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!

Gun Rights Groups Say They Don't Oppose Smart Guns, Just Mandates

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the force-breeds-resistance dept.

Government 584

Lucas123 (935744) writes "When two gun stores attempted to sell the nation's first integrated smart gun, the iP1, gun advocacy groups were charged in media reports with organizing protests that lead to the stores pulling the guns from their shelves or reneging on their promise to sell them in the first place. But, the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation say they do not oppose smart gun technology, which they call "authorized user recognition" firearms. "We do oppose any government mandate of this technology, however. The marketplace should decide," Mike Bazinet, a spokesman for the NSSF, wrote in an email reply to Computerworld. However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology."

cancel ×

584 comments

Yes! No more mandates! (-1, Troll)

plopez (54068) | about 2 months ago | (#47046793)

We shouldn't mandate that cars should be safe or rape should be illegal. The world is perfect and we do not need building codes or have them enforced. Doesn't everyone see the flawless logic there?

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (-1, Troll)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 months ago | (#47046807)

The world isn't perfect, it's free markets that are perfect. If we just got rid of all regulation and let the free market work, buildings would be well-built because people would simply not walk into buildings that are poorly-made or have defects, and women wouldn't get raped because they'd exercise their free-market rights and avoid talking to acquaintances or relatives who might rape them.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (3, Funny)

Threni (635302) | about 2 months ago | (#47046959)

You'll love this!

http://www.newyorker.com/onlin... [newyorker.com]

Don't show Penn Jillette, though; he might start shouting at you.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47046981)

No, handing the woman a gun might allow her to put an extra hole into whoever is assaulting her, thus preventing a rape. Women with guns, best thing about 'merica.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047233)

Then all the women start shooting the men, so then the men have to take those guns away.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047069)

Sigh. There is no such thing as an unregulated free market. Unregulated markets are quickly subverted by a few large corporations to prevent competition and stop new corporations from getting a foothold. Can you name me one unregulated free market that has ever existed?

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (4, Insightful)

guacamole (24270) | about 2 months ago | (#47046817)

No I don't. What do you propose? That all cars should also be "smart cars" which will not start without owners fingerprint for the sake of safety?

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (0, Troll)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 months ago | (#47046911)

If you could point and click a car at random people and start maiming or killing them with no risk to the user, aside from someone retaliating, then sure.

Until then...

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (5, Insightful)

Tyndmyr (811713) | about 2 months ago | (#47046935)

Hitting pedestrians is pretty much this, yes. However, like with firearms, the vast majority of people have little interest in killing random folks.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 2 months ago | (#47047011)

And even if they were, a car is engineered to minimise its ability to cause injury and damage.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 months ago | (#47047059)

A car is designed to bleed energy in a collision to protect it's occupants. Against flesh this helps very little as flesh is very frail compared to an automobile.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047175)

A car is designed to bleed energy in a collision to protect it's occupants. Against flesh this helps very little as flesh is very frail compared to an automobile.

Actually, cars (especially those in Europe) are indeed designed to protect the humans they impact (to the extent that its possible) via cleverly designed exterior panels. Not all cars (murder machines like SUVs come to mind) do this very well, but if you guessed that most gun owners also buy cars least likely to protect anything except their own pathetic, frail bodies then you would be correct.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (3, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about 2 months ago | (#47047217)

Actually, most consumer vehicles are designed to minimise pedestrian injury these days, particularly given that most impacts occur in urban environments and are therefore comparatively low-speed. There are even standards they test against in Europe.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

pedrop357 (681672) | about 2 months ago | (#47047125)

How's that?

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047177)

>the vast majority of people have little interest in killing random folks.

I'm not so sure that's true regarding the gun-fondlers. When I go to the range, there will be maybe one other person shooting at round targets. The rest are shooting at human silhouettes, basically fantasizing about shooting people. It's really sick.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

Kielistic (1273232) | about 2 months ago | (#47046941)

Well in the case of a car it is "steer and floor it" but the concept is fairly similar.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47046967)

"and start maiming or killing them with no risk to the user"

Are you fucking kidding? A child could do this in any car. And your point is?

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 2 months ago | (#47047025)

Not to the same level, or with the same level of anonymity. Guns are small, compact and allow people to remain somewhat hidden when shooting. Cars are much larger, and noticeable in crowds. Lets see you kill or maim someone with a car from the safety of a roof top.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047091)

Oh give me a fucking break. Yes cars and guns are different. So are guns and knives. So are cars and poison. The point that the call to make everything in the world safe is absurd on the face of it, sure we can do so within reason in all cases and I don't think anyone objects to this goal.

But mandating nonexistent technology for 2A protected firearms is exactly what it looks like, backdoor infringing, and you know it.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 2 months ago | (#47047243)

I think you need to give yourself a fucking break.. No where did I state that we should mandate the technology.. I was just pointing out the bad logic that being used to counter the cars analogy, but keep up your strawman.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047149)

GTA

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

Unkyjar (1148699) | about 2 months ago | (#47046931)

You mean like an ignition interlock device?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

JWW (79176) | about 2 months ago | (#47047187)

Yep. Now imagine that everyone be required to have one of those in their car. There would be a huge backlash from the general law abiding populace.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (4, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about 2 months ago | (#47046985)

You already have this special secure token that lets you start your vehicle, and by willingly handing that token over to another person you are assumed to have taken some degree of legal responsibility for what they do with said vehicle.

It's called a key.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 months ago | (#47047045)

Yup. Except a key is not much added complexity when considering how complex an entire car is.

On the other hand, any locking mechanism for a gun is going to be more complex than the gun itself.

Although the bottom line is that civilians should not be forced into anything that everyone else is not. If the tech is good enough for civilians then it's good enough for a cop or a soldier. If it isn't, then civilians shouldn't have it forced upon them either.

Crooks will just view the police as a convenient reservoir of of more reliable weapons.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

MondoGordo (2277808) | about 2 months ago | (#47047051)

point me at the legal mandate that says all cars must have keys....

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about 2 months ago | (#47047163)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr... [cornell.edu]

S5.1.1Each vehicle must have a starting system which, whenever the key is removed from the starting system prevents:
(a) The normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and
(b) Either steering, or forward self-mobility, of the vehicle, or both.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

pedrop357 (681672) | about 2 months ago | (#47047135)

An easily copied token (in the case of most cars) is not really that secure and certainly quite different from the supposed security built in to so-called smart guns.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 2 months ago | (#47047185)

Yeah, I feel like we missed a step here, but I doubt that Smith and Wesson will be particularly keen on a law fitting a trigger lock to every gun they sell.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

bjdevil66 (583941) | about 2 months ago | (#47047207)

The government can't disable a key (or a car) - yet. It's about control over what you own.

Re: Yes! No more mandates! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47046859)

You, too, might be upset if the government legislated that all pacemakers run on a derivative of the Win9x kernel.

Sure, if you want to buy a pacemaker running Win9x then I don't care because that doesn't interfere with my choice. However, when you start telling *me* my safety critical device has to have an unreliable technology incorporated into it, then damn right you are going to encounter my indignant resistance.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (5, Insightful)

plover (150551) | about 2 months ago | (#47046863)

If I were to buy a handgun for personal protection, I'd like to have the authorized user recognition technology so that the weapon couldn't be turned against me in a difficult situation. But I'd also not like it mandated. I might want a custom gun, I might want something that works with gloves, I might want something more reliable than a funky computer, I might want a non-crippled device for any number of reasons.

But I want to make that choice for myself, weighing each instance.

(Please note: I have never owned any guns, I am not a member of the NRA, I just happen to agree with them in this instance.)

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047237)

When we first had the flame war over this discussion, many people properly pointed out that the system blatantly fails at every scenario except 'gun stolen from a safe while owner was still wearing the arming watch.'
The RFID range of the watch was enough that if you were in a struggle, the gun is still armed regardless of which participant is in control of the weapon.
The RFID system can be easily jammed by an aggressor with $4 of Radio Shack hardware, making your gun useless as he threatens you with a steak knife.

If someone is concerned about family playing with long arms (rifles and their kin) that are proudly on display while armed and (for no good reason) loaded, some security measure like this would help protect the children slightly, but it has no use for personal defense weaponry.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (3, Insightful)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 2 months ago | (#47047251)

I'm not a gun owner either and not a member of any gun related organizations.

I agree the technology sounds useful but mandating a technology that is unproven and not likely to have an impact... I have no idea what the statistics for are for a person being shot by an assailant with their own gun are but I'm sure it's really low. Gun locks are not intended to keep a burglar from using your own gun against you, they are intended to keep accidental discharges from happening and unauthorized users like kids from playing with them.

As for theft, gunlocks or any other system can be circumvented.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47046873)

Good thing we have a constitutional right to rape and drive dangerous cars. Oh, wait, just the right to bear arms.

And free speech. Even if it's as besieged as the rest of the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47046885)

My 1911 is perfectly safe when used in accordance with good firearms safety practices.

This is no different that a car or a chainsaw or pool. Things of all sorts are dangerous in the hands of stupid people.

How this is news to you is what I cannot understand.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47046951)

My 1911 is perfectly safe

The state of CA disagrees with you. Since just dropping that dangerous thing will cause it to go off and maybe kill a child, they are correct in making them illegal to sell new. They are horrible and unsafe guns. The man who designed it was such a loon that he was a Mormon. His kind doesn't care about children since they have so many of them. He wasn't competent enough to design a gun that just didn't go off from a minor drop. Again, CA proves itself the leading state when it comes to safety.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047139)

Dude you do not know what you are talking about. The 1911 when properly maintained and handled is as safe as can be. The military does not use a product for decades on end if it is inherently unsafe.

"The state of CA disagrees with you"

Excellet, I would be concered if they didn't.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047223)

Uh... what? There are at least three safeties on the average 1911. Model 80s add even more, ensuring the firing pin is nowhere near the round until the trigger is pulled.

Please, by all means, show me -some- statistic that a 1911 in C1 "cocked and locked" will fire when dropped. Even if the safety is off there is still the grip safety that keeps the pin well away from the action.

Of course, if someone fears carrying in C1, there is always a Glock, or just carrying the 1911 in C3.

1911s are fairly simple weapons. If they fired every time someone dropped one, it would be on the national news because the press slavers for articles on defective guns.

Yes, the state of CA disagrees with the grandparent poster... but the state of CA tends to disagree with the Constitution a lot of times.

I shouldn't feed a troll, but in the real world, a 1911 is a safe weapon, unless the owner does something stupid like botch a trigger job, run double-charged loads, or anything like that. One can watch YouTube torture tests to see what genuinely certified morons have done to 1911s, and how idiot-resistant Colt's creations are.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47046923)

Not at all. Finger print and other ID technologies are both easily bypassed AND notoriously unreliable. Show me a device that allows access 99.9% of the time and denies others access 99.9% of the time, and pro-gun groups will be all for it. Unfortunately, this isn't the case today. Requiring this technology when the technology isn't there would result in people being unable to use their guns when their life's depend on it while at the same time, NOT stopping the criminals from using the very same guns.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47046949)

Besides the Flying Spaghetti Monster, this is the second most-obvious example of a strawman I've ever seen.

Yes! No more mandates! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47046953)

This tech has no merit as a safety device. /.ers especially should be able to imagine the reliability issues with jamming consumer electronics into a mechanical device that experiences massive shock, vibration, rough handling, exposure to the elements, etc. Nevermind all the opportunities for spoofing/jamming/circumventing the "safeguard".

And nevermind that Armatix has been lobbying state governments for these very mandates, so that they can carve out an early lead and attempt to establish a monopoly via regulatory capture.

If you're afraid of your gun being taken away in a scuffle, you need more training.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047077)

What isn't okay is to have a government kept kill switch or other police owned master RFID (good for several yards) that disables such devices. That flies directly into the face of our rights. Why do I say that? Because as always criminals won't have those guns, they'll have normal firearms and only the lawful will be compelled to comply- thus they will be restricted alone, and in harms way. The Bill Of Rights is not an a-la-carte deal- you can't support most of it or just the parts people believe are popular at the moment.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047127)

Gun rights advocates oppose mandates for these technologies for the same reason they'd oppose requirements for a safety on a handgun. No one claims that safeties are a bad idea wholesale, only that there are entirely rational and good reasons to not have a traditional safety. Likewise there are entirely rational and good reasons to not have a user authentication device. Gun manufacturers and owners should have the the right to choose.

Legal mandates written in haste, particularly by people who don't understand technology in response to a new technology covered in IP, are almost never a good idea.

Re:Yes! No more mandates! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047173)

Found the liberal

The marketplace should decide... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47046797)

That's complete bullshit, if the marketplace decided (through some sort of divine inspiration) that guns should be illegal, you bet your sweet ass they would call the marketplace anti-american and send it death threats. That already happens to anyone trying to build a smartgun, and apparently to anyone trying to sell a smartgun too. These folks basically just want everyone to _only_ build old fashioned guns and _only_ stick by old fashioned gun laws (that were drafted with muskets and cannons in mind).

downmod hell? Yes please.

Re:The marketplace should decide... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47046987)

Can you send "the marketplace" death threats?

Re:The marketplace should decide... (2)

pedrop357 (681672) | about 2 months ago | (#47047029)

The irony is especially sweet here considering you're posting anonymously on an internet forum, exploiting "old fashioned" speech laws (that were drafted with printing presses and quill pens in mind).

Re:The marketplace should decide... (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 months ago | (#47047153)

Illegal is not a possible outcome of the marketplace. You don't seem to understand what that concept is.

Police (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47046805)

Once the police are happy enough with the technology to use it exclusively, then a mandate is appropriate.

I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Police (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 months ago | (#47046875)

of course my mod points are gone but +1 insightful.

Re:Police (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047141)

Since when did the Constitution say that the police should write the laws? If the police don't like the current laws, they can hire a lobbyist, same as the Koch Brothers.

Let them legislate all they want (5, Insightful)

ShaunC (203807) | about 2 months ago | (#47046881)

However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology.

Let them pass the laws. A few days later, when headlines erupt about stolen "smart" guns being used in murders, or some cop getting killed because his "smart" gun wouldn't fire, the laws will go away soon enough.

Re:Let them legislate all they want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047087)

Let them pass the laws. A few days later, when headlines erupt about stolen "smart" guns being used in murders, or some cop getting killed because his "smart" gun wouldn't fire, the laws will go away soon enough.

In the first case it will either not be a problem because the real perpetrator was found or because the wrong one was found guilty and generally considered to be the real perpetrator.
In the second case. .. BWAHAHAHA! Regulations does not apply to cops.

No, the laws will not go away. They will only be applied as found convenient.

Re:Let them legislate all they want (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#47047097)

However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology.

Let them pass the laws. A few days later, when headlines erupt about stolen "smart" guns being used in murders, or some cop getting killed because his "smart" gun wouldn't fire, the laws will go away soon enough.

Everything I've seen on the topic, legislation included, always says that LEO guns will default to fire rather than safe, whereas civilian weapons would be required to default to safe.

Which is a big part of the reason why a lot of folks are against the idea of a "smart" gun mandate.

Re:Let them legislate all they want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047111)

Laws rarely go away, that's part of the problem with laws.

Gun grabbers never give up (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47046895)

Funny how the most virulently anti-gun people tend to be the ones who know the least about 'em.

The unknown is skeery.

Re:Gun grabbers never give up (2)

pedrop357 (681672) | about 2 months ago | (#47047053)

Hey man, those ghost guns with 30 round magazine clips are totally real.

I'm very, VERY pro-gun (5, Insightful)

adric22 (413850) | about 2 months ago | (#47046929)

And I have no problem with these smart guns for anyone who wants to buy one. In fact, I could see advantages for these guns under certain circumstances if I was in situations where there was a risk my gun would be taken away from me in a struggle. However, personally I would not want one of these. The main reason being that it is another point of possible failure or breakdown that could keep my gun from firing in the event I need to use it. When people need to use a gun in self-defense they usually have less than a second to make that decision and pull the trigger. THere is no time to be fiddling with some gizmo or something that might prevent the gun from firing.

Re:I'm very, VERY pro-gun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047225)

something else to consider about this tech is that, with the exception of an older tech using a magnet on a ring, all the "smart guns" they are coming out with now use some form of low power transmitter.
 
Anyone want to take bets on how long it will be before there are plans for a DIY jammer on the internet, and how long after that somebody in a gang starts making them for their Homies? You don't have to unlock the gun so you can use it, just keep it locked so the cop/victim cant.
 
And you just know that there will be lawsuits because someone died when their gun didn't work when it was needed.

You can't please gun nuts. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47046945)

These people are mentally ill. They are afraid that at any moment they will be killed, raped, and tortured. Therefore they must have a great surplus of high-capacity weaponry and ammunition at all times. They are convinced that if they aren't armed, when civilization inevitably crumbles within the next few days they will be unable to defend themselves in our apocalyptic hellscape of a future.

Now as you probably know these are ludicrous ideas. But their fear is so palpable that they must have a weapon on them at all times. When they get coffee, when they pick up their kids from school, when they use the bathroom, they must be armed. At any moment they could be assaulted, so they must be armed. They choose to believe that rather than being normal people who have small glimpses danger now and then, they are constantly in danger and have only small glimpses of normalcy now and then. They never feel safe, ever, and live with a constant threat of violence that only ownership of a gun can solve.

Trying to understand gun nuts is like trying to understand drug addicts, or self-medicating schizophrenics, or Republicans. They are delusional people trapped in a prison of their own creation, living in unending and perpetual fear. There are no logical or reasonable solutions to an irrational problem, other than changing American society to be more helpful and understanding of the kind of mental illness that plagues gun nuts.

Proposal - (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47046957)

A federal law stating - that the civilian authorities of any given city or state, be subject to the same firearm restrictions, as the civilians themselves. Yes, including the SWAT, and special response teams. Magazine limits, smart guns, etc. After all, if it is OK, for the average citizen to be subject to proposed restrictions, the the police forces should be governed by the same restrictions.

Re:Proposal - (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047075)

If the police had the same restrictions as random people, including criminals, law-enforcement would be impossible. Only a lunatic would propose what you do.

Re:Proposal - (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047183)

If the police had the same restrictions as random people, including criminals, law-enforcement would be impossible. Only a lunatic would propose what you do.

Our legislatures propose - that these restrictions, make us all safer. And that these restrictions do not impede our personal rights for self protection. They I propose that civilian authorities be subject to same. If it were made so, then the the law enforcement agencies across the land would howl, and rightfully so. And I respectfully submit, that only a lunatic would serve up their civil rights on a platter to become a subject vs. a citizen.

Mandates could be a great thing (2)

HexaByte (817350) | about 2 months ago | (#47046965)

Mandates could be a great thing - to those with a lot of old tech guns!

Just think of all the money they can make selling them after the sale of new old-tech guns are outlawed!

There Is No Demand For "smart guns" (1)

SplawnDarts (1405209) | about 2 months ago | (#47046973)

Autoloading pistols are very finicky systems as anyone who's done any gunsmithing can tell you. Adding more mechanical complexity, not to mention electrical complexity, is a very bad idea. The resulting guns almost certainly won't work reliably. Far and away the most important safety feature of a gun is that it goes bang when you pull the trigger and successfully cycles so you can do it again - thereby dealing with whatever you were shooting and making you safer. Any "improvements" to guns that don't facilitate that aren't actually improvements.

Re:There Is No Demand For "smart guns" (4, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | about 2 months ago | (#47047115)

Given that the majority of injuries caused by firearms are accidents or non-defensive homicides, I would question your statement that "the most important safety feature of a gun" is its ability to actually shoot. Detroit had about 50 defensive homicides in 2012 against 500 offensive homicides; if the gun literally didn't work half the days out of the year, you would be saving 250 lives at the cost of 25, before you count accidents.

Re:There Is No Demand For "smart guns" (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 months ago | (#47047257)

Detroit had about 50 defensive homicides in 2012 against 500 offensive homicides; if the gun literally didn't work half the days out of the year, you would be saving 250 lives at the cost of 25, before you count accidents.

Which headline makes for better outrage and FoxNews clickbait?

1. 25 Detroit Citizens Died Because Their "Smart" Gun Wouldn't Fire. Don't Be Next.
2. Shootings in Detroit Decrease 50% After Smart Guns Go On Sale.

Pretty much spot on. (5, Insightful)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 2 months ago | (#47046975)

Don't forget New Jersey passed it's mandate before the technology had even been invented as a functional device. When it was passed it was merely a concept. Beyond that we don't even know how well the technology behind that Armatrex pistol is going to work out. The pistol in question itself is COMPLETELY ill suited for personal defense purposes. Being .22 LR, a round known for piss poor performance and reliably.

You could easily consider this as just kind of a test bed for future proper defensive arms. And we don't really know just how many ways this equipment might be up having points of failure. I personally imagine that it will be a good decade before any gun maker will consider offering this technology in a significant portion of their wares. We, as people of the gun, prefer things that we know will WORK. Reliability. Is. Critical. Case in point the 1911 is one of the biggest selling handguns on the market. A design invented in... 1911. Over a century old.

...but that doesn't explain... (-1, Troll)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 months ago | (#47046983)

The rape threats, the murder threats, the wildly violent language...

if gun fondlers want to be thought of as reasonable people, then a lot of the people who took to the internet to harass and terrorize gun violence victims and those who are peddling smart gun tech need to be culled from the herd.

It's scary these people are *armed*

Re:...but that doesn't explain... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047005)

That's the catch. The people who are most vocal about gun ownership are also the most unhinged. And those are the people that the NRA caters to.

Re:...but that doesn't explain... (1)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 2 months ago | (#47047039)

And you base this off of... what? Your own delusions and preconceptions about a group that includes a third of the nations population?

Re:...but that doesn't explain... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047157)

No, he (like most pro-gun control people) base it off a very small and select group of nuts that the Brady group and CSGV and others parade around as "typical NRA members". They don't bother to actually think about what they are being fed, they just gulp it down.

Re:...but that doesn't explain... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047079)

That's the catch. The people who are most vocal about gun ownership are also the most unhinged. And those are the people that the NRA caters to.

I know thats why the law abiding NRA members are the ones running around killing everyone! Oh wait...thats those who illegally get the guns, and use them for illegal purposes. Sorry, I keep forgetting that murderers will follow SOME laws but not others....you people are so fucking retarded

Re:...but that doesn't explain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047089)

Yep, fear your local cop, he is probably an NRA member. Unhinged, armed & watching you.

Re:...but that doesn't explain... (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 months ago | (#47047143)

You're full of shit. The NRA doesn't cater to the crazies but the media makes sure to try and stick them on the NRA every chance they get. The NRA has a membership of over 3 million people. No doubt they have their share of nutjobs just like every large organization but the majority of them are responsible people. No one really has a problem with "smart" guns but most gun owners don't want them mandated. I am actually intrigued by the idea but I'd like the technology to mature a bit more before I purchase one.

Look at your post. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | about 2 months ago | (#47047047)

if gun fondlers ...

And I'm sure that you believe yourself to be a rational person.

Yet you could not stop yourself from including denigrating language in a post complaining about the behaviour of others.

Re:...but that doesn't explain... (2)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 2 months ago | (#47047099)

You do realize there's and estimated 100 million gun owners in the United States. By basic probability you're going to have a certain percentage of them that are bug nuts. However that percentage is going to be exceptionally low. Otherwise the internet would have probably caught fire from all the hate mail and threats you're speaking of.

Do you make it a habit of using really idiotic generalizations often in life?

Re:...but that doesn't explain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047103)

"It's scary these people are *armed*"
 
Kind of makes you want to get a gun to protect yourself from them doesn't if?

Re: ...but that doesn't explain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047119)

So....you are stating that gun owners need to be the recipient of some good old fashioned genocide and it's a "Damned Shame" that they have guns or it would be much easier?

Fair enough. Us gun owners are well aware of where the 4th Reich stand on all this, and I congratulate you on your honesty.

Re:...but that doesn't explain... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#47047131)

No, what's scary is people who think other people should be disarmed and "culled from the herd."

At the risk of Godwinning...

Re:...but that doesn't explain... (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 months ago | (#47047191)

Being the actual point of the second amendment was to allow the citizens to raise arms against their own government or an other government. (They just completed a revolution from their mother government, the founders heads were filled with a lot of idealism, and a lot of distrust in big organizations) So they created the second amendment as a way to insure the citizens feel free and safe.

Being that the United States is one of the most stable country in the world. The idea of a violent revolution is a rather remote aspect, sure there are some fringe groups, but none have major public opinion, and prefer to work with our current system of government then actually fight with arms against it. Means right now in history the Gun rules seem outdated and leaves us open to citizens being danger to themselves and others because of the gun.

Most people do not think ahead in such abstract reasons, so the pro-gun supporters try to bring up short term threats on trying to show that the gun is useful today and now, as to not have the citizenry get lazy on their rights, and sign away their freedom.

I myself do not own a gun, nor do I have any plans on buying one soon... However the fact that I could get one without having to go threw government approval process to make sure that my ideals match the governments, is a comforting freedom.

Re:...but that doesn't explain... (1)

bjdevil66 (583941) | about 2 months ago | (#47047227)

"gun fondlers"

Troll... Didn't read beyond that point.

How gracious of them (0, Troll)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 2 months ago | (#47047009)

They want the right to carry stupid guns, and they are gracious enough to not oppose other people's right to carry smart guns. That's really nice.

However, they do oppose people's right not to be shot by a stupid gun that someone takes away from the stupid owner of said stupid gun.

Re:How gracious of them (1)

pedrop357 (681672) | about 2 months ago | (#47047095)

People still have the "right" not to be shot by a "stupid" gun, but that right doesn't supercede my right to own one of these non-"smart" guns.

Re:How gracious of them (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 months ago | (#47047121)

...and you idiots whine about the delusions of others.

Unless you are living in some kind of "food desert", your chance of being shot approximates zero. Your open hatred of your fellow voters is about as realistic as people afraid of a zombie apocalypse.

Re:How gracious of them (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#47047145)

However, they do oppose people's right not to be shot by a stupid gun that someone takes away from the stupid owner of said stupid gun.

Sure they do, it's just that their idea that the people with the right to not be shot should get a gun and use it to protect themselves doesn't mesh with your idea that nobody should shoot anyone, ever, for any reason. That's not the same thing as opposition.

I dont get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047021)

I dont get it.

they do not oppose smart gun technology . . .We do oppose any government mandate of this technology

They got it right. What is there to discuss?

Give 'em a cm and they'll take an m. (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 months ago | (#47047033)

"However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology."

Almost certainly true. Consider contraceptives. First they were illegal, then legal (and properly so in a free country.). Now they are mandatory that companies pay for them.

The exact same rhetoric used to get them legalized is now used to justify them as mandate.

So this is not only not a silly conclusion, it is almost a foregone one.

Re:Give 'em a cm and they'll take an m. (1, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about 2 months ago | (#47047201)

They are not "required".

They are required to be part of a civilized insurance policy.

That's a subtle difference that you're glossing over there.

Companies are "forced" to pay for your triple bypass or lung cancer treatment too.

Give 'em a cm and they'll take an m. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047203)

Why should I pay for your risky behaviors through my insurance?

CAPTCHA: Urinates

except your products are killing children (-1, Troll)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 2 months ago | (#47047093)

4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children, ranging from toddlers to pre-teens.

Youtube is full of examples of the idiocy - many videos of "awww look, he's playing with...*BANG* OH GOD OH GOD"

  Smart guns may not be perfect, but would they lead to 4,000 situations a year where someone's life was in danger and a gun owner couldn't activate it? Probably not, given that there are only about 230 justifiable homicides a year, and 60,000 cases where the gun is presented but not actually used: http://takingnote.blogs.nytime... [nytimes.com]

So, gun owners: either start being more responsible with killing devices, or face increasing regulation of said killing devices. You want to have your own kids shoot you, that's fine, and I welcome your genes coming out of the pool. The problem comes when my kid comes over to play at your house, you lied or didn't tell me you had a gun in the house, and your kid shoots my kid in the face.

But hey, keep on showing up at restaurant chains loaded for the apocalypse, freaking out people, and helping us pass more gun regulations!

Re:except your products are killing children (3, Informative)

swillden (191260) | about 2 months ago | (#47047165)

4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children, ranging from toddlers to pre-teens.

Cite?

Given that CDP numbers put the total number of accidental shooting deaths annually between 500 and 600 -- for all ages of shooters -- I expect your link to be very interesting.

Re:except your products are killing children (0)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 2 months ago | (#47047229)

Deaths versus shootings...are you really that stupid as to not be able to tell the difference? Here's your citation: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=number+of... [lmgtfy.com]

Re:except your products are killing children (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 2 months ago | (#47047235)

4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children, ranging from toddlers to pre-teens.

Citation?

Only numbers I could find even close to this are the total number of people who were accidentally shot over a SIX year period. Not just by children, but by adults.

And that reference mentioned in passing that their definition of children was "under 25 years of age".

Re:except your products are killing children (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047255)

Maybe instead of mandating 'Smart' guns you should examine and regulate stupid children. Why aren't you willing to do that? "I welcome your genes coming out of the pool." Doesn't sound like this is the case. You sound more like the above mentioned stupid child- in need of regulation rather than responsibility.

Isn't this obvious? (3, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 2 months ago | (#47047151)

Did anyone really think that pro-gun groups would oppose manufacturers giving people the option of buying guns with additional safety devices?

What's really going on is that pro-gun groups are pretty certain (with good reason!) that these smart guns don't work reliably, and likely never will. Plus there's some concern about backdoors that might allow the guns to be deliberately disabled, which could enable smart gun mandates to easily turn into forcible disarmament.

But, given a smart gun that actually works, is very, very close to 100% reliable (meaning it almost never fails to recognize its authorized user, mostly), and isn't subject to control by third parties, I'm sure there would be a great market for them. I'd definitely buy one. I train a little from time to time in techniques for protecting my gun from being taken from me, and while I have considerable confidence in my ability to retain control of my gun, I'd love to have an additional technological backstop.

But it's very unlikely they'll ever be sufficiently reliable. So my response has been from the beginning: Let me know when all of the police forces have adopted them and love them, since cops are at considerable risk of being shot with their own guns. When police are confident that the reliability is high enough they want to carry them, then I'll be interested in looking at the possibility myself.

Mandates, however, make no sense. Build good enough technology and people will buy them. If that's not possible, then mandates are obviously going to meet with stiff resistance.

How hard are they to jamb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047159)

Step 1, cops are required to use them
Step 2, robbers figure out how to jamb the enable from a distance
Step 3, we see a cops and robbers shootout with only one side shooting.

There may be specific places where they make sense, but in general, probably not.
    Which says let the market decide is the right answer.

Too late Subby (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 2 months ago | (#47047199)

However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology."

You're too late subby, at least in the case of New Jersey it's already law [cnn.com] .

And they've already been sued over NOT enforcing it [heraldtribune.com] .

I don't think that a .22 is going to satisfy the courts, it being too light of a round for common self-defense or other tasks, but it's an actual problem. I personally don't have any problem with smart gun tech as long as it's optional.

But it's a HUGE expense for not much gain - the vast majority of shootings are either by a user that would be authorized, or by a criminal having had possession of the firearm for long enough to bypass or reprogram any such system.

I like technology, but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47047249)

I'm like my technology, but there are some areas where I think it is a long way off from being reliable/robust enough to go. For example I don't want my houses thermostat wired to the internet, because its bad enough when my computer gets a virus let alone my heating system (or any other primary utility for that matter) in the dead of winter. I also like dot scopes on my firearms, but I also put them on elevated picatinny rail with quick releases should the batteries/electronics die when I am in dire need (should that ever occur).

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...