Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Smart Guns To Stop Mass Killings

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the it's-just-a-matter-of-code dept.

Crime 1388

New submitter Bugs42 writes "CNN.com has an opinion piece on the possibility of cramming guns full of computers and sensors to disable them in certain buildings or around children. The author, in true mainstream media fashion, completely fails to see any possible technical problems with this. Quoting: 'How might this work? Start with locational "self-awareness." Guns should know where they are and if another gun is nearby. Global positioning systems can meet most of the need, refining a gun's location to the building level, even within buildings. Control of the gun would remain in the hand of the person carrying it, but the ability to fire multiple shots in crowded areas or when no other guns are present would be limited by software that understands where the gun is being used. Guns should also be designed to sense where they are being aimed. Artificial vision and optical sensing technology can be adapted from military and medical communities. Sensory data can be used by built-in software to disable firing if the gun is pointed at a child or someone holding a child."

cancel ×

1388 comments

What could possibly go wrong... (5, Insightful)

alesplin (1376141) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535157)

Quite possibly the dumbest article I've ever seen.

Re:What could possibly go wrong... (5, Funny)

polar red (215081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535235)

Maybe painting them pink would help reduce the number of gun fatalities ?

Re:What could possibly go wrong... (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535341)

Maybe painting them pink would help reduce the number of gun fatalities ?

Pastels do tend to have a calming effect...

Maybe adorn them with butterflies and stylized dinosaurs, too? What could possibly go wrong?

Re:What could possibly go wrong... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535453)

Guns wouldn't be used as compensation for a small penis anymore (which is it's primary function IMHO).

Re:What could possibly go wrong... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535547)

ah, but would "you have a small penis" arguments then no longer be used as compensation for not actually having any logical arguement?

Re:What could possibly go wrong... (5, Informative)

jerpyro (926071) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535319)

I agree. Also, was I the only person to think 'Judge Dredd' when I read it?

Nothing related to guns can be considered "smart" (-1, Flamebait)

mozumder (178398) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535575)

Nothing related to guns can ever be considered "smart", since guns are for weak and fearful.

Smart people never own guns, because smart people know guns are more harmful than they are helpful.

4mg of Risperdal will stop government tyranny or your home intruder much more effectively than your gun ever will.

Sorry I had to burst your gun-safety bubble to all our junior McVeigh's and Alex Jones's fans out there on Slashdot!

Re:What could possibly go wrong... (4, Insightful)

ScooterComputer (10306) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535375)

From CNN, what did you expect?

Re:What could possibly go wrong... (1)

ndrtkr (708778) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535435)

al'right, everybody out, except alesplin...

Helpful? (5, Insightful)

fascismforthepeople (2805977) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535161)

I'm sure all this technology will make a huge difference for the millions of guns already in circulation in the US.

Re:Helpful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535215)

OK, fine. Let's make smart ammo instead.

Re:Helpful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535307)

Not only that, but only one person would have to figure out how to bypass the software and be back to a mechanical firearm. Once that information is available, everyone would do it? What about the person who is saving lives ? If his battery dies or the software stops him from firing a round. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

Re:Helpful? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535449)

hundreds of millions, 300 million last i saw.

There's really only one thing to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535163)

LOL.

Re:There's really only one thing to say (1)

Motard (1553251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535549)

No, really it's easy. All we need to do is to program the three laws of robotics into them. Problem solved.

The problem never seems to be the guns.... (2)

robthebloke (1308483) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535173)

How about just filling them with air instead of bullets?

Re:The problem never seems to be the guns.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535419)

Here in Europe you start with an air rifle and are only given a gun permit once you have learned to use it.

Re:The problem never seems to be the guns.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535499)

The problem ISN"T the guns, its the idiots who think its a good idea to shoot people with them. Its the lack of reverence that our culture has for human life. Its the lack of empathy that our culture allows.

Hell, look at all the bullying stories in the last several years. Do you really think that those incidences would have occurred had the bully been taught empathy by his or her parents? Someone that goes into a crowd and starts shooting has a distinct lack of empathy. Is there perhaps something we can identify in that behavior and perhaps take action against?

Re:The problem never seems to be the guns.... (3, Informative)

PhxBlue (562201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535539)

Actually, the problem is the guns. Or, rather, it's that guns are so widespread and easy to obtain that any nutcase can get one.

Yeah right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535177)

...and we also all have enough money to buy these.

Non-lethal instead! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535179)

It’s not really worth discussing why all these ideas are stupid. It’s been done before, and I’m sure there are plenty of Slashdot gun nuts who will happy to rehash it all very shortly.

So my thought is to go non-lethal or less-lethal or whatever the term is. With all the technology we have, why do we still need to kill someone to stop them.

Obviously people have tried and mostly failed. The current range of non-lethal weaponry is scarily bad and non-lethal in general is hard for one of the same reasons this article’s suggestions are stupid: when you need to use it, you are going for the maximum possibility of success.

Make something that can stop someone reliably, make it’s use wide spread, and the number of exceptionally lethal weapons floating around will go down! As a side effect, you see less death in general! Again, this is hard, but probably a lot easier than what this article suggests. As a bonus, we'll kill less people!

Re:Non-lethal instead! (1)

pclminion (145572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535245)

So my thought is to go non-lethal or less-lethal or whatever the term is. With all the technology we have, why do we still need to kill someone to stop them.

You assume the purpose of shooting somebody is to kill them. That is not true. The purpose of shooting somebody is to stop them from doing what they are doing. It has been found that multiple bullets to the chest is the most reliable way of doing that. Whether that kills the person is not the point. If you know a way to stop somebody with equal effectiveness in a way that is less likely to kill them, I'm all ears.

Re:Non-lethal instead! (2)

Anrego (830717) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535393)

If you know a way to stop somebody with equal effectiveness in a way that is less likely to kill them, I'm all ears.

That seems to be the big hurtle. Most of the solutions in the whole non-deadly weapon scene look like jokes which might work in a very lucky circumstance. They range from guns that shoot sticky glue like substances to paintball guns that fire balls of pepper. No sane person is going to bet their life on something like that.

Taser is as close as we have come I think. They get a lot of grief from being over used, but as an alternative to a gun, they are pretty damn effective. I'd rather the officer tackle me than taze me, but I'd rather him taze me than shoot me..

Apparently "shock sticks" were also extremely effective.. but the public backlash was so intense they had to lose them.

Re:Non-lethal instead! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535415)

So my thought is to go non-lethal or less-lethal or whatever the term is. With all the technology we have, why do we still need to kill someone to stop them.

You assume the purpose of shooting somebody is to kill them. That is not true. The purpose of shooting somebody is to stop them from doing what they are doing. It has been found that multiple bullets to the chest is the most reliable way of doing that. Whether that kills the person is not the point. If you know a way to stop somebody with equal effectiveness in a way that is less likely to kill them, I'm all ears.

When you point and shoot a gun you ALWAYS assume you will kill whatever your targeting. Never the other way around.

Re:Non-lethal instead! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535501)

Setting of a nuclear bomb within 150m is much more reliable way, of stopping people from what they are doing.

Re:Non-lethal instead! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535513)

Taser, stun gun, pepper spray, mace, tear gas, pepper paintballs, rubber rounds, bean bag rounds, tranquilizer darts, net gun, bolas, caltrops, tonfa, shinai, slap jack, etc.

Re:Non-lethal instead! (4, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535497)

There's a reason many countries treat non-lethal weapons the same as firearms, instead of allowing citizens to own them. A robber might hesitate to fire a gun at someone, he's much more likely to threaten. But with a non-lethal weapon, his best course of action is to use it pre-emptively and zap away. Robbers, burglars, rapists and pranksters of the more evil sort are going to love reliable and widely available non-lethal weaponry.

Re:Non-lethal instead! (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535603)

With all the technology we have, why do we still need to kill someone to stop them.
 
If by "we" you mean the police, than the answer is no, we don't. Police will generally not use lethal force unless the suspect is also armed with a gun, or presents an immediate threat to someones life. Surely you realize that it is foolish to bring a taser to a gun fight or to use rubber bullet when the suspect is using real ones?

Now, if you could develop a magical weapon that could drop an armed suspect without killing him, sure, that would be nice, but it is VERY difficult to develop such a thing or they would be around already. There is a fine line between delivering enough force to stop somebody from doing what they are doing (and make sure they stay stopped, every time) and delivering enough force to actually kill them. Since even multiple gun shots are often not enough to immediately stop a psycho high on drugs and/or adrenaline, what chance does a rubber bullet or something like that have?

Oh, now this is fucking brilliant (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535183)

So next time I want to murder a guy who has a gun, I have to kidnap a baby first to disable his weapon? Come on, people, I'm on a schedule. These guys aren't going to whack themselves.

Re:Oh, now this is fucking brilliant (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535299)

How many gun nuts have been stopped in the last years by bystanders ? None is a good guesstimate. Stop bitching about your preciousss guns - the only winners are the NRA AKA the gun industry

Re:Oh, now this is fucking brilliant (5, Interesting)

BillCable (1464383) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535403)

None would also be a very wrong guesstimate. This happened just last month: http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen [examiner.com] Apologies for the very political news source... it was the first match on Google.

Re:Oh, now this is fucking brilliant (2, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535465)

How many gun nuts have been stopped in the last years by bystanders?

Zero, but that's merely by virtue of the fact that the people assholes like you like to marginalize with the label "gun nut" are not the type of people who go on rampages.

But by all means, don't let facts stop you from being an uptight prick.

Re:Oh, now this is fucking brilliant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535545)

Screw kidnapping, that's effort.

The very first thing that came to mind to destroy this plan is "wear child-harness with lifelike doll in it". There you go, bulletproof armor.

Cue ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535195)

Cue the flame war.

Re:Cue ... (1)

Anrego (830717) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535239)

I'm honestly hoping both sides of the gun debate are smart enough to realize how stupid this article is and how little discussion it warrants.

It will just create... (4, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535203)

... a black market for guns that don't have these features should it ever come to pass.

Completely fails to see technical problems? (0)

Improv (2467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535219)

I'm amused that the poster uses the phrase "completely fails to see any possible technical problems with this". It's an article about a possibility. Of course it's not going to get into possible problems with implementation details that don't exist yet. Bad editorialisation sucks (and slashdot is chock-full of radical individualists who provide a lot of that), but here the editor doesn't even finish his/her idea. If you want to express that technolibertarian rage, try harder :)

For one thing, it makes it a lot easier for the rest of us to laugh at you when we have some idea of where you're going with that.

Please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535221)

This whole new gun "debate" is asinine. We could save more lives by passing more stringent highway safety laws. I know people are scared, but give me a break.

Re:Please... (0)

polar red (215081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535351)

And we can save some more lives if we don't allow firearms with more than, say 3 bullets on the street.

Re:Please... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535447)

We can save everyone from dying prematurely if we lock everyone up in a nice padded room with no access to sharp objects, too. There's more to the debate than "omg this can save lives, I'm scared."

Re:Please... (1)

polar red (215081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535479)

Why do you need more than 3 bullets ? I ask you nicely. please reply.

Stop. Just stop. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535227)

Oh boy. This will be a civil discussion.
Why can't we mod whole posts?
-1, troll

Re:Stop. Just stop. (2)

znrt (2424692) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535427)

Oh boy. This will be a civil discussion.
Why can't we mod whole posts?
-1, troll

you wanted to say whole threads.
you failed. i'll have to kill you now.
oh, wait, this stupid gun doesn't fire inside slashdot perimeter ...
lucky bastard.

American Revolution (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535249)

How are we supposed to secure a free state if the tyrant can wirelessly disable our arms?

Stop Rewarding Mass Killings (5, Insightful)

decipher_saint (72686) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535255)

Stop giving them tons of media attention and "high scores".

Stop giving other crazy people incentives of guaranteed posthumous fame.

Re:Stop Rewarding Mass Killings (1, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535523)

Stop giving them tons of media attention and "high scores".

This, this, this.

"There was a mass killing today, but we're not going to talk about the prick who did it. Why? Because he's a prick, and the last thing a responsible news agency would want to do is glorify an asshat like that... at least, outside election season."

To dream the impossible dream...

Two questions (4, Insightful)

fiordhraoi (1097731) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535261)

1) Can you develop such a complex system that works in the practical world (ie, it's cost effective and reliable)?

2) Can you develop a system in such a way that it can't be removed or bypassed?

The gun is a fairly simple machine. I can't think of a way to prevent the removal of such a complex system. And if the argument is going to be "it'll be legally mandated that all guns have this," you run into the same problem that gun control laws run into right now. Criminals - especially those who are planning on committing multiple murders and probably killing themselves in the process - really don't give a crap about following the law.

Re:Two questions (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535423)

Liberals like to whine about "military hardware" but the obvious testing ground for this kind of tech is in fact the military. I would have fewer objections to any of these solutions if cops were the guinea pigs.

Even if you ban all civilian firearms you still have the big problem of well armed police forces. You have potential corruption plus an industry that still needs to remain around to supply the cops.

Start by supplying these "lawgivers" to cops and soldiers.

Re:Two questions (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535589)

Perhaps it depends who you are trying to stop. If you are trying to stop drug lords and mass terrorists who have many people in their organization who can easily disable the technology, then you're right, it probably won't stop them. If, on the other hand, you're trying to stop some guy who goes crazy and shoots up a school, such as in Newtown, Connecticut, it might not be such a bad deterrent. Instead of walking down to his local Walmart, or going online and legally purchasing a firearm, he would first have to seek out an illegal arms dealer. I've never tried this, but I don't think they'd be the easiest people to find. They definitely won't sell to just anyone, lest they turn out to be a cop. Also, the perspective buyer has to go with the possibility that the illegal arms dealer ends up being a cop who's ends up busting them in the process of trying to obtain the firearm. That doesn't mean I think it's a great idea, as it would make guns needlessly expensive and prone to breakage for the people who want to use them for recreation (hunting, target practice). Also, it would only stop a very few number of incidents, as these occurrences of mass shootings by mentally deranged individuals only happen a few times a year. But that doesn't mean that such a system might not stop a few cases.

I'll just Jailbreak them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535263)

Just like I've done with iOS, I'd be one of the first to start researching and making tools to "free your firearm".

This also brings up an interesting concept of understanding how the system communicates and possibly using it for malicious purposes... Like say, jamming all other firearm's in the area before you rob a store to avoid another ccw holder from dropping you? This is quite possibly a worse idea than taking my guns away...

What about Dwarf criminals? (5, Funny)

BitwiseX (300405) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535271)

Sensory data can be used by built-in software to disable firing if the gun is pointed at a child

What do I do if I'm being assaulted by a dwarf?

Re:What about Dwarf criminals? (2)

fascismforthepeople (2805977) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535391)

What do I do if I'm being assaulted by a dwarf?

Maybe try picking him up and throwing him out of the way?

Re:What about Dwarf criminals? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535475)

Construct body armour out of children of course.

Re:What about Dwarf criminals? (1)

anom (809433) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535533)

Now you are really no match for Tyrion Lannister!

I'm trademarking shirts with pictures of babies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535277)

Just wear a shirt with the picture of a baby on it and you would be invincible.

BTW: this has got to be the worst idea I ever heard

The only way this could work (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535295)

Is to disable them unless they are aimed at a target. But that wouldn't work for hunters, and a motivated owner would likely be able to get around it.

while we are at it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535297)

Maybe we can make blogs, newspapers, movies and magazines aware of what is being writen in them to infringe upon the 1st amendment...

How about smart (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535301)

Knives, Wheels, Chainsaws, etc. Slashdot troll comment analatics. Mod me down and my analytic s will murder you.

doesn't go far enough (5, Interesting)

bitt3n (941736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535311)

If we're really going to solve this problem, guns should have captcha-like technology, determining that the wielder retains the capacity for empathy before he can fire it.

As soon as he removes the safety, the gun should pose a simple question, such as "You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?"

Re:doesn't go far enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535571)

If we're really going to solve this problem, guns should have captcha-like technology, determining that the wielder retains the capacity for empathy before he can fire it.

As soon as he removes the safety, the gun should pose a simple question, such as "You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?"

Am I the only one that caught the movie reference?

Bravo sir, Bravo.

Government Must Fear Pissing Off Its Citizens (2, Insightful)

Vortran (253538) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535321)

The government must fear pissing off its citizens. Guns are power. Do you want only the military and the police to have power? Society works best when all types of power are distributed and not concentrated in just a few areas or restricted to just a few people or groups.

I sure wouldn't want the government or military to be able to turn off our weapons, and I sure don't support laws that say only the military and police can have the most powerful weapons. That puts the balance of power away from the people.

Re:Government Must Fear Pissing Off Its Citizens (2)

GodInHell (258915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535405)

You think anyone in our government fears a mob with guns? Recall, this is the government that has a fleet of robots that roam the skies looking for people to bomb without ever risking a life.

The only people that need to fear militias are their neighbors.

Re:Government Must Fear Pissing Off Its Citizens (1)

Vortran (253538) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535527)

Nope. I don't think they fear us at all. But if we could legally own the same kind of weapons and 'destructive' devices, they might.

Logistical Problems Over Political Problems (2)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535327)

This invites massive logistical issues that only expand if you take malfunctions and deliberate hacking into account. All because we live in a country where paranoia about gun rights trumps taking rational action to reduce gun deaths.

Re:Logistical Problems Over Political Problems (2)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535485)

Most gun deaths would be reduced by attacking the root of crime and the poverty that tends to drive it.

Most of the time, suburbanites are content to allow the poor to continue killing each other while living in squalor.

I'm sorry Dave... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535333)

I can't let you shoot that.

stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535335)

this sort of thing would only work in a Star Trek perfect-ed world.

Just one example comes to mind: what if a bad guy is holding my kid with a knife to his throat and I can take him out with a double-tap to the head? Oops - my super smart gun won't let me because I'm aiming near a child. Sorry kid - better luck in your next life :/

Re:stupid (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535397)

but your smartknives wont let him cut your kid, so that is perfectly ok.

Great Idea.. Except... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535337)

Yes, this is a great idea. Because criminals won't know how to disable this. /sarcasm

From the past killings, most of the killings have been thought out and pre-planned. This would stop all the good-samaritans , who have legal guns and don't do illegal modifications to them to, from protecting people.

The purpose of the second amendment (5, Informative)

spikenerd (642677) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535343)

Arguments about the second amendment used to revolve around whether guns keep us free. These days, however, they're all about whether guns keep us safe. Something significant has already been lost, even if we still have the right to bear arms.

The real solution. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535347)

Just outlaw semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines. It's not difficult. Jesus fucking Christ.

Re:The real solution. (2)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535517)

You do understand that laws don't work by magic, right?

It is a lot more complicated than that.

LK

Clueless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535357)

They are clueless. We don't even have a decent system to control the flow of cars, where there is room to put all these imaginary electronics, what makes them think something like this would work with guns? They always want a technical solution to things, they always want the geeks to wave some kind of magic wand to solve these problems, and never mind addressing the problem itself. Let them figure out how to make a functional traffic control system, then maybe we can miniaturize it to fit into guns. Then, in a couple of hundred years when all the existing guns have rusted away, maybe this will actually work. Oh, wait, stainless steel...

Wont stop the sicko... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535365)

That wants to kill. I can build a gun in less than 3 days from parts at a home improvement store. making black powder is easy. But if I do that, why not just build pipe bombs instead. Those are far more effective and stop guys in ballistic armor.

Only fools think that gun controls will stop the sick minded disturbed people from killing.

Yeah, and I want a unicorn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535367)

Obviously those wanting such things don't have a firm grasp on today's technology and viability of such systems. The computing power alone in a gun's form factor would be a stretch, let alone the wild advances in sensory systems.

Unless they mean they want them in the far future. Sure, that'd be nice. We could move towards that. But let's start by trying to solve today's real-world problems now.

Just tax bullets. (1)

GodInHell (258915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535373)

Chris Rock was right. Time for the $1000 bullet. Make it not apply to birdshot (hunting) and build in an exemption for shooting ranges so long as the bullets are used there. I'm okay with home-made bullets and small armory jobs, but the idea that the average person needs a horde of 10,000 bullets in their house is just... dumb.

Re:Just tax bullets. (2)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535483)

Our rights aren't based upon the needs of the average person.

Does the average person own a printing press?

Does the average person need to worry about being railroaded by the police?

LK

No Worries (2)

dcollins (135727) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535377)

As soon as this idea runs up against gun-industry profits, it dies.

Crazy Mike? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535385)

How would this stop Crazy Mike From The Projects Broke Up A Fight Holding A Baby? He could just kill at random.

if you want to stop mass killings (-1, Offtopic)

drolli (522659) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535389)

Then dont the FUCK sell automatic/semiautomatic weapons. Best would be: sell no weapons to people which are not police Second best option: sell weapons which are able to shoot once or twice. Make a mechanism which requires approximately 15sec reloading time. Make the ammunition in a way which pollutes the weapon so strongly that after 10 shots the weapon needs to be cleaned.

Shooting once or twice is still enough to make being a burglar or robber a quite unhealthy business in average (if you believe in the self-defense shit).

Yes, you will neither be able to fend of zombie-herds nor the chinese army, should they be interested in you.

If you believe that bearing weapon is you constitutional right, fine. But please show me the paragraph where it says "any weapon of your choice, including weapons which were designed for warfare between military". Why don't you stack chemical weapons or nuclear weapons at home? Could be useful if you are overrun by atheists.

Re:if you want to stop mass killings (5, Insightful)

ageoffri (723674) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535581)

How about you show me where it says "only firearms that the Government chooses to allow the people to own." Also consider that that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written in a manner that made it clear that if the documents didn't specifically limit something, then there were no restrictions.

I greatly enjoy target shooting with my PS90, AR15's and even my 10/22 and there is absolutely no reason to not have 50, 30 and 10 round magazines for these to appease someone like you is afraid of law abiding citizens and inanimate objects.

Ballistic Malware (1)

ldbapp (1316555) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535411)

Yeah, that's all we need. Ballistic malware.

The closest thing I can think of... (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535413)

Is the gps trackers they put into trucks with an engine shut off switch... even then I think that's just for hazmat. Not to even get into the outrageous cost of doing this, but wouldn't it
A. expand the black market significantly
B. be unenforceable to the billions of dollars of guns already in existence

Stop the insanity! (3, Insightful)

Bodhammer (559311) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535459)

Literally - please!

Every one of these psychos was mentally ill and on psychotropic drugs.
Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox – like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.
Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, Calif., in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons” in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.
Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Ore., and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.
more here: http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/ [wnd.com]

"The public is growing increasingly confused by how we treat the mentally ill. More and more, the mentally ill are showing up in the streets, badly in need of help. Incidents of illness-driven violence are reported regularly, incidents which common sense tells us could easily have been avoided. And this is just the visible tip of the greater tragedy - of many more sufferers deteriorating in the shadows and, often, committing suicide." http://www.northshoreschizophrenia.org/Uncivil_Liberties.htm [northshore...hrenia.org]

The bottom line is we need to identify these people before they snap and get them off the streets and into treatment, not take guns away from law abiding citizens.

Re:Stop the insanity! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535553)

All your credibility went out the window the second you linked a WND piece.

problem (1)

Bizzeh (851225) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535477)

there is the small problem of the hundreds of millions of guns that already exist that do not already have this technology in them and convincing people their old guns arnt as good as the new guns

What about the guns already out there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535481)

In the United States alone, there are estimated to be over 300 million non-military firearms.

Even if new guns could have all this new technology - and we can debate the hell out of whether or not this is a good idea (it's bad) - there is still roughly one firearm for every person in the US alone. How do they think they are going to manage these guns? Collect them all? Register them all?

We can't even keep track of 300+ million PEOPLE except once every 10 years, and people generally can't be shoved in a drawer or hidden in a shoebox or under floorboards. There is no conceivable way that they are going to handle the numerous regular, non-computerized firearms already in existence. And those firearms are perfectly capable of killing numerous people already!

Consider that even if they collected 99% of all of the firearms in the US, that's still 3 million out there. I know most people here can do simple math, but when's the last time the government had a 99% success rate with anything? And even that would not nearly be sufficient, and that's ignoring illegal guns brought into the US from Mexco, any new guns with new technology being made, etc. We just have too many to reasonably deal with already.

So bring on the computerized guns all you want, and the fingerprint tech, and whatever. I'll still have my good, old-fashioned guns to use.

Oblig... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535495)

I'm sorry Dave - I can't let you shoot that.

Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535507)

A simple, clean solution that EVERYONE will agree on.

Wire the classrooms for high current shocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535521)

Easy. Every classroom just needs to have high-voltage electrical tasers built into the walls, so that if anybody (students included, those kids can be unruly somtimes) misbehaves, all the teacher has to do is hit a button to stun everybody in the room.

Simple (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535541)

GPS spoofing has been done before.

Criminal spoofs GPS of local area with their own transmitters, making all the police guns think they're in the whitehouse or some other 'safe zone'.
Criminal has 'old fashioned' gun and shoots police who are powerless to fire back.

Metal gear solid 4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535543)

I don't know if anyone has played this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid_4:_Guns_of_the_Patriots , in the game every gun is locked to a specific person via nano-machines and you have to unlock guns to use them.

Half way through the story the main villian locks all the armys guns and the good guys are slaughtered.

Great idea CNN, kudos

As someone who votes Democrat.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535557)

...this guy is the definition of a "libtard."
Ugh, there's always a village idiot regardless of the political spectrum. Let me tell you, he is the *exception*.

Great idea! And... (1)

bbsguru (586178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535563)

How about we take the even more useful step of applying artificial intelligence to determine when an idiot like this is expressing an opinion, and automatically disabling any electronic transmission or amplification of same?

---------------
Of course, that's just my opinion, but it comes with a money-back guarantee!

New gun safety method (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535565)

This would be great, everyone could use a gun safely. You just pull the trigger, then wave it around until it fires.

Unbelievable... (5, Informative)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535573)

The anti-firearms hysteria needs to stop. This reminds me of when Steve Irwin was killed by a stingray, so a bunch of dead stingrays started showing up everywhere because people suddenly thought of them as being too dangerous to have around. Yeah, firearms can kill people. So can a bunch of other things.

There are three times as many automobile related fatalities each year as firearms related fatalities:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/05/Federal-Gov-Annual-Auto-Related-Deaths-Three-Times-Higher-Than-Gun-Related-Deaths [breitbart.com]

Even better, there are more people killed with hammers and clubs than with firearms:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles [breitbart.com]

So why the fuck are we going after people who own firearms?

First they came for the NRA,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an NRA member.

(Yeah, I invoked Godwin's Law, so what.)

Also, in Afghanistan it is not unheard of for "enemy combatants" (we can't call them terrorists anymore) to carry kids while they are on the battlefield, either for the purpose of preventing themselves from being shot at, or propaganda ("Look at these baby killers! They must die in the name of allah!") That goes to show you what people are capable of. If firearms were disabled in a similar manner in domestic situations, only it happened automatically, I imagine that would come home as well.

Great, a U.S. $ 100,000.- Gun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535583)

Yeah, cramming all the tech into a U.S. $ 100,000.- Gun will definitely stop most everyone from purchasing one.

HORRIBLE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42535593)

I realize it's premature to dump this... and...discussion is always valuable to see if it can be improved

But it's just a stupid suggestion.

At the core it fails to address the crux of pro gun arguments whatsoever, and makes their feared issues even worse.

It enables easy creation of a tracking system
It makes simplistic things less reliable
It increases costs
It increases regulation

And it doesn't solve the problem

It would increase handling of a firearm to validate it was set up and 'booted' correctly.
It would increase handling to check a powersource
It would require a gunsmith to perform modifications that are typically done at home today -- not just things like a trigger group, but changing out a barrel or firing pin (which is designed to be a consumable, replaceable part for very good reasons involving safety)

As a technologist... oh jeez...even if I wanted this it has issues...

Let's see...we've got all the DRM issues
Operating system issues
GPS issues
image recognition issues
encryption issues
The fact that this now incentivizes me to carry a baby to prevent being shot...
(or to paint a picture of one on my shirt)

Socially...

It would drive costs through the roof...aggravating the already racist and regressive gun control problems out there
It fails to address existing firearms
It makes existing firearms /more/ valuable
It makes military training even worse than the problems we encountered in the first and second world wars (bolt vs lever action rifles)

And frankly, as a firearm user, it fails on the main reason to own a Glock:

"When I pull the trigger, it always fires". That's why people like them.

Nevermind the notion of the ability to remotely deactivate a gun -- this would not only get hacked, it would endanger every 'socially acceptable' user of a gun, whoever that might be.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...