Agreed, smart gun technology is not the complete solution. It is part of a complete solution. Everyone makes mistakes and some of those mistakes kill people. Wouldn't it be great if smart gun mistakes could decrease that death rate?
I agree that smart gun technology is not reliable enough right now. What I see as the problem is all the opposition to research into making it more reliable.
The trick in both cases is to layer your protections and not leave the gate open and the patio doors unlocked.
Smart technology is another layer.
Advocate for Trigger locks, safes, storing weapons unloaded and separate from the ammunition are all more effective solutions.
All of those which would make the firearm completely useless in the situation of a home invasion. In that scenario one does not have time to deal with the safety features. The problem is making the weapon available quickly in home invasion scenarios and keep them away from people who shouldn't be able to fire them.
The issue is denying the technology to the people who want it just because some people don't want it. If no store will sell it or no manufacturer will make it then it will not be available.
That is a slippery slope argument. The fact that the feds may push for making it mandatory in the future does not make making it available now a bad thing.
The only law that "forces" smart guns is in New Jersey and it has yet to come into effect. They have even offered to repeal it.
On May 2, 2014, New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg said she would introduce a bill repealing the 2002 law if the National Rifle Association would agree not to stand in the way of smart gun technology.
The issue is the opposition to the very existence of smart guns.
On May 2, 2014, New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg said she would introduce a bill repealing the 2002 law if the National Rifle Association would agree not to stand in the way of smart gun technology.
How about "an objection to laws mandating smart guns".
That is still very different than an objection to the very existence of smart guns.
In fact, many people who own guns have safes or lock boxes for them.
I don't think any gun store or manufacturer has ever been threatened with arson for carrying a trigger lock or gun safe. They have been in the case of smart guns.
Never is a very long time. You have no idea what technology is around the corner and we will never find it if we stop looking. I agree that fingerprint scanning is not a valid option... yet.
Why do we willingly accept swimming pools, bathtubs and electrical outlets...l
There is a movement to put fences around swimming pools to prevent toddlers from falling in. Electrical plugs outlets have child safety plugs. We are OK with technology that restricts access to these things and that is very similar to smart guns.
That is not an objection to smart guns but an objection to laws mandating smart guns before they are reliable/widely available. That is a huge difference.
The problem is that many people are vehemently against researching the technology or offering current technology for sale. Due to that the reliability/availability issue will never be solved.
Yet another blanket statement that is untrue. Most statements that begin with "they" and assume everyone in the category are identical are usually untrue. Most police want body cameras so they can prove that the suspect was in the wrong.
Lets wait and see how many back out when the move gets triggered. There is a huge difference between signing a non-binding pledge and leaving jobs and home to move to NH.
I am talking about all evidence in any criminal investigation. Right now all evidence, be it video or otherwise, is in the hands of the police. Where do you think it should be held?
Lets have a flash mob of people trying to record ever interaction with police. All it would take is a small scuffle to change a traffic stop into a mob scene.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, smart gun technology is not the complete solution. It is part of a complete solution. Everyone makes mistakes and some of those mistakes kill people. Wouldn't it be great if smart gun mistakes could decrease that death rate?
I agree that smart gun technology is not reliable enough right now. What I see as the problem is all the opposition to research into making it more reliable.
The trick in both cases is to layer your protections and not leave the gate open and the patio doors unlocked.
Smart technology is another layer.
Advocate for Trigger locks, safes, storing weapons unloaded and separate from the ammunition are all more effective solutions.
All of those which would make the firearm completely useless in the situation of a home invasion. In that scenario one does not have time to deal with the safety features. The problem is making the weapon available quickly in home invasion scenarios and keep them away from people who shouldn't be able to fire them.
She didn't promise repeal it, she offered to 'introduce a bill'.
That is the only way the law can be repealed.
She didn't promise to not subsequently veto said bill.
Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg is not the Governor and therefore can not veto the bill.
So the call from the NRA to the only dealer who was selling a smart gun is not opposition?
I am not saying that there were no other options. All I am saying is that a smart gun should be one of the options.
Because of the law.
Because of people's unreasonable reaction to a law in one state that may or may not ever come into effect.
The person who introduced the law offeret to get it repealed if the NRA would drop it's opposition to the development of smart runs. The NRA refused.
The issue is denying the technology to the people who want it just because some people don't want it. If no store will sell it or no manufacturer will make it then it will not be available.
What federal law are you talking about?
That is a slippery slope argument. The fact that the feds may push for making it mandatory in the future does not make making it available now a bad thing.
The only law that "forces" smart guns is in New Jersey and it has yet to come into effect. They have even offered to repeal it.
On May 2, 2014, New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg said she would introduce a bill repealing the 2002 law if the National Rifle Association would agree not to stand in the way of smart gun technology.
The issue is the opposition to the very existence of smart guns.
You seem to be talking about the New Jersey Childproof Handgun Law.
On May 2, 2014, New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg said she would introduce a bill repealing the 2002 law if the National Rifle Association would agree not to stand in the way of smart gun technology.
How about "an objection to laws mandating smart guns".
That is still very different than an objection to the very existence of smart guns.
In fact, many people who own guns have safes or lock boxes for them.
I don't think any gun store or manufacturer has ever been threatened with arson for carrying a trigger lock or gun safe. They have been in the case of smart guns.
Never is a very long time. You have no idea what technology is around the corner and we will never find it if we stop looking.
I agree that fingerprint scanning is not a valid option... yet.
Why do we willingly accept swimming pools, bathtubs and electrical outlets ...l
There is a movement to put fences around swimming pools to prevent toddlers from falling in. Electrical plugs outlets have child safety plugs. We are OK with technology that restricts access to these things and that is very similar to smart guns.
A toddler took a gun from his mother's purse and shot her in the head killing her. With smart gun technology that would not have happened.
That is not an objection to smart guns but an objection to laws mandating smart guns before they are reliable/widely available. That is a huge difference.
The problem is that many people are vehemently against researching the technology or offering current technology for sale. Due to that the reliability/availability issue will never be solved.
They don't want body-cams ...
Yet another blanket statement that is untrue. Most statements that begin with "they" and assume everyone in the category are identical are usually untrue. Most police want body cameras so they can prove that the suspect was in the wrong.
Lets wait and see how many back out when the move gets triggered. There is a huge difference between signing a non-binding pledge and leaving jobs and home to move to NH.
Sorry, the statement I replied to was false.
I am talking about all evidence in any criminal investigation. Right now all evidence, be it video or otherwise, is in the hands of the police. Where do you think it should be held?
That means that your original statement was false as 5% of police killings were not more than the number of people killed in mass shooting last year.
Who do you think gathers and archives evidence now?
Lets have a flash mob of people trying to record ever interaction with police. All it would take is a small scuffle to change a traffic stop into a mob scene.
Do you understand the difference between reality and fiction . The book "Atlas Shrugs" is fiction.
Remember, cops murdered more people than mass shooters this year.
Every time a cop kills someone it is not murder. Most time it is justifiable homicide as the suspect was trying to kill the police officer.