"Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention 1374
R3d M3rcury (871886) writes "How's this for a good idea? A gun that won't fire unless it's within 10 inches of a watch? That's the iP1 from Armatrix. Of course, don't try to sell it here in the United States." From the NY Times article linked: "[Armatrix employee] Belinda Padilla does not pick up unknown calls anymore, not since someone posted her cellphone number on an online forum for gun enthusiasts. Then someone snapped pictures of the address where she has a P.O. box and put those online, too. In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. 'Belinda?" the person wrote. "Is that you?" ... "I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote." The article paints a fairly rosy picture of the particular technology that Armatrix is pushing, but their ID-checking gun seems to default to an unfireable state, which might not always be an attractive feature. And given that at least one state — New Jersey — has hinged a gun law on the commercial availability of these ID-linked guns, it's not surprising that some gun owners dislike a company that advertises this kind of system as "the future of the firearm."
A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score:5, Insightful)
Count me out. No way would I rely on this technology, or the electronics, or the battery.
When I pull the trigger I don't want to hear a "beep" that's the equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death.
Thanks, but NO FUCKING THANKS.
Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on the threat, a legal threat sure it is, threaten away with litigation or protest or any of the legal means.
A death threat? Well that's just stupid no matter what the case.
Re: (Score:3)
So long as we have corporations with free speech, they are completely legitimate targets as they are completely tied up in the political process. A "safety gun" company is absolutely going to encourage us towards requirement for their weapons.
Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score:4, Insightful)
Then don't buy one.
Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then take it up with your elected officials. You elected them, if you don't like the laws they make for you, then it's your responsibility to do a better job at the voting booth. Or move to someplace where your fellow citizens vote the way you like.
Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not necessarily. When you live in a country like the USA which isn't democratic, but is rather an oligarchy (see the Princeton University publication proving this), then you can't expect the views of the general population to be reflected in elected officials and policy.
However, even in our not-very-democratic country, there is a certain amount of democracy to keep people fat and happy and believing that it is a democracy. You can see this in gun laws; some states have very strict regulations on firearms, others don't. If having lax firearms regulation is important to you, then don't move to New York or New Jersey or Illinois, it's as simple as that. Move instead to Texas, Arizona, or Vermont. If you move to New Jersey and don't like the gun laws there, that's your own stupid fault.
Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score:5, Insightful)
A pacemaker that depends on a battery? No way I would rely on such a device!
Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score:4, Insightful)
People aren't very good about checking the condition of their gun either.
Or if the safety is off.
Or if it's loaded.
Or if the kid didn't move it from the usual place when he showed it to his friends.
There's already a lot of uncertainty. You can't be sure of anything if you don't take care of it.
So no, a battery isn't an issue, it's another safety.
Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score:5, Informative)
People aren't very good about checking the condition of their gun either. Or if the safety is off.
That's why it is nice to have a revolver with no safety.
Or if it's loaded.
That's why I keep it loaded. It isn't much use in a home invasion if it isn't loaded.
Or if the kid didn't move it from the usual place when he showed it to his friends.
That's why you teach your children how to use guns at a young enough age that they understand it isn't a toy and they don't touch it.
There's already a lot of uncertainty. You can't be sure of anything if you don't take care of it. So no, a battery isn't an issue, it's another safety.
Electronics fail, batteries die, the more complicated you make something, the less reliable it is. That's why a revolver makes a better home defense gun than one with a clip and a slide and a safety. Those guns jam and misfire much more often when left there untouched for a year or more than the much more simple mechanism in a plain revolver.
Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score:5, Funny)
You should consider a sword and shield to defend yourself, they are less likely to fail. Or a small dagger eventually if your place is not big enough to swing a sword around.
If you need to fight long distance, consider a bow and arrow. According to the Predator documentary, it even works against aliens with superior technology.
Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why a revolver makes a better home defense gun than one with a clip and a slide and a safety. Those guns jam and misfire much more often when left there untouched for a year or more than the much more simple mechanism in a plain revolver.
You probably shouldn't be using a gun for home protection if you're going to let it sit untouched for a year or more.
Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score:5, Funny)
They should just do something analogous to what smoke detectors do. Like every few minutes when the battery gets low, automatically fire off a round.
Just what I need when I'm in danger (Score:5, Insightful)
a gun that might not fire.
Sounds like a good gun for the police to use. Get back to us when every police officer in the country has one of these and is forbidden to use a traditional weapon.
Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger (Score:4, Interesting)
a gun that might not fire.
That would be all of them.
Yes, if you're a pedant. However, a well-maintained modern handgun firing factory ammunition is unlikely to fail, and nearly all failures that do occur are transient and easily fixed. With a bit of practice, even type 3 malfunctions (double-feed) can be cleared in under a second and the gun restored to working order.
What we're talking about here is an additional failure mode, one that is almost certainly not repairable in a second, or even a couple of minutes. In a gunfight, a couple of minutes is likely to be a literal lifetime. Further, it introduces a failure mode which can occur even when everything is working perfectly. If for some reason you need to shoot with your off hand and cannot get your strong-side wrist in range of the gun, you'll be unable to shoot.
Police will absolutely refuse to use these, and civilians should also refuse to allow them to be imposed on us.
Re:Just what I need when I'm in danger (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it's not possible to impose it on anyone, as they are not yet availabe. The time between them becoming available and someone proposing laws to make them mandatory will likely be measured in milliseconds.
Correct, that is not a failure. When the device *does* fail, when everything is *not* working properly--and nothing works properly all the time--it can result in the gun not firing when it should, when it *is* within 10 inches of the wrist device. And that can be fatal. The most dangerous weapon is the one that doesn't work when you need it. Every gewgaw you add to a device can fail, and adds the possibility that the device as a whole will fail. Particularly when the gewgaw's intended purpose is to make the device not work in the first place. A thing that activates when it is not supposed to is one the most common failure modes.
Re:I must live in a different country... (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, a firearm probably is the best home defense weapon on hand; it's just that a home invasion is rare.
What gets me is people who think the gun makes them a god. I will never carry a weapon when I'm out. What if I get jumped? What if a mugger pulls a gun on me? People tell me, "Oh, I'll shoot them." "When a mugger threatens me with his gun, I'll shoot him with my gun." You're grappling on the ground, you reach to pull out a gun... and you don't think you're now grappling for a firearm? The mugger will see you reach for a firearm and shoot you dead with the one already trained on your face.
I'm not bringing a liability to a fight. For a firearm to do me any good, I need to be able to take you with my bare hands first so I can get to the damn thing without having it taken from me. If I can do that, I'll just beat the shit out of you in the first place, and if you bring out your own firearm I'll take that and shoot you with it. If it's not a war, a stealth infiltration, a closed-quarter invasion, or a defense against animals (bear), carrying a firearm is the absolute stupidest thing I can do.
In a future cop movie... (Score:5, Funny)
The criminal is surrounded by cops... no escape. The cops yell "slowly, take off your watch.... no, you don't have to put your gun down, but you HAVE TO REMOVE YOUR WATCH... NOW!"
if it's so advanced (Score:5, Insightful)
Just mandate that the police force has to use it. Once it's been fully adopted and vetted, i'm sure us normal citizens would enjoy the chance to buy it.
Other than that, who cares?
Re:if it's so advanced (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:if it's so advanced (Score:5, Insightful)
That's actually a good solution. One of the concerns police have is a criminal disarming them (or just making a grab for their weapon). This would ensure that only an officer actually gets to fire the gun if the situation warrants it. If a suspect snags it from them in am altercation, it's useless.
Yep, and in spite of that police will refuse to accept this technology. Weighed against a gun grab, they'll vote for the weapon that is more likely to work for them when they need it. To combat gun grabs they'll continue to use retention holsters and train to defend their gun.
You may not know, but another technology in this vein (gun grab protection) is already in production and widely available. It's a more sensible and less risky approach... and by and large police officers don't like it. The technology in question is the "magazine safety". It blocks the trigger press unless a magazine is fully inserted. The idea is that if an officer ends up in a wrestling match they can reach down and hit the exposed magazine release, disabling their gun until the magazine is re-inserted. Seems sensible enough, but it still creates a small risk that the gun won't work when they want it to, so by and large police have refused to buy guns with the feature even though it was designed specifically for them.
Re: (Score:3)
According to the FBI [fbi.gov]11 officers were killed with their own weapon in 2003, but that dropped to 1 in 2012. I wonder what changed.
Re:if it's so advanced (Score:4, Insightful)
Magazine safeties are for "unloaded" guns (Score:4, Interesting)
The technology in question is the "magazine safety". It blocks the trigger press unless a magazine is fully inserted.
A magazine safety isn't for "gun grab" protection. It's to prevent a supposedly unloaded weapon from firing when there's still a round in the chamber. California requires it on new handguns. Prevents the "But I didn't know it was loaded" problem.
The U.S. Army often puts a barrel of sand outside mess halls and such in war zones. Entering the area, soldiers must unload their weapon, then try to fire it into the sand barrel. For a large mess hall, about once a day, on average, "bang".
When Col. Dave Hackworth was working on the Army's project to replace the 1911A1, he discovered that, over the Army's history of that weapon, it had killed more US troops through accidents than enemy. Sidearms are carried by troops who don't plan to use them. If you expect to need a weapon, you take something bigger. So the Army really wants sidearms that don't go off by accident.
How long before a remote cutoff? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How long before a remote cutoff? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not long at all. Government agencies are already looking into automobile kill switches. We KNOW they are already illegally spying on us. Why give them one more way they can subjugate us?
Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about guns (Score:5, Interesting)
For a long time I thought of myself as a gun enthusiast. I kept my old Army service CZ for decades, and I kept replacing the barrel, as I was firing thousands upon thousands of rounds to 'keep my hand'.
Then I got married, and now my gun stays at the range, where we go and fire it once in a blue moon. Now that I think about it, I have not touched it since last August.
I live in a much nicer community than the one in which I used to live, and really do not think that my gun would be much extra protection over my swords and bows. (Not that they would be much protection, either) Furthermore, a few months ago, agun owner 20 miles away, in San Bernadino, got killed when he interrupted a home invasion (by unarmed people) He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.
All of this said, I cannot imagine for the fuck of it a situation where I would want a fucking piece of shit that only fires if I am wearing a watch. I do not sleep with my watch, and I am not replacing my watch with another, for any reason. This is a stupid gimmick that will eventually screw a legitimate owner up. And I bet that if you give me two of these guns, the associated watches, and leave me alone with my PC, in my office at the plant, I'll have the gun 'unlocked' within a week.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.
It still would have happened, but the only death would have been his.
Re:Stupid gimmick, and I even don't care about gun (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in a much nicer community than the one in which I used to live, and really do not think that my gun would be much extra protection over my swords and bows. (Not that they would be much protection, either) Furthermore, a few months ago, agun owner 20 miles away, in San Bernadino, got killed when he interrupted a home invasion (by unarmed people) He got two, the third strangled him. So three people dead, one in jail for life (I hope) ... which probably would not have happened if he had not had a gun.
First off, I will give my standard libertarian disclaimer that I don't care what you do as long as you don't try to compel me to do what you think is best. So, fair enough you believe you have no use for a firearm anymore. Great, just don't try to prevent me from owning and using firearms for my own protection.
As for your anecdote, I would take the odds of potentially only stopping 2 out of 3 while defending my family with my firearm. Because, you know, home invaders aren't your typical burglars (cf. Wichita Massacre [wikipedia.org]). Home invaders are more like rabid animals—normally burglars have a fear of being discovered. Home invaders, like rabid animals, somehow lack that fear and are willing to enter the home while people are present. Witnesses... something every criminal wants.
If someone forces their way into my home, their right to live is forfeit in favor of my right and duty to protect my family.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends. Am I the dead homeowner, either of the dead burglars, the incarcerated burglar, or the tax payer who is paying to incarcerate the burglar? Come to think of it, I don't think it's better for any of those people.
Sci-fi foresaw this (Score:4, Insightful)
"Weapon Shops of Isher" (A.E.Van Vogt) or the Harry Harrison "Deathworld" novels.
Fun fun fun... (Score:3, Insightful)
My personal opinion is that the second amendment is dated and no one should be allowed to personally own a gun. BUT, I'm aware that there's a huge collection of libertarians, rednecks, whatever who feel they need one. So changing the Constitution is out of the question. Anyone trying that will get the rednecks at their doorstep just like this person did. Either the South and most of the West will secede again, or they'll try to take over.
The problem with the US is that we're way bigger than we were in 1789, and have 300+ million we need to keep happy. We also have little need for an unorganized militia, although the more survivalist among us might disagree on that one. The reality is that gun use is very different in urban areas than it is in cities. In the country, people go shootin' at some food. In cities, they're used primarily in crimes and by the mentally ill to wreak havoc. This is why mayors ban handguns -- not because they think it'll do anything, but because they can't be seen as contributing to the problem.
Anecdotal example about differing opinons -- someone I know who grew up in an urban area moved out to a rural location. Over the years I've known him, he's gone full-on libertarian and is constantly railing against gun control. I have no idea what changed, but I guess it's the differing way guns are viewed. Country = useful tools, city = aids to criminal activity.
I've never had the desire to own a gun, nor do I see the appeal. However, like I said, I realize we're stuck with this state of affairs. It does not make the gun lobby look good in the public eye when someone attempting to make gun ownership safer is threatened by a bunch of kooks. I don't see the anti-gun movement making death threats on gun owners. Even if the people making these threats are only a small sample of the pro-gun group, they sure make a bad impression.
"Gun Jammers" are the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
So what if all the privately-held weapons in the USA were of this type? do you think that someone (... some 3-letter acronym, maybe... ahem) might design a gun jamming system? What good is the right to bear arms if someone else can simply shut them off on you? Sorry, no go - at least from a mandated-use standpoint. Sure, I can see it being nice for some people who CHOOSE to use it, but not if it's mandated by law.
Re: (Score:3)
Dumbest thing i've read today (so far) (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but that's the _only_ feature of this gun vis-a-vis a regular gun. The whole point is that it has to be "activated" by some specific method before it will work, in an attempt to verify that only the "right" person can use it. The details may differ, whether using a watch such as in this case or other proposed methods using fingerprints or other biometrics, but the fundamental concept is that the gun doesn't fire unless that condition is met.
Why in the world would you pay extra for a gun that checks your ID, but then decides to default to a fireable state even if you fail the ID check? If that's what you want you could just get a regular gun that doesn't bother checking your ID to begin with.
If you don't like the fundamental concept, don't buy the gun. If you don't like the idea of laws being passed in relation to this concept then write to your congressperson and/or vote for someone else. But complaining that the gun does exactly what it is designed to do is just dumb. (And needless to say, harassing and/or threatening employees of the company that sells them is just insane.)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
right handed people wear their watch on left arm (Score:4, Interesting)
Jammer..? (Score:4, Interesting)
Can anyone say "RFID jammer"..?
Not only will the pro-gun crowd say that a jammer could be used by government agencies to disable their weapons, but the bad guys could easily build a jammer for their own use to ensure their safety during commission of a crime. Imagine cops closing in with "smart guns". The bad guys flip on the jammer and cops can't do anything about it. Throw in the bad guys having traditional guns, and the cops have a serious problem on their hands. Same goes for home invasions.
I understand the idea behind smart guns, but this is a horrible idea. And as a gun owner, I'll never guy a smart gun. I've heard of fingerprint scanners being easily bypassed, as well. Unless you can tie it to DNA or something, I see no good way to produce a gun like this. And even then, it could likely be bypassed without much difficulty.
Firearms ARE safety devices (Score:4, Insightful)
A firearm IS a safety device in and of itself.
To add another 'feature' to impede in the ability of a safety device to function properly is insane.
Imagine if the brakes on your car had such a 'feature.' Need to slam on your brakes? Ooops, you were reaching your right arm out to grab your coffee, watch now out of range, no brakes.
Now imagine the same thing, but in a mugging. You and your attacker go to the ground, including your gun. You manage to reach it with your off-hand. Oops, no bang--your watch was on your other hand. Or, to go with their scenario, the bad guy gets the gun. You grab his wrist, trying to push the gun out of your face--oops, you just stuck your watch within 10 inches of it...bang, you're dead.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Why yes! Those kind of people sound *exactly* like the kind of people that should have guns!
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure if you're American or not, so I'll try to explain:
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. There are only a very few obvious prohibitions, namely against convicted felons and those declared mentally incompetent or ill.
Meanwhile, there are people in the US who fear the things so much, they want to restrict who can and cannot have a firearm, and wish to dictate under what conditions they are possessed. There is a route by which this can be accomplished, but it would require amending the US Constitution, which is notoriously hard to do (as it should be - capricious changes are painful, to say the least.) Any other route (including most attempts at federal "gun control" laws) is a circumvention of this process, and IMHO should not be taken, lest it set a dangerous precedent - after all, if you can circumvent one amendment, you can circumvent them all, and down that road lies fascism.
If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative (see also Chicago, D.C, New York City, etc.) However, please do not try to impose such things across the whole nation. There is no "reasonable" restriction in the eyes of those who wish to promulgate these laws, save for complete abolition.
As for the people you speak of? As long as they do not commit a felony, so what? The fear of any given law-abiding person owning a firearm is irrational at best.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Informative)
"If you wish to live in community that heavily regulates firearms, then band together and do so - nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative "
Again for those that aren't Americans, and apparently some that are... The above statement is WRONG. Local laws MAY NOT supersede the constitution.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
The constitution doesn't prevent the nation as a whole from deciding which sort of weapons are appropriate for self defense and which aren't. Nor does the constitution restrict anybody from developing a weapon that has safeguards built in designed to prevent it from being fired by anybody other than its owner.
The above quote is a not so veiled threat and yes the poster has a right to question whether the person behind the quote is somebody who should be trusted with a gun, - constitutional rights aside.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't see posting someone's cell phone number or taking a picture of their P.O. Box as threatening?
The threat doesn't have to be explicit to still be a threat, as in the stereotypical Mafia line "Nice little restaurant you have here. Hate to see anything happen to it."
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Interesting)
That could actually be read two ways, and you are choosing to read it in the more sinister way. Perhaps that is warranted, but not by anything I have seen. I've seen no evidence anyone has harmed her or offered to harm her - and if I am wrong, if someone has done that, they should face consequences for that act. But what I do see is being done (and SHOULD be done) is that people are watching to see when she manages to get a distributor lined up, and informing said potential distributor of some context that might change their mind. People are mad about this and have every right to be concerned.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't having a "smart" gun as described in TFS be a win/win for everyone? Gun owners can use their guns, but it someone steals it or disarms the gun owner, the gun is useless. Not sure why folks are complaining. Anyone want to enlighten me?
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't having a "smart" gun as described in TFS be a win/win for everyone? Gun owners can use their guns, but it someone steals it or disarms the gun owner, the gun is useless. Not sure why folks are complaining. Anyone want to enlighten me?
Because the evil gub'mint could also render the gun useless with their special Freedom-Destroying-Rays, and then force everyone to drink tea and other evil things.
Really, you need to learn how to think like an American to understand them.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me explain it to you: This company is not requiring you to turn in your non-smart gun and get theirs. They are selling their weapon which has enhanced firing protections. There have been previous guns which had physical firing protections before. This one is simply more high tech. The gun manufacturer believes that there is a market for their gun as there have been cases of children being accidentally shot when discovering their parents' firearm as well as weapons being stolen. So if you don't like their restrictions, DON'T BUY THEIR GUN. It's that simple. In your talk of freedom and rights, it is ironic that you are actually advocating for restrictions. Since it is a weapon that you don't like, no one else can buy it.
Second, I find it also amusing that you talk about irrational fear. Someone has posted this woman's phone and address on a forum. But she has nothing to fear, right? This is a veiled threat to her life simply because she works for a company that people don't like. So if I don't like the company you work for, I can post your whereabouts on the Internet? I can have people stalk you? Funny you don't seem to stand up against people who seem to be threatening others.
Re: (Score:3)
Look up the term "stochastic terrorism."
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not rational to fear all people who own guns.
If you own a gun, here are the things I know and suspect.
1.) All people who own guns own a gun, and nearly all own ammunition. This means that simply being around a gun owner or at a gun owner's house I am dramatically more likely to get shot accidentally. This is perhaps not so much a fear of the gun owner as it is fear of the gun itself.
2.) MANY gun owners believe in using their gun for self-defense. This also increases my likelihood of being shot around a gun owner because the gun owner may mistake me for an intruder.
3.) HARDLY ANY gun owners (and this includes police officers and members of the military) are sufficiently skilled to discharge a firearm in a crowded indoor situation with multiple panicked people and possibly a few assailants in such a way that they correctly identify and harm the assailants but do not harm the bystanders. If an individual has multiple years of experience working as a military sniper they probably fall into this group, but even then they may not fall into this group when using a handgun.
4.) FAR MORE gun owners believe they fall into group 3 than actually do. This makes them a danger to others when they incorrectly gauge either the facts of the situation they are in (see #2) or their ability (see #3.)
5.) SOME gun owners believe guns are a good way to solve interpersonal problems besides those involving self-defense. These people WANT their ownership of a gun to be a form of intimidation to some individuals. I rationally consider these people to be a danger to everyone.
6.) MANY gun owners are responsible with their guns and how they are stored. They also understand the risks of discharging a firearm and the limits of their ability. For these individuals the increased risks come primarily from items 1 and 2, and not items 3-5.
My point is, it is perfectly rational to fear gun owners for the increased risks they bring to my personal safety. While I am most afraid of those who fall into group 5, all gun owners represent an increased risk to my safety.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong, and here's why:..
Those aren't really extreme points. Yet you're still arguing that he's wrong. Obviously in a house without a gun, there is a 0% chance of being shot by the owner's (non-existent) gun. Are you saying there's also a 0% chance in a house with a gun? Because in that case you're the one that's wrong. Gun statistics are often hard to come by because the NRA tries to de-fund any organization that tries to collect them, but I'm pretty sure I've seen in the news cases where people have accidentally been shot by a gun in their own home, or accidentally shot someone else thinking they are an intruder. That brings the chance up to > 0%.
Guns are dangerous tools, designed to be dangerous and injure people. If you disagree, then you should DEFINITELY NOT be allowed to handle them because you'll probably end up killing someone. It's not comparable to automobiles that, while dangerous, are designed with safety in mind and useful for transporting people.
Use a gun for its intended purpose = someone ends up dead
Use a car for its intended purpose = someone ends up at the grocery store
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously the bracelet will not stop the gun owner from suiciding with the gun. However, it will stop the owner's kids from doing so.
Another thing about suicide: while many suicides are attempted, people who use guns in the attempt are far more likely to succeed than people using other methods. Taking pills, etc., allows time for regret and possibly calling a suicide hotline to be saved.
And you are damn right I have an agenda. I see the NRA and their ilk as stoking fear in the public in order to increase sales for the gun manufacturers (Glock, Beretta, etc.). Who do you think gives the NRA most of their money? It's not the members.
Here's a quote from NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre at the latest NRA convention:
We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and carjackers and knockout gamers and rapers [sic], haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all. I ask you. Do you trust this government to protect you? We are on our own.
http://home.nra.org/pdf/waynel... [nra.org]
Can't you see that this is all an attempt to make people be afraid, very afraid? And to also not trust any external agency to protect you from all these threats. Why? Because that fear motivates people to buy guns, which enhances the profits of all those gun manufacturers that bankroll the NRA.
It a wonderful racket.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
To be technical, the text of the 2nd Amendment [archives.gov] is:
Many people focus on the last two phrases in that sentence. Not so much attention is focused on the first two phrases, but IMO they're just as important as the last two. Keeping and bearing Arms is a right ... but it's a right, a power that comes with a hefty dose of responsibility (to be "well regulated") as well. Most of you probably know the quote "With great power comes great responsibility." If you can't handle the great responsibility, well, responsibly then perhaps it's better you hold off wielding the great power until you can.
For instance, the person quoted in the summary as issuing a death threat directed at the employee? Yeah, IMO they're not handling the responsibility very well at all. I wouldn't have a problem with that person's gun or guns being placed out of their reach while they learn how to play well with others.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Interesting)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -- 2nd Amendment [archives.gov]
I imagine back in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution [archives.gov], and the country was mostly rural, and the army was mustered from the citizenry, this made perfect sense.
Today, we have standing armies. People are trained to shoot while in the military. You're not relying on people training themselves, or bringing their own weapons. Heck, the average person has a very hard and expensive time getting an automatic weapon, the type used in the military.
However, I think the Supreme Court reads this correctly. The 2nd Amendment says WHY the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Granted, the WHY is not relevant to the situation today, but that's what the 2nd Amendment does pretty clearly say.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Interesting)
We even have restrictions on free speech, even though the 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law
Re: (Score:3)
Keep in mind the events surrounding the birth of the USA. A bloody war had just be fought where the colonists had just driven off an oppressive government. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not just to be the army, it was to be an army that could revolt against the government if needed. The Constitution was, in fact, designed to place hard limits on the powers of the government, and to actually make it hard to accomplish anything (checks and balances).
Fortunately, our government is still fairly functio
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
Or to be part of a 'well regulated' militia. Self-defense is not specified in the amendment.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that we have a poison atmosphere where any discussion of reasonable regulation get's you thrown into one camp or another.
In particular, I am generally very pro-gun but I'm also in favor of more tightly regulating handguns. We already regulate the sawed-off version of shotguns, fully automatic rifles, etc. so I'm not sure why the suggestion that we treat handguns a bit more strictly elicits such a strong reaction. They are objectively the largest contributor to homocide in this country - it seems like a reasonable thing to discuss, anyway.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Informative)
The Constitution guarantees the right for citizens to keep and bear arms for the purposes of having a militia.
The Supreme Court disagrees with that interpretation and says that the prefatory clause is not a limiting clause. This was the proper decision, given the context of "the people" in the 2nd Amendment, and for that matter every other mention of "the people" in the document and its amendments.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:4, Insightful)
but the interpretation you take as obviously incorrect was settled law for 70 years.
Actually, it wasn't, the Supreme Court had never ruled on it before. More to the point, if you look at the more than two hundred years of precedent in lower Courts (State and Federal), the State level 2nd Amendment equivalents [ucla.edu] written around the same time, and the writings of the Framers it's clear as day that the Amendment always referred to an individual right. The 'militia' argument is a losing one and we both know it.
A couple more reactionaries retiring or dying and being replaced by moderates or liberals will likely cause the court to return to the old interpretation
Be careful rooting against stare decisis for I think you'll find that Roe is in a lot more danger than Heller, and Roe is near and dear to the hearts of most of the anti-gun crowd.
You also might consider the political reality of the United States, where even traditionally blue States remain staunchly pro-gun. In fact, I can name only five States that are openly hostile towards guns (New York, Hawaii, New Jersey, California, and Maryland) and even in those States you'll find a solid consistency that's pro-gun (all of Upstate New York for example). In fact, I live in one of those States (New York) and have an unrestricted pistol license that allows me to carry a concealed firearm almost anywhere I deem it appropriate.
Best of luck with your dream of doing away with the 2nd Amendment when you can't even win the issue here in New York.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was in Arizona, a place known for permissive firearms laws, there were very few "rednecks waving their guns around as they please". By and large most armed Arizonans are reasonable people; most of the crime there (and it's really not that bad) is associated with cross-border smuggling (and specifically not "illegal immigrants", who are generally peaceful people). Yes, there are wackos like the Minutemen, but they're less bonkers and less prevalent than CNN would have you believe. If you want to talk about armed gangs harassing people out in the desert, there's one that overshadows all the rest: US Border Patrol.
If you want to see people "waving guns around" irresponsibly, look at what happens in inner cities (often places where guns are banned). People get shot in DC and Baltimore all the time by, essentially, kids exhibiting machismo.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Well regulated in the language if that time meant well practiced. An accurate watch might also be called well regulated.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Insightful)
A milita is a contingent of citizens, who may be called upon to act against the "legitimate" government. Putting contol of the guns in the hands of the government completely undermines that most important of functions. Or did you forget the fact that the founders had just finished winning a blatantly illegal war against the "legitimate" government of the US colonies?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You've just arrested and locked up every cop, the IRS, and half a dozen Federal agencies.
That sounds like a pretty good start to me. Can we find a way to include patent lawyers, or just lawyers in general, in that mix somehow?
Re:Gun nuts (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, I am now armed. CC permit and I do carry. I hope to never need it, but I'll be damned if you're gonna take it away from me.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll play devils advocate here.
Yes, I'm willing to bet the guns that were used against you were purchased legally at one point.
That said, I am not against gun ownership. However, I am for stricter controls on who can purchase weapons, especially the resale market. The 2nd Amendment says you have the right to bear arms. There is no restriction in place however on how easy or hard that should be.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:4, Insightful)
You either support this law or are against it.
Are you saying the insane and the criminals should not be afforded their full constitutional rights?
You cannot refer to the constitution and pretend it doesn't apply to all.
The reason you were distinguishing between the insane/criminals, and the rest, is that you know this law describers a privilege, and not a right.
You don't have a right to drive a car. It is a privilege that you must earn by passing a test. And you can't drive the car everywhere.
The second amendment has been mislabeled a Right, and not a privilege, which is why people are so confused about it..
A privilege can be revoke easily. A right is something that can never be revoked. You will always have a right to a fair trial , no matter how many times you've been to jail.
I claim that the second amendment does not belong in the constitution. It is no longer relevant. The founding fathers opened for the constitution being changed. Creation of the 2nd amendment was situational, based on recent events. They thought they codl prevent saem from happening agains by putting it in the constitution as a right. They din't really elaborate much on that. If the same brains had been writing a constitution in 2014, they might have had an amendment describing the right to live free from the perils of private guns.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls
Re:Gun nuts (Score:4, Funny)
Should I continue?
Well that all depends. Did the person you plagarised this from actually write any more examples for you to pass off as your own research?
Re: (Score:3)
Forget the issue and attack the poster! Leftist playbook, page 3.
The irony of this is most amusing. Given that the story it's attached to is about some gun nuts stalking a woman for being a rep for a company selling a gun technology they don't approve of. Who's really attacking the messenger?
I would and have criticised others for cutting and pasting material and passing it off as their own in the comments under all sorts of topics. It's a dumb thing to do.
And "Elites"?! What a redneck numpty.
Re:Gun nuts (Score:4, Informative)
the article is about a law to ban the domestic manufacture (not sale or ownership) of assault rifles (the brady bill).
But Senate supporters of the measure said they would apply whatever pressures they can muster on the House and called on constituents to write and call their representatives. "The House better understand the power of an idea whose time has come," said Senator Joseph R. Biden, the Delaware Democrat who heads the Judiciary Committee.
surely you see the difference between a vote on the assault weapons ban and a vote to "ban guns". methinks you're being dishonest.
Re: (Score:3)
This is one of the problems with this discussion.
"Assault RIFLES" are already heavily restricted. These are the fully-automatic weapons.
"Assault WEAPONS" is a classification that was created for political reasons. It is based upon COSMETIC features of a weapon.
No.
Re: (Score:3)
However, you may be able to say that a flash suppressor has no affect on the function of the weapon in a literal sense, but I'd argue it completely changes the weapon's intended use. A weapon intended for target practice, sport, or self defense has absolutely no need for a flash suppressor. This type of "feature" is intended for covert use of the w
Re: (Score:3)
So... the turnabout is gun owners publishing the addresses... of ... a gun owner?
I don't think you know what "turnabout" means.(they eat their own because of paranoia)
Re:They're nuts but right (Score:5, Insightful)
Now the bank robber doesn't have a gun and can't threaten people.
Re: (Score:3)
And if you think criminals are going to buy these guys, instead of getting a regular gun through illicit channels, you're smoking some SERIOUS ganja there.
Re:They're nuts but right (Score:4, Insightful)
Attempting to grab his gun would activate it. That's not exactly in his best interest, is it?
Re:They're nuts but right (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFA:
"I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans," one commenter wrote.
Stop sellinfg them to idiots like this for a start.
Re:They're nuts but right (Score:5, Insightful)
I also note the glee in the thread around her being an attractive woman, which makes me wonder how much masculine insecurity is playing a role.
No, they are just nuts (Score:4, Insightful)
If it is disrupted, it doesn't fire. End of story. If a robber is stupid enough to use such a gun, the robbery turns into a comedy sketch. End of story.
Cars and airplanes have been repeatedly "crippled" in the last decades, which made them incomparably safer and saved countless lives. Hell, even guns have locks for more than a century now. Should we outlaw gun locks? If not how do you decide which locks to allow and which not? Nanny state, anyone?
Most importantly: NO ONE forces you to buy this gun. She was just selling it to whomever wanted to buy it - and was getting hated for that. That's absolutely, unqualifiedly nuts.
> Stop selling them to idiots with mental problems
This story just shows how frighteningly many idiots are there in the US of A...
Re:No, they are just nuts (Score:4, Insightful)
Most importantly: NO ONE forces you to buy this gun...
That is actually the end game though. Sure you can have a gun, but the government can shut it off, you know, for the children.
Re:No, they are just nuts (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the state of New Jersey already has a law on the books that once such a technology becomes generally available, it will become mandatory. So yes, in fact, someone IS forcing residents to buy that gun or no gun at all.
Re:They're nuts but right (Score:4, Insightful)
What if your gun is stolen and used in a crime? What if your gun is found by your kid and he harms himself or another with it?
Because these scenarios are statistically far more likely than any self-defense fantasy.
Big picture wise, that's not even what guns are. They're a hot button issue used by extreme right wing groups to rile up their base. The NRA is an ultra-conservative fear promulgator first and a gun rights advocate maybe a distant 10th.
I will continue to fight for restrictions on guns that match our laws and rules for all other types of dangerous machinery and equipment. Mostly because gun advocacy groups themselves are dangerous and harmful to society and our country as a whole.
Find better champions of your cause.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:They're nuts but right (Score:4, Insightful)
At least the autos are bringing a clear benefit to society. Guns, not so much. They are heavily restricted in most of Europe, and we do just fine.
Re:They're nuts but right (Score:4, Interesting)
Fact is, guns don't do a fraction of the harm of automobiles.
Bullshit, guns kill almost as many people in the USA as cars do:
Road deaths in 2010: 32,885
Gun deaths in 2010: 31,076
Re:They're nuts but right (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have proximity keys on automobiles. How often do they let people down? How often are people locked out of their car because the key doesn't work?
Not often enough for it to be an issue. But then car owners aren't nearly so hysterical as gun nuts.
Re:They're nuts but right (Score:5, Insightful)
These are all very good reason why you might not want to buy one of these weapons. None of them are good reasons why we should try and harass the company to not even produce these weapons. I don't own any guns, but if I felt like I needed to buy one, I would look into something like this. This seems like a wonderful product (assuming ti actually does work as advertised) but gun nuts are too busy screaming about "don't take my guns" to bother to even see the upside. I agree it is not a full replacement for standard guns and I don't think it should be legislated to be the only option, but that in no way means it shouldn't be available either.
Re:They're nuts but right (Score:5, Insightful)
People can bitch about the technical merits or deficits of the technology all day long. But making personal threats against someone for trying to sell a product? That's fucking asinine and should not be accepted. Threatening to boycott a store that wants to stock and sell it? That's pretty stupid, too, since if the product is so fraught with shortcomings, people won't buy it.
I don't see anyone personally threatening to attack people at Samsung, or boycotting Best Buy, because they've released half-baked products.
And as for the "what if this is the only gun you can buy" counterargument: there are a few hundred million guns in the USofA, and the people that make them have considerable clout. The notion that suddenly all those other, conventional firearms will disappear, and that gun manufacturers will be forced to make only this type of gun, is delusional.
It all boils down to probabilities. (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether this device is a good thing or not boils down to simple math, but the outcome is going to be different for different people.
Take prison guards. They normally go unarmed, because the probability a weapon will be taken and used against them is extremely high. This makes a handgun a net liability for them. A device like this might be a good thing for them, even if they occasionally forget to change the batteries. In fact, even if the device had an extremely high failure rate, say 1 in 5, it might still make sense *for them*.
On the other end of the scale there are big game hunters who carry a sidearm as a backup weapon. Since there is no chance a bear or lion will use their handgun against them, the device would have to have a zero percent failure rate before it made sense to even consider.
Then there are people in the middle, say process servers or people who carry cash, for whom being disarmed is a potential concern but not necessarily an overriding one. For them whether a particular smart gun makes sense depends (a) on their particular situation and (b) on the performance of the specific smart gun model in tests. There's likely to be no one-size-fits-all decision that covers all users and all models of gun.
Critics of smart guns demand certainty: "Even if a particular system could be 99.9% reliable, that means it is expected to fail once every 1000 operations. That is not reliable enough. My life deserves more certainty," says one [citation [wikipedia.org]]. Clearly this is an irrational position, given that non-smart guns don't have anything near 100% reliability. Feeding mechanisms jam and cartridges misfire. This is to say nothing of the most unreliable component in any self-defense shooting scenario: the user. The user can miss, hit an innocent bystander, or even fatally shoot himself.
A device like this could well make a great deal of sense to some users while making absolutely no sense at all for others. Insofar as people are free to use lethal weapons for self defense, they should be free to choose the weapon that fits their needs best.
Re:Smart Guns (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Gun legislation often is scoffed at because almost every time an exemption is put in for law enforcement. 10 round magazines for everyone . . . except cops.
Its hard to keep a straight face when these people are saying that "anything more than 10 rounds is good for nothing but mowing down crowds of people" while they insist that the police need to keep their hi-cap mags.
Bottom line is that most gun regs put a needless and artificial burden. I wouldn't accept an artificial and arbitrary limit on my computer of 1GB of RAM, a 160GB hard drive, and a single core 1Ghz processor to keep me from hacking, nor will I accept artificial magazine capacity limits, or "smart gun" technology on my guns to keep me from misusing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Well for one thing, it would probably help accidental shootings, kids playing with guns, etc. Also, lots of the guns that criminals have are stolen from legitimate owners. This countermeasure increases the difficulty of theft, since you'd have to either steal the watch as well or else have the expertise to hack/circumvent the lock.
It's not a cure-all, but it generally makes unauthorized use more difficult, which is often what security is about.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, while it seemed like you were agreeing with me, the words you used came together in a way I'd characterize, subjectively, as crazy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
So your argument consists of "I'm not competent enough to perform maintenance on a firearm".
Re: (Score:3)
Trivial as hell. I can build a jammer to disable all of these guns in a 100 foot radius easily.
Re:Police and military? (Score:4, Interesting)
Otherwise, this sounds like just another way the anti-gun fear mongering freedom hating lobbying industry are trying to increase the costs and burdens of gun ownership in order to reduce gun ownership by law abiding citizens. It is yet another straw man in the war against freedom.
Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. There are a variety of interests that benefit from this type of controversy. At both ends of the gun debate spectrum you get people riled up. That results in money. Anti gun groups can use this to say "See, there is a solution that keeps your gun in your hands but out of others." The gun industry and their lobbying groups gets to say "Look out; THEY"RE coming to get you guns. Buy now before it is too late..."
A problem gun manufacturers face is much of their market is already saturated and offers limited growth. So while they are reaching out to new markets such as women by offering guns designed to appeal to the; they also want to keep gun enthusiasts afraid of "what's coming" so they stock up in advance of the great gun grab.
Of course, a few nut cases cast all gun owners in a bad light. If a company wants to build a gun with an external cutoff, let them. If it sells there is a market if not then they go out of business. A fine libertarian solution to the problem without government intervention; but saying that don't create FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Dollars) and thus is ignored because fear is the most important thing to drive the dollars.
Finally, I find it interesting that many folks who are staunch 1st amendment supporters want to keep criminals and those with mental problems from buying guns. Nowhere in the amendment does it say "...except felons and the mentally ill;" so they already implicitly accept that there are reasonable limits on weapons ownership. The question then becomes "what is reasonable?"
On a side, but related, Stand Your Ground is being used as a defense where a kid stabbed and killed another who had bullied him. Even though the dead kid was unarmed at the time the defense argues that their client was reasonably in fear of this life because of the previous actions.So know when someone threatens you does that give you a green light to later shoot them? Would the mere act of legally carrying a weapon be enough to justify standing your ground if the person made what appeared to be a treating move or said something that was threatening?
Re: (Score:3)
Fine and dandy. The problem is that legislatures (in this example, New Jersey) immediately picks up on this and requires the technology in every gun.
That's the problem, not the tech itself.