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

[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]

"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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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: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: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: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.