Slashdot Mirror
Hacker Cracks Smart Gun Security To Shoot It Without Approval (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader shares a CNN report:Smart guns are supposed to be safer than traditional weapons. They're designed to only fire when paired with a second piece of technology that identifies the shooter, like an electronic chip or a fingerprint. Supporters say they could stop accidental shootings or misfires. And they've been lauded by law enforcement to prevent criminals from using stolen or misplaced guns. However, like any technology, they're not unhackable. A hacker known by the pseudonym Plore doesn't want to put a stop to smart guns, but he wants the firearm industry that's increasingly manufacturing these devices to know that they can be hacked. The model Plore hacked is called the Armatix IPI. It pairs electronically with a smart watch so that only the person wearing the watch can fire it. The devices authenticate users via radio signals, electronically talking to each other within a small range. Plore broke the security features in three different ways, including jamming radio signals in the weapon and watch so the gun couldn't be fired, and shooting the gun with no watch nearby by placing strong magnets next to the weapon.
Who didn't see that coming?
Oh yeah, fearful gun-grabbers.
Some elaborate hack or something that requires you to put magnets on the gun isn't really that big of a deal. But being able to wear e.g. a different watch that jams all these guns is of course a much larger issue.
I find the whole idea of smart guns mostly silly. Even plain old guns, brand new designs or designs that have been tweaked and fine tuned for 100+ years, misfire sometimes. Adding another level of failure is pretty absurd.
I can see them making sense in special circumstances, though. One that leaps to mind is prison guards.
Supporters say they could stop accidental shootings or misfires.
It sounds like they still will.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I've long thought the two rather similar.
In theory, both are great ideas... in reality, no one can ever seem to get it right.
Don't worry though... THIS time, THIS time will be different! All of those previous attempts... those weren't real smart guns/communism!
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
"Mr X, this gun can only fire if you pull the trigger. You're going away for a long time."
"But I wasn't even in the city!"
"The gun says you were. GPS tracking confirms."
Most security features on personal items at best would be made to keep the honest, honest.
You lock the door on your car, not because it is not impossible for someone to get in. But for that casual person who sees that you accidentally left your wallet there. will try to see if the door is locked. If so, they will not try further.
The smart gun, can't be unhackable. Because the core technology of the gun is well understood, and designed to be reliable and easy to maintain. However the smart gun can prevent the person from taking someones gun and then shooting the owner with his own weapon. Or in cases of trying to resell the weapon via legit sources, a hacked gun, will scream that it is hot, and probably will not get sold for clean money.
Also chances are getting caught with a Hacked Smart Gun, will probably get you much more trouble.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
. . . . nor was the remote Denial of Service attack against the weapon. In fact, many cops would call that a win.
Or they would if anyone had actually BOUGHT an Armatix, a hugely-overpriced .22 semi-auto pistol with integrated electronics. . .
Or a smart mother for that matter.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The next step after smart guns is Cloud Connected guns.
."
The government could keep track of how much ammunition is used. This would provide valuable statistics for the department of the census bureaucracy.
Instead of requiring a fingerprint or gadget to authorize your gun to fire, you could authorize it to fire using an app on your smartphone. "hold on, just a sec, Mr. burglar, while I authorize my gun to activate . . . where did I put my phone . .
The government could revoke the firing of weapons that have been stolen. The government could also revoke the ability to fire any weapon to certain individuals. Especially crazy people. And crazy could have a technical definition, such as "the desire to own or use a firearm".
It's all for your protection.
Think of the children!
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
"make every bullet cost ten thousand dollars and there will never be another accidental shooting".
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
This hacker just demonstrated what gun advocates and critics of smart guns have been saying for years. The use of a gun is to stop a person or animal, often in a life or death situation. Guns are a powerful tool, and have historically relied on training to ensure gun safety and proper use. Smart guns attempt to take away some of that responsibility from the owner and in the process sacrifice key functionality. Guns have been developed over hundreds of years, and the modern gun is both extremely simple (relative to other technologies) and very reliable. As soon as you start adding other technologies, there are unintended consequences (or intended if you are a bit more cynical).
I am a firm believer in a constitutional amendment that subjects lawmakers first and foremost to their own legislation, and this is just another example of where that would be an excellent idea. I think that the every politician who voted to require smart guns who is armed, and every armed bodyguard that they have (all the gun grabbing libtard politicians are armed and/or have armed bodyguards BTW; classic do as I say, not as I do) should be required to carry only smart guns first and foremost. Tax dollars well spent in my opinion. That way they can experience the problems first hand (running out of battery or malfunctioning or being jammed by a wide band transmitter etc.) when their lives depend on it. After the first few politicians have their guns fail when their lives depend on it, I suspect their positions will change.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I don't want magic bullets. (no matter what your balls are doing) What I want is individually authorized bullets. Say with an RFID tag in each bullet. That way the gun can read which bullet is in the chamber. The gun can connect to the cloud. Meanwhile in some immense database somewhere, a record is found and updated to indicate that particular bullet is now in the chamber, and to check whether that bullet is authorized to fire. (Suppose it was stolen ammunition?) Further m2m connections are established. Once the secretary general of the UN signs off, the gun is authorized and you can fire.
Think of the children!
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Ban the use of guns by the police department. You can save 900 people a year that way.
fatal shootings by on duty police officers:
2016: 963 fatal shootings
2015: 991 fatal shootings
and 2017 is on track to be in the 900's again.
the army will not take any smart gun.
You want the them to work / not need battery's / need a network / be easy to fix in the field.
The only gun that should have electronics is the M-27 phase plasma pulse rifle in the 40 watt range.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
"lauded by law enforcement to prevent criminals" I'll send people with guns that I like to murder people that I don't like with guns. Statist logic. But you should call them when you need them, just make sure you don't /need/ or love your dog when they show up and shoot it.
and I wish you'd drop the issue. We here on the left have. Bernie f'in Sanders got an A from the NRA.
Meanwhile it's being used as a wedge issue to distract you from economic issues. So you go to the polls and vote for the gun loving guy and he sells you out on the economy. How the hell do you think NAFTA got through? They knew the gun lovers would vote them in no matter what they did to the economy. Nevermind the fact that you and your little pea shooter of a rifle is about as useless as tits on a bull against a modern, well supplied military; 80s action movies to the contrary.
How about this: You can have a mother f'in bazooka if I can have Single Payer healthcare & college tuition for my kid. Deal?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If firearm safety is what you are after then proper storage and training would go farther than any smart gun technology ever could. I own several firearms and the safe they live in cost more than all of them combined. That safe is securely bolted to the poured concrete floor and wall of my basement. If you wanted to steal the contents you would need a forklift or thermal lance, which if you have access to those you would be better off buying your own firearms. Then there is the training, I've been through the standard firearm safety course that most states require for going hunting, back when I was younger I got the various BSA shooting sports merit badges, have my state's CCW license, and recently have become a certified range officer and instructor for BSA shooting sports. Almost every "accidental" shooting I hear about really should be called negligent. Even the case you mention was negligence as I would never leave my firearms where a child could get at them and that is one of the many things that is drilled into you with any proper training course.
Time to offend someone
But man..."smart" guns IMHO are NOT a good thing to have.
To the contrary, smart guns are a good thing to have, and the fact that they can be hacked is almost irrelevant.
The primary useful thing about smart guns is that they prevent your toddler from finding your gun and killing you, themselves, or each other. This happens all the time-- 1300 children get killed by firearms per year. (alternate source)(another story on the subject).
Even, if as you say "I mean, having a firearm that my life may depend on in a home invasion, that may not fire if I'm not wearing a watch" -- that's actually a good thing, because the thing that you should most be worried about in a home invasion is getting killed by your own gun.
Worrying that a hacker is going to break into your home, hack your gun, and then kill you with it is pretty remote.
You really want a gun that only fires when you fire it. A gun that fires when you don't want it to is not a good thing.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
what got discussions on gun control going (at least in the US) was when shooting became cheap enough that minorities could afford guns to defend themselves.
Reminds me of one of the funniest things I've ever read. A bunch of those "People's Militia" folks decided to get their Assault rifles and go scare some Muslims by hanging around their Mosque with their guns slung over their back.
Apparently these fine upstanding citizens didn't realize that the Nation of Islam is a different branch of faith than what they were used to. Then went home real quick when a bunch of brothers and sisters came to meet them with their own rifles slung over their backs.
That said, it's funny in hindsight but I'm glad they back down without a shoot out. I'd prefer to live in a world where folks didn't do (and get away with) nonsense like that...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
How would a proximity control prevent a toddler reaching in his mom's purse and shooting her point blank?
I find the whole idea of smart guns mostly silly. Even plain old guns, brand new designs or designs that have been tweaked and fine tuned for 100+ years, misfire sometimes. Adding another level of failure is pretty absurd.
It's useful to have a background in error analysis. You should think about Type I errors versus Type II errors. A Type-I error, here, will mean the gun not firing when you want it to. A Type-II error is the gun firing when you do NOT want it to. For this particular safety mechanism, the type-II error can be considered to consist of the case "the gun fires when somebody else has it", and the worst-case type II error is "the gun fires when somebody else has it and is pointing it at you or your family".
It turns out that the cases in which the Type-II error will be deadly turn out to be much, much more common than the Type-I errors. There just aren't that many home invasions that are solved by the homeowner shooting the burglar, outside of Hollywood. For the most part, a Type-I error will mean that a piece of paper with circles on it will have fewer holes in it.
A Type-II error, on the other hand, means that somebody you love gets shot. You want to avoid that.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Most of the home invasions I'm seeing reported, the criminals are bringing their own weapons to the party.
And at the very least, shouldn't it be MY decision to make?
And..what about those of us with no toddlers or all children grown and out of the house...or if your kids are older and responsible enough they too can have access to said guns?
One size does not fit all buddy.,
My parents took me and showed me our gun (we only had one early on)....I shot it with them, learned how to chamber a round, how to shoot, how to SAFELY handle a fire arm.
They showed me where it was kept, and I also had the fear of God put into me that I never, ever, ever had a reason to get it or touch it shy of someone breaking into our house or threatening me.
Most of my friends were raised this way too....none of us would even think about getting that gun out to play with or even look at without just cause.
It so happened, that one day while I was home and both parents were at work...I think I was in 9th grade or so....it was raining and some bum came to the front door knocking on it...asking for drink of water, etc.
I was scared, but didn't panic. I went back, got the gun, chambered a round, and waited near the front door...till this asshole went away about half an hour later.
After that, I took the gun back to my parent's room, removed the magazine, took the round out of the chamber and put the gun together and back where it was supposed to be.....and promptly called my Mom at work to tell what happened, she and my Dad were very happy with my behavior.
So, are all kids today just too stupid for such training....or is the problem we have too many stupid parents today who don't care to train their kids or discipline them on proper behavior (not just guns, but most anything in life)?
Toddlers and babies are one thing, but young kids can be trained and you only have to secure things as age appropriate....etc.
Right now, I"m not worried about any of that...and I do not need a 'smart' weapon adding a new potential level of failure when I may need to kill someone in my home.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
But my phone says I was in New York, and I even made calls.
Hello, reasonable doubt.
shoot the guy first or cut the guys hand off and wear the watch?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
How would a proximity control prevent a toddler reaching in his mom's purse and shooting her point blank?
Depends on the range that the proximity sensor is programmed for. I'd say that the optimal range would be about six inches,a bracelet or ring on the gun hand. This is an engineering trade-off, like any other.
In any case, though, the fact that it wouldn't stop every shooting doesn't mean it's not valuable in saving some lives.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The primary useful thing about smart guns is that they prevent your toddler from finding your gun and killing you, themselves, or each other.
That's what safes are for.
I have children and guns. I keep my guns locked up.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Then you disagree with the New Jersey law that would have mandates after Smart Guns could be sold, they were the only types of guns that could be sold x days later?
But man..."smart" guns IMHO are NOT a good thing to have.
To the contrary, smart guns are a good thing to have, and the fact that they can be hacked is almost irrelevant.
The primary useful thing about smart guns is that they prevent your toddler from finding your gun and killing you, themselves, or each other.
The fact that I, like many adult, gun-owning Americans, have no children, makes this point moot.
Also, pretty sure the "more likely to be killed with your own gun" myth has been debunked, or at least, proven inaccurate.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
These are guns for people who don't like guns or the people who like guns.
They're ridiculously expensive and why in the hell would I want a gun that can be remotely disabled? Lest we forget, the people that are the reason why we (in the USA) have the second amendment are the very people who would be able to remotely disable such a device. No thank you. Do not want. No bueno!
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
My parents took me and showed me our gun (we only had one early on)....I shot it with them, learned how to chamber a round, how to shoot, how to SAFELY handle a fire arm.
THIS.
The key to safety is knowledge, not fear.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
That statistic is misleading. From another article talking about the same study: 53% are homicides and 38% are suicides, meaning 9% (aka ~117 kids) die from accidental handling.
That's not to say homicides and suicides aren't a problem, nor that 117 kids dying accidentally is okay, but it's a small fraction of the ([VERY] roughly) estimated 22,260 kids that die each year, whether or not you include the homicides & suicides.
My gut says taking all the money put into SmartGuns and directing it towards childrens' hospitals, child services, car safety, etc would give us a better ROI in terms of lives saved.
where the gov't didn't do anything except fight wars and life was nasty, brutish and short. I've got about 70 years where the gov't did a bunch of stuff and things got a lot better really fast. You'd think folks would have noticed this by now.
The reason you can't have a state do that is a state doesn't have enough power to stand up to a global mega corp run by robber barons. Did you ever see the pic of a snake cut in 13 pieces when you were a kid? It wasn't from a snake cook book.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
backing that woman because she opposed progressive policies that benefit the working class. And Hillary couldn't give two shits about your guns either. She just needs some issue, any issue, to make her seem like something other than a Republican. Well, an issue that isn't economic anyway. She's not gonna support Single Payer in my lifetime.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
To the contrary, smart guns are a good thing to have, and the fact that they can be hacked is almost irrelevant.
The primary useful thing about smart guns is that they prevent your toddler from finding your gun and killing you, themselves, or each other.
The fact that I, like many adult, gun-owning Americans, have no children, makes this point moot.
Uh, why does the fact that you have no children mean that you get to prevent other people who do have children from obtaining safer guns?
Also, pretty sure the "more likely to be killed with your own gun" myth has been debunked, or at least, proven inaccurate.
I believe the phrase "pretty sure" is a synonym for "I have no idea whatsoever." Cite data.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Good for you, but most gun owners don't. They say "I need a gun for self defense! A gun isn't any good if it takes me more than a few seconds to get to!"
Besides-- what if your safe malfunctions? This whole thread is saying "if my safety device malfunctions, I'm going to DIE!" So: safes can malfunction. You trust mechanisms on safes, but not on guns?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
>"The primary useful thing about smart guns is that they prevent your toddler from finding your gun and killing you, themselves, or each other. This happens all the time-- 1300 children get killed by firearms per year. [cnn.com] (alternate source [newsweek.com])(another story on the subject [cbsnews.com])."
Yeah, like let's analyze those numbers. That is 1300 "children" just being killed by firearms. Why not look at the SOURCE: http://pediatrics.aappublicati...
" among children aged 0 to 17" "Nearly 1300 children die[...]for gunshot wounds each year." "older children more often died in the context of crime and violence"
And here is the part of the study you need to speak about in regards to our topic with any meaningful force:
"6% were unintentional [accidental] firearm deaths (n = 82)"
So, the CORRECT number in this context is 82 per year. A mere 82, and that INCLUDES TEENAGERS 13 to 17 years old! Not 1300, not even CLOSE. Most of the rest is GANG VIOLENCE and there is NO EVIDENCE the gun was obtained, insecure, from their own house. Don't you love how the media can twice statistics around to make them sound like there is some horrible number of gun accidents that are killing our children?
If you look at actual statistics about "children" accidental deaths, firearms are not even hardly statistically relevant. It is all about suffocation, poisoning, drowning, motor vehicle accidents, falls, medical errors, etc.
"Smart" guns are a [non] solution looking for a problem that doesn't really exist. Instead, they will absolutely cause all kinds of unintended problems.
Be a parent and keep your guns out of reach of said toddlers and you won't need to rely on laws to do your parenting for you. . . .
will never rely on one that has a battery in it.
Period.
I have no desire to have a firearm ever present for safety. I just like to shoot.
And I shouldn't have to justify it, either.
Be a parent and keep your guns out of reach of said toddlers and you won't need to rely on laws to do your parenting for you. . . .
Who was talking about "laws"?
The story in question was about guns that incorporate safety features.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Oh, admit it: Nobody wants "safe" guns because of the mandates stated above: that once on the market, even if decidedly buggy, would then force ALL guns to be illegal that weren't "safe" guns. The laws exist, it's not a matter of conjecture.
In the end, you're just hoping to use this as a run around to eliminate firearms altogether, because they simply make you nervous.
If you really wanted to end gun violence, you'd address the root causes: gangs, drugs-such as the opioid epidemic, criminal culture, etc. You'd address gun safety training instead of barring it as a bogeyman in schools.
The key to safety is knowledge, not fear.
The key to safety is knowledge and a healthy respect for the dangers involved. One without the other leads to mistakes and, since we are humans, mistakes will always happen. This is one of the many reasons why most countries strictly control firearms. It's not fear of them but a healthy respect for the dangers they pose in the hands of random humans who are sometimes drunk, forgetful, distracted, insane etc. While it's fine for you to suffer from your own mistakes and actions when firearms are involved it is usually others who do the suffering.
So you get a choice: either to restrict access to firearms or you learn to live with mass shootings, a high murder rate and toddlers accidentally killing themselves. "Smart" guns are just one way to restrict access so if you prefer the deaths to restrictions on personal freedoms you should be opposed to them. Just don't fool yourself that guns are perfectly safe and pose no risks to anyone. They are designed to be lethal and are only safe when handled correctly which is never going to happen 100% of the time.
What? Columbine was a straw buy. Moreover the presence of guns arguably made things less lethal. Had they concentrated more on their bombs they might not have been duds and would have been able to kill significantly more people and possibly burn the entire school down.
"If you really wanted to end gun violence, you'd address the root causes: gangs, drugs-such as the opioid epidemic, criminal culture, etc."
Root causes? How about less than adequate socio-emotional support in early development.
But fear is what drives the desire to have the firearm ever present for safety. I dream of a society that does not fear firearms or desire them for safety.
WRONG
It's fear that drives the desire to take guns away from OTHERS.
Again - it's the gun grabbers that are scared.
What value does a "smart gun" add that can't be had with a safety and/or trigger lock?
You're saying the optimal proximity range would be about six inches, which means the gun in purse could still be fired by (ex. by a toddler rooting around in there). The simple safety is enough to prevent that situation.
Six inches would also mean that you couldn't fire it with your other hand, should that be necessary, so I'd disagree with that proximity setting. Making it large enough to fire from either hand means 3 to 6 feet, which means the gun next to your bed could be fired by anyone walking in while you're sleeping.
Worse, if you need a watch/ring/bracelet, you're unlikely to be wearing it while you sleep. And where do you keep it when you take it off? ... probably right next to the weapon.
Smart guns are also said to prevent stolen weapons from being used, but this article debunks that. A couple magnets and it's easier for the would be criminal to use than for the owner.
There's also a significant cost difference. You can get a master lock combination trigger lock for $13 (ie. no need for a key), and keyed ones are even cheaper. FWIW, I'm not saying that trigger locks should be mandated, nor should they be used in all situations, but, for the cases where you need/want to make sure that it's not used by someone else accidentally, they work perfectly.
Smart guns may have a place in some special situations, but certainly not across the entire market.
Interstate commerce. Universities operate across state lines you know. And if you want to be a literalist then if you're not in a militia I'll be taking your guns please. And not just any militia, a well regulated one to boot.
And why don't you go live in a cave. I mean that. Stop using my roads (built with federal money even if they're local), my telecom network built with that same federal money, the clean water regulated by the Federal government, taking medicine developed largely with grants, etc, etc, etc, etc.
You benefit from my kid's hard work. Massively. You're being mean spirited and selfish and should be called out on it. I'm tired of you fair weather conservatives all in favor of personal responsibility as long as it's not something you're personally using. Move to Somalia and go enjoy your libertarian paradise.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1300 children get killed by firearms per year.
So?
and moved on to Democratic Socialism, which is working just fine everywhere it's been tried (I know, you're already furiously typing something about Valenzuela without realizing that before the oil boom they were a hopelessly poor country and after the oil boom they've gone back to one).
Smart Guns are likely to be the same. It's a difficult problem to solve that's just in it's infancy. See, the solution to a difficult problem isn't to throw your hands up and say "I give up!" at the first sign or even the second of trouble. For the record some of us _like_ the idea of gun our kids can't accidentally shoot. And not all of us are planing on gunning down the first punk kid that breaks into our house. The dumb kid can have my TV. It's not worth his life.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Sorry, but what the devil are you on about? There are no laws anywhere regarding smart guns. Nor are there any plans to have laws regarding them (short of a few lawmakers trying to get the government to buy smart guns after they received rather generous donations from the makers of said smart guns).
:).
You're seeing a conspiracy where there is none and immediately jumping to a worst possible conclusion. Nobody is planing on forcing you or anyone else to use smart guns. If they're going to take your guns (they're not) they'll just send somebody to round 'em up. On the plus side you reminded me of this today
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1300 children get killed by firearms per year.
So?
So a device which means that only the owner can fire a gun would save lives.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
We have (and mandate) things like seat belts and air bags.
Why not just address the "root causes": people driving badly?
Because BOTH are needed.
I like to keep my guns loaded, chambered and hidden throughout the house...where I'm never but a few steps away from any weapon that I can grab, and pull the trigger on (some do have safety on, but the glocks do not).
Sweet Jesus, are you that paranoid that someone wants to come take your shit? What is going on with you mentally that you have multiple guns, cocked and loaded all over your house? What is wrong with you, why are you so scared of everything?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Considering the suicide rate is about twice the homicide rate, isn't it pretty much a given that you're more likely to shoot yourself than shoot anyone else?
This space intentionally left blank
The devil is in the details... The devil lurking in this study is ... just exactly how do they define "child"?
Checking the article and following the link to the study, I find exactly what I expect to find in a study like this that has numbers that seem too high to be believable:
"Child" is under 18. So they're including teenagers up to 17.
From the same American Academy of Pediatrics article, reading down a ways, they admit that over 90% of that statistic is in the 13-17 age group.
Not exactly representative of the anecdotes about the 3rd grader and the 6-year-old that CNN chose to "make representative", though they did admit to the "90% over 13" bit near the end of the article.
At least they cut it off at 18. Some studies in the past (maybe they're still trying this scam) have defined "child" as under 21, or even up into mid-20s.
Before you blame "gun nuts" for the lack of smart guns, educate yourself a bit about the engineering challenges involved:
"'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?' - Barack Obama
It turns out that it is, in fact, a lot harder to build an iGun (as one smart gun design is dubbed) than an iPhone. One reason: it’s simply tough to design it right and build it well.
Whatever strategy you choose, you’re going to face problems and tradeoffs. When people use guns for self-defense, police work, or in the military, they care most about reliability. You don’t want bugs in the software; you don’t want sweat or temperature extremes to cause a malfunction. The inside of a gun, smart gun proponents admit, is hard on electronics. In terms of engineering tolerances and failsafe expectations, making a smart gun is less like making an iPhone than like building an airplane."
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/...
I like my guns to be "dumb", Car to have a steering wheel, Airplane to use cables, and my women to be real (not some synthetic robot).
Call me old fashion.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"Smart guns need to be evaluated statistically, not with fantasy scenarios. If it makes the chance of accidental injury/death 70% lower while only reducing effectiveness by 5%, it's probably with doing. If it's more like 30/30 then I imagine it won't be acceptable to a lot of people."
You seem to lack a basic understanding of the situation. First off, if someone uses an RF jammer your failure to fire is 100%, and it is fairly trivial to jam RF bands. Even the magnetic finger ring safety has a failure to fire of about 20%. However, lets say for the sake of your argument that all guns are required to be smart guns and they have the much lower 5% failure rate that you cite. There are about 700 accidental shooting fatalities per year (see my other posts for the stats used here). Lets assume that number is reduced by 90% (generously) due to smart guns, saving 630 lives.
Conversely, firearms are used about 40,000 times a year by police to protect lives (themselves or others) from violent criminals who will kill someone if they are not neutralized. If the effectiveness is reduced by 5%, you have just killed 2000 people with your "smart" guns because they didn't discharge when they should have.
Additionally, guns are used about 2,500,000 times per year defensively by citizens to prevent violent crime, rape, murder etc. (we don't have exact numbers on this due to anti gun Democrats blocking the FBI from collecting the statistics). Non-fatal and fatal shootings and defensive discharges account for around 60,000 of those incidents (the others involve verbal warnings, brandishing and pointing). Reducing the effectiveness of the discharge related events by 5% means you just killed 3000 law abiding, innocent citizens.
So you want to save 630 lives, more easily saved with education, gun safes, lockers, cable and trigger locks and strict gun safety laws and in return you are willing to let 5000 people die. When you consider percentages, you must also consider the actual numbers, which are where the rubber meets the road.
So to boil it down to a single line, universal smart guns will kill around 4400 more innocents than today.
The diminished usefulness is the fact that it won't fire when it needs to. This will cost far more lives than are saved.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Again - it's the gun grabbers that are scared.
One of our elected officials let that secret out of the bag. She told a reporter that she was afraid of all the people who had concealed carry permits. It was as if she was planning on assaulting random people on the street and didn't want to have to worry about being shot in self defense.
You can get a master lock combination trigger lock for $13
Or for free from many local police stations, or from many retails when you purchase the gun.
Considering the suicide rate is about twice the homicide rate, isn't it pretty much a given that you're more likely to shoot yourself than shoot anyone else?
Applying bulk statistics to individual members of the population is rarely productive, informative, or accurate. The fact that 3% of a population might kill someone, with two thirds of those "someones" being themselves, does not mean the 97% left over are likely to shoot themselves, too.
And the NRA used to be all about gun safety, before it turned into a paranoid political lobbying group.
What value does a "smart gun" add that can't be had with a safety and/or trigger lock?
*Anybody* can easily turn off the safety.
*Nobody* can use a gun with a trigger lock on it.
See the problem?
You're saying the optimal proximity range would be about six inches, which means the gun in purse could still be fired by (ex. by a toddler rooting around in there).
Why would that be within 6 inches of the enabler?
The simple safety is enough to prevent that situation.
err... no.
Six inches would also mean that you couldn't fire it with your other hand, should that be necessary, so I'd disagree with that proximity setting. Making it large enough to fire from either hand means 3 to 6 feet, which means the gun next to your bed could be fired by anyone walking in while you're sleeping.
Ok... now I'm curious what your handgun stance looks like?
https://www.pewpewtactical.com...
Because it really shouldn't matter what hand you use when you are in anything resembling a proper stance...
https://assets.shootingillustr...
Worse, if you need a watch/ring/bracelet, you're unlikely to be wearing it while you sleep. And where do you keep it when you take it off? ... probably right next to the weapon.
I'm unlikely to be shooting while i sleep too. And I'm not sure why i'd put the 'keys' right next to the weapon, when im not using it. Sure some people would, but those people have a sticky on their monitor with the password too -- i don't think that's a flaw of passwords.
Moreover, I don't sleep with a gun by my pillow in fear of midnight attackers. That is simply not something I live in fear of happening, and it is simply NOT a use case that defines my requirements at all.
Smart guns are also said to prevent stolen weapons from being used, but this article debunks that.
not really. nobody thought it would be impossible to defeat the protection. And the deterrents to theft remain ... few people are going to want to buy a gun that is obviously 'hacked'; no legit buyer will touch it; and even criminals won't want the attention it might bring, or the fear that the hack job isn't reliable.
plus the first person I'd be worried about my stolen gun getting used on, is me, in the act of them stealing it... so unless they plan to hack the gun on the spot, it could save my life.
Smart guns may have a place in some special situations, but certainly not across the entire market.
I agree reliability is paramount. I concede it is another system that could fail. But I think in a lot of environements we could get the reliability up to the point that the rare failure to fire when it should would be more than offset by the benefit of it not firing when it shouldn't.
For police, for security, for home owners, etc.
Now I realize the police are dead set against it, and I respect that and understand why. But *if and when* the benefits outweigh the risks it will be rational for them to switch.
If the odds of being killed with your own gun by a criminal during an arrest/confrontation are 1 in 20,000 with a regular gun, and 1 in 200,000 to 1 with a smart gun; that suggests smart guns are worth looking at.
Now suppose the odds of a regular well maintained handgun failing to fire with good ammunition is say 0.5% (due to ammunition issues, mechanical issues, etc).
If the odds of the smart gun failing to fire due to electronic issues was 1 in 100,000; then it too would be dominated by the same issues as non-smart guns. so 0.500001%.
If we could get smart guns to that point, it seems to be a no-brainer... no? If not why not?
lobby. I hear how the right to keep and bear arms is to protect them from the government. If you just wanted a pistol to threaten a few punks with then gun control wouldn't be an issue. Hitler rounded up guns because the gap between a military and a populace wasn't anywhere near as wide in 1945 as it is now.
And no, the term is not dishonest. It's exactly what it says on the tin. You're a right wing troll or you're repeating talking points from one. My point, which you know full well, is that the working class should stop fighting among itself and switch to proven solutions to the problem of civilization.
Look. I get it. You don't like being told what to do. You didn't when you were a kid and you never grew out of it. But it's time to grow up. Stop dragging us down with your childishness. And If you really don't want to live in civilization go live in the Ozarks or Afghanistan or some crap. Leave. Go. Get out. We'll air drop you food from civilization when you start to starve to death.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Before you blame "gun nuts" for the lack of smart guns, educate yourself a bit about the engineering challenges involved...
Whatever strategy you choose, you're going to face problems and tradeoffs.
Wow. Problems and trade-offs.
Dealing with problems and trade-offs is what engineers do for living.
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/...
Very interesting article. You did read it, right? It basically says that the hardest problems with smart guns are not technical:
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
because they know eventually such features would be mandated..as you damned well know.
I am not a gun nut either.
All that creates is a target rich zone. Why do you think asymmetric warfare (ie terrorism) works well in so called 'progressive' countries? Their citizens are unarmed, unaware, and unconcerned.
Nice article, Mr. coward.
Do you only read article supporting what you already believe, or do you ever read articles that might confront your opinions?
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
http://archive.jsonline.com/news/opinion/are-you-safer-owning-a-gun-for-home-protection-b9912440z1-207958831.html/
https://law.stanford.edu/2015/10/12/professor-john-donohue-facts-do-not-support-claim-that-guns-make-us-safer/
https://www.bustle.com/articles/92454-does-owning-guns-make-you-safer-statistics-say-youre-actually-at-much-higher-risk-of-being
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/01/good_guy_with_a_gun_myth_guns_increase_the_risk_of_homicide_accidents_suicide.html
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/slightly-blighty/201601/does-owning-gun-protect-you
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0804-hemenway-defensive-gun-home-20150730-story.html
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
... address the elephant in the room.
...more than 60 percent of the nation’s 30,000-plus gun deaths each year are acts of suicide, not accidents or homicidal attacks.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Smart guns are really a clueless consultant trying to find something to say idea instead of a practical one. I'm no expert, nothing like it, but the veterans I've talked to see a gun that locks people out as a dangerously stupid idea that's going to get a lot of people killed.
In an emergency, you may not be able to be in a "proper" stance. I assume you are referring to a Weaver or an Isosceles stance. A two handed stance is preferred, but not always practical.
-- Will program for bandwidth
In an emergency, you may not be able to be in a "proper" stance.
Sure, you might need to fire a pistol one handed, offhanded, with your primary hand hand and one foot cuffed to a bedframe, because your home got invaded by armed theives while you were in the middle setting up some light BDSM with girlfriend.. could happen to anyone.
And because you are such an American hero type, you've been practicing that kind of shot too... so you might even hit what you are shooting at.
And there shouldn't be a law mandating seatbelts because you know of a guy who was safely thrown from his convertible into a bush when the car rolled off a cliff, caught fire and exploded as it tumbled down, and then it reached the rushing river at the bottom and sank to the bottom, right? Why he'd have been mangled, burned, and drowned if he'd been wearing a seatbelt. :)
The fact that you can come up with scenarios where a smart gun is bad, doesn't mean that its a bad idea. Like seatbelts, its a question of likelihoods and a balance of risks.
I don't think smartguns are where they would need to be yet. But I also don't think its undesirable or impossible to get them there.
There is no way...repeat NO WAY I'm ever going to rely on electronic technology to make my gun fire. Not happening. The number of points of failure that would be introduced is laughable.
The first time one of these stupid 'smart' guns malfunctions and either prevents a gun from firing and gets the owner killed or IS fired by a child because people relied on the tech instead of teaching their child about guns/putting them out of reach, this shitty idea will come to a complete stop.
I like how "the hurdles aren't only technical" in the article turned into "the hardest problems aren't technical" in your post. Even this extremely biased article didn't go that far.
Gun owners oppose the technology because we know once the technology is there it will be mandated, even if it is buggy as hell. See California and microstamping -- a required technology that doesn't even exist in the form that they are mandating. New Jersey already has a law on the books that once "smart gun" technology is there it is mandated. Also, the line you quoted about the boycott doesn't tell the whole story on that either (but it isn't in the article so I wouldn't expect you to know that). For the sake of the length of this post I won't go into that.
Also, Obama made the FBI come up with a list of criteria for accepting a smart gun. He knew gun owners didn't want them so he figured we can have the federal government create the demand to develop the technology then force it on the general population. If you read their list of criteria it is nearly impossible to implement and requires multiple ways to turn it off (including requiring that the failure mechanism is the gun must work if the "smart gun" tech fails in any way). Requirements I'm sure would be removed when forced on civilians. I got the impression the FBI knew it was a stupid idea.
Currently gun owners do not want any required electronics on their guns that do not have a mechanical backup. Red dot sights have backup iron sights in case the electronics fail, etc. Until we are shooting energy weapons that require processors and batteries to operate, sticking unnecessary electronics into a mechanical device where reliability is a top priority is not acceptable.
Unless you're an arsonist.
OK, so I wake at 4 am due to a burglar being in my bedroom. I struggle to get my wrist watch on so that my gun will help me stay alive. NOT ! No Way ! the idea of control systems on a gun is absurd. People need to be responsible for their own actions rather than ruining the very concept of a firearm as a ready to go weapon that can be used suddenly with great effect.
When in the last 10 years has a "Smart" Anything been a good idea? we see articles of them getting owned every other week. you think for slashdot, even with all the gun grabbing leftys there would be a sense of a bad idea here.
Very interesting article. You did read it, right? It basically says that the hardest problems with smart guns are not technical:
No, no it does not say that. It says that not all of the problems with smart guns are technical. You are being dismissive of the technical challenge, which is real. If it weren't, someone would have come up with a smart gun worth one half of one shit by now. No one has, in spite of lots of people being very motivated by money to create one. QED.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I don't mean this in a condescending way, more in an educational way, but if you bought anything that's marketed as a "Gun Safe" you can get into them in about 20 minutes with an angle grinder. No thermal lance required. Gun safes aren't even safes, they're "Residential Security Containers" and the fireproofing rating on them (if any) is literally made up by the manufacturer and it's method of action is drywall insulation. Most (all?) gun safes have a nice think huge metal door with literal sheet metal siding reinforced with drywall so it sounds think and secure when you knock on it, but again, angle grinder.
You DO realize that drug sellers and users are ALL races, right?
http://nypost.com/2017/06/13/d...
"When in the last 10 years has a "Smart" Anything been a good idea?"
They aren't cloud-connected or internet enabled, you are trying to tar them with a brush that doesn't apply here.
I've seen every comment against smart guns so far only mention these radio signal, watch type systems, and seem to base their objections on that specific implementation. But is that really the only option?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I would think that maybe a finger print system would be a good solution. You wouldn't have to worry about ever losing the watch/ring/etc or not wearing it, using either hand would be no problem assuming you could have multiple approved prints stored in it, and it wouldn't be susceptible to this kind of hacking that intercepts, blocks or otherwise interferes with any kind of broadcast signal.
So the fact that this particular smart gun solution seems easily defeated doesn't look to me like any kind of definitive argument against the idea in general.
Your level of respect and caution is laudable, and the way you were raised concerning guns. But unfortunately, your experience is far from universal. I know way too many people and grew up with many kids for whom guns in their house were something "cool," forbidden and generally speaking something to get out without permission when the parents were gone, usually to impress friends.
And they are so easy to get, especially shotguns and hunting rifles, that plenty of people get them and have no or poor gun safety knowledge and just a lack of respect and the wrong attitude, IMO.
So I would say that given how ingrained the idea that guns are the natural, god given right of every American and ANY attempt at even minimal regulations is just the first step of them TAKIN ALL OUR GUNS!, that attempts at smart guns or things like it will continue.
If we aren't ever going to make proper handling and safe usage and ownership an ingrained part of gun culture for everyone, then I think you'll always have some group or people pushing for some kind of mitigation of irresponsible owners accidentally injuring or killing themselves and others.
Either secure them properly, or don't own them? Yeah that's a great sentiment, but tell me, how are you going to enforce that? How is that any more likely to be a feasible solution than having some kind of smart gun?
Honestly that sounds a lot more like "take away their guns" than any of the suggested regulations are, so I don't see how you could possibly think that would ever work? How do you know who isn't securing them right? How do you know who has irresponsible gun handling and storage habits? The pro gun crowd is generally against even small things like requiring gun safety, firing, etc classes for ALL guns, not just hands guns, so you can't figure it out that way.
So when the super fun fanatics continually oppose virtually any type of regulation, then you'll continue to see ideas like smart guns attempted, because the NRA crowd seems to have an instant, knee-jerk reaction of NO, NO, NO to any gun laws whatsoever.
Even including terrorism, I've a much smaller chance of being murdered in the UK than I would in the US. Same goes for the rest of "progressive" Europe.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
because conjecture and law don't go hand in hand. People have tried to sue gun manufactures for selling a dangerous product and failed completely. Sure, gun manufactures have to sell you a gun that doesn't blow up in your hand, but that's about it.
And we can't address those issues because the people who pro-gun also tend to oppose addressing those issues. They don't want to have to pay for it. So they come to the poll to vote for their guns and stick around to vote against any measure that would solve things. For example, nobody cared about drugs until middle class (mostly white) folk started having problems. And all that got us was lip service. Meanwhile our AG is openly in favor of 'tough' drug laws, meaning longer sentences and bigger crackdown.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
to feed the private prisons and divide the working class against each other. He most likely believes crime is increasing, even though 30 seconds on google proves otherwise.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Uhh because socioeconomic status is weakly correlated to gun violence"
I said "less than adequate socio-emotional support" and that applies no matter the 'socioeconomic status'.
"Want to know what the strongest correlation is?"
I'm talking about about violence, all kinds, and I'm not saying there's only one factor that contributes to kind of violence you're alluding too.
"Look it up. You're not going to like it though, my socially just friend."
And correlation is not causation, buddy :)
Neither were RFID credit cards. politicians and business throw "smart" in front of anything to try to sell it to stupid people.
Yeah, yeah, cherry pick away. Go to as much trouble as you can in your anonymous cowardice to avoid the fact that the FBI in, say, 2000, performed under 9 million background checks, but is now performing well over 20 million a year. Or that manufacturing for the US retail market has more that doubled in just the years Obama was in office. Or that notorious gun pimping paper, the New York Times, reports that the most rapidly growing presence in gun ownership and shooting sports is female, or that known puppet of the NRA, NBC News, reports that extensive interviews at the retail and manufacturing level and at ranges show a surge in new business from African American customers. Or that state-issued permits for concealed carry have surged by almost 2 million in the last 12 months alone, with minorities and women making up most of that new activity. But please, cherry pick some more so you can wish reality away, as you always do, coward.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The story in question was about cars that incorporate safety features. Nobody is going to force you to wear a seatbelt, dude. Nobody is going to make it illegal to disable an airbag. You're just paranoid, man.
Wait, what? You are arguing that cars should not have any safety features because you're afraid that if if somebody makes a safer car, the safer cars might be mandated?
Do you really actually believe that cars should not have any safety features? Or are you just making an argument you don't actually believe, because you're blowing smoke because you like arguing?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Read the article. You posted the link, read it. The article was about the social problems. The technical ones were solvable.
Basically, you just said that you want to take away choice. You're telling me that you don't want people to have the ability to buy a safer guns, because you are afraid that the government may mandate them.
You think you're in favor of choice, but that is actually just argued for: taking away the ability to choose.
By the way, you're wrong. The NRA is the most powerful lobby in America, bar none. What you are afraid of simply is not going to happen. (And the only way the silly law in NJ was allowed to pass was because the NRA allowed it to pass because it was irrelevant.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I will repeat what I just said in the headline: Dealing with problems and trade-offs is what engineers do for living. We're good at it. We can solve technical problems.
Idealogues like you who are trying to take away my ability to choose-- now, that's harder.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Thank you. You summed that up better than I.
The first time I saw smart gun things, they were using biometrics (finger prints). Those have plenty of their own issues, which is probably why they've moved on to these other solutions (NFC/RFID/etc). Some example: doesn't work if you're wearing gloves of any kind; doesn't work well if your hands are dirty/muddy/bloody/etc; takes significantly more processing, which used to take quite a bit more time to authenticate; handedness is still a concern due to sensor placement (tend to be either convenient for one hand, or universally inconvenient); fingerprints are easily lifted and reproduced from well maintained guns with a thin oil coating, reducing the effectiveness against theft; difficulty/complexity when adding users/prints; storage concerns since it requires a fair bit of battery power to authenticate, and maintain that system; ... etc ...
It's very very very unlikely that they're going to get a near perfect solution, which means it shouldn't become the only way to sell new guns. But if smart guns aren't mandated, I don't believe the market will support that industry. IMO, this is one of the biggest underlying reasons that gun folks are anti-smart-gun, because they know they can't succeed without forcing it.
dunno ... "back in the day" when my old man was heavy into neo-nationalism and him and all his friends were gun-collectors ... sidearms, longrifles, scopes ... you know, all those toys for boys, i once got a chance to fire one those m-15 (m-16?) as a kid (no clue cos im not into that. He put a lock on the trunk with the ammo so no matter how i was scoping passersby with a snipe ... i couldnt really shoot anything lol
was kinda smart (sounds a bit american maybe but it was kinda trendy here 20-30 years ago) they did a huge sweep in flanders, maybe whole belgium, gave everyone a chance to turn in their armory without prosecution (like you cant get licenses for military grade equipment or grenades and stuff you know ... those collector thingies for adult boys with toys)
So i never shot anyone ... not even when i was like totally miffed or pissed off or had been in a fight, not even when i was enough to crack a lock lol
maybe its in your nature, i personally never had a gun in my life.
Radiojammer seems kinda easy to carry around if its the new thing in law-enforcement. Did he try broken open microwaves lol ?
So there's room for improvement then ?
(oh the vmo got disbanded and its no longer trendy, its just very racist lol ... well a lot of people are, its just the spirit of the place, its why i fit in so well i guess)
good old days memories ... i dont think a smart gun is a good thing to have if it can be jammed easily, i think you're better off with classics like a glock or if you wanna bling a desert eagle, and put it in a safe where your kid cant get to it. No jamming the glock lol
good, enough remniniscing and yea i do think a gun that cant be jammed with "another smart watch on the intruders arm is definitely the better option when it comes to ... whats it called ? personal defense ! )
You just have to be a so-called responsible parent and maybe if you like having guns in the house teach your kid from very young age what they are. I knew pretty fast as a very little kid to never point anything at people i wasnt gonna shoot, not even when its not loaded. Got more than an earful in case lol olol... im sad he sold off the blade collection though, all those daggers and blades, that was cool guns dont really speak to me (maybe good who knows what might have happened instead by now)
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
No this is an actual real safe not one of those case hardened sheet metal cabinets with some fire board glued to the inside. This is a real safe with a 2.5 hour at 1200F fire rating that took a 4 big guys to move in and initially place because it weighs in at just under 1000 lbs empty (I got the small one). I am aware of the inexpensive gun safes you speak of and went for something else specifically because of the reasons you mentioned. Add in that I do have other valuable and important documents so now I have a good place to store them as well. Even one of those cheap gun safes or metal cabinets would be better than what most people have given how they just store them up on a shelf or in one of those locking glass display cabinets (what the fuck is the purpose of that lock).
Time to offend someone
But, you're use case, lowest common denominator, should not be used as the use case for everyone.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Anything bad for the gun owner is considered a great idea by the communist loving left. The idea that a gun can be disabled from a distance makes their commie panties wet.
With the solenoid disengage system used by the cited weapon; you can open the gun, engage the solenoid, and lock it in place with a drop of superglue. No more "smart" to the gun.
This article is a good example of why there was so much vehement and vociferous opposition to politicians that mouthed the concept of making smart firearm technology mandatory. Smart gun tech is expensive, cumbersome, and flat out doesn't work reliably in the real world.
NRRPT/RCT
Without doubt it is the parents. There is also a lot of influence from school, but the parents have no excuse for not teaching their children about gun safety when they are young. If you do not know what a gun is, what it can do, and not to touch it by the time you are 5 then your parents are absolute failures. The same if you do not know how to shoot it by age 8.
The NRA was first founded to protect the rights of black Americans to keep and bear arms. It was later infiltrated by democrats and started to advocate "reasonable" restrictions in order to slowly take away rights. Of course this disproportionately affects blacks and other minorities in the US, and that was the whole point of it in the first place. Gun laws, just like drug laws, have always been about racism.
Columbine was caused by psychotropic drugs being forced on children. The boys had been telling their parents, teachers, and councilors that they had been having vivid and terrifying hallucinations, as well as long periods of lost memory where they had no idea what they had been doing, since they had started the drugs they were being forced to take. They tried to get help, but everyone ignored them until it tragedy struck.
So, you are trying to tell us that a man does not have the right to end his own life?
I disagree. If a man doesn't have the right to end his own life then he is a slave with no rights.
Not sure where you're coming from. The NRA was founded to promote gun practice because of the poor state of Union soldiers in the civil war. It did not get involved in gun legistlation until the 1930s. Although I am seeing a lot of stories on google from typical far right people trying to claim that it was formed to protect black gun ownership. There's a lot of fake news out there, you have to take it with a grain of salt, and if you see anything by Ann Coulter on the topic then just assume it's not worth a mouse click.
I hear how the right to keep and bear arms is to protect them from the government.
The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, enumerated in the First Amendment, and as such, needs no specific purpose.
And no, the term is not dishonest. It's exactly what it says on the tin.
When the bill is being paid by several tens of millions of taxpayers, it is seriously dishonest to claim that it is "single" payer.
You're a right wing troll or you're repeating talking points from one.
Wrong on both.
My point, which you know full well, is that the working class should stop fighting among itself and switch to proven solutions to the problem of civilization.
I don't know what your point is. You want someone else to pay for your healthcare and child's college is about all I can figure out.
Your ad hominem is cute, but not as grown up as you pretend to be.
All your text is there above so "selective quoting" does not matter - it's just to draw attention to the small portions of your mostly irrelevant walls of text that are not entirely ignorable.