Ironic that you earlier criticized me for making an assumption about the reliability of "smart" guns, then proceed to make a number of your own assumptions about my motivations and rationale. Pot, say hello to kettle.
Fair enough. Nice to meet you, kettle.
That aside, what "drives [me] to the conclusion that the threat of deadly force against others is the way for [me] to feel secure in your person," is the fact that there really are other people out there, who would intentionally harm you, me, our loved ones, or anyone else, if they feel they can gain some sort of advantage from it, whether it be by theft of our property, a feeling of self-justified murder (like someone shooting someone else for cutting them off in traffic; it happens), or for no good reason whatsoever (a la Adam Lanza/James Holmes), and I refuse to be victimized without a fight.
Are such occurrences relatively rare? Yes, but they do happen, usually when you least expect them, and as the saying goes, "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it."
I do see your point. According to the FBI, there were 4.8 homicides per 100,000 (14,400) in the US in 2012. I guess there is always that possibility. However, according to the CDC death by homicide isn't even in the top 15 causes of death, which (relatively speaking) makes death by homicide fairly rare.
Given that there were 10.8 automobile deaths per 100,000 (34,080) in the US the same year. That means that you're ~2.5 times more likely to die in an automobile accident than by homicide. Since you are much more likely to die in or by an automobile, what steps do you take to avoid that? Stay off the roads? Live in a place with limited access for automobiles? Since you appear to be concerned about your safety, I'm sure you've done the research and have taken whatever (presumably at least 2.5 times more) steps are necessary to protect you from death by automobile. I'm sure you also expend the appropriate time and resources trying to minimize the impact of all the other more likely causes. If not, then your argument seems to be somewhat specious.
Again with the assumptions. For your information, the death caused by a gunshot from a trained person (which I am - unlike some folks, I actually practice with my weapons fairly regularly, and pride myself on being a pretty damn good shot) is far, far less gruesome and painful than other possible methods; would you prefer that, instead of a.45 caliber handgun, which can kill a person instantly, I carried my 12" hunting knife, or maybe my retractable steel baton? Just so you know, I've seen someone run through with such a blade, and "gruesome and painful" doesn't begin to describe the situation.
Ranting aside, to answer your leading question, I have no drive to "threaten anyone who may stand in my path," presuming that person isn't threatening me. Where do you get the idea that 2nd Amendment advocates are violent aggressors, anyway? Because FYI, that's a total myth.
You're right. I'd much rather you shoot me to death than stab me to death. How magnanimous of you. Can I send you a gift as a thank you?
The phrase "...anyone who may stand in your path" was meant to to mean that they made you feel threatened. In retrospect, I should have been more explicit. My apologies for the confusion.
I don't (and didn't say) believe that 2nd Amendment advocates are violent aggressors. What I did say is that if you *carry* a gun, you are making the decision (in advance) that you are (for whatever reason) willing to take another person's life.
I don't know you. It's conceivable that you are a kind, caring human being who wouldn't harm another person except for clearly defined and objectively deter
Because the US is moving slowly more and more towards a police state. Between the NSA doing what it does, Net Neutrality being butchered, Police brutality and authority overreach occurring more and more often, and other similar events, people don't want anything that can help the situation get worse.
And while I agree terrorizing a marketing drone is unreasonable and unacceptable, at the same time, I also don't think it's unreasonable or unacceptable for us to be so "against" this type of technology.
It existing and becoming prevalent in society will just give politicians with agendas ideas about enforcing it upon us. And their track record tells us they can do such things fine on their own as it is and are willing to. Extra initiative is bad. We have enough to deal with and giving people technology like this can make things worse more than it can make things better imo.
I personally wish this technology wasn't even a thing and that the people who own this company didn't want to make it mainstream. I'm not going to go as far as terrorizing them for it, but I stand by that choice to be completely against the idea of these type of weapons.
As is said, "Keep it simple, stupid."
Your points are well taken. Our government is being run by those continuing to advance an agenda to increase the wealth and power of a small group, At the expense of the rest of us. It is very scary.
However, history teaches us that the technological genie cannot be put back in the bottle. That goes for firearms technology just as much as any other. As such, I suspect we will need to find ways to deal with this as constructively as possible. "Smart" weapons are not going to go away. We need to deal with that reality, IMHO.
I agree with you (from your first post) that the sale of "smart" weapons isn't a bad thing.
If somebody wants one, I believe they should be allowed to buy it. I'm free market like that.
As for finger/palm reading, what if I'm wearing gloves? I'm not police, I'm military, but I can say that I'm wearing gloves at least half the time I'm handling a firearm, whether for duty or practicing at a range or during an exercise. They're not thick gloves, but a palm print won't even penetrate thin latex gloves.
On the other hand, a watch type RFID system would require me to use both hands or the hand with the watch - and I'm used to wearing a watch on my left hand. What if I have to shoot off-handed?
Hell, the weapon would still fire if the user's arm is within 10" of it, such as if the criminal and user are wrestling for control of the weapon. So the user might STILL get shot.
it might save some lives.
I've found that "It might save some lives" to nearly always be a suprisingly poor reason to do something.
Again, good information. Thanks! I'm not police, [para]military or a gun enthusiast and didn't consider the use of gloves. That's an excellent point.
I do see your point about "saving lives," however I think that your economic valuation of human life would come up rather short for the person(s) killed and their loved ones.
That said, I'm not advocating for the mandatory use of "smart" weapons. As someone who finds technology fascinating, to me the concept of a "smart" weapon is an excellent one.
Perhaps I should look into designing something like this.;)
There are almost a billion Americans in the world, and three hundred million citizens of the USA, including Florida Man. Trying to understand them all as a single entity is guaranteed to cause head explody, to use the medical term for it.
So, what you're saying is that thinking like an American is not akin to this?
If the difference between staying alive and being murdered is a matter of split seconds? You tell me. Keep in mind, the villain you're theoretically facing probably didn't bother to steal a smart gun. His is definitely going to fire; are you sure it's worth your life to risk the chance that yours might not?
You're making the assumption that such a security device is not reliable. Is there evidence to support that?
Yes - cops refuse to carry them. Now, why would a cop refuse to carry such a weapon, if not for the fact that they believe it to be unreliable?
Just one additional point. I do not carry firearms because I'm not prepared to kill people. I've lived my whole (almost half a century) life in a large urban area, at times in high-crime areas, and that's never been an issue. What are you afraid of?
Strawman - fear has nothing to do with the decision of carrying something a person can use to defend themselves. If you choose to not carry a means of defense, on the off chance that you find yourself in a life threatening situation, that's your right and decision, and I won't demean you for making it, just as I expect you to not demean my right and decision to provide myself the means to defend myself and my loved ones, if the need ever arises (which, like the majority of people, I pray never happens).
Accusing me of being "afraid" is disrespectful, and seems an obvious attempt at marginalizing a point-of-view you disagree with.
Not a strawman. My apologies if you were offended by my characterization. However, if it isn't fear (of the unknown, of some notional threat, or of your own mortality) that drives you to the conclusion that the threat of deadly force against others is the way for you to feel secure in your person, then what drives you to (at least in your mind) threaten anyone who may stand in your path with gruesome, painful death?
That may strike you as hyperbole, but that is, in fact, how your choice appears to me. The act of carrying a deadly weapon for "protection," to me, implies a willingness to inflict death, or at least grievous bodily harm on another human being. Such extreme measures suggests a strong driver -- in my mind, most likely fear.
Please understand, I'm not trying to demean you or your choices. It's just that I honestly don't get it. And I'd like to understand your point of view. If you would explain, I would much appreciate it.
I want everyone in my family to be able to use my guns without a moments' hesitation. Furthermore, I want perfect strangers to be able to use my gun if I am injured and cannot use it myself. Finally, I want my gun to be absolutely 100 percent reliable.
That reliability concern is the most pressing. Many gun manufacturers still haven't worked out how to make guns operate with >99% reliability (i.e. in a box of 100 cartridges, I will experience no more than one failure to feed or failure to eject). Reliability is hard, and electronics are infamously unreliable.
Electronics are particularly known to be unreliable in the kinds of conditions that concealed firearms experience, such as hard shocks, exposure to strange chemistry, and high humidity.
I'm just amazed. This doesn't apply specifically to you LF11, but WTF!?!?! What makes all of you so afraid? I don't (and never have) need a gun to feel and be safe. This has been borne out by almost fifty years of living, some of it while engaged in activities which can (and has) attracted a violent element.
I feel sorry for those of you who are so terrified of the world around you. It's just sad.
Stop being cowards, hiding behind your death machines and grow a pair, folks. Guns don't make you safer. Your brain (when used properly) makes you safer.
I don't begrudge you your right to bear arms. But you certainly aren't welcome in my home. Your fear makes you much more dangerous than the vast majority of bad actors in this world, IMHO.
This makes the point, I think:
“Dwayne's bad chemicals made him take a loaded thirty-eight caliber revolver from under his pillow and stick it in his mouth. This was a tool whose only purpose was to make holes in human beings.”
-- Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions
I have quite enough holes already, thank you very much.
And folks could just buy their guns in another state, no?
Well, if NJ law is anything like CA law, then yea, they could, but if they don't have special permission from the state to own a non-compliant weapon, they're going to be in deep shit with Johnny Law.
And if folks aren't being forced to use such technologies, I'm not sure why folks are terrorizing a marketing drone from a manufacturer that isn't even selling the weapon in the one state with such a law.
Because morons exist on all sides of all debates - remember the asshat who came up with the Gun GeoMarker app?
Try to not let fringe lunatics color your view of the majority, who disagree with their actions.
The NJ law(again AFAICT, the only such law in the US) only addresses the manufacture and sale of guns *in* NJ, not possession.
If the difference between staying alive and being murdered is a matter of split seconds? You tell me. Keep in mind, the villain you're theoretically facing probably didn't bother to steal a smart gun. His is definitely going to fire; are you sure it's worth your life to risk the chance that yours might not?
You're making the assumption that such a security device is not reliable. Is there evidence to support that?
Just one additional point. I do not carry firearms because I'm not prepared to kill people. I've lived my whole (almost half a century) life in a large urban area, at times in high-crime areas, and that's never been an issue. What are you afraid of?
I have been working with computers since my cousin got a TRS-80 and computers have many wonderful qualities, but reliability has never been their strong suit.
I've been working with computers since my brother got a TRS80 Model I back in '78. Those cassette drives were murder. But once we got a 5.25" SSDD (360KB, FTW!) floppy, the sky was the limit! And you are correct about reliability. However, what general purpose computers have to do with RFID tags is beyond me.
Your point, however, is well taken. As I mentioned (why did you leave this part out, BTW?): "a finger/palm print scanner on the weapon might be more reliable." So. Is your concern with the specific technology (RFID) or the concept of personalized weapons?
Really, you need to learn how to think like an American to understand them.
I hate to break it to you, but I am an American. As such, I think like one. So I guess I don't understand myself? Sigh. I sense long years of psychotherapy coming my way.
You're not making any sense. Anybody is free to update early kernels and any other open software.
That's true. But the copyrights are still valid. I you want a software regime where [no support] = [copyright lapse], I suggest you contact your congressperson and try to get the copyright laws changed. Good luck with that.
As someone else said, when you need a gun, really need it, you don't want something technical like a dead battery or a bug from stopping you on top of the other things that can happen (i.e. malfunction, it being taken, etc).
This is why the police don't use technologies made to help them prevent criminals from gaining the upper hand like magazine safeties and such. It's just another thing that could get in the way of when you need it most.
If the professionals aren't willing to use this type of stuff, I don't see why average citizens should be forced [Note the "forced"] to as well personally. It's fine as an offering, but even then, it's still terrible for the same reasons.
I get it. But I'm not sure where the "forced" part comes in. Even the NJ law (AFAICT, the only law in the US that could "force" anyone) doesn't require that existing guns be modified. And folks could just buy their guns in another state, no?
And if folks aren't being forced to use such technologies, I'm not sure why folks are terrorizing a marketing drone from a manufacturer that isn't even selling the weapon in the one state with such a law. So much hate for so little real reason. That's sad.
But if the safety fails to disengage? The weapon is a useless lump of metal. And this is not a toy. If you need it and it fails your life and/or the lives of your loved ones are threatened.
Okay. Is that a viable concern in this case? I could see where RFID signals could be coincidentally or intentionally jammed, so a finger/palm print scanner on the weapon might be more reliable. If the device is reliable, what's the downside?
Movie example would be Skyfall. Bond's adversary could not use his electronically monitored gun but yet Bond would of died if the enemies also carried electronically monitored guns. Where would the WIN/WIN be, for you as the viewer or Bond? No real world examples so a fictions with an underline theme had to be used.
I for one want reliability. When a battery is attached to any pure mechanical tool it has a greater potential for failure. Just look at the battery issues with Tesla cars, night time vamping of power. Sorry for not being able to use your firearm since the wireless connecting is being blocked by heavy apparel, low battery, or wireless interference.
Shorting the RFID connection would be simplistic, that is why access control hardware often is accompanied by security screws, not all have the drivers. Stolen property can never be modified to circumvent security.
Safety is and will always been in the hands of the beholder just like a car, a knife, or any tool.
No one other than Sean Connery can be James Bond. Therefore your example is invalid.:):):)
As I said several times in other posts, let the market decide if it's a viable product and this, IMHO is something of a tempest in a teapot. Folks seem to be getting all up in arms (no pun intended) about something that doesn't (and likely won't) affect them.
Roughly speaking, firearm owners are very conservative in their fiream selections. Consider that the most popular handgun type is the 1911- accepted by the Army in the year 1911, development and early models were around a few years earlier. Even the AR-15 dates back to '57.
The concern is one of reliability. Consider how hard police will lobby for exemptions to any requirements to use smart guns, when 5% of officers murdered are murdered with their own firearm. They're not reliable enough yet.
Another is expense - guns are expensive enough to begin with, how much more expensive would this make firearms for how much added safety? Probably a lot, for very little. Few are murdered with their own weapon by a person that wouldn't be authorized(Spouse killing Spouse, for example).
Thanks for the information! I agree with you (from your first post) that the sale of "smart" weapons isn't a bad thing. I say let the market decide if they are viable. I'd only add that I'd imagine if the technology (I would think that finger/palm print or similar technology would be more reliable than something like RFID -- that would be trivial to jam, no?) is viable, it might save some lives.
Because this "smart" technology is unreliable and not something people want to trust their lives with when it matters. How about we have police and military start using these "smart" guns first to show everyone how great they are?
Umm...Okay. Why not? Then again, shouldn't we just let the market decide?
And if someone doesn't like the product or the idea of such a product, then don't buy one.
The issue is that some states have pushed for laws which would require this kind of technology on new guns, and require older firearms to be fitted with such a scheme.[Emphasis added]
Other than NJ, which states have put forth or enacted laws requiring "smart" guns? The NJ law (enacted in 2002, BTW) is, AFAICT, the *only* state to have enacted such legislation. What is more, the NJ law makes no mention of retrofitting any firearms. In fact, "antique" guns are explicitly exempt from the provisions of the statute.
As I mentioned in a previous post, IMHO, this is something of a tempest in a teapot.
"And if someone doesn't like the product or the idea of such a product, then don't buy one." Except that this technology is unproven and there are already attempts to legislate forcing it on gun owners. Although, even if it were actual law it wouldn't justify threatening anyone from the manufacturer.
Unproven technology or not, wouldn't it be the consumer to decide if they wish to purchase such a weapon? I'm just a dumb, non gun-owning city dweller, so I'm not very knowledgeable about such things, but even if a state (IIRC, NJ was mentioned in TFS, right?) tried to mandate that new guns sold there must use such a technology, couldn't I just buy a used gun in NJ, or go to another state (NY, CT, PA, DE, etc) that doesn't have such a law and buy a new "dumb" gun?
FWIW, It seems to me that this is something of a tempest in a teapot Just sayin'.
If it's such a good idea why aren't the armed forces using it?
I have no idea. Hence my question. I guess your reading comprehension skills are right up there with your subject/verb agreement skills, eh? Oh, and FTFY. You're welcome.
To get Bennett "I can't just waste my own time, I have to waste other people's time too" Haselton his own EC2 or Azure instance so he can post his drivel all he wants without bothering the rest of us.
Yeah. I guess that wouldn't really get rid of him. But I can hope, can't I? Sigh.
Because many people prefer the risk of it being stolen or being disarmed in the middle of a scuffle, than to have those risks, plus the additional risk of the weapon refusing to fire due to some hard to resolve technical issue.
Fair enough. I imagine there are many people who would welcome such a feature. And if someone doesn't like the product or the idea of such a product, then don't buy one. In any case (and I'm not referring to you here, Whatshisname), IMHO there's certainly no reason to threaten the life of a *marketing drone* from the manufacturer over this.
That could actually be read two ways, and you are choosing to read it in the more sinister way. Perhaps that is warranted, but not by anything I have seen.
I've seen no evidence anyone has harmed her or offered to harm her - and if I am wrong, if someone has done that, they should face consequences for that act. But what I do see is being done (and SHOULD be done) is that people are watching to see when she manages to get a distributor lined up, and informing said potential distributor of some context that might change their mind.
People are mad about this and have every right to be concerned.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't having a "smart" gun as described in TFS be a win/win for everyone? Gun owners can use their guns, but it someone steals it or disarms the gun owner, the gun is useless. Not sure why folks are complaining. Anyone want to enlighten me?
Just press ctrl+shift+F7 to print! Word was about 300 times more usable than Wordperfect, even the DOS versions nobody used. It just led in market share, & people didn't want to lose file compatibility.
As someone who relied on a word processor for much of my work back in the early-mid 90's, I remember what a piece of crap MS Word was back then. Word Perfect (with the caveat that WP4win was crap), while it did have its peccadilloes, was far superior to MS Word. Feel free to disagree. However if you do, you will identify yourself as someone too young to remember or as someone who just wasn't paying attention. That is all.
Slashdot Mirror
Ironic that you earlier criticized me for making an assumption about the reliability of "smart" guns, then proceed to make a number of your own assumptions about my motivations and rationale. Pot, say hello to kettle.
Fair enough. Nice to meet you, kettle.
That aside, what "drives [me] to the conclusion that the threat of deadly force against others is the way for [me] to feel secure in your person," is the fact that there really are other people out there, who would intentionally harm you, me, our loved ones, or anyone else, if they feel they can gain some sort of advantage from it, whether it be by theft of our property, a feeling of self-justified murder (like someone shooting someone else for cutting them off in traffic; it happens), or for no good reason whatsoever (a la Adam Lanza/James Holmes), and I refuse to be victimized without a fight.
Are such occurrences relatively rare? Yes, but they do happen, usually when you least expect them, and as the saying goes, "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it."
I do see your point. According to the FBI, there were 4.8 homicides per 100,000 (14,400) in the US in 2012. I guess there is always that possibility. However, according to the CDC death by homicide isn't even in the top 15 causes of death, which (relatively speaking) makes death by homicide fairly rare.
Given that there were 10.8 automobile deaths per 100,000 (34,080) in the US the same year. That means that you're ~2.5 times more likely to die in an automobile accident than by homicide. Since you are much more likely to die in or by an automobile, what steps do you take to avoid that? Stay off the roads? Live in a place with limited access for automobiles? Since you appear to be concerned about your safety, I'm sure you've done the research and have taken whatever (presumably at least 2.5 times more) steps are necessary to protect you from death by automobile. I'm sure you also expend the appropriate time and resources trying to minimize the impact of all the other more likely causes. If not, then your argument seems to be somewhat specious.
Again with the assumptions. For your information, the death caused by a gunshot from a trained person (which I am - unlike some folks, I actually practice with my weapons fairly regularly, and pride myself on being a pretty damn good shot) is far, far less gruesome and painful than other possible methods; would you prefer that, instead of a .45 caliber handgun, which can kill a person instantly, I carried my 12" hunting knife, or maybe my retractable steel baton? Just so you know, I've seen someone run through with such a blade, and "gruesome and painful" doesn't begin to describe the situation.
Ranting aside, to answer your leading question, I have no drive to "threaten anyone who may stand in my path," presuming that person isn't threatening me. Where do you get the idea that 2nd Amendment advocates are violent aggressors, anyway? Because FYI, that's a total myth.
You're right. I'd much rather you shoot me to death than stab me to death. How magnanimous of you. Can I send you a gift as a thank you?
The phrase "...anyone who may stand in your path" was meant to to mean that they made you feel threatened. In retrospect, I should have been more explicit. My apologies for the confusion.
I don't (and didn't say) believe that 2nd Amendment advocates are violent aggressors. What I did say is that if you *carry* a gun, you are making the decision (in advance) that you are (for whatever reason) willing to take another person's life.
I don't know you. It's conceivable that you are a kind, caring human being who wouldn't harm another person except for clearly defined and objectively deter
Because the US is moving slowly more and more towards a police state. Between the NSA doing what it does, Net Neutrality being butchered, Police brutality and authority overreach occurring more and more often, and other similar events, people don't want anything that can help the situation get worse.
And while I agree terrorizing a marketing drone is unreasonable and unacceptable, at the same time, I also don't think it's unreasonable or unacceptable for us to be so "against" this type of technology.
It existing and becoming prevalent in society will just give politicians with agendas ideas about enforcing it upon us. And their track record tells us they can do such things fine on their own as it is and are willing to. Extra initiative is bad. We have enough to deal with and giving people technology like this can make things worse more than it can make things better imo.
I personally wish this technology wasn't even a thing and that the people who own this company didn't want to make it mainstream. I'm not going to go as far as terrorizing them for it, but I stand by that choice to be completely against the idea of these type of weapons.
As is said, "Keep it simple, stupid."
Your points are well taken. Our government is being run by those continuing to advance an agenda to increase the wealth and power of a small group, At the expense of the rest of us. It is very scary.
However, history teaches us that the technological genie cannot be put back in the bottle. That goes for firearms technology just as much as any other. As such, I suspect we will need to find ways to deal with this as constructively as possible. "Smart" weapons are not going to go away. We need to deal with that reality, IMHO.
I agree with you (from your first post) that the sale of "smart" weapons isn't a bad thing.
If somebody wants one, I believe they should be allowed to buy it. I'm free market like that.
As for finger/palm reading, what if I'm wearing gloves? I'm not police, I'm military, but I can say that I'm wearing gloves at least half the time I'm handling a firearm, whether for duty or practicing at a range or during an exercise. They're not thick gloves, but a palm print won't even penetrate thin latex gloves.
On the other hand, a watch type RFID system would require me to use both hands or the hand with the watch - and I'm used to wearing a watch on my left hand. What if I have to shoot off-handed?
Hell, the weapon would still fire if the user's arm is within 10" of it, such as if the criminal and user are wrestling for control of the weapon. So the user might STILL get shot.
it might save some lives.
I've found that "It might save some lives" to nearly always be a suprisingly poor reason to do something.
Again, good information. Thanks! I'm not police, [para]military or a gun enthusiast and didn't consider the use of gloves. That's an excellent point.
I do see your point about "saving lives," however I think that your economic valuation of human life would come up rather short for the person(s) killed and their loved ones.
That said, I'm not advocating for the mandatory use of "smart" weapons. As someone who finds technology fascinating, to me the concept of a "smart" weapon is an excellent one.
Perhaps I should look into designing something like this. ;)
There are almost a billion Americans in the world, and three hundred million citizens of the USA, including Florida Man. Trying to understand them all as a single entity is guaranteed to cause head explody, to use the medical term for it.
So, what you're saying is that thinking like an American is not akin to this?
As much as having a car whose brakes only work when the ECU detects that there isn't a cell phone in use would be "win/win."
A gun is something you should rarely-if-ever need, but when you need it, you need it to work without fail. Like the brakes on your car.
And so I should always leave my car keys prominently displayed in my unlocked car as well?
Non sequitur - has nothing to do with the results of a potential and unexpected system failure.
I was merely using a different car analogy to represent a personalization device on a weapon. As such it does follow, IMHO.
If the difference between staying alive and being murdered is a matter of split seconds? You tell me. Keep in mind, the villain you're theoretically facing probably didn't bother to steal a smart gun. His is definitely going to fire; are you sure it's worth your life to risk the chance that yours might not?
You're making the assumption that such a security device is not reliable. Is there evidence to support that?
Yes - cops refuse to carry them. Now, why would a cop refuse to carry such a weapon, if not for the fact that they believe it to be unreliable?
Just one additional point. I do not carry firearms because I'm not prepared to kill people. I've lived my whole (almost half a century) life in a large urban area, at times in high-crime areas, and that's never been an issue. What are you afraid of?
Strawman - fear has nothing to do with the decision of carrying something a person can use to defend themselves. If you choose to not carry a means of defense, on the off chance that you find yourself in a life threatening situation, that's your right and decision, and I won't demean you for making it, just as I expect you to not demean my right and decision to provide myself the means to defend myself and my loved ones, if the need ever arises (which, like the majority of people, I pray never happens).
Accusing me of being "afraid" is disrespectful, and seems an obvious attempt at marginalizing a point-of-view you disagree with.
Not a strawman. My apologies if you were offended by my characterization. However, if it isn't fear (of the unknown, of some notional threat, or of your own mortality) that drives you to the conclusion that the threat of deadly force against others is the way for you to feel secure in your person, then what drives you to (at least in your mind) threaten anyone who may stand in your path with gruesome, painful death?
That may strike you as hyperbole, but that is, in fact, how your choice appears to me. The act of carrying a deadly weapon for "protection," to me, implies a willingness to inflict death, or at least grievous bodily harm on another human being. Such extreme measures suggests a strong driver -- in my mind, most likely fear.
Please understand, I'm not trying to demean you or your choices. It's just that I honestly don't get it. And I'd like to understand your point of view. If you would explain, I would much appreciate it.
I want everyone in my family to be able to use my guns without a moments' hesitation. Furthermore, I want perfect strangers to be able to use my gun if I am injured and cannot use it myself. Finally, I want my gun to be absolutely 100 percent reliable. That reliability concern is the most pressing. Many gun manufacturers still haven't worked out how to make guns operate with >99% reliability (i.e. in a box of 100 cartridges, I will experience no more than one failure to feed or failure to eject). Reliability is hard, and electronics are infamously unreliable. Electronics are particularly known to be unreliable in the kinds of conditions that concealed firearms experience, such as hard shocks, exposure to strange chemistry, and high humidity.
I'm just amazed. This doesn't apply specifically to you LF11, but WTF!?!?! What makes all of you so afraid? I don't (and never have) need a gun to feel and be safe. This has been borne out by almost fifty years of living, some of it while engaged in activities which can (and has) attracted a violent element.
I feel sorry for those of you who are so terrified of the world around you. It's just sad.
Stop being cowards, hiding behind your death machines and grow a pair, folks. Guns don't make you safer. Your brain (when used properly) makes you safer.
I don't begrudge you your right to bear arms. But you certainly aren't welcome in my home. Your fear makes you much more dangerous than the vast majority of bad actors in this world, IMHO.
This makes the point, I think:
“Dwayne's bad chemicals made him take a loaded thirty-eight caliber revolver from under his pillow and stick it in his mouth. This was a tool whose only purpose was to make holes in human beings.”
-- Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions
I have quite enough holes already, thank you very much.
And folks could just buy their guns in another state, no?
Well, if NJ law is anything like CA law, then yea, they could, but if they don't have special permission from the state to own a non-compliant weapon, they're going to be in deep shit with Johnny Law.
And if folks aren't being forced to use such technologies, I'm not sure why folks are terrorizing a marketing drone from a manufacturer that isn't even selling the weapon in the one state with such a law.
Because morons exist on all sides of all debates - remember the asshat who came up with the Gun GeoMarker app?
Try to not let fringe lunatics color your view of the majority, who disagree with their actions.
The NJ law(again AFAICT, the only such law in the US) only addresses the manufacture and sale of guns *in* NJ, not possession.
If the difference between staying alive and being murdered is a matter of split seconds? You tell me. Keep in mind, the villain you're theoretically facing probably didn't bother to steal a smart gun. His is definitely going to fire; are you sure it's worth your life to risk the chance that yours might not?
You're making the assumption that such a security device is not reliable. Is there evidence to support that?
Just one additional point. I do not carry firearms because I'm not prepared to kill people. I've lived my whole (almost half a century) life in a large urban area, at times in high-crime areas, and that's never been an issue. What are you afraid of?
As much as having a car whose brakes only work when the ECU detects that there isn't a cell phone in use would be "win/win."
A gun is something you should rarely-if-ever need, but when you need it, you need it to work without fail. Like the brakes on your car.
And so I should always leave my car keys prominently displayed in my unlocked car as well?
I have been working with computers since my cousin got a TRS-80 and computers have many wonderful qualities, but reliability has never been their strong suit.
I've been working with computers since my brother got a TRS80 Model I back in '78. Those cassette drives were murder. But once we got a 5.25" SSDD (360KB, FTW!) floppy, the sky was the limit! And you are correct about reliability. However, what general purpose computers have to do with RFID tags is beyond me.
Your point, however, is well taken. As I mentioned (why did you leave this part out, BTW?): "a finger/palm print scanner on the weapon might be more reliable." So. Is your concern with the specific technology (RFID) or the concept of personalized weapons?
Really, you need to learn how to think like an American to understand them.
I hate to break it to you, but I am an American. As such, I think like one. So I guess I don't understand myself? Sigh. I sense long years of psychotherapy coming my way.
You're not making any sense. Anybody is free to update early kernels and any other open software.
That's true. But the copyrights are still valid. I you want a software regime where [no support] = [copyright lapse], I suggest you contact your congressperson and try to get the copyright laws changed. Good luck with that.
What Whatsisname said.
In theory, it's a win/win. In practice, it's not.
As someone else said, when you need a gun, really need it, you don't want something technical like a dead battery or a bug from stopping you on top of the other things that can happen (i.e. malfunction, it being taken, etc).
This is why the police don't use technologies made to help them prevent criminals from gaining the upper hand like magazine safeties and such. It's just another thing that could get in the way of when you need it most.
If the professionals aren't willing to use this type of stuff, I don't see why average citizens should be forced [Note the "forced"] to as well personally. It's fine as an offering, but even then, it's still terrible for the same reasons.
I get it. But I'm not sure where the "forced" part comes in. Even the NJ law (AFAICT, the only law in the US that could "force" anyone) doesn't require that existing guns be modified. And folks could just buy their guns in another state, no?
And if folks aren't being forced to use such technologies, I'm not sure why folks are terrorizing a marketing drone from a manufacturer that isn't even selling the weapon in the one state with such a law. So much hate for so little real reason. That's sad.
But if the safety fails to disengage? The weapon is a useless lump of metal. And this is not a toy. If you need it and it fails your life and/or the lives of your loved ones are threatened.
Okay. Is that a viable concern in this case? I could see where RFID signals could be coincidentally or intentionally jammed, so a finger/palm print scanner on the weapon might be more reliable. If the device is reliable, what's the downside?
Movie example would be Skyfall. Bond's adversary could not use his electronically monitored gun but yet Bond would of died if the enemies also carried electronically monitored guns. Where would the WIN/WIN be, for you as the viewer or Bond? No real world examples so a fictions with an underline theme had to be used.
I for one want reliability. When a battery is attached to any pure mechanical tool it has a greater potential for failure. Just look at the battery issues with Tesla cars, night time vamping of power. Sorry for not being able to use your firearm since the wireless connecting is being blocked by heavy apparel, low battery, or wireless interference.
Shorting the RFID connection would be simplistic, that is why access control hardware often is accompanied by security screws, not all have the drivers. Stolen property can never be modified to circumvent security.
Safety is and will always been in the hands of the beholder just like a car, a knife, or any tool.
No one other than Sean Connery can be James Bond. Therefore your example is invalid. :) :) :)
As I said several times in other posts, let the market decide if it's a viable product and this, IMHO is something of a tempest in a teapot. Folks seem to be getting all up in arms (no pun intended) about something that doesn't (and likely won't) affect them.
First post on this here.
Roughly speaking, firearm owners are very conservative in their fiream selections. Consider that the most popular handgun type is the 1911- accepted by the Army in the year 1911, development and early models were around a few years earlier. Even the AR-15 dates back to '57.
The concern is one of reliability. Consider how hard police will lobby for exemptions to any requirements to use smart guns, when 5% of officers murdered are murdered with their own firearm. They're not reliable enough yet.
Another is expense - guns are expensive enough to begin with, how much more expensive would this make firearms for how much added safety? Probably a lot, for very little. Few are murdered with their own weapon by a person that wouldn't be authorized(Spouse killing Spouse, for example).
Thanks for the information! I agree with you (from your first post) that the sale of "smart" weapons isn't a bad thing. I say let the market decide if they are viable. I'd only add that I'd imagine if the technology (I would think that finger/palm print or similar technology would be more reliable than something like RFID -- that would be trivial to jam, no?) is viable, it might save some lives.
Because this "smart" technology is unreliable and not something people want to trust their lives with when it matters. How about we have police and military start using these "smart" guns first to show everyone how great they are?
Umm...Okay. Why not? Then again, shouldn't we just let the market decide?
The issue is that some states have pushed for laws which would require this kind of technology on new guns, and require older firearms to be fitted with such a scheme.[Emphasis added]
Other than NJ, which states have put forth or enacted laws requiring "smart" guns? The NJ law (enacted in 2002, BTW) is, AFAICT, the *only* state to have enacted such legislation. What is more, the NJ law makes no mention of retrofitting any firearms. In fact, "antique" guns are explicitly exempt from the provisions of the statute.
As I mentioned in a previous post, IMHO, this is something of a tempest in a teapot.
"And if someone doesn't like the product or the idea of such a product, then don't buy one." Except that this technology is unproven and there are already attempts to legislate forcing it on gun owners. Although, even if it were actual law it wouldn't justify threatening anyone from the manufacturer.
Unproven technology or not, wouldn't it be the consumer to decide if they wish to purchase such a weapon? I'm just a dumb, non gun-owning city dweller, so I'm not very knowledgeable about such things, but even if a state (IIRC, NJ was mentioned in TFS, right?) tried to mandate that new guns sold there must use such a technology, couldn't I just buy a used gun in NJ, or go to another state (NY, CT, PA, DE, etc) that doesn't have such a law and buy a new "dumb" gun?
FWIW, It seems to me that this is something of a tempest in a teapot Just sayin'.
If it's such a good idea why aren't the armed forces using it?
I have no idea. Hence my question. I guess your reading comprehension skills are right up there with your subject/verb agreement skills, eh? Oh, and FTFY. You're welcome.
To get Bennett "I can't just waste my own time, I have to waste other people's time too" Haselton his own EC2 or Azure instance so he can post his drivel all he wants without bothering the rest of us.
Yeah. I guess that wouldn't really get rid of him. But I can hope, can't I? Sigh.
Because many people prefer the risk of it being stolen or being disarmed in the middle of a scuffle, than to have those risks, plus the additional risk of the weapon refusing to fire due to some hard to resolve technical issue.
Fair enough. I imagine there are many people who would welcome such a feature. And if someone doesn't like the product or the idea of such a product, then don't buy one. In any case (and I'm not referring to you here, Whatshisname), IMHO there's certainly no reason to threaten the life of a *marketing drone* from the manufacturer over this.
That could actually be read two ways, and you are choosing to read it in the more sinister way. Perhaps that is warranted, but not by anything I have seen. I've seen no evidence anyone has harmed her or offered to harm her - and if I am wrong, if someone has done that, they should face consequences for that act. But what I do see is being done (and SHOULD be done) is that people are watching to see when she manages to get a distributor lined up, and informing said potential distributor of some context that might change their mind. People are mad about this and have every right to be concerned.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't having a "smart" gun as described in TFS be a win/win for everyone? Gun owners can use their guns, but it someone steals it or disarms the gun owner, the gun is useless. Not sure why folks are complaining. Anyone want to enlighten me?
Just press ctrl+shift+F7 to print! Word was about 300 times more usable than Wordperfect, even the DOS versions nobody used. It just led in market share, & people didn't want to lose file compatibility.
As someone who relied on a word processor for much of my work back in the early-mid 90's, I remember what a piece of crap MS Word was back then. Word Perfect (with the caveat that WP4win was crap), while it did have its peccadilloes, was far superior to MS Word. Feel free to disagree. However if you do, you will identify yourself as someone too young to remember or as someone who just wasn't paying attention. That is all.