×

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!

House Bill Would Mandate Smart Gun Tech By U.S. Manufacturers

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the powered-by-the-cloud dept.

Government 750

Lucas123 writes "U.S. Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass) is pushing a bill that would require all U.S. handgun manufacturers to include 'personalization technology' in their weapons. Tierney said he got the idea for The Personalized Handgun Safety Act of 2013 from the latest James Bond film, Skyfall. In it Bond escapes death when his handgun, which is equipped with technology that recognizes his fingerprints, becomes inoperable when a bad guy picks it up. 'This technology, however, isn't just for the movies — it's a reality,' Tierney said. Tierney pointed to a myriad of cases where the smart gun tech could prevent children from being harmed or killed in firearms accidents. Jim Wallace, executive director of the Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League, the official state association of the NRA, said he knows of no gun owners who would want smart gun technology on their weapons. Wallace said any technology that may impede the proper function of a weapon is a problem. He pointed to the fact that any integrated processor technology would also require a battery of some kind, which could pose a system failure if it lost power."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

750 comments

Movies are real! (4, Insightful)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about a year ago | (#43785627)

Lawmakers have been introducing these bills since at least the mid-90s, with Judge Dredd being the first movie I'm aware of directly tied to it.

The tech was not then, and is not now, possible. They're MOVIES. That's not REALITY.

Our elected officials are dumber than you could possibly imagine.

Re:Movies are real! (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year ago | (#43785671)

But. But.

Instructional Videos [imdb.com] !

Re:Movies are real! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43786293)

Here is something that it is possible: a built in mandatory camera [uuuploads.com] with a flash memory and a 20 year lithium battery. Takes a picture whenever you pull the trigger. Sure, bad guys will destroy it before using / discarding the gun. But it's a great proof to have when claiming self defense, or conversely it will massively hurt your case when the camera was accidentally damaged after you accidentally shot your wife 5 times in the back.

Re:Movies are real! (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43785707)

Our elected officials are dumber than the people who vote for them could possibly imagine.

FTFY; some of us wised up to that some time ago, and thus only vote for third parties (if at all).

Re:Movies are real! (3, Interesting)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#43786107)

Years ago, I took the attitude of "vote out the people you don't like", but came to the realization that if you do that by electing the other party, you just have to vote him back out in the next election. That's why I have almost exclusively come to exclude Democrats and Republicans from my voting selections. Every so often, an individual candidate changes my mind, but only a solid track record is sufficient for me to do it.

Re:Movies are real! (5, Funny)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year ago | (#43786237)

FTFY; some of us wised up to that some time ago, and thus only vote for third parties (if at all).

Is that working out as well for you as my one-man air-travel boycott is for me?

Re:Movies are real! (0, Troll)

gmanterry (1141623) | about a year ago | (#43786271)

Our elected officials are dumber than the people who vote for them could possibly imagine.

FTFY; some of us wised up to that some time ago, and thus only vote for third parties (if at all).

It's the non gun owning liberals who propose this legislation. By definition they know nothing about guns. They never owned one and don't know how they work. This is not flame bait but it truth.

Re:Movies are real! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785725)

Its easy to make a trigger that doesn't fire when the wrong person holds it. Its harder to make one that also does fire all the time when you hold it.

Re:Movies are real! (3, Funny)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about a year ago | (#43786195)

The technology would be better off if it had the opposite goal. Provide a 100% chance that the authorized firer can pull the trigger and then work on providing a > 0% chance that some unauthorized person cannot fire it. Even if the chance to prevent someone else from firing your weapon was low, say 25%, we would be better off than we are now.

The only thing to worry about would be people becomming over-reliant on the technology and allowing anyone to access their weapon under the assumption that they couldn't fire it even if they tried. You could possibly end up with even more accidental or stolen gun shootings in that case.

Re:Movies are real! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43785871)

Our elected officials are dumber than you could possibly imagine.

Yeah, but they're smarter than the people who elect them...

Re:Movies are real! (1)

x6060 (672364) | about a year ago | (#43786139)

[Citation Needed]

Just because you can get elected, does not mean you are smart. At all.

Re:Movies are real! (5, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year ago | (#43785883)

Judge Dredd's gun 'executes' anybody else who tries to fire it. Are they going to implement that feature, too?

Re:Movies are real! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785965)

Are you sure about that?

Based on this /. story [slashdot.org] , from a mere three weeks ago, this seems to be a reality which will be available for purchase within a couple of months.

Re:Movies are real! (1)

cogeek (2425448) | about a year ago | (#43786047)

Oh, I can imagine pretty dumb people... and I think our elected officials would still surprise me!

When people who've never seen it write the rules (5, Insightful)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#43786145)

Yep, this is what happens when people who hate guns, and so have never touched a gun, probably never seen a gun, think they are gun experts and should be writing the rules and regulations about how they should be manufactured, sold, and used.

I'm not a doctor or pharmacist, so I don't have any opinion on proper methods manufacture, store, or otherwise handle various classes of prescription drugs.
I have no idea what regulations make sense. It would be STUPID of me to comment on how a pharmacy must be run since I don't know anything about the subject.

Why is it that people who have no knowledge at all, people who don't know the difference between a machine gun and a pistol, want to decide on gun regulations?
This is a fact - anti-gunners, including congress-critters, REGULARLY confuse an automatic (machine gun) with a semi-automatic (pistol). They claim to be
trying to "ban automatic weapons" (machine guns), but their bill bans pistols and varmint guns, which are semi-automatic.

Re:When people who've never seen it write the rule (0)

x6060 (672364) | about a year ago | (#43786229)

You sir, deserve far more than just 5 karma points for your post.

Re:Movies are real! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43786221)

The 1973 movie Westworld contains guns that can be fired against humanoid robots, but use computer sensors to keep from firing against actual humans. "The guns issued to the guests also have temperature sensors that prevent them from shooting each other or anything else living but allow them to 'kill' the room-temperature androids." When the robots rebel, they override the restrictions, and begin shooting human beings with the guns.[1]

Also, the Judge Dredd comic has used it since at most 1986 (or thereabouts), when I saw the use in the comic.

Personally, I'd be okay with having my gun made so that it can't be used against me if an attacker were to take it. They've had prototypes around forever, but not many people seem to care to pay for the extra tech... it's not that it can't be done or that people don't want it, it's just too expensive.

[1] Blatantly copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Gun - See attribution on that page.

But I like guns! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785633)

Thousands of dead children and adults are a small price to pay for my freedom from sensible gun control.

Re:But I like guns! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785799)

Maybe they should mandate this for cars? since more people are killed by cars than guns...I don't see politicians pushing that.

Re:But I like guns! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785971)

Cars kill people by accident. Guns kill people because that's what they are supposed to do.

Re:But I like guns! (0)

MadMartigan2001 (766552) | about a year ago | (#43786189)

Are you that stupid? I've never seen a gun that was non-military claim to be for "killing people". I guess target shooting and hunting do not exist in your world. You need to get out more.

Re:But I like guns! (1)

jsepeta (412566) | about a year ago | (#43786049)

perhaps the mandate should be for cigarettes too, since that's their purpose. well, not exactly their reason for existing, but their usual consequence.

Re:But I like guns! (1)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year ago | (#43785831)

Which really isn't the point. While you certainly don't want the weapon going off when you don't want it to, it is something that absolutely needs to work when you do need it. Most weapons are designed to make them easier to maintain and operate, with some sort of safety mechanism. Most mechanical safeties are reliable and fairly simple to operate, but something requiring processing is not as likely to be as reliable.

If the edge case you are protecting against poses a serious chance of making the weapon useless when it is most needed, you do need to justify mandating that method, and not say, some other form of protection from accidental use. Choosing to use an e-grip or whatever is a good idea in many cases, and certainly should be a choice you select in the right circumstances, but I'd stop short of mandating it.

Re:But I like guns! (5, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year ago | (#43785853)

We already HAVE passed the point of sensible gun control. First point to make, violent crime is falling in this country, including crime where the criminal used a gun. Second point to make, perhaps if the government enforced the gun laws already on the books, we could determine which ones actually work, which ones should be repealed and whether there is any reason to create new ones.
Since Obama took office, the percentage of violations of current background check laws which were prosecuted has fallen.

I don't like guns, I've never seen a gun, clueless (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#43785973)

Or, I don't like guns, I've never seen a gun, I'm clueless about guns - so I think I'm qualified to decide on the laws about guns.

I'll tell you what, I don't watch clueless comedy central comedians doing fake news, and I don't know anything about comedians who do fake news, so I won't try to make the rules about comedians doing fake news. I'll leave that to you, since you probably watch those shows a lot more than I do and you know more about the subject. In turn, you can leave the gun rules to people who actually know something about the subject, okay?

Re:I don't like guns, I've never seen a gun, cluel (0)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year ago | (#43786067)

Or, I don't like guns, I've never seen a gun, I'm clueless about guns - so I think I'm qualified to decide on the laws about guns.

Very funny. Often people who hold absolutist positions on gun control also support old men for whom it is biologically impossible to get pregnant and bear a child write draconian anti-abortion laws. Freedom! it is for people with guns, not for people with uterus.

Re:But I like guns! (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43786099)

This isn't exactly sensible gun control. A reliable gun is a necessity for gun safety. You give people the false impression of safety and the ignorant and foolish will take additional risks.

Sensible gun control involves things like universal background checks and mandatory firearm safety and local self defense law tests/training.

Re:But I like guns! (3, Insightful)

Old VMS Junkie (739626) | about a year ago | (#43786251)

Define "sensible". This bill is not "sensible" by any definition I can think of. How about forcing states to add their mental health records to the instant background check database? Less than 30 states currently do. God forbid we violate the privacy of fucking crazy people.

My thoughts on the matter (5, Insightful)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | about a year ago | (#43785647)

  • 1) The Democrats couldn't pass a less odious measure in a Democratic-controlled Senate. Good luck passing that in a Republican-controlled House.
  • 2) I'll happily put this on my own guns after the police have used it for five years on theirs, and have come to accept it as a reliable technology.
  • 3) All in all, Congressman Tierney did this, in all likelihood, to help solidify his re-election next year. Since he got the press he wanted, I congratulate him now on his impending victory.

Re:My thoughts on the matter (4, Insightful)

fche (36607) | about a year ago | (#43785697)

"I'll happily put this on my own guns after the police have used it for five years on theirs," ... or all persons protecting the good congressman.

Re:My thoughts on the matter (4, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43785867)

It seems to me that police need it more than private citizens, as they spend more time around criminals who are likely to try and grab the gun.

Re: My thoughts on the matter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43786081)

We had an officer shot and killed here in Jackson Ms with his own pistol last month. He carried it into the interrogation room with the suspect and when a fight broke out the suspect grabbed the officer's gun and killed him with it.

The saddest part is that this officer had been issued a holster which would have almost completely protected against this but chose to wear an older leather holster instead because it looked cooler (his words to a fellow officer, not mine.) Both Blackhawk and 5.11 have retention holsters that are simple to use for the person wearing them but nearly impossible to use by people standing in front of or beside the wearer. I've carried one of the Blackhawk SERPA holsters for years and know it sure safes my hide in IRAQ when a bombing suspect grabbed for my pistol in a viehicle but couldn't draw the weapon.

Re:My thoughts on the matter (1)

Havokmon (89874) | about a year ago | (#43786019)

"I'll happily put this on my own guns after the police have used it for five years on theirs," ... or all persons protecting the good congressman.

I consider this equivalent to requiring Ignition Interlocks in all cars. Yes, it will do exactly what we want - it will stop people from using those items - but at the most inopportune times. Give it to the legislators, and you'll discover it's only the prohibitionist ones that will accept it.

Imagine if Ignition Interlocks were mandated - they would be hacked so fast. People aren't going to deal with that level of intrusiveness just to potentially 'save lives'. This is a case of security causing too much of an inconvenience to be useful.

Re:My thoughts on the matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785995)

I'd like to have an in-depth audit of this Congressman's finances... and I'd put significant money on the line that he owns stock, options, or has received significant contributions from companies like Safe Gun Technology http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/04/29/1432245/new-smart-gun-company-hopes-to-begin-production-this-summer

This tech is worthless, and even if mandated nobody would respect the law. In a life or death situation delay (Please wait, reading fingerprint now...) or false negatives (Owner not detected, firearm disabled) mean _you die_.

Fast. Specific. Sensitive. Pick two, you can't have all three. But without all three, this is DOA - and that acronym is particularly apropos here.

Re:My thoughts on the matter (2)

_xeno_ (155264) | about a year ago | (#43786137)

3) All in all, Congressman Tierney did this, in all likelihood, to help solidify his re-election next year. Since he got the press he wanted, I congratulate him now on his impending victory.

He's from Massachusetts, home of the gerrymander. His district is just north of Boston. His seat is in no real threat.

But you're right, this is just another pointless "feel-good" measure to prove to his constituents that he's "tough on crime." It's also a ploy to get Republicans to vote against it, allowing that stupid "mayors for gun control" PAC to run ads against them.

DOA (2)

chiefmojorising (114811) | about a year ago | (#43785679)

There's no way this boneheaded bill will get past the Republican controlled House.

Re:DOA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785759)

Their version will require gun ownership or a yearly tax will be applied.
Drug test all food stamp recipients!

Re:DOA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785833)

Why not? We have a precedent now.

Re:DOA (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year ago | (#43786207)

There's no way this boneheaded bill will get past the Republican controlled House.

It's not about getting past . . . it's about posturing, posing and voguing by the Rep. He just wants to make a fuss about something so his constituents will maybe think that he is actually doing something useful for them.

Why waste time on a no-chance bill proposal . . . ? Publicity, of course.

A Better Idea (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#43785689)

How about we actually fucking teach kids about guns, how they work, and what they're used for? That would do a hell of a lot more to curtail gun-related deaths, and without the (un)intended side effect of rendering personal protection weapons useless by legislative fiat.

Re:A Better Idea (1)

MAXOMENOS (9802) | about a year ago | (#43785795)

Because the right will complain about schools brainwashing our kids into thinking guns are dangerous, and the left will scream apoplectic about schools brainwashing our kids into thinking guns could be safe.

Re:A Better Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43786033)

That is completely idiotic, the majority of center-to-right minded people would welcome CLASSES on gun use(control) rather than laws limiting gun/ammo ownership..

Bonehead.

Re:A Better Idea (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43786153)

Because the right will complain about schools brainwashing our kids into thinking guns are dangerous, and the left will scream apoplectic about schools brainwashing our kids into thinking guns could be safe.

Bullshit. Gun Safety training would gain instant support among the right, as well as any thinking person.

The younger the better. There are far too many stories about kids thinking they have a toy and killing a sibling, all caused by the big left wing no-no against teaching kids anything about guns, or even so much as drawing a picture of one in school. Its the whole security by obscurity argument all over again in the physical world.

The right already knows guns are dangerous, and that every gun is treated like a loaded gun, and have been teaching this to their kids since they were old enough to walk. Its the delusional left who believe if we can just hide the existence of guns the whole problem will go away.

I took gun safety courses in grade school. We fired .22 short single shot rifles IN the School Basement during gun safety class. (4th or 5th grade as I recall). Of course by this time it was old hat to me since I had been hunting with my parents for many years by that time.

Re:A Better Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43786167)

Guns (like table-saws) can be safely handled. They don't "go off" at random. If you follow the safety rules, they can be safe.
Eric Holder has stated on video that he wanted to brainwash citizens into disliking guns.

Re:A Better Idea (1)

chispito (1870390) | about a year ago | (#43786197)

Because the right will complain about schools brainwashing our kids into thinking guns are dangerous

Nobody thinks guns aren't dangerous. Only a defective gun is not dangerous.

Re:A Better Idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785855)

You want parents to do their job in the US. Forget it, ain't happening.

Re:A Better Idea (3, Insightful)

Artraze (600366) | about a year ago | (#43785873)

> How about we actually fucking teach kids about guns, how they work, and what they're used for?

We gave up on actually fucking teaching kids anything some time ago now.

Re:A Better Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785887)

First you would have to impress upon the current generation the idea of " Individual Responsibility ".

You leave a device out that can cause serious harm where your kiddos can get to it, it is no ones
fault but your own.

Unfortunately, this is not how people think in the US of A today. It's everyone else's fault for
manufacturing it, allowing them to purchase it, not including a 12 volume set of warnings in every
language under the Sun, painting everything that is potentially harmful a Mr. Yuk shade of green,
and so on and so forth. :|

Re:A Better Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785923)

That's a great idea, and what I do with my own kids. The problem comes in when adults just leave loaded weapons around; you can't expect a 3 year old not to pick up a gun, you have to simply keep it out of their reach. A lot of accidents involve kids who are too young to be able to be taught gun safety in any meaningful way.

I don't trust any of this tech to be reliable, but advocating education isn't really a serious approach, since so many gun owners are so lax about safety.

Re:A Better Idea (4, Insightful)

firewrought (36952) | about a year ago | (#43785991)

How about we actually fucking teach kids about guns, how they work, and what they're used for? That would do a hell of a lot more to curtail gun-related deaths

While we're at it, can we get Hollywood celebrities to hold guns properly on film? Don't stick your finger into the trigger guard until you're ready to destroy something.

Seriously. I understand that Hollywood movies aren't gun safety tutorials and that, for instance, Will Smith has to whip out his gun and use it to mock-threaten his daughter's boyfriend in Bad Boys 2, but if these celebrities kept their fingers pointed down the barrel instead of resting on the trigger, it might make a difference when some drunk dumbass decides to imitate them. Drives me nuts whenever I see this on film/TV.

Re:A Better Idea (1)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | about a year ago | (#43786155)

How about we actually fucking teach kids about guns, how they work, and what they're used for? That would do a hell of a lot more to curtail gun-related deaths, and without the (un)intended side effect of rendering personal protection weapons useless by legislative fiat.

Not to totally poo-poo the idea, but I'm pretty sure kids accidentally shooting other kids with guns know how guns work and usually what they're used for. That's the entire problem. You're dealing with children who are mentally immature. They understand what guns are used for, they simply don't have the mental processes yet to distinguish what is appropriate and what isn't. Kids who aim a gun at another kid and pull the trigger know guns are used for shooting people, but because they're 7 years old they don't understand the seriousness of what they're doing. You can't teach that to them until their brain develops more. It's the same reason we don't give out drivers licenses to 7 year olds.

This doesn't even begin to get into the subject of kids who understand perfectly well what they are doing but are using mom or dad's gun to shoot people intentionally.

Another idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785703)

Another idiot wasting everyone's time.

Bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785721)

And of course your biometrics would have to be in some database someplace.

This is nothing more than a form of registration, and we will never go along with it. Already people have begun manufacturing their own firearms, and types.

Re:Bullshit. (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43785905)

I would want it implemented like my laptop's fingerprint reader. Only stored locally or on a machine I control (IE: gun owner's PC) and can be overridden with a password (may require a Bluetooth link to a PC)

Flawed "Think of the Children" as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785735)

If the aim is to stop children being able to fire the gun, why not require that the gun must be kept in a locked condition when not being held by someone authorized by the registered owner. Trigger locks would do the same as this bill and would be cheap to retrofit, etc.

Of course, neither trigger locks nor personalization features would prevent this "can't be fired by anyone but me" gun from accidental discharge when dropped or struck with things - something much more likely if a parent thinks it's now safe to leave where children can get the gun.

Re: Flawed "Think of the Children" as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785921)

We've had "drop safe" guns for years now. Heck, even my 1911 is drop safe and the majority I that gun was designed over 100 years ago.

Trigger locks work great if you don't need your gun (or live in a place that doesn't have coat hangers, as these locks can be broken into more quickly than they can actually be unlocked in most cases) adding batteries to that equation is just asking for more innocent deaths as people struggle to unlock their guns while criminals who have already unlocked theirs hold the upper hand.

Education is the key to gun safety. If you want kids to stop shooting themselves, start by teaching them how to not shoot themselves!

Re:Flawed "Think of the Children" as usual (2, Insightful)

bmk67 (971394) | about a year ago | (#43785949)

Trigger locks would do the same as this bill and would be cheap to retrofit, etc.

This again?

Are you aware of the significant safety hazards that retrofitted trigger locks present?

To illustrate - take an ordinary revolver. Unload it, and install a trigger lock (the lock goes though the trigger guard, in front of the trigger). Yay, safety, right?

Consider that there is NOTHING which prevents someone from loading such a weapon, and cocking the hammer. Oh, and by the way, you can't decock it without being able to access the trigger. You now have a weapon that is in an unsafe condition, that cannot be made safe, safely.

Hope the guy who has to make it safe has cast-iron balls and stain-resistant underwear.

Trigger locks are stupid and unsafe - a solution in search of a problem.

Re:Flawed "Think of the Children" as usual (1)

crakbone (860662) | about a year ago | (#43786105)

Couldn't you just unload it? Put your thumb between the hammer and the frame, hit the release on the cylinder and empty the shells? I don't see how that would require an underwear change.

Perfect for the government agents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785737)

Probably a good idea for DEA/FBI/Swat/Tactical Forces to prevent criminals from using the weapon, but for consumer guns not so sure. Also like any tech it needs to have all the bugs worked out first. Also imagine if someone was fired from any force just being able to lock their gun so it can't be used for self harm or harming other innocents.

Re:Perfect for the government agents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785943)

Probably a good idea for DEA/FBI/Swat/Tactical Forces to prevent criminals from using the weapon,

I think the last thing that the DEA/FBI/SWAT/etc. want on their weapons is some crappy personalization technology that results in their MP-5 being rendered ineffective when they need it the most. Also, those agencies tend to be pretty careful about the deployment and management of not-for-public-use assault weaponry, so they don't fall into the wrong hands in the first place.

Think about it. There are two types of interlock systems that could realistically be used: mechanical and electrical. Both systems must necessarily default to "prevent firing" in order to be useful. Any mechanical system could be picked up off your (dead) DEA/FBI/SWAT agent and carried away by a criminal. Any electrical system could be zapped with some sort of cheap microwave device, rendering the weapon ineffective in the DEA/FBI/SWAT agent's hands.

Thus: the mechanical system is a useless extra, at best; the electrical system can be turned into a tactical disadvantage in short order.

Yeah, I don't see any tactical forces adopting this any time in the near or far future.

Solution to getting gun regulation past. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785773)

Make it mandatory for the cops, too. No exceptions for cops or even retired police. If it's good enough for them, then I'll consider it a reasonable restriction or technology. Most proposed regulations don't pass this seemingly simple test.

Skyfall? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785797)

I seem to remember this being a facet of the Judges' weapons in the original Judge Dredd movie. Talk about being a little late with the inspiration. They've already rebooted the Judge Dredd series and I have a feeling that it wasn't the oldest movie to use that exact idea.

Terrific idea (0, Troll)

msobkow (48369) | about a year ago | (#43785861)

It's a terrific idea, particularly if you have to go to a gun shop to register a new set of prints in order to force you to register the transfer of the weapon on a second-hand sale. After all, if it's easy to change the prints, it's still easy to steal and use the weapon.

Re:Terrific idea (3, Insightful)

twistofsin (718250) | about a year ago | (#43786015)

My guns are reliable because they are simple mechanical devices. I think this is a horrible idea, no matter how it's implemented.

Like a previous poster said, if law enforcement adopts the technology and it turns out to be extremely reliable I'll reconsider.

Yet another ham-handed attempt to eliminate guns (2)

Old VMS Junkie (739626) | about a year ago | (#43785899)

Aside from the fact that the technology doesn't exist... What if I want to let a friend shoot my gun, for example when I was teaching someone to shoot? What if I wanted to try a friend's gun so I could see if I liked it? How about collectible guns? The last firearm I bought was a WWII vintage Finnish rifle. What if I wanted to buy a very-collectable WWII 1911? Would that be legal? It's just another blatant attempt to restrict my constitutional rights. If you want to pass gun control, amend the Constitution. Stop wasting our time with this kind of legislative theater.

Teach kids? Teach PARENTS! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785907)

From the bill: "Just before Brian was about to leave to head home for dinner, his best
friend was playing with his mom’s handgun and accidentally shot Brian in the neck. Brian died
shortly thereafter. "

Where's mom? Why was the friend allowed to "play" with the weapon? Or is this for a movie script?

I built a prototype - this is never going to work. (1)

bobbaddeley (981674) | about a year ago | (#43785915)

I built a working prototype of a gun control system, and in the process found so many gotchas and problems that I've realized enforcing smart guns is impossible. There's really no way to solve all the problems introduced with such a system, and the drawbacks of such a system make it dangerous. Yes, it could prevent a lot of accidents and misuse, and for that reason there may be potential, but the legislators introducing this stuff have no idea what they're talking about.

Here's my writeup on the system I built and some of the problems I encountered:

http://bobbaddeley.com/2013/03/my-one-post-on-gun-control/ [bobbaddeley.com]

Re:I built a prototype - this is never going to wo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43786289)

I built a working prototype of a gun control system, and in the process found so many gotchas and problems that I've realized enforcing smart guns is impossible. There's really no way to solve all the problems introduced with such a system, and the drawbacks of such a system make it dangerous. Yes, it could prevent a lot of accidents and misuse, and for that reason there may be potential, but the legislators introducing this stuff have no idea what they're talking about.

Here's my writeup on the system I built and some of the problems I encountered:

http://bobbaddeley.com/2013/03/my-one-post-on-gun-control/ [bobbaddeley.com]

Your idea is pretty novel, but only in the sense that it is definitely the *most* infeasible of all smart-gun systems. A standard, easy to procure, easy to replicate token to disable a gun? You can skip to the end and just outlaw guns at that point. Shit, if you weren't going to take the task seriously, why not just say "we need to outlaw guns, or just put up with them" and be done with it? You wasted a lot of time to come to that conclusion, pal.

Cops will not like this (2)

taustin (171655) | about a year ago | (#43785917)

Police chiefs, who are politicians, will be in favor of this, because they think it's good politics. Police unions, representing working cops on the streets will be unalterably opposed to it, because even 99% isn't good enough when your life is on the line.

Just wow (0)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year ago | (#43785925)

To prevent kids of getting harmed by guns? Why the hell are you letting a kid get a hold of a gun, I mean even accidently. Any child who is able to get a hold of a gun, even by accident should have his parents thrown in jail for gross negligence. A child never has to hold a gun for any reason, I don't care what your argument is, a child should never be in a situation where they need to grab a gun and use it. If your going to try the argument, "Well they could be at home alone!", if there is a gun in the house then make sure a parent is home. After all what about the kid that killed his sister from the gun that was loaded which he was given as a present! In the case his parents should be thrown in jail, the gift givers should be thrown in jail, the company selling the gun should have it's executives thrown in jail and the person who left the gun loaded should be thrown in jail. Kids do not, should not and will never need firearms. Anyone who disagrees is just wrong and seriously needs mental help.

Re:Just wow (2)

DadLeopard (1290796) | about a year ago | (#43786043)

Early training in the safe use and handling of firearms prevents "Accidents" later on in life!

Re:Just wow (0)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about a year ago | (#43786095)

It's very simple, just don't have firearms to begin with and you remove the accident variable. I have never owned, held or fired a gun, that also included my family and friends and NONE of us have seen a reason to do otherwise. So that includes about 40 people who have 0 use or needs for Guns.

Re:Just wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43786243)

Wildly guessing, I'll bet most of the innocent people killed by guns hadn't held guns. Most kids, for example, probably fall into this category. Following your logic I find it completely appalling that guns worked against, even killed, people who had never felt they had a need to use guns. What were the guns thinking!!!!!!

My First Rifle (2)

tekrat (242117) | about a year ago | (#43786255)

Obviously you've never heard of the "My First Rifle" which is a company that makes real guns for kids. A 5 year old accidentally shot his 2yr old sister in Kentucky just recently, go look it up. It's a real .22 rifle, was loaded with bullets and everything. They even make 'em in pink for girls.

Re:Just wow (1)

crakbone (860662) | about a year ago | (#43786291)

What age are you talking about when you say kid? Are you talking 2 -3 years of age or are you talking 17? What if your are teaching the child about the dangers of firearms and how to safely handle one if they find it. Would that be a time when it was okay for a child to have a firearm? How about in the country where there are wild animals around would it be okay for a 12 year old to go outside and shoot the badger that is gnawing on his little brothers arm? Or the ten year old that shot home invaders? I knew a girl that when she was 8 years old was hunting to help put food on the table for her family. Even though she never had and accident with it should she never have touched that firearm? Not everyone lives in the city. Not everyone is in the same environment that you are in. And if your saying children are not mature enough to handle a firearm then we have a bigger problem because there are a ton of adults I would not trust with a firearm where I would trust that 8 year old with one.

Isher... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785935)

Kind of reminds me of the real-world version of the Weapons Shops of Isher, minus the explicit empowerment of the individual.

Re:Isher... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43786203)

I wouldn't mind having Weapon Shop-style ownership tech on my guns, as long as they jump into my hand on command and vaporize things (in self defense, of course) as well. I have a feeling this technology isn't quite so reliable. (But then the Devil's Advocate asks how it will ever become reliable if it's not implemented and tested.)

How about instead of more laws (3, Insightful)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about a year ago | (#43785937)

How about instead of creating more stupid laws we start enforcing and prosecuting existing ones. It is sad when a child finds a loaded gun that isn't locked up and kills someone or themselves with it, so why not fucking prosecute the dumb shit parents for negligent homicide. I really don't believe in accidental shooting but I sure a hell believe in negligent shooting. Granted there probably is the 1 in 1,000,000 truly accidental discharge of a firearm (the gun went off and you weren't touching the trigger) that ends up shooting someone (off of a ricochet as you should be practicing muzzle control and have it point in a safe direction) but those are so rare that it isn't worth mentioning.

Reliablity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43785955)

When the tech is reliable enough that our military and police are all using it, then and only then will I consider it for my firearms.

One word against this idea: gloves ... in winter. (5, Insightful)

sehlat (180760) | about a year ago | (#43785977)

Cops in Minnesota in the dead of a winter snowstorm are just gonna LOVE this tech.

Next steps (2)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about a year ago | (#43786025)

So you want my guns to be "smart" and place a small computer of some sort in there. And in the event that that small computer has been rendered ineffective, my gun will no longer fire. Is this computer going to have Bluetooth or Wi-Fi? Is the government going to force manufacturers to install a backdoor so the government can decide when I can and cannot fire my weapon? What if my gun (and/or me) are electrocuted? What if there is an EMP? What if my house is struck by lightening and the electricity goes into my gun safe, rendering all of my guns useless? What if....

How many cops would this save? (3, Insightful)

jsepeta (412566) | about a year ago | (#43786027)

No more criminals stealing service revolvers from cops and shooting them with their own weapons.

Still shady dealers selling weapons without "smart" tech, or with overrideable tech.

Here's an idea.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43786035)

Don't store the gun loaded.
Don't store the gun with the ammo.
Don't store the gun where your or someone else's brat can find/get a hold of it.
Teach your brat to not touch the gun - and if anyone does (e.g. your knucle-dragging cousin) - tell them to go get an adult.

This coming from someone that is more left-leaning with regards to gun ownership (you need safety courses (including periodic re-training and testing), FOID card, etc.) that right.

In short - while the technology is there - and has been for about 15 years - don't think it's a good idea to make it mandatory.

I would rather see tighter controls on sales (including private), background checks, ammo purchases.

However, the recent post on a 3D printed gun pretty much makes all of our control laws... pretty much moot.

AC

LET THE CHILDREN DIE ALREADY (3, Informative)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about a year ago | (#43786041)

I for one and sick and tired of all these "protecting the children" bullshit scenarios. We have a population of 7 fucking billion, i think the children are doing ok. If a few die from having stupid parents that never taught them gun safety (or any other safety procedures for that matter) then w.e, ill chalk that up to darwinism and nothing of value was lost.

Re:LET THE CHILDREN DIE ALREADY (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43786175)

I agree that "protecting the children" is a BS argument here, but differ on the reasons. If they were out to protect "the children," the statistics don't support starting with guns. In fact, guns aren't even remotely close to the top of that list.

Already done, by a 16 yr old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43786063)

Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF)..
One of 3 first place awards in Engineering, Electrical and Mechanical:
EE091 Biometric Electromechanical Firearm Safety, Kai Thorin Kloepfer, Fairview HS, Boulder CO

detects the finger print on the middle finger of the hand holding the pistol.
Developed a low power blocking mechanism for the safety, etc.
In the liberal hotbed of Boulder CO, no less...

Issues of power are a non issue: put a lithium battery in the magazine: 10 yr shelf life.. hopefully you check your weapon more often than that?
Other suggestions, there's a spring in the magazine, use that to provide a jolt of power when the next cartridge is fed into the firing position. Or when the hammer is pushed back. It doesn't take much power to operate the sensor.

Oh? You carry your pistol with a round in the chamber and the hammer back, and the magazine full, and leave it like that for 10 years? You deserve a failure.. but any intelligent design would fail safe: able to be fired with no power using some sort of manual safety override. Just push the blocking pin out of the way, like you do with the thumb operated safety already.

umm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43786079)

Guns are used in life-or-death situations.
So, false positive, you die.
False negative, you die.

There is literally no margin for error.

Just a terrible, terrible idea.

Double standards (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43786103)

Wallace said any technology that may impede the proper function of a weapon is a problem.

DRM on movies and music = good, DRM on guns = bad?

All I can say is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43786141)

One of the primary specifications for something like this would have to be absolute reliability in all weather or I personally would never own one. I have had weapons misfire, usually it is something simple that can be cleared in a split second and in a hostile situation where every second counts, this is crucial.
Something that cannot be fixed immediately can (literally) be the death of you.

If I am chasing some perp and get muddy, greasy or whatnot and the weapon will not arm because it cannot read my bio-metrics then it is not worth my life.

Great until... (1, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about a year ago | (#43786159)

Assuming the technology was there and that it worked flawless, it still has a key flaw, namely that a bad guy isn't always going to be the other person to pick up the weapon. What if your home gets broken into when you're not at home? Wouldn't you want your spouse or your child to be able to defend themselves? What if you were in some sort of hostage situation where the hostage-takers killed a security guard, wouldn't you want to be able to use that guard's gun?

Furthermore, it would encourage people to break the law to get fully functioning firearms. The same things that happen with electronic "piracy" would happen to guns, whenever the "system" is working to a degree that it doesn't make the product defective, a good chunk of the people will follow "the system", when an illegitimate product becomes superior is when more and more people start to break the system.

A first (3, Insightful)

he-sk (103163) | about a year ago | (#43786179)

I'm very much against guns but I find myself agreeing with the guy from the NRA on this issue.

Also, it's pretty obvious that the gun in Skyfall only had this "feature" so it could be exploited in a (way too predictable and pretty lame) plot twist.

Oh My (2)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | about a year ago | (#43786187)

Millions are spent every year in studies and consulting services, and the idea comes from a James Bond movie??!!! What's wrong with you people!!!!

Unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43786193)

Why do they just get to ignore the Constitution? Because nobody holds them accountable!

This needs to be field tested before it's law (3, Insightful)

Larry_Dillon (20347) | about a year ago | (#43786269)

I see so many opportunities for this going wrong, like if your hands are dirty. A large percentage of gun deaths are suicides and this would do nothing to stop that.

How about we have the military filed test this first and then see about make it mandatory?

What about time machines and flying cars? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43786279)

I've seen time machines and flying cars in the movies, why doesn't congress pass a bill requiring all car companies to add these features?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...