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

[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

[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

[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]

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

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

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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: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.

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

[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.

Backwards politicians as usual

[Dunbal]

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

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?

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: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:I love data!

[Orgasmatron]

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

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!

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

[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.