to any kind of responsibility when they leave loaded unlocked weapons lying around and people die as a result?

If I leave the keys in the ignition of my car with the doors unlocked and someone steals it I can be held liable for what that person does with it. Why do we not hold gun owners to the same minimum level of responsibility?

I recognize that the overwhelming majority of gun owners - myself included - are responsible with their weapons. They keep them on their person or securely locked up at all times. I don't care how many weapons you want to own, as long as you are responsible with them. However when someone is irresponsible with their weapons I believe there should be consequences.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[Orgasmatron]

One of the signs of the end in Rome was that the stakes in politics became so high. Someone losing their office could expect to be prosecuted by their successor for crimes imaginary or real, stripped of their assets and possibly even their life, making it vital that they stay in power by all means possible.

I don't want the US to take even a baby step in that direction, and a prosecution of Hillary, or even Bill, will certainly be interpreted in that way, if it comes after January 20th. I think Ford knew this, and had it firmly in mind when he pardoned Nixon.

On the other hand, I also don't want to live in a country where the rich and powerful are seen as immune to justice for even blatant and well documented crimes and corruptions.

I don't envy Trump having to navigate that mess.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[Imrik]

In other words, we need rules in place to prosecute them while they're still in office.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[Firethorn]

Around once a day in this country, a child gets their hands on the unsecured and loaded weapon of mom/dad/brother/uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc and kills or wounds someone (or themselves) with it.

And I'll ask: Have you noticed how often the relative turns out to be a police officer and the weapon his or her service pistol? That's way too high as well.

That being said, wanting 'smart' guns to take care of this problem is a bit like wanting an automatic robot arm to snatch any children out of the pool if an adult isn't present. While cool, there are cost, reliability, and implementation issues. For the pool, just get a good cover, alarm, or lock for the fence. For the firearm, there are numerous options to secure any weapon, ranging from 'free' on up.

The government, if anything, should do a little bit of a campaign to encourage parents and people secure their weapons. Maybe even subsidize gun safes a touch.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[AmiMoJo]

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.

That doesn't seem to be the case in other real-world situations. Take car brakes, for example.

Most modern cars use electronics to control braking, a critical function that can kill you if it fails. There are a number of safety features built in which have been demonstrated to save lives. In this case the electronic system is very clearly superior to the simpler mechanical one, and no less reliable.

Sure, someone could set of an EMP near your car and you would lose effective braking, but in practice few criminals use that method to assassinate people. There are of course down sides, for example that if you push both the accelerator and brake at the same time the braking force can be too low to stop the car, but those are outweighed by the far more common situation of ABS and other braking safety technologies saving people.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[JoshuaZ]

Your analogy would be valid if somebody was reacting to street racing deaths (human behavior) by shouting for speed governors that prevented speeds above the speed limit, tiny gas tank sizes (to require more frequent fuel stops), and convoluted electronic interlocks that had to be painstakingly disabled every time you wanted to use the full performance of a "unregulated racing car" (aka, anything more powerful and sporty than a Nissan Leaf).

Analogy does not hold because most street racing deaths are generally just people involved.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[swb]

I, for one, welcome our four next Presidents in one year.

I think we're already at the place where we pursue political prosecutions. Tom Delay, Scooter Libby, Jim Wright (although not specifically prosecuted in court) and even Bill Clinton. And likely many more lower level sacrificial lambs whose prosecutions were merely proxies for bigger fish whose power base prevented prosecution.

And it's not that these people didn't commit crimes or weren't involved in some kind of ethically dubious behavior, but that by and large their principal crime was zealous political advocacy.

The criminal justice system, especially at the Federal level, no longer seems to be about crimes or justice, but a kind of Praetorian guard for whoever grasps the levers of power to pursue political agendas and vendettas against political enemies.

My only hope is that unlike Rome, our version of the Gracci brothers and our version of Gaius Marius manage to defeat the Senatorial and Equestrian classes while we can still claim to be a Republic and not a dynastic empire. (I'd settle for a Galactic empire, provided I can get a ride in the Millennium Falcon).

Re:LOL WTF no.

[damn_registrars]

Around once a day in this country, a child gets their hands on the unsecured and loaded weapon of mom/dad/brother/uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc and kills or wounds someone (or themselves) with it.

And I'll ask: Have you noticed how often the relative turns out to be a police officer and the weapon his or her service pistol? That's way too high as well.

I have noticed that is a fair portion of it. I would like to see them lose their job and their license to carry, then be prosecuted for what happened when their unsecured weapon was used. If they can't be responsible with their weapon - whether it is for work or otherwise - they shouldn't be allowed to carry it and should be liable for what happens when it is left unsecured.

That being said, wanting 'smart' guns to take care of this problem is a bit like wanting an automatic robot arm to snatch any children out of the pool if an adult isn't present. While cool, there are cost, reliability, and implementation issues. For the pool, just get a good cover, alarm, or lock for the fence. For the firearm, there are numerous options to secure any weapon, ranging from 'free' on up.

I know the article here is about smart guns. However I am talking about personal responsibility. I don't oppose gun ownership, and am a gun owner myself. I see the responsibility of gun ownership as being a great one and not one that one should ever take lightly. I keep my guns far, far, out of reach of my children because I see there being no greater responsibility for me in my home than the safety of my children. I am absolutely not calling for responsible owners to lose their weapons. I am not calling for changes to any carry laws either as I do believe it is possible to carry responsibly - including around children. I am only calling for owners who make terrible irresponsible decisions to be held responsible for those terrible decisions.

The government, if anything, should do a little bit of a campaign to encourage parents and people secure their weapons. Maybe even subsidize gun safes a touch.

I would be good with a campaign, even though it would be targeting a small portion of the population and likely make little to no difference. I'm not sure that a gun safe subsidy would help though, I suspect it would likely be used by those who already wanted a gun safe and ignored by those who think they don't need them.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[drinkypoo]

Most modern cars use electronics to control braking, a critical function that can kill you if it fails.

No. Stop saying this, because it is wrong. Modern cars use electronics to moderate braking. The underlying system is still the same old hydraulic mechanical arrangement that has persisted for decades.

It's possible for ABS to get confused, and confuse you, and get you into an accident. Older ABS in particular was often confused by potholes. Of course, this neglects the fact that you're supposed to dodge potholes, or decelerate sufficiently before hitting them that you do not lose traction as you drive through them, and if you drive at that speed through potholes without ABS you're not unlikely to upset the car anyway.

Sure, someone could set of an EMP near your car and you would lose effective braking,

No, wrong, please STFU. If someone sets off an EMP near your car, point the first you're going to have bigger problems, and point the second the ABS will go up in smoke and leave you with normal physical braking. Your vacuum tank should leave you with enough vac to apply the brakes at least twice.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[drinkypoo]

WTF? What stupid country do you live in? USA? How can you be held liable for the actions of the thief?

Because you failed to take even basic actions to prevent them. You don't have to go to extreme measures, like improving the security of the vehicle to the point that it cannot be stolen, because there is no such point. But you do have to use the features which are included with the vehicle, up to a point. I don't think anyone has been convicted for not setting their car alarm.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[drinkypoo]

The M1911, Browning's masterpiece, was almost entirely a response to the performance and technical failures of existing US Army handguns in the Philippines against the Islamic Moros.

And the BHP in turn was almost entirely a response to the performance and technical failures of the 1911. Some would say that's his masterpiece, even if he didn't finish it; it seems like more firearms are based on the BHP than the 1911 today.

ObDisclaimer: I own a 1911

Re:LOL WTF no.

[drinkypoo]

Your analogy would be valid if somebody was reacting to street racing deaths (human behavior) by shouting for speed governors that prevented speeds above the speed limit, tiny gas tank sizes (to require more frequent fuel stops), and convoluted electronic interlocks that had to be painstakingly disabled every time you wanted to use the full performance of a "unregulated racing car"

Actually, The EPA is attempting to do that, or at least, the first stages.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[Attila Dimedici]

I am sorry, but what country do you live in where " Around once a day in this country, a child gets their hands on the unsecured and loaded weapon of mom/dad/brother/uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc and kills or wounds someone (or themselves) with it?"

All of articles I was able to find stated that, in the U.S., we have NO idea how often a child accidentally shoots someone because the data is not collected and the data which is collected is so subjective that attempting to find the answer is impossible (basically, our current statistics on what is, and is not, an accidental shooting is subjective...and cannot be otherwise).
Personally, I think the way we could best reduce the number of times that children accidentally shoot someone would be by going back to teaching gun safety in schools.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[AmiMoJo]

The brakes on my Leaf are fly by wire most of the time, it's only if you push them really far down before the mechanical part is forced to engage. Most breaking force is provided by regen.

Just to be clear, the regen is electronically controlled. I can adjust it via the gear stick. The action has been software updated by Nissan in the past. It's proven reliable.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[Orgasmatron]

So, what you are saying is that your car has the same hydraulic braking system that every car for the last like 80 years has? And that an electronic failure or EMP would have absolutely no effect on your ability to stop your car? And that your first post in this thread was null and void?

P.S. There is no car that has ever existed anywhere on the planet with a factory installed engine that could overpower the factory installed hydraulic brakes. If you push both pedals on any car, you might piss off the transmission, but you won't go anywhere.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[ogdenk]

I agree. I have an old CZ-52 in 7.62x25 with ridiculously heavy trigger pull and an 18.5lb recoil spring in the slide. A 4 yr old chambering a round in that thing would be an impressive feat of strength and I'd have to wonder what I did to piss that kid off because doing it by accident ain't happenin'.

The other thing is that most plastic modern firearms feel and look like toys. When law enforcement can't tell a toy from the real thing, gun manufacturers are being kinda dumb.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[AmiMoJo]

While I could stop the car without regen, I'd probably crash or at least have a brown pants moment. And that's besides the point. I was only noting that the tech is reliable
Maybe fly-by-wire in aircraft would be another good example.

And in fact it is possible for the engine to overpower the brakes on some cases. Cars with hydraulic assistance for breaking rely on pressure generated by the engine, which is reduced at high rpm. That's why people who find their car is stuck accelerating can't always just use the brakes to stop. It's rare but it has happened a few times. On balance the assistance is a net benefit though.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[Toonol]

WTF? What stupid country do you live in? USA? How can you be held liable for the actions of the thief?

Truthfully, that almost never happens. The vast majority of judges or juries in the vast majority of cases would never consider holding the car owner liable for that. If that's ever happened, it's under an extenuating circumstance or with a crazy judge.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[Toonol]

A turning point came in my career when a producer came into my office excited because he had been given a story by a trial lawyer -- the lazy reporter's best friend -- about Bic lighters spontaneously catching fire in people's pockets. These lighters, he told me, had killed four Americans in four years. By this time I'd done some homework, so I said, "Fine. I'll do the exploding lighter story after I do stories on plastic bags, which kill 40 Americans every four years, and five-gallon buckets, which kill 200 Americans (mostly children) every four years." - John Stossel

Re:LOL WTF no.

[ogdenk]

They all share the blame to a degree.

Gun manufacturers license their branding and designs to toy manufacturers to make plastic airsoft and BB copies. And then they manufacture real ones that look and feel like toy guns.

Toy manufacturers don't do enough to make the toys distinguishable from the real deal.

Law enforcement shoots first and asks questions later even when the weapon is not pointing at anyone in a country where real guns are perfectly legal.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[HornWumpus]

Not all of them. Modern Acuras are straight up 'brake by wire'.

For real crazy levels though, look at a Cadillac Allante. Not brake by wire, but assist by hydraulic pump, with a failure mode that left you with no brakes and helpful Cadillac features that automatically released the e-brake when in gear and an e-brake pedal that took 3 pumps to work. All using 1980s computer technology. They all end in front end accidents.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[damn_registrars]

I am sorry, but what country do you live in where " Around once a day in this country, a child gets their hands on the unsecured and loaded weapon of mom/dad/brother/uncle/aunt/grandparent/etc and kills or wounds someone (or themselves) with it?"

This is in the US. Indeed, it is woefully underreported with few cases making it past local media. A decent source is the GunFail blog which often indexes these accidents, but is dependent on volunteer reporting of them. They easily come up with at least 5-7 per week (on slow weeks) which easily averages out to once per day.

in the U.S., we have NO idea how often a child accidentally shoots someone because the data is not collected and the data which is collected is so subjective that attempting to find the answer is impossible

An exact answer is impossible. A good estimate is only impossible if you don't want one.

(basically, our current statistics on what is, and is not, an accidental shooting is subjective...and cannot be otherwise)

I'm not interested in what is called an "accident" versus what is not. I'm interested in when idiots leave their guns out and children kill people with them as a result of the wanton stupidity of the gun owner. There is no subjectivity to the matter; if the gun was loaded and left unsecured it meets the criteria. Furthermore it is indisputable that this happens all the time and nothing is done about it.

Personally, I think the way we could best reduce the number of times that children accidentally shoot someone would be by going back to teaching gun safety in schools.

How soon do you want kids to go to school for that? We have had plenty of occurrences of toddlers and preschool aged kids killing people with weapons that idiots left sitting out. And I don't know when or where you went to school but I never saw any gun safety instruction in my school, nor have my parents ever mentioned it in theirs either.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[crbowman]

If I left my loaded guns out on the street I might agree with you, but I don't. If you want my guns you have to come onto my property and take them. Why should I be responsible for the outcome of your illegal actions?

Re:LOL WTF no.

[damn_registrars]

How on earth did you come up with that? I don't want to take your guns away. I'm a gun owner myself. I just want other gun owners to be responsible or face consequences when they irresponsibly leave their loaded weapons laying around and people are hurt or killed by them. If you are responsible with your weapons you have absolutely nothing to fear from the position I advocate. If you are leaving your guns loaded and unlocked laying around in places where kids can get them, and someone is injured or killed as a result of irresponsibility and carelessness, then I would want to see you tried for what was done with your weapons.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for people to understand or the least bit controversial. You can wear your gun in a holster all day long if you want, just don't leave it on the table if it is loaded and unlocked. You can own any arbitrary number of guns that you want, just don't leave them sitting around and loaded. I just want gun owners to be responsible with their choices. Here I thought conservatives liked the idea of personal responsibility, but obviously when it comes to guns many of them vehemently oppose it.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[Firethorn]

I have noticed that is a fair portion of it. I would like to see them lose their job and their license to carry, then be prosecuted for what happened when their unsecured weapon was used. If they can't be responsible with their weapon - whether it is for work or otherwise - they shouldn't be allowed to carry it and should be liable for what happens when it is left unsecured.

What I was trying to get at by mentioning officers is that training and certification of gun owners is unlikely to 'fix' the problem. Because half the damn problem are the officers - who have presumably been professionally trained, investigated, and certified. And then you get the blue line protecting them from any consequences. In most cases I'd say that they aren't prosecuted because the courts find it that their wounded kid is punishment enough - and that punishing the adult responsible will actually result in more damage to the kid. I mean, imagine that you're a kid who got hurt playing with your dad's gun. Your family has the resulting medical bills and such. Is it going to help you, the victim, if your dad loses his job and goes to prison over it? Suddenly you don't have your dad. You're looking at losing your house(medical bills + loss of income), etc...

Though that brings up a different thing that I didn't notice about the GP - I'll call it incident amplification. ONE woman gets shot by her kid from the backseat, that incident generates dozens of news stories, then we get bugs2squash at least seeming to thing that they were multiple incidents, meaning that 1 incident has been expanded to a crisis in people's minds.

I would be good with a campaign, even though it would be targeting a small portion of the population and likely make little to no difference. I'm not sure that a gun safe subsidy would help though, I suspect it would likely be used by those who already wanted a gun safe and ignored by those who think they don't need them.

Of course it'd be targeting a small portion of the population. You mentioned 'Once a day'. That's ~365 kids a year, not all of whom are shot(some manage to shoot the irresponsible adult), much less killed. For small children - not getting up into the age where running with gangs is a real concern, death by firearm is about the smallest tracked death category going. Yes, every incident is a tragedy - but it can be a tragedy because it's so small. More kids die in car accidents, bath tubs, accidental poisonings, falling down stairs, etc...

*looks at my safe* - yeah, I'd have liked some assistance with that. ;)

Re:LOL WTF no.

[Attila Dimedici]

So, in another words, since you believe it to be true, it must be true. I find it highly improbable that such instances are under-reported considering that most news organizations, and most news "reporters", are strongly anti-Second Amendment. My suspicion is that the Gun Fail blog reports every story which is reported to them without making any effort to corroborate those stories (which will result in a significant portion of their stories being, for all intents and purposes, false).
As to gun safety being taught in school, I do indeed remember gun safety being taught. And I recall one aspect of that training being to make sure that those who were too young to know how to handle a gun would be unable to do so (by storing the gun out of their reach, or otherwise so that they could not get to it, and by making sure that you did not leave the gun unattended while it was out of storage). Of course, I attended a school district that closed on the first day of deer season (not because the school wanted to give kids the day off but because a large enough number were going to TAKE the day off that they might as well not try to have classes). Perhaps the problem is that it has been so long since we taught people how to properly handle a gun that we have multiple generations that have never learned proper gun safety (the children of my contemporaries have children).

Re:LOL WTF no.

[damn_registrars]

You've given me your opinion of gunfail, now I challenge you to go read it. You claim that these events are overreported, gunfail supports my claim of them being underreported. Go look at what they have there, these are stories taken from local news sources, many of which ended with people dead or seriously injured. How many of them make the national news? Very, very, few. That is underreporting there. If so many national news sources were as

anti-Second Amendment

as you claim, wouldn't they jump all over every single one of these?

We had one woman in Milwaukee killed by her boyfriend's gun and it made national news. There have been over 100 accidental deaths involving young children and guns already in this country and how many of them made the national news?

My suspicion is that the Gun Fail blog reports every story which is reported to them without making any effort to corroborate those stories (which will result in a significant portion of their stories being, for all intents and purposes, false).

Not. Even. Remotely. Close. Every single story on GunFail has at least one link to a local news outlet or official police report to support it. You could hardly be further from reality on that matter if you tried.

As to gun safety being taught in school, I do indeed remember gun safety being taught.

I'm not saying it's impossible I'm just saying it's never been a part of any public education of any person I have ever met.

And I recall one aspect of that training being to make sure that those who were too young to know how to handle a gun would be unable to do so (by storing the gun out of their reach, or otherwise so that they could not get to it, and by making sure that you did not leave the gun unattended while it was out of storage)

Which is exactly what I want people to do. I want to prevent the preventable deaths. These kids are dying of 100% preventable accidents. I want people to take gun safety seriously again or face the consequences of their irresponsibility.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[damn_registrars]

In most cases I'd say that they aren't prosecuted because the courts find it that their wounded kid is punishment enough

The courts don't have jack shit to do with it in most cases. The overwhelming majority of these never see any criminal charges pressed at all, regardless of the final outcome of the result of the irresponsible idiot who left his or her gun laying around.

and that punishing the adult responsible will actually result in more damage to the kid

That is some tortured logic, there. Most of the time the dead one is the kid. How much more can you possibly damage a dead child?

I mean, imagine that you're a kid who got hurt playing with your dad's gun. Your family has the resulting medical bills and such. Is it going to help you, the victim, if your dad loses his job and goes to prison over it? Suddenly you don't have your dad. You're looking at losing your house(medical bills + loss of income), etc...

If your dad had been holding the gun with his finger on the trigger when it went off, pointing it at the kid who is now dead, and then said "oops, I'm a total idiot who didn't mean to do that" you'd be OK with him not facing any charges at all? That is what you are essentially endorsing here.

ONE woman gets shot by her kid from the backseat, that incident generates dozens of news stories, then we get bugs2squash at least seeming to thing that they were multiple incidents, meaning that 1 incident has been expanded to a crisis in people's minds.

Quite the opposite, really. Yeah for some reason this case got a lot of attention, like the WalMart shooting some time ago where a lady was killed by her toddler because her (licensed) handgun was loaded and easily accessible in her purse, but there are far far more cases that never get national attention. People who try to compile this can easily support the conclusion that in our country on average one child dies per day as the direct result of someone leaving their loaded unlocked weapons in an insecure place where a child can get them. Tragically most of the time the bullet ends up killing the innocent child, instead of the idiot gun owner.

You mentioned 'Once a day'. That's ~365 kids a year, not all of whom are shot(some manage to shoot the irresponsible adult), much less killed.

Allow me to be extra clear here, I was referring to the death / serious injury rate. The rate at which the accidental shootings happen is much, much, higher. The number of people who call the cops after their guns mysteriously "go off while cleaning" or "go off after being dropped", amongst other such situations, is far higher. Thankfully those random bullet holes do not often lead straight to children.

*looks at my safe* - yeah, I'd have liked some assistance with that. ;)

I'm glad you have one. Use it properly and you have not a thing to fear from my position. My guns are in a safe as well.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[Orgasmatron]

Unless you actually intended that someone steal your car, like if you left it out on the street in front of a bank with the keys in it so that an accomplice could use it as a getaway car after a robbery, you won't be liable for anything the criminal does with it.

Your insurance company might not pay out for the theft, if you didn't take steps to secure it, but that isn't the same thing at all.

For what it is worth, I support responsible gun ownership, and when I meet new gun owners, I give them tips on how to secure them. I've even helped a few strangers anchor their lockers and safes, and I've installed more than a few secure boxes in cars.

I do not support a government burden to do any of these things. And I absolutely despise people that attempt to burden gun ownership through cumulative regulation.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[damn_registrars]

I do not support a government burden to do any of these things. And I absolutely despise people that attempt to burden gun ownership through cumulative regulation.

I'm not looking for government mandates to prevent stupidity. We know that usually doesn't work anyways; you can put the safe in their house but you can't force them to use it. I just want irresponsible gun owners held responsible when their guns are used by other people. If your gun is taken and used to kill someone and it was done because you were gratuitously negligent in your responsibilities to secure it, you should be held to the same level of responsibility as you would if your finger was on the trigger.

Keep your guns secure and you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Why some gun owners are so vehemently opposed to personal responsibility is beyond me.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[ToddInSF]

Liar, liar.

You fuckign ammosexuals could care less about the bodies piling up.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[BarbaraHudson]

No - 2/3 of them are suicides. Mostly men.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[beastofburdon]

Awesome sig!

Re:LOL WTF no.

[beastofburdon]

No, they do not feel like toy guns. If you really think that then you have never handled a real gun before. Also, please don't touch one, we don't need complete idiots playing with things they know nothing about.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[beastofburdon]

Exactly.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[beastofburdon]

They do fail sometimes. No idea if it still exists, but in the early 2000's there was a bug in Ford's anti-lock brake system where on rare occasions it would glitch. The brake pedal would fall to the floor and the brakes did nothing at all.
It happened to me in my 2000 Mustang. Fortunately it only happened once to me, but the cop at the accident was familiar with the issue, so it wasn't just some isolated incident, and likely not only in Ford vehicles.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[Coren22]

So, are you looking to make it more difficult to drive, since you are still more likely to die from a car than a gun, even though there are more guns than cars in the US.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...

300m guns
253m cars
(according to Google)

Re:LOL WTF no.

[ogdenk]

Pick up my old CZ52 or an old-school 1911 and compare it to how a plastic Glock 40 feels. Yeah, the Glock feels like a toy in comparison. The Glock is a decent gun but to a 4 yr old it seems pretty toy like. I've handled guns for over 20 years and probably know a hell of a lot more about ballistics than you do.

I also have kids and know a bit about keeping them disinterested in treating deadly weapons as toys. One has even survived to adulthood already.

Oh yeah.... get off my lawn.

Re:LOL WTF no.

[beastofburdon]

Son, I probably own more guns than you have ever touched. Don't try to tell me what a gun feels like.

Mental Health

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious who gets to define what Mental Health issues are and what disqualifies you...

Re:Mental Health

[wisnoskij]

It's simple. If you want to own a gun you will be classified as suffering from mental health issues and institutionalized.

Re:Mental Health

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, let's see: not buying the crap about terrorists, caring about privacy, not believing the politicians/corporations are working for your own good, daring to question the government, stuff like that.

Re:Mental Health

[Bartles]

Does that disqualify you from voting, getting a lawyer, or speaking as well?

Mmm hmm

[Rick Zeman]

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.

Re:Mmm hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's the point.

> DOJ and DHS have 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 enhanced safety technology.

If I'm reading this correctly they're drafting a set of specifications for a so called smart gun that a manufacturer must meet before a sidearm will be considered for use as the standard issue sidearm to law enforcement. Which I think is the correct path for this technology... A smart gun needs to prove itself in the hands of LEO's before civilians will start accepting them as a viable alternative to conventional firearms. Largely I think the requirements will boil down to this:

1) Must be equally or more reliable then a conventional firearm.
2) Must fail operational; in the event of an electronics failure or malfunction, the firearm must be rendered ready to fire.
3) Must correctly identify an unauthorized user and place the gun in a 'safe' state (unable to fire) within 1/8th of a second (I believe that was an original FBI requirement in the 90's).
4) Must not mistake an authorized user as unauthorized in the event that the authorized user is working in unexpected parameters (raining, injured, firing offhand, wearing gloves).
5) Must be no more difficult to service and maintain then a conventional firearm. At most it the burden of additional service must be offset by the benefits of the smartgun technology.
6) Must be adopted by federal and municipal law enforcement first.

If they do all that then think a smartgun would be accepted by the general civilian populace. It's a very tall, very difficult order, but not impossible. If any of those requirements are broken however then the technology will not be accepted.

That second bit I think needs to have a really long hard look at it. Everyone throws around 'mental illness' as a catch phrase when even the best medical systems in the world have difficulties diagnosing or even defining what mental illness is.

Re:Mmm hmm

[Orgasmatron]

It would be simple to make a constitutional amendment that specifies that former Presidents can only be guarded by private bodyguards armed according to the most restrictive gun control bill or regulation signed by that president, or, if that president doesn't sign any, by the most restrictive law in effect on his last day in office that wasn't passed by overriding his veto.

That would mean semi automatic pistols and hunting rifles for Bill Clinton. Add semi automatic black rifles and normal sized magazines for Bush and Obama.

Re:Mmm hmm

[Imrik]

Rather than private bodyguards that should be Secret Service agents, unless you think we should also stop using them to protect former Presidents.

Re:Mmm hmm

[Alumoi]

Then you'll have a long wait. The armed forces have to be better equipped than the citizens so they could better respond in case of citizens uprising. Did you skip your history class? Each and every rulling class had to resort to the armed forces to subdue its citizens in order to preserve their reign. It will hapen even to the goold, old US in the near future, don't worry.

Re:Mmm hmm

[Orgasmatron]

Using private security means that they can say no if the job is too dangerous, or quote a higher rate. If they only have squirt guns, they'll just stuff the guy in a concrete bunker and lock the door from the outside.

It wasn't really that serious of an idea, but I wouldn't want to disarm the guys in the Secret Service.

Re:Mmm hmm

[CrimsonAvenger]

Rather than private bodyguards that should be Secret Service agents, unless you think we should also stop using them to protect former Presidents.

Once upon a time, when a man stopped being President, he went home to his former life. Without lifetime guards or any of that stuff.

It's been about since I was born that they changed that rule. Eisenhower would've been the first President who had that little benny.

And I still can't really see why someone thought it was a good idea....

Backwards politicians as usual

[Dunbal]

You don't need to improve the weapon - you need to improve the people.

Re:Backwards politicians as usual

[BlueStrat]

Popular culture feels eugenics is wrong tho... So making a weapon that can easily be disabled remotely by authority sounds much easier and acceptable. Make no mistake thats the real ultimate aim..

"Oh Thufir, I see they installed your heart-plug already. Don't be angry, everyone gets one here!"

Strat

Re:Backwards politicians as usual

[Imrik]

Social engineering is still alive and well though.

Re:Backwards politicians as usual

[drinkypoo]

Popular culture feels eugenics is wrong tho...

Nobody said you had to breed better people. It's probably not necessary. People absorb the environment they live in. Is it any wonder that when you take away blacks' (or whoever's) opportunities, they create new ones whether they are beneficial to society or not? Ongoing racism and the war on drugs combine to produce much if not most of the violence in our nation.

Take off the pressure and you'll see people improve themselves.

Re:We STILL haven't solved that one?

[Fallen Kell]

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").

Re:We STILL haven't solved that one?

[Orgasmatron]

Which other rights do you support letting these "professionals" veto? Free speech? Voting? Security against unwarranted search and seizure? Fair trial?

Re:We STILL haven't solved that one?

[drinkypoo]

Who defined the list of things which constitute "mental illness" anyway?

Yep. If you even hint that you might be suicidal then you can very well be held... and right then lose your rights under the second amendment. When you add to that the fact that psychology is around half psuedoscience, it's very uncomfortable to let the government decide who is sane.

PANIC!

[s.petry]

But alas sometimes people are struck and killed by lightning. That does not mean we can't claim "it's safe to walk around with metal in your hands", and does not make it wrong when we do. You are simply nit picking.

Just like crypto

[Big Boss]

These are the same people that think we can create cryptography backdoors that can't be abused. In spite of every expert in the field telling them it's impossible.

Firearms have evolved to be amazingly simple, reliable devices. If you add anything to one, even another mechanical safety, you make it more complex and, therefore, less reliable. History has proven that over and over again. They are this way because if you pull one, bodily harm is a given. Either you shoot someone, or they injure or kill you attempting to prevent being shot. In a case like that, you can not accept even a 1% increased risk of failure.

I'd love for them to be idiot proof and still serve their function. That would be an amazing thing. But I don't see any reason to believe it's any more possible than unbreakable backdoored crypto.

Do stupid people store and/or use them improperly? Yes. Just like people store and use all sorts of tools improperly. People still electrocute themselves because they are too damn lazy to go flip the breaker. It's not the tool that's broken. Tragic accidents can happen with every tool.

And I read

[s.petry]

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.

Re:And I read

[beastofburdon]

I don't remember why you ended up on my foe list, but after this comment you are coming off of it. Most people are under the belief that their country couldn't possibly turn into the next USSR or the next Nazi Germany, but they are wrong. People are very easily fooled and can be made to believe almost anything with enough propaganda.

Re:We STILL haven't solved that one?

[khasim]

And now go a step further.

Suppose you were treated for depression years ago. So now you're on The List.

What is there to stop employers from using that list for "background checks" on potential employees?

Now you are also unemployable.

And yes, The List WOULD be abused in exactly that fashion.

Re:We STILL haven't solved that one?

[Anonymous Coward]

We did figure it out.

It is called due process and is a required step in the process of abridging the rights of people.

I know it sucks that that there is a human cost to protecting the freedoms of the vast majority of citizens, but there is always a human cost.

Re:We STILL haven't solved that one?

[Anonymous Coward]

The List would, as you say, be abused. Nor would it help much.

The majority of firearm homicides in the US are not the result of crazies. Gangbangers are real. It's politically incorrect to say so, but black men are far more likely to commit homicide by firearms than white men, and vastly more likely to shoot other black men. They also do not make the national news, just the local bleeds-and-leads where the violence gets ignored. The root of that violence is not psychological trauma but a lack of economic hope. To be blunt and very politically incorrect, the black men who are shooting other black men would probably not be doing so if they were more gainfully employed and had hope that, by building the same kinds of lives as white men, they could make progress in the world. I'll say it again so that I can get modded into oblivion: the problem is economic, not psychological. The crazies are a small fraction of the problem, but the desperate and hopeless sane ones who have turned to crime are the real problem. If you treat poverty, if you find ways of bringing hope for a better future to the ghettos and slums of the inner city, you will reduce firearm violence far more than by any "smart gun" or technological solution.

Nathanial Hawthorne, for those who didn't fail English class, was right when he wrote Earth's Holocaust: eliminating the instruments of undesirable behavior without treating the causes of that behavior does nothing to eliminate the behavior. You could melt down all the guns in America if you wanted, only to find that more were cast and made the next day. Safety and social progress do not arise from changing objects but from changing people. Ignoring the statistics only ignores the problem, and the problem is human, not metal.

Re:I love data!

[Orgasmatron]

Was this before or after he invented the carburetor that runs on water?

Encrypted stamp collection

[castus]

"If we can set it up so you can't unlock your phone unless you've got the right fingerprint, why can't we do the same thing for our guns?

This guy has got a point, why can't we encrypt physical objects? Hopefully the White House is working on a way to encrypt my stamp collection.

Re:I love data!

[Firethorn]

The problem was when the senators that commissioned the study found out that they succeeded, they decided to bury the report and changed the definition so that a gun had to be able to determine the intent of the shooter (an impossible task). The gun industry was also totally against this.

I'm with Orgasmatron, I think this system probably had major problems beyond your description. I know plenty of gun owners that would be fine with 'smart guns' if the threat of them being mandatory wasn't there. Consider that the most popular firearms today are both over 50, and one is over 100 years old, design wise. Conservative doesn't cover it. But they're also fairly live and let live, and if a parent wants a firearm that their kid can't fire even if it's left out while loaded, that's their choice. Grousing about proper storage would happen, but whatever.

That being said, if somebody designed and released a smart gun good enough that police departments around the country were willing to go with them? I imagine that they would indeed be popular. Though I'd also imagine that they'd have a 'fail-deadly' switch. If the electronics go, flip this switch and you can fire - enough to stop the crook from immediately firing, but if the officer has a failure, he could rapidly re-enable his own weapon.

Ah, that fancy smartgun technology.

[jtrainor]

Too bad it can't be retrofitted to older guns, the few times it's been tested it's been a miserable failure, and there's no way to get rid of all the guns that don't use it. Literally the only reason it exists is a marketing gimmick and stupid anti-gun politicians.

Bang

[peektwice]

Again, anything that diminishes reliability does not belong on a firearm. The thing that makes them reliable is the fact that they have no "smart" technology. BTW, "smart" technology is just another liberal misnomer backed by hopes and dreams and not grounded in facts. Just when you think you've developed foolproof "smart" technology, the universe will have developed a better fool.

Re:We STILL haven't solved that one?

[misexistentialist]

Loughner, Lanza, and Holmes were clearly nutjobs by any definition who shouldn't have been trusted with even pencils. Primarily seems to be corruption that prevents dealing with this problem since annual bills run into the hundreds of thousands per patient making long-term treatment impossible

Lousy Idea

[JimSadler]

There is quite a bit of real art in the design of a good gun. Part of the basic art is simplicity of design and appearance. In some cases even having a common safety on a pistol creates more danger than it eliminates. The greatest safety any gun has is in the skill of the user. In a way it is very much like driving a car. Some people violate laws and get tickets. Others can go a lifetime without a ticket. Gun handling is the same way. If you constantly follow safe practices, under all moods and conditions you will not have a gun accident. If you have times in which you do foolish things or fail to regulate your behavior than chances are high that you will create an accident. An old fashioned six shooter, with no safety on the weapon at all, can be safer than a much more complex semi-auto pistol with all kinds of fancy safety devices built into it. It very much involves who is on the end of that gun.

Re:Lousy Idea

[Agripa]

There is quite a bit of real art in the design of a good gun. Part of the basic art is simplicity of design and appearance.

So explain the Ruger American Pistol.

Obious Question

[Hercules Peanut]

Perhaps I missed it, but how often are people killed by guns that they would not have been authorized to use?
How often do law enforcement officials get shot with their own guns?

These are the problems, right? That's what this is supposed to solve. Where is the data?

The only data I saw was: "A recent Johns Hopkins survey found that six in 10 Americans want safer guns.", which speaks volumes.

Re:I love data!

[ScentCone]

And WHY do you suppose "the gun industry" (along with millions of average owners) is opposed to this? Because there are states with laws already on the books that state that as soon as such a gun is available on the market, all other guns will be banned from sale. You understand that, right?

Re:We STILL haven't solved that one?

[ProzacPatient]

I'm pretty sure it was mentioned just for political points as the whole mental health thing has been law for a quite some time now at 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4) and 18 USC 922(d)(4). The key word here is adjudicated (as in you can't be declared mentally deficient without due process before a court) and thanks to O'Connor v. Donaldson you cannot be involuntarily committed without due process and you are entitled to legal representation during such a process.

Here's a smart gun they can fund...

[hsthompson69]

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.

Correlation is not causality

[hsthompson69]

You've confused cause and effect.

It's not that you get a gun, and are therefore more likely to get shot.

It's that you are already at higher risk, and you get a gun to mitigate that risk.

Even if you don't choose to arm yourself, others who do act as a vaccination for you, making the calculus of criminals less likely to confront victims because of the chance they might be armed. If even just 5% of law abiding citizens carried concealed, the average criminal is going to make a very different decision when the impulse to beat, rape, or rob comes over them.

Bottom line - if you can't be safe with a gun, don't get a gun. But if you're willing to learn, regularly train, and behave responsibly, please, learn, get one, and continue to train. The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns, whether or not they're wearing badges or not.

Re:Correlation is not causality

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Obviously some people just want to kill you, but more often they only want to rob you

Well, I don't wanna be a dick about it, but I'm not going to let them do either of those things if I can help it.

Re:Correlation is not causality

[AmiMoJo]

Of course, it's just a question of if the worst happens do you want to take your chances on the quick draw like some cowboy, or play the odds and lose a wallet but almost certainly live.

Re:Correlation is not causality

[hsthompson69]

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.

Re:Correlation is not causality

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Of course, it's just a question of if the worst happens do you want to take your chances on the quick draw like some cowboy, or play the odds and lose a wallet but almost certainly live.

You forgot option 3: Letting him have your wallet, then shooting him the back as he runs away. ;)

Or if you're squeamish about shooting someone in the back, wait till he starts to leave, exclaim, "Hey, you forgot my Rolex!", and then shoot him in the face when he turns around.

Re:Correlation is not causality

[AmiMoJo]

Obviously I don't think that. You are just being silly. I clearly meant, in the context of the prior conversation, what when drawing a weapon to defend yourself it increases the risk.

You even said it yourself. Don't point a gun if you don't intend to kill the target. So you have to assume that someone pointing a gun at you intends to use it. Meaning of you draw your weapon on a criminal who had no intention to shoot you, their only rational choice is to kill you first.

Re: Correlation is not causality

[techabuse]

The chamber on my carry gun is always empty. I figure if I can't take one extra second to rack the weapon and ready it for use, I have much bigger problems. The rest of the time, I don't have to worry about shooting my cock off or someone snatching a loaded gun.

Re:Correlation is not causality

[hsthompson69]

Again, you've mistaken correlation with causality.

When a bad guy has a gun in the vicinity, much less pointing a weapon at you, your risk is already increased. Drawing a weapon to defend yourself *mitigates* that risk, rather than causes it.

But here's the real trick you're not understanding - a criminal who has no intention to shoot anyone is not going to use a gun to threaten people who might be armed. It's safe for them to threaten unarmed people, and if you live in a state that curtails the rights of self defense, then they can rationally go out with their illegal weapons and do illegal things without much risk. Add in a small, but significant possibility that the person they draw on will in fact have a weapon do defend themselves puts them at a severe disadvantage.

For example, criminals don't go up to police officers and rob them at gunpoint - even if they have the drop on the officer, and the officer's weapon is still holstered, the risk factor there just isn't worth it. But I'll tell you, if we disarmed every cop, and demanded that they only patrol with billy clubs, criminals would clearly understand that to be a cop meant you were unarmed, and take advantage of that fact.

Of course, when presented with a direct threat of a firearm by a criminal, you've got to understand timing - if the hammer is back and the finger is on the trigger, you've got very little chance of beating them to the draw. But if you get the opportunity to get the drop on them, when they're distracted and focusing on something else, I wouldn't blame anyone for taking the shot.

Now, you may be the kind of person who can't properly tell when to attempt a draw, and when to just hold back and bide your time - in this case, please, don't ever get a firearm. But if you're willing to learn, and willing to train, then there's no reason why anyone should prevent you from practicing self defense.

Re:We STILL haven't solved that one?

[Bartles]

It's not simple. The right to bear arms is enshrined in our constitution as an inalienable civil right. What other rights can be taken away if you are found to be mentally deficient?

It's simple really...

[sls1j]

Just propose to ban it.

Smart Guns

[PortHaven]

This is a step in the right direction. Many gun advocates have argued that the passing of smart gun laws always seems to exclude law enforcement. If you can't convince law enforcement, which have like a 100x chance of having their guns turned and used against them, to adopt smart gun technology. Why would you expect a civilian to trust it to protect herself or her family?

I am not inherently opposed to smartgun technology, however, there is a standard engineering principal. The more complex a device, the more opportunity for failure. S&W had issues with early models with built in internal locks failing, and preventing the handguns from being fired. That wasn't even an electrical system far more subject to temperature, humidity, etc.

I do not think batteries are the right choice. Perhaps a small thorium battery that can last a decade or few.