Gun Rights Groups Say They Don't Oppose Smart Guns, Just Mandates 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."
Police (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
of course my mod points are gone but +1 insightful.
Re:Police (Score:4, Insightful)
That just means that the technology is practical for everyday use. That doesn't mean a mandate is appropriate, however. Given why the guns are even allowed in the first place, and considering recent cybersecurity issues, requiring government-mandated software be installed on all guns seems like a bad idea to me.
Re: (Score:3)
According to this webpage (maybe not the best source) [stateofenlightenment.com] most guns possessed by criminals appear to be handguns from friends or family. The fingerprint method, if it can't be reset, might be able to make a dent in those if it couldn't be easily disabled or updated, but that doesn't seem likely. The watch version (where a w
Re: (Score:3)
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.
I think you missed the point. The police have lobbied against this technology for themselves because they are afraid it will fail when they need to use their weapon in a life saving situation. So "once the policy are happy enough with the technology to use it exclusively" is equivalent to saying "when hell freezes over"
Let them legislate all they want (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
I applaud your honesty and willingness to test your personal beliefs that are founded merely on your real world generic experience rather than actual studies relevant tot he issue.
But I deplore you arrogance and certainty that you are right.
More political evil is done by arrogant people 'SURE' they are right than by actually evil people.
The prime example is that more
Gun grabbers never give up (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how the most virulently anti-gun people tend to be the ones who know the least about 'em.
The unknown is skeery.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey man, those ghost guns with 30 round magazine clips are totally real.
I'm very, VERY pro-gun (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Proposal - (Score:5, Insightful)
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 - (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't pay a whole lotta attention to the constitution and the culture at the time. I'll tell you in nice simple words.
At the time the constitution was written and the 2nd amendment passed, that allowed the common citizen to have the exact same weaponry as the military of the era.
Gun? Sure thing.
Cannon? Yup. That too.
Warship? If you can afford it, go for it.
Hmm... Sounds like the police having the same restrictions as random people, including criminals to me. You might want to study up on history again.
Mandates could be a great thing (Score:3)
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!
Pretty much spot on. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Give 'em a cm and they'll take an m. (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it's mandatory that a single male in the USA is REQUIRED to carry insurance that will pay for contraceptives.
So, what's "civilized" about requiring people who can't use the Pill to pay for insurance providing subsidized access to the Pill?
Isn't this obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
seems like people protesting them even being sold should mean that it wasn't obvious
Cite? I never saw anything about people protesting them being sold.
Thank you also for informing us that the concept of authorized access to a physical device is never going to be reliable... I'll be sure to removed the keys from my car, and house immediately, I did not know that the technology for those things isn't ready yet, and NEVER will be
Don't be ridiculous. The context and the requirements are completely different. If you need to use a gun to defend your life, it has to work instantly. There can be no fumbling for keys, or rebooting the authentication device. This is why people have also long opposed mandating trigger locks for all guns, all the time.
Oh, and all passwords from my computer clearly not ready for prime time on that technology....
Again, completely different context and requirements.
Thank you for blessing us with your wisdom and keen insight on the opposite of what appears to be reality, as well as insight into what is clearly the future, how so many people could have missed the obvious reality of nothing every working unless it is approved of by you first is beyond me.
Nice try.
Too late Subby (Score:2)
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 ha
There should be only one mandate. (Score:2)
To have guns insured just like cars are, so that gun owners will always have enough funds to cover any damages that may ensue from mishandling the weapon.
If gun insurance coverage was mandatory then there'd be the right framework for a proper marketplace dynamics.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize, how dangerous mere speech is? You yell "fire" in a crowd, and people die in the stampede. You say: "It was him!" — and an innocent man gets hung. You say, "Republicans are Nazis!" and an incompetent wannabe gets elected president (with an outright lunatic as vice-president). But nobody is required to carry insurance nor post bond befo
Traditional Antique Style Firearms (Score:2)
Reliability? (Score:3)
Let me know when all the major auto manufacturers voluntarily take the sensor technology used in these "smart guns" and puts it in their emergency brakes to prevent unauthorized passengers from pulling it. And as everyone else has said, let me know when the police and military have this technology in all of their guns. At that point, it'd be worth some consideration. Until then, I think anyone buying one of these things for protection is a fool.
Re:Yes! No more mandates! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
You mean like an ignition interlock device?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes! No more mandates! (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
The government can't disable a key (or a car) - yet. It's about control over what you own.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have a car with OnStar by any chance?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Be specific. What degree of responsibility do you have for the decisions made by another person who is driving your car? Are you talking about handing your keys to someone who tells you in advance that they intend to drive it into a crowd of people at SXSW? Or are you talking about someone who borrows your car to run to the grocery store, but who freaks out along the way and kills some pedestrians? What is your (the car owner's) responsibility for the deaths of those people in the second scenario? What is
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an expert on US case law but it's certainly an insurance issue, and I believe that there has been criminal liability in extreme cases.
https://www.google.co.uk/searc... [google.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And even if they were, a car is engineered to minimise its ability to cause injury and damage.
Re: (Score:2)
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! (Score:4, Informative)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest are shooting at human silhouettes, basically fantasizing about shooting people. It's really sick.
And here, I see another person who is fantasizing that other people want to be murderers. It's really sick.
If you can't draw a moral distinction between murder and self defense, then I sure you never vote and absolutely never serve on a jury.
Re: (Score:2)
>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.
That's to try to replicate a realistic situation. Other humans are the most dangerous thing you will ever encounter.
Re: (Score:3)
That's to try to replicate a realistic situation. Other humans are the most dangerous thing you will ever encounter.
You may want to re-think that... with heart disease being the leading cause of death... about 10x that of homicides... pick a food high in cholesterol.
Re:Yes! No more mandates! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yes! No more mandates! (Score:4, Informative)
There are approximately 300,000,000 privately owned guns in the US (estimate by NRA). And those are distributed to about 40-50% of the total households in the US. That is a lot of people owning a whole lot of guns.
Of those 300 Million guns in circulation, and those households that own guns, there were only 12,102 deaths (homicides) from firearms for the year analyzed. That same year drunk drivers killed 15,935 alone, not including other means of aggravated homicide by other means. This translates to LESS THAN 1% of all firearms being used in violent crimes. (if I divide the number of gun deaths, by the number of guns, I get 0.00004034%, which is statistically insignificant).
Of all the firearm homicides committed each year, 2/3rds of them are criminal on criminal violence (aka: gang related). And gangs in general are responsible for 50-90% of all violent crimes (with or without firearms), meaning gang members actually DO have an interest in killing folks and committing violence, but even statistics show, that they even prefer to kill other gang members rather than "random" folks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yes! No more mandates! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
That's your choice. Me, I'd rather have all kinds of options, which could include "RF watch", "NFC ring", "DNA-tester", "fingerprint recognition", or even nothing at all.
I'm certainly not worried about Mr. Radio-Shack-Equipped Burglar, because that's so far from a Realistic* argument that it's not worth discussing. (* pun intended.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
The state of CA is not a good example of safety evaluation. They require each model of gun to go through an expensive(IIRC, ~$25,000 per) "testing" process. A gun made in 5 different calibers and 5 different colors or finishes requires the manufacturer to pay 25 times the fee to be able to sell in CA. This process has little to do with safety. It's about income for the state and discouraging gun manufacturers from selling in their state.
Do car manufacturers need to have each color of their cars to be "s
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
"Shakedown Street"
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, ISPs. Anyone is free to install new wires or fiber, they just need to pay off the right people to do it. It's a free market! Obviously, Comcast and Verizon are the only companies that are successful in this market.
Re:Yes! No more mandates! (Score:5, Informative)
Can you name me one unregulated free market that has ever existed?
Almost every black market ever.
Re:Yes! No more mandates! (Score:4, Interesting)
No, free markets really are good, the problem is that they very rarely exist in reality. Dumb libertarians try to apply naive "free market" thinking to everything, including roads, showing why their philosophy doesn't work.
Free markets work great when you have high availability of information, so consumers can make intelligent choices, and when there's lots of competitors and the barriers to entry are very low. So, for instance, you don't really need much regulation for things like landscaping or housekeeping; consumers can make their own choices here, there's no shortage of competition, there's almost nothing keeping someone from entering business as a landscaper or housekeeper, etc. Even better, large companies don't have any real advantages here or any way of keeping smaller competitors out of the market (instead, larger companies end up just having higher prices due to their higher overhead). But internet service, electricity service, water/sewer service is totally different because of the natural monopolies in those markets, and the very high barriers to entry, so regulation in these markets is essential. Libertarians simply cannot understand this due to their simplistic thinking, and just cling to the mantra of "free markets will solve everything!".
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Illegal is not a possible outcome of the marketplace. You don't seem to understand what that concept is.
Look at your post. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Heh. You failed to notice (or at least call him on) his recommendation of violence. "culled from the herd".
What a delightfully self-indicting post :)
Most gun ban advocates aren't rational about it (Score:4, Insightful)
I find it rather surprising, but generally it is a position based almost entirely on fear, and not on fact. They may well be people who are generally rational in their life, but when it comes to this issue fear and propaganda motivate their position, not facts and logic. They want guns banned because they are scared of them, not because they've done any research and concluded it would make things safer.
You can clearly see it in the grandparent post. Not only the name calling, but the complete detachment from the reality of things. The fact that he believes that a small group of crazies are synonymous with the greater gun owning population. Same deal with how people will generalize the nut jobs at the Cliven Bundy ranch to be the greater gun owning populace.
None stop to think that around 40-50% of all households own a gun in the US, meaning that you know someone who owns a gun, even if you don't know it, and that if that behaviour and thought were the norm for gun owners it would be rampant rather than aberrant.
They are the same as people who will point the finger at religious or environmental extremists and declare that all people of that religion or viewpoint must be extremists and scary.
It is sad, because an informed debate on gun control could be very useful, but it is really hard to have when so much of the "control" side is actually wanting a ban and the reason they want it is fear, not logic. They don't do any research, except maybe to try and look up numbers that support their view. They don't want information, since emotion is the driving factor.
Hence, name calling, scare rhetoric, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
No, what's scary is people who think other people should be disarmed and "culled from the herd."
At the risk of Godwinning...
Re: (Score:3)
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 rath
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a bizarre argument that is extra-constitutional.
The exact text of the 2nd amendment is,
What's funny is that the constitution has some pretty clear rules about what to do in cases of insurrection and treason.
Hint: The event that lead to the drafting of the constitution WAS insurrection against the US Government that was founded under the Articles of Confedera
Re: (Score:2)
"gun fondlers"
Troll... Didn't read beyond that point.
Interesting moderation issue there. (Score:2)
That post is currently mod'ed +5 insightful.
Moderation +4
70% Insightful
20% Interesting
10% Troll
Which indicates a problem with having a discussion on this issue. Some people do not see that language as offensive or trolling. They believe it to be "insightful".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The rape threats, the murder threats, the wildly violent language...
What's interesting to me is that in online conversations about gun control, it's generally the anti-gun people who use such language. Not always, of course, but the overwhelming majority of violent language comes from those who want to restrict rights.
What's even more common from anti-gun people, of course, is ridicule, particularly of forms that imply sexual attachment to guns, or that guns are a mechanism for compensating for sexual deficiency, as though that has any relevance whatsoever. I suppose it's
Re: (Score:3)
You might want to look up some of Niven's laws. In particular, your issue seems to be with #17...
There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.
Re: (Score:3)
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 purch
Re:...but that doesn't explain... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm burning a well deserved mod point to post this.
I'm not so sure the NRA doesn't use FUD as their primary tactic to keep themselves funded. I'm a gun owner, I have a carry permit, and I own scary 'assault rifles'. I joined the NRA to support my right to own firearms.
Then the NRA started sending me letters.
First, Obama was going to take away all of my guns. Next it wasn't just Obama, but the entire UN coming after my guns. Next the single greatest threat to this nation was Obama. It just kept rolling on and on. Most of the arguments presented in the letters were pure FUD, the kind that would make old Microsoft proud. It was enough to ensure I never give them money again. I've donated to state groups and I'm still looking for a sane national gun lobby.
In regards to the topic of smart guns. I personally don't want one, but I don't see anything wrong with them. I don't think that mandating smart guns will have any effect on gun violence. If I can steal my dads gun to go to school, I can steal the watch it uses to fire. If I'm going to commit a crime with a gun I bought, I bet I bought the device to fire it. That's no reason to stop working on smart guns, but this technology should remain the choice of the end user.
Re: (Score:3)
First, Obama was going to take away all of my guns. Next it wasn't just Obama, but the entire UN coming after my guns. Next the single greatest threat to this nation was Obama. It just kept rolling on and on. Most of the arguments presented in the letters were pure FUD, the kind that would make old Microsoft proud. It was enough to ensure I never give them money again. I've donated to state groups and I'm still looking for a sane national gun lobby.
I'm in the same boat (I'm actually glad that I didn't get lifetime membership, at least they cannot claim me as member anymore).
The sane national gun lobby would be SAF. Now, those guys don't concentrate on public propaganda at all, they do only lobbying of political candidates, and participate in lawsuits. But I think their track record on this, especially the latter, is actually better than NRA's - heck, the victory in Heller alone is monumental, and it was a SAF lawyer that secured it.
They are also more
Re: (Score:3)
The people who are most vocal about gun ownership are also the most unhinged.
Classic lazy ad hominem. The usual method of "argument" resorted to by the intellectually lazy and craven nanny statist. An assertion without any evidence, pure empty rhetorical BS. Which you know, which is why you're posting as the coward you are.
The most unhinged people in gun conversations are the ones who have no idea what they're talking about, but do it anyway. Thanks for being today's example.
Re:There Is No Demand For "smart guns" (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re:There Is No Demand For "smart guns" (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Though you're (deliberately, of course) not counting the thousands and thousands of cases each year where defensive brandishment stops an attack. That number hugely exceeds the number of deaths by any method. I'd be more than happy to fetch out a handgun in such a situation, but would not be happy to find that it can't ultimately work because I've got gloves on, or my fingertips are dirty, or a battery is low, or it's too cold out, or I forgot my magic bracelet. Or it happens to be my wife's gun, since her's was handier than mine.
Re: There Is No Demand For "smart guns" (Score:3)
If you don't know whether the gun's having an "on day" brandishment is still effective.
My point however is that there's a big margin to sacrifice the gun's ability to fire in exchange for safety.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, since availability of "smart" guns doesn't magically cause all other guns to poof out of existence, you're not actually going to get that result.
The people who obey all laws will find themselves with guns that don't work half the time, and the people who don't care what the law says will have guns that work all the time....
Re:There Is No Demand For "smart guns" (Score:5, Insightful)
An unfired gun is the best defensive weapon that exists. The threat of death is the defensive deterrent. Actually firing is the last resort.
If a gang of 10 people are advancing on somebody and the target pulls a gun, all 10 people stop advancing or run away. If you have a taser or stun gun, you're a non-lethal threat to one of them...and you get one shot. Pepper spray is largely in the same boat (plus you have to account for wind). In both scenarios, you have to wonder if the battery has run out or the spray has expired depending on how long you've carried it.
Bullets last pretty much forever. The device is mechanical and has no dependence on a battery. As a defensive weapon it provides the greatest threat to an attacker and the highest degree of reliability to the carrier for those reasons. The second you start shooting it becomes every man for himself.
Up until you shoot, simply brandishing the weapon is an active deterrent without any need to fire. Brandishing a gun is actually considered assault for that reason. People often forget that when talking about concealed carry. It's as if people imagine that the idea is to tote it around so you can relish the opportunity to shoot somebody. I know many people who are not willing to pull the trigger that will carry an unloaded gun just so that they can pull it out in an emergency to diffuse the situation if they need to.
Additionally, when somebody takes a gun to commit a crime or kill somebody, they have every intention of pulling the trigger and are guaranteed to be armed. When somebody is attacked there is a much lower chance of those people being armed and/or able to retaliate so of course those statistics will be skewed.
Re: (Score:2)
...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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
they do oppose people's right not to be shot by a stupid gun
Bullshit.
They absolutely and completely support peoples' right not to be shot by a gun, smart or stupid, or murdered with any other tool, or with fists, feet, etc.
This is why murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated assault, assault, reckless endangerment, domestic violence and many related crimes are on the books and enforced, because people have a right not to be a victim of violence, particularly not deadly violence.
It's also why it's legal to defend yourself, up to an
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see.
Re:except your products are killing children (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Hmm...from your original post:
BLOCKQUOTE>4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children, ranging from toddlers to pre-teens.
So, you referred to deaths...and from the post you were responding to...
You specifically said (Score:2)
"4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children"
So deaths would indeed be the standard you were asking people to consider, specifically deaths by children.
Are you really that stupid as to not be able to remember what you wrote?
Re: (Score:2)
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]
You need to actually read your citation. From the top link:
Deaths: From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. More than a third of the victims were under 25 years of age.
So, 2005-2010 is six years. 3800 / 6 = 633 (actually it's a bit less than that, the article rounded up; and 2005-2010 was a range of particularly bad years; it's generally lower, and declining). 633 is quite different from 4000. But your claim was even stronger... that those 4000 were all accidentally shot by children. Your citation doesn't provide any numbers on how many of those people were accidentally shot by children, unfortunately. But it's
Re:except your products are killing children (Score:4, Informative)
From http://nyagv.org/wp-content/up... [nyagv.org], which is one of the first links that comes up:
Deaths: From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.ii More than a third of the victims were under 25 years of age.
That's less than 800/yr total, and less than 260 are under 25, meaning that accidental shooting deaths are one of the least common causes of death in the US, especially for kids.
Conversely, preventable medical errors kill over 200,000 Americans every single year, and in fact is the third leading cause of death in this country, dwarfing gun deaths and car deaths combined.
That said, after you start advocating for stricter control over doctors, drugs, and hospital procedures, I might consider listening to you make crap up about too many gun deaths.
PS: This [mercola.com] is what a source citation looks like. A smart-ass link to Let Me Google That For You? Not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
"or face increasing regulation of said killing devices."
Reasonable regulation is understandable, but doesn't the government have to prove at some point that they need to be regulating stupidity with guns within the walls of people's homes?
That's a key part of this debate that people sweep under the table with various gruesome statistics (4000 dead each year, etc.). What is the price of freedom from over-regulation, or taken to the extreme, tyranny?
By the way - Do you own a "said killing" device?
Re: (Score:2)
4,000 or so people in the US die every year because they're accidentally shot by children, ranging from toddlers to pre-teens.
Do you happen to have a citation on this? Most studies like this tend to do things like include 19 year olds as 'children' and include deliberate shootings by gang members.
Don't forget that you'd currently have to weed out any shootings by children who happened to get ahold of an officer's gun, normally a parent's. Thus far ALL law and military are completely exempt from any proposed rules requiring smart guns.
Probably not, given that there are only about 230 justifiable homicides a year,
Most justifiable shootings don't result in a fatality.
My kid shooting yours would require him ob
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of regulating the devices (which is unconstitutional and pointless) increase the responsibility for gun safety. If you own a gun that is used to shoot someone else, you go to jail for several years. Make responsibility for gun ownership be "outcome based."
This could be made adjustable. The sentence could be determined based on the facts of the case, perhaps increasing in duration based on the severity of the injuries caused (victim's age, permanent damage/disability inflicted, number of victims,