joelsisk


quality posts: 7 Private Messages joelsisk
bhodilee wrote:This assumes it is continuously reading your fingerprint, which it would not be doing. If you finger swipe your iphone and hand it to me, I can use it just fine. Until it times out of course, then you just swipe and hand it back.



I think the technology only "reads" the print upon the "squeeze trigger" action...

not the same as a timed unlock.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:That's the point ... if they can't get it to work reliably on a "smartphone", why would you expect it to work when you need it?

Plus, if criminals can hack "smartphones" to take control, why would you expect them not to hack the "smart" gun?


Again, the gun really isn't the problem.



I get that guns aren't the problem. They are, however, a tool used by those who are the problem.

I was going to say that a criminal's ability to hack something doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. Deterrent > nothing. And I think that argument is valid.

However, I was just struck by a thought. Why would a gun that recognizes me matter? I'm not sure that the implementation of this kind of safety would prevent much if any crime, would it? I have a gun. The gun recognizes me. I'm an █████, psycho person who shouldn't be allowed to live. I can still shoot people, though.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
kylemittskus wrote:However, I was just struck by a thought. Why would a gun that recognizes me matter? I'm not sure that the implementation of this kind of safety would prevent much if any crime, would it? I have a gun. The gun recognizes me. I'm an █████, psycho person who shouldn't be allowed to live. I can still shoot people, though.



Well, many of the arguments I've seen here are all about law-abiding gun owners who simply want to exercise their constitutional rights. All this does is ensure that a weapon can only be fired by one who legally owns it. If I owned a gun I'd be *much* happier with that state of affairs, knowing my gun will be responsibly used. Yeah, the █████s out there who are causing trouble are always going to cause trouble. This won't stop them. But it doesn't mean one shouldn't allow people the options.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
kylemittskus wrote:I get that guns aren't the problem. They are, however, a tool used by those who are the problem.

I was going to say that a criminal's ability to hack something doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. Deterrent > nothing. And I think that argument is valid.

However, I was just struck by a thought. Why would a gun that recognizes me matter? I'm not sure that the implementation of this kind of safety would prevent much if any crime, would it? I have a gun. The gun recognizes me. I'm an █████, psycho person who shouldn't be allowed to live. I can still shoot people, though.



You have a gun. Your gun recognizes you. Your gun does not recognize your child who now can't shoot themselves with it. It also does not recognize anyone else who may find it, wrest it, or in any other way gain control of it.

Yes such things could be hacked but not in the period of time of a standard gun incident.

A truly smart gun would allow for multiple imprints (left, right hands, husband and wife) and for imprints to be changed, added, or deleted to allow sales/transfers. This won't prevent psychos but it will help with accidents.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:molarchae's new smartphone stored 3 of her fingerprints and 2 of mine. All of which have worked perfectly for both of us thus far. Don't make an excuse of "technology is imperfect at the moment so we can't possibly think of ever using it". Unless you like to throw out babies with bathwater, of course

Do all guns work perfectly all the time? Does anything? Ban it all! Don't let it into our world of commerce!



Again, the problem is gubmint is going to start mandating it. It's a huge hassle for the vast majority of law-abiding citizens to stop a small percentage of issues.

And yes, guns work 100% of the time when you take care of them. Like your car. You ignore the Engine light, and you have problems.

Ammo on the other hand ...


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:Well, many of the arguments I've seen here are all about law-abiding gun owners who simply want to exercise their constitutional rights. All this does is ensure that a weapon can only be fired by one who legally owns it. If I owned a gun I'd be *much* happier with that state of affairs, knowing my gun will be responsibly used. Yeah, the █████s out there who are causing trouble are always going to cause trouble. This won't stop them. But it doesn't mean one shouldn't allow people the options.



Options are fine, but again, look at the NJ law. It'll be mandatory if the GCF (Gun Control Freaks) have any say in the matter. And believe me, Obama is just waiting to issue an Executive Order. So where are your options then?

And the other issue is sharing, as RJ pointed out. When you go to a gun range (or a private range), others will want to try it out. And if you can disable it there, then someone else (criminal) can disable it when you least want it disabled.


The biggest problem is we can NEVER trust progressives (or Democrat politicians for that matter) to just stop there. It's the old "Give them an inch, and they'll take a yard" and "Don't let the camel gets it's nose under the tent!"

If they could be trusted to stop there, it wouldn't be that big an issue. The problem is that they will never stop just there. They want all guns out of our hands, and only in establishment hands (and their bodyguards too!). And that's a huge step closer to tyranny.


It's starting with Free Speech as well ... just look at all the colleges that are caving in (Fiesta is racist. WHAT THE ████?


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
joelsisk wrote:I think the technology only "reads" the print upon the "squeeze trigger" action...

not the same as a timed unlock.



booooo, I like my idea better

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:Options are fine, but again, look at the NJ law. It'll be mandatory if the GCF (Gun Control Freaks) have any say in the matter. And believe me, Obama is just waiting to issue an Executive Order. So where are your options then?

And the other issue is sharing, as RJ pointed out. When you go to a gun range (or a private range), others will want to try it out. And if you can disable it there, then someone else (criminal) can disable it when you least want it disabled.


The biggest problem is we can NEVER trust progressives (or Democrat politicians for that matter) to just stop there. It's the old "Give them an inch, and they'll take a yard" and "Don't let the camel gets it's nose under the tent!"

If they could be trusted to stop there, it wouldn't be that big an issue. The problem is that they will never stop just there. They want all guns out of our hands, and only in establishment hands (and their bodyguards too!). And that's a huge step closer to tyranny.


It's starting with Free Speech as well ... just look at all the colleges that are caving in (Fiesta is racist. WHAT THE ████?



It sounds like this smart gun is a thing you might or might not want, personally, for whichever reasons. But if your real objection to it is that the gov't might mandate it, let's focus on that problem rather than complain that the thing exists at all. (that's what I perceived the original article to be about). The people of NJ can start, since it's apparently their law.

As for Dartmouth, people do stupid things all the time. It's pretty funny, really.

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
MarkDaSpark wrote:The biggest problem is we can NEVER trust progressives (or Democrat politicians for that matter) to just stop there. It's the old "Give them an inch, and they'll take a yard" and "Don't let the camel gets it's nose under the tent!"

If they could be trusted to stop there, it wouldn't be that big an issue. The problem is that they will never stop just there...



Aside form what chem said, this highlights exactly the attitude that imo is destroying the political and/or social fabric of this country. It's on both sides. Nobody trusts anybody else. Nobody talks to anybody else. It's all about power grabs or assailing rights or some other bs. Rhetoric escalates almost immediately to insane proportions. What good does this do anybody?

BTW, if nothing "progressive" is good then we are doomed to live with laws written and devised in increasingly irrelevant times. This can lead, for example, to insane debates like whether the internet is like a bunch of trucks or a series of pipes for regulatory purposes.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
MarkDaSpark wrote:And the other issue is sharing, as RJ pointed out. When you go to a gun range (or a private range), others will want to try it out. And if you can disable it there, then someone else (criminal) can disable it when you least want it disabled.



So many ways to make that not an issue. Simple idea: require a passkey of some sort to disable the feature.

Like chem said...it's fine if you don't want that feature on a gun you buy. Scaring away companies who have innovative ideas wrt firearms is nothing more than schoolyard bullying. Except that the bully is one of the most powerful entities in the country. Bullies.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:It sounds like this smart gun is a thing you might or might not want, personally, for whichever reasons. But if your real objection to it is that the gov't might mandate it, let's focus on that problem rather than complain that the thing exists at all. (that's what I perceived the original article to be about). The people of NJ can start, since it's apparently their law.

As for Dartmouth, people do stupid things all the time. It's pretty funny, really.



Did you read to the bottom? Because its spreading to more colleges than Dartmouth. Instead of teaching students to think, they are teaching them to conform. And punishing them when they don't.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:Aside form what chem said, this highlights exactly the attitude that imo is destroying the political and/or social fabric of this country. It's on both sides. Nobody trusts anybody else. Nobody talks to anybody else. It's all about power grabs or assailing rights or some other bs. Rhetoric escalates almost immediately to insane proportions. What good does this do anybody?

BTW, if nothing "progressive" is good then we are doomed to live with laws written and devised in increasingly irrelevant times. This can lead, for example, to insane debates like whether the internet is like a bunch of trucks or a series of pipes for regulatory purposes.



On both sides? ████████!

Where have you been? Oh right, Canada. The Dems and Progressives (not the Pubs) have continually said one thing, and then once they get it, continued pushing more.

They've gone back on their word time and time again. For Decades!

There is no trust, when one side never compromises, even when they say they will. And right now, it starts in the White House, where they aren't even trying to work with the Pubs.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:So many ways to make that not an issue. Simple idea: require a passkey of some sort to disable the feature.

Like chem said...it's fine if you don't want that feature on a gun you buy. Scaring away companies who have innovative ideas wrt firearms is nothing more than schoolyard bullying. Except that the bully is one of the most powerful entities in the country. Bullies.



How about the bigger bully in the White House?

And about the gun linked in the article. Not that innovative. So many problems with it, as mentioned, why would anyone but an █████ buy it?


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:Did you read to the bottom? Because its spreading to more colleges than Dartmouth. Instead of teaching students to think, they are teaching them to conform. And punishing them when they don't.



Some pretty silly things there. Thankfully nobody is making us go to Dartmouth!

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:How about the bigger bully in the White House?

And about the gun linked in the article. Not that innovative. So many problems with it, as mentioned, why would anyone but an █████ buy it?



Boy, I hate this black bar over the naughty words. Bring back the funny filters!

The bully in the White House was elected. He'll be gone at the end of his term. Even if the gun has problems, people might want it. It's a starting point for those who do want a secured gun. I'm not going to buy one, but to each his own.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:On both sides? ████████!

Where have you been? Oh right, Canada. The Dems and Progressives (not the Pubs) have continually said one thing, and then once they get it, continued pushing more.

They've gone back on their word time and time again. For Decades!

There is no trust, when one side never compromises, even when they say they will. And right now, it starts in the White House, where they aren't even trying to work with the Pubs.



A) to cmaldoon's comment earlier: I was uncharacteristically (I hope) myopic. I was thinking of the mass-televised shootings, which I know aren't the majority of gun deaths.

B) I agree with klez's comment ie: politics.

C) Sparky, I agree that the democrats have done everything you accuse them of. It is unbelievable to me that you (or anyone) would legitimately think that a "machine" as complex as the government breaks down exclusively because of one of the dichotomous parties. "Dems bad. Pubs good" is as base as it reads.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
MarkDaSpark wrote:Options are fine, but again, look at the NJ law. It'll be mandatory if the GCF (Gun Control Freaks) have any say in the matter. And believe me, Obama is just waiting to issue an Executive Order. So where are your options then?
And the other issue is sharing, as RJ pointed out. When you go to a gun range (or a private range), others will want to try it out. And if you can disable it there, then someone else (criminal) can disable it when you least want it disabled.
The biggest problem is we can NEVER trust progressives (or Democrat politicians for that matter) to just stop there. It's the old "Give them an inch, and they'll take a yard" and "Don't let the camel gets it's nose under the tent!"
If they could be trusted to stop there, it wouldn't be that big an issue. The problem is that they will never stop just there. They want all guns out of our hands, and only in establishment hands (and their bodyguards too!). And that's a huge step closer to tyranny.


Bill of Rights: Amendment II wrote: “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.”


To you and RJ - Nowhere does it say that you have to be able to share your weapons.

Now as I said before – a really smart gun would allow you to imprint multiple people and multiple hands.

As far as stopping before they take the whole yard, that’s what the constitution is for. It sets the limits. There is only so far the pendulum can swing. Abolishing gun ownership won’t pass constitutional muster, but offering safer weapons isn't a constitutional issue and mandating them would likely pass muster (narrowly).

You know how people are up in arms over the ~7000 Americans killed in Iraq AND Afghanistan since 2001? That is piddly in comparison to the 19,000 suicides and 11,000 murders due to guns in JUST ONE YEAR (2010).

How many lives would have to be saved per year for you to say that having these additional safety measures would be worthwhile? Would you find it compelling if all 30,000 PER YEAR were saved? (Obviously not going to happen) I just want to know how callous the argument for pure unadulterated gun rights is.

Would it be a horrific burden to say that all guns carried using concealed carry permits have this kind of safety? (Let’s assume for this argument that the recognition was perfect) (I think it’s a great idea, police too)

How close to perfect would it have to be? (I’d be happy with 99.9%)

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:Boy, I hate this black bar over the naughty words. Bring back the funny filters!

The bully in the White House was elected. He'll be gone at the end of his term. Even if the gun has problems, people might want it. It's a starting point for those who do want a secured gun. I'm not going to buy one, but to each his own.



Also this. I don't understand why an option being offered to 50 states is so horrible. So, one state has what sounds like a really stupid law, ergo no one should get it? Like someone (klez?) said above, that's a separate issue.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
MarkDaSpark wrote:How about the bigger bully in the White House?

And about the gun linked in the article. Not that innovative. So many problems with it, as mentioned, why would anyone but an █████ buy it?



I don't know why you try to make everything about the dude in the White House who has 2.5 years left in his term. It's not all about him. You don't like the new offering, don't buy it. My problem is the notion that saying anything remotely smacking of even sensible restrictions or innovations brings down furious wrath of the NRA. That's schoolyard bullying, except with far wider consequences. Instead of talking about issues and ideas, we just have special interest groups yelling at each other at the top of their lungs. This country deserves better.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
cmaldoon wrote:---good stuff---



+1

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
cmaldoon wrote:To you and RJ - Nowhere does it say that you have to be able to share your weapons.

Now as I said before – a really smart gun would allow you to imprint multiple people and multiple hands.

As far as stopping before they take the whole yard, that’s what the constitution is for. It sets the limits. There is only so far the pendulum can swing. Abolishing gun ownership won’t pass constitutional muster, but offering safer weapons isn't a constitutional issue and mandating them would likely pass muster (narrowly).

You know how people are up in arms over the ~7000 Americans killed in Iraq AND Afghanistan since 2001? That is piddly in comparison to the 19,000 suicides and 11,000 murders due to guns in JUST ONE YEAR (2010).

How many lives would have to be saved per year for you to say that having these additional safety measures would be worthwhile? Would you find it compelling if all 30,000 PER YEAR were saved? (Obviously not going to happen) I just want to know how callous the argument for pure unadulterated gun rights is.

Would it be a horrific burden to say that all guns carried using concealed carry permits have this kind of safety? (Let’s assume for this argument that the recognition was perfect) (I think it’s a great idea, police too)

How close to perfect would it have to be? (I’d be happy with 99.9%)



What part of "Shall NOT be infringed" do you fail to comprehend? The 2nd Amendment is what backs up our other rights. Without it, the others are toothless old farts.

I'm not saying that the "smart" guns shouldn't be offered, I'm saying that they should not be mandatory. It's called infringement. Just like someone trying to tell you what you can and can't say under the 1st Amendment. (Edit) Yes, I know that you aren't allowed to incite a riot, nor allowed to yell "Fire" when there isn't one. But for the most part, as long as it's true, you can say it. What if someone started to say you couldn't write or say anything opposing the President (either party)?

Also, there's no where in the Constitution that says you can't share.


How about the over 32,000 deaths in 2010 (down from the 40,000+ in the 2000's) caused by Auto Accidents every year? Shall we mandate everyone walk or take public transportation?

There are over 38,000 deaths from suicide (also 2010) every year ... only a small part is from guns. Those intent on committing suicide are going to find a way.


You say how callous? How about Chicago, where Gun Control is king, yet it's the Murder Capitol? Ordinary citizens are forbidden from defending themselves. Or so called "Gun Free Zones", yet every mass shooting lately has occurred in one. I call that extremely callous of those promoting gun control. You don't hear from the lamestream media when someone is prevented from a mass shooting by someone with a concealed weapon.


And let's say that recognition isn't 100% perfect (because it isn't, and probably never will be). It could fail when you need it the most.

It's extremely ludicrous to assume that "smart" guns would do anything to stop violence. What's needed is more training at an early age of proper weapon handling.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:I don't know why you try to make everything about the dude in the White House who has 2.5 years left in his term. It's not all about him. You don't like the new offering, don't buy it. My problem is the notion that saying anything remotely smacking of even sensible restrictions or innovations brings down furious wrath of the NRA. That's schoolyard bullying, except with far wider consequences. Instead of talking about issues and ideas, we just have special interest groups yelling at each other at the top of their lungs. This country deserves better.



Because we have an even bigger bully in the White House. Or did you miss today's news that effectively strips due process from college students?

And the fact that he's come out in favor of GCF every time. As well as jumping to conclusions before all the facts are known?

He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and it doesn't appear he's doing that at all. He continually tries to bypass Congress.

The NRA aren't in office. He is.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:I'm not saying that the "smart" guns shouldn't be offered, I'm saying that they should not be mandatory.



I can agree with that much. What do you think about requirements to keep a gun locked up? That's the law in California, right? Does that infringe? Of course, most of the time nobody would know your gun wasn't locked up unless it was taken and used in a crime or found in your kid's backpack, etc.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:I can agree with that much. What do you think about requirements to keep a gun locked up? That's the law in California, right? Does that infringe? Of course, most of the time nobody would know your gun wasn't locked up unless it was taken and used in a crime or found in your kid's backpack, etc.



That's common sense ... we lock our cars and homes. It's not keeping you from your gun, ergo, it's not infringement.

The infringement comes into play when they start to tell you what weapons you can and can't have. And the excessive methods required to transport them. Or that you need a gun lock when they are in a gun safe. Excessive.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:That's common sense ... we lock our cars and homes. It's not keeping you from your gun, ergo, it's not infringement.

The infringement comes into play when they start to tell you what weapons you can and can't have. And the excessive methods required to transport them. Or that you need a gun lock when they are in a gun safe. Excessive.



Soooooo, would you rather have mandated "smart" guns on any new gun purchase where you wouldn't need to lock it in a safe or "dumb" guns that need to be locked in a safe? I would imagine in terms of I NEED MY GUN BECAUSE SOMEONE BROKE INTO MY HOUSE having it in a safe renders it entirely useless.

Is there an LED or something on these smart guns that inform the user that the gun is ready? There should be if there isn't.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

joelsisk


quality posts: 7 Private Messages joelsisk
bhodilee wrote:Soooooo, would you rather have mandated "smart" guns on any new gun purchase where you wouldn't need to lock it in a safe or "dumb" guns that need to be locked in a safe? I would imagine in terms of I NEED MY GUN BECAUSE SOMEONE BROKE INTO MY HOUSE having it in a safe renders it entirely useless.

Is there an LED or something on these smart guns that inform the user that the gun is ready? There should be if there isn't.



There always is in Hollywood! Then again, in Hollywood, it's more like the scenario you described earlier... you grip the gun, the led turns green, you can fire until you release the grip.

As usual wikipedia has a list of current technologies. Not that most are commercially available...

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
bhodilee wrote:Soooooo, would you rather have mandated "smart" guns on any new gun purchase where you wouldn't need to lock it in a safe or "dumb" guns that need to be locked in a safe? I would imagine in terms of I NEED MY GUN BECAUSE SOMEONE BROKE INTO MY HOUSE having it in a safe renders it entirely useless.

Is there an LED or something on these smart guns that inform the user that the gun is ready? There should be if there isn't.



There's large gun safes, and small gun safes ... you can use the small ones in your bedroom, Duh!

The small ones can use varied locks, so it's not that hard to get to. They've even sold both here on Woot.


You're also assuming that the "print" recognition works every time. I'd rather have a weapon I know will work, than one I'm unsure of.

And on the "smart" gun that started this? You'd have to wear the unit 24/7 on your shooting arm. Heaven help you if that arm is numb from sleeping on it.


Edit: And so much for 100% reliability of "smart" guns. From Joel's link ...

"IGun Technology Corporation says on their website that "No mechanical or electrical device is capable of 100% reliability."

Looking at how reliable they are ...

NJIT -- " identifies gun owners with 90% accuracy."

Colt -- "scrapped over concerns of the batteries in the bracelet and the pistol failing."

Biomac -- "recognition occurring in .5 seconds or less" is a goal, not yet achieved.


Or you need to have a chip implanted in you, or wear rings on both hands.

Seriously? The batteries could fail, or you may not be recognized in time. However, don't worry about the police, because they'll be able to disable the security.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

I don’t think that the comparison of gun deaths to auto accident deaths is valid. Cars are built, purchased and used for an uncontroversial purpose – transportation. With very rare exceptions they are not used as weapons, which I doubt anyone can say about guns.

This of course does nothing to deny the Constitutional issue. I firmly believe that the Second Amendment does prevent the government from banning the possession of personal firearms, or from materially hindering that right. The article that started this discussion indicated that it was the mere availability of these “smart” guns that has drawn the ire of some gun supporters and the NRA though, and I’m sure we can all agree that such availability should NOT draw the ire of anyone. Unfortunately, it has, and that is simply wrong.

Mandates are a totally different issue. The New Jersey law that has been cited does not mandate that all guns possessed within the state be “smart” guns – we should be clear about that. It does mandate that guns sold in the state after a certain date possess that technology, though. Whether that constitutes an infringement on the “right to bear arms” is something that I’m quite sure will be decided by the courts, but my non-lawerly read tells me that no one is being prevented from owning or bearing a gun – it is a safety regulation, not a confiscation order. Whether it is excessively burdensome is something we can debate. If any confiscation order should be passed, I am of the opinion that it will be quickly and correctly struck down by the courts. Despite one claim on this thread, I also don’t see how President Obama could issue an Executive Order mandating such technology. Executive Orders can only be issued regarding items on which Congress or the Constitution has given the executive branch authority to interpret the law at its discretion, and no such law or authority has been granted that I am aware of.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
coynedj wrote:I don’t think that the comparison of gun deaths to auto accident deaths is valid. Cars are built, purchased and used for an uncontroversial purpose – transportation. With very rare exceptions they are not used as weapons, which I doubt anyone can say about guns.

This of course does nothing to deny the Constitutional issue. I firmly believe that the Second Amendment does prevent the government from banning the possession of personal firearms, or from materially hindering that right. The article that started this discussion indicated that it was the mere availability of these “smart” guns that has drawn the ire of some gun supporters and the NRA though, and I’m sure we can all agree that such availability should NOT draw the ire of anyone. Unfortunately, it has, and that is simply wrong.

Mandates are a totally different issue. The New Jersey law that has been cited does not mandate that all guns possessed within the state be “smart” guns – we should be clear about that. It does mandate that guns sold in the state after a certain date possess that technology, though. Whether that constitutes an infringement on the “right to bear arms” is something that I’m quite sure will be decided by the courts, but my non-lawerly read tells me that no one is being prevented from owning or bearing a gun – it is a safety regulation, not a confiscation order. Whether it is excessively burdensome is something we can debate. If any confiscation order should be passed, I am of the opinion that it will be quickly and correctly struck down by the courts. Despite one claim on this thread, I also don’t see how President Obama could issue an Executive Order mandating such technology. Executive Orders can only be issued regarding items on which Congress or the Constitution has given the executive branch authority to interpret the law at its discretion, and no such law or authority has been granted that I am aware of.



Why not? They threw gun deaths by accident in. And they (autos) cause more deaths than guns.

Even during the Vietnam war, more young men were killed in auto accidents each year than in the war.

Don't throw stats in that aren't apples to apples. By throwing in ALL gun deaths, they are making an apples to oranges comparison.

So it's valid to compare auto deaths to gun deaths when someone uses extraneous data.



And by mandating that ALL guns sold can only be "smart" guns, they are infringing on my right to buy whatever gun I choose.



Edit: And Obama has said he would issue Executive Orders regarding Gun Control, in violation of the Constitution.

He's apparently done it already with the ACA, by extending the dates, which is Congress's purview.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:Why not? They threw gun deaths by accident in. And they (autos) cause more deaths than guns.

Even during the Vietnam war, more young men were killed in auto accidents each year than in the war.

Don't throw stats in that aren't apples to apples. By throwing in ALL gun deaths, they are making an apples to oranges comparison.

So it's valid to compare auto deaths to gun deaths when someone uses extraneous data.



And by mandating that ALL guns sold can only be "smart" guns, they are infringing on my right to buy whatever gun I choose.



Edit: And Obama has said he would issue Executive Orders regarding Gun Control, in violation of the Constitution.

He's apparently done it already with the ACA, by extending the dates, which is Congress's purview.



what if they said all guns after a certain date had to be "smart" guns? Then you level the playing field. Is that infringement?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
MarkDaSpark wrote:What part of "Shall NOT be infringed" do you fail to comprehend? The 2nd Amendment is what backs up our other rights. Without it, the others are toothless old farts.

I'm not saying that the "smart" guns shouldn't be offered, I'm saying that they should not be mandatory. It's called infringement. Just like someone trying to tell you what you can and can't say under the 1st Amendment. (Edit) Yes, I know that you aren't allowed to incite a riot, nor allowed to yell "Fire" when there isn't one. But for the most part, as long as it's true, you can say it. What if someone started to say you couldn't write or say anything opposing the President (either party)?



I believe that this whole discussion got started because of an article about wacko conservatives (not you, you may be both wacko and conservative but not in combo) preventing smarter safeties on guns even coming to market. They fear the question going to the Supreme Court and so they won't even let conscientious gun owners have the technology. Plus, without a market, these techs can't develop into better, safer, more consistent ones.

MarkDaSpark wrote:

How about the over 32,000 deaths in 2010 (down from the 40,000+ in the 2000's) caused by Auto Accidents every year? Shall we mandate everyone walk or take public transportation?

There are over 38,000 deaths from suicide (also 2010) every year ... only a small part is from guns. Those intent on committing suicide are going to find a way.



You use auto accidents as an example..... Very poor comparison. How heavily regulated are safety restrictions there? How much cost do they add to each car? Seat belts, airbags, abs, traction control....all required. You even gave me the 20% lowering of auto deaths in the past 10-20 years. Which side of this are you trying to argue? I am fully on the side of mandating reasonable safety measures...it seems like you are too. Don't ban cars, don't ban guns, mandate that both are safer.


As far as suicides... You quote 38K and say a "small part" is from guns. I already quoted 19K firearm suicides. In your definition then, half is a small part. Those intent on suicide will find a way, true, but guns make a very easy out with less time to think and less chance of failing. Having such safeties on weapons means that your friend's or father's gun won't work for you. Some of those suicides would no longer have easy access to this efficient tool. Over time as such weapons became common, the lives saved would pile up... Say 5% per year. that's still ~100 people per year. (Oh, and let's raise taxes a few more percent, the government doesn't quite have a "small part" of my paycheck in taxes each year)


MarkDaSpark wrote:
You say how callous? How about Chicago, where Gun Control is king, yet it's the Murder Capitol? Ordinary citizens are forbidden from defending themselves. Or so called "Gun Free Zones", yet every mass shooting lately has occurred in one. I call that extremely callous of those promoting gun control. You don't hear from the lamestream media when someone is prevented from a mass shooting by someone with a concealed weapon.


And let's say that recognition isn't 100% perfect (because it isn't, and probably never will be). It could fail when you need it the most.

It's extremely ludicrous to assume that "smart" guns would do anything to stop violence. What's needed is more training at an early age of proper weapon handling.




I'm all for HAVING guns, having concealed carry permits. I am just between having smart guns available and having them mandatory (especially for carrying in public)

Say that ammo isn't 100% perfect (because it isn't, and probably never will be). It could fail when you need it the most.....
As I ALREADY RECOGNIZED, recognition wouldn't be 100% (nothing ever is) but a certain high level of reliability would work, I said 99.9%. That 0.1% is in the noise for gun violence but you bet the NRA would play it up because there are masses of people too stupid to realize that 99.9% is better odds than most things in life that they do every day.

I don't imagine that we will ever stop violence, but like car accidents, we can do things to help reduce accidental deaths at very least and likely some suicides, and also some hot-headed murders (grabs other persons gun and kills someone)

I hate how so many people aren't willing to work for incremental change. Quick fixes are rare. Often it takes a lot of little things and a lot of work to address a problem.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
bhodilee wrote:what if they said all guns after a certain date had to be "smart" guns? Then you level the playing field. Is that infringement?



Hell Yes, that's infringement!


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
cmaldoon wrote:I'm all for HAVING guns, having concealed carry permits. I am just between having smart guns available and having them mandatory (especially for carrying in public)

Say that ammo isn't 100% perfect (because it isn't, and probably never will be). It could fail when you need it the most.....
As I ALREADY RECOGNIZED, recognition wouldn't be 100% (nothing ever is) but a certain high level of reliability would work, I said 99.9%. That 0.1% is in the noise for gun violence but you bet the NRA would play it up because there are masses of people too stupid to realize that 99.9% is better odds than most things in life that they do every day.

I don't imagine that we will ever stop violence, but like car accidents, we can do things to help reduce accidental deaths at very least and likely some suicides, and also some hot-headed murders (grabs other persons gun and kills someone)

I hate how so many people aren't willing to work for incremental change. Quick fixes are rare. Often it takes a lot of little things and a lot of work to address a problem.



Sorry, I could have sworn someone had stated a 100% accuracy at one point. But your 99.9% rate, while admirable, isn't likely to ever happen. I doubt it will ever get close to even 90% accuracy. No matter how much wishful thinking occurs.

And the reason ammo wouldn't be 100% is if you are using older ammo.

And as I mentioned, earlier training of gun safety would help prevent more of those "accidents" than any "smart" gun.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
MarkDaSpark wrote:Sorry, I could have sworn someone had stated a 100% accuracy at one point. But your 99.9% rate, while admirable, isn't likely to ever happen. I doubt it will ever get close to even 90% accuracy. No matter how much wishful thinking occurs.

And the reason ammo wouldn't be 100% is if you are using older ammo.

And as I mentioned, earlier training of gun safety would help prevent more of those "accidents" than any "smart" gun.



Mark- you are sidestepping the point.

Would 99.9% be good enough? Why or why not?

Think of the people who could be saved by having the tech versus those who would lose out because of the 0.1%

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:Hell Yes, that's infringement!



How? We're not limiting guns, we're just adding advanced safety features to them. In this scenario every gun available today is still available, but with advanced safety features? That's infringement how?

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:Don't throw stats in that aren't apples to apples. By throwing in ALL gun deaths, they are making an apples to oranges comparison.



You mean like comparing auto deaths to gun deaths?

Looking at the US alone,automobiles are used by the vast majority of people over 18. And the vast majority of those people use their car daily, likely multiple times per day. The "use-time" of automobiles is exponentially greater than the "use-time" of firearms. So, comparing any numbers between the two to say if this, then that is absurd no matter what you're trying to get the statistics to say.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
cmaldoon wrote:Mark- you are sidestepping the point.

Would 99.9% be good enough? Why or why not?

Think of the people who could be saved by having the tech versus those who would lose out because of the 0.1%



Dude ... would limiting your speech be okay? Limiting who you could associate with?

Extending your argument (that saving one life is worth ANY civil rights violation), Drinking in large groups causes excessive drinking, which causes violent behavior and drunk driving. Ergo, the state has mandated that you can no longer drink in groups larger than 4. That would save lives as well.

But it would violate the Constitution. It would seem you approve of violating anyone's rights where you feel appropriate. What you fail to comprehend is that the founding fathers feared the mob (i.e., majority rule), which is why we are a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.

Which is why they specifically put in "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" into the 2nd Amendment.

You would impose on my rights, based on your "opinions". It would be as wrong as mandating that everyone own a gun. It's our right to own a gun or not own a gun.

Just because you think it would save lives, doesn't mean it will. Mainly because you are assuming that it will be a high rate of accuracy, when it's obvious it will never be that high. And you are assuming that the gun is totally to blame, when it's the behavior of perpetrator. The suicide rate won't go down because of a "smart" gun, because they will just do it another way.

The accident rate might go down, but it's not a one to one relationship. People will find ways to disable the "smart" feature, because it is unreliable and unwieldy. It's the behavior that counts, and training is the answer. Which you have totally sidestepped as well.

Or don't you feel education is the answer?


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
bhodilee wrote:How? We're not limiting guns, we're just adding advanced safety features to them. In this scenario every gun available today is still available, but with advanced safety features? That's infringement how?



It's not the same gun ... plus they will never be ever close to 100%. You have batteries to charge, batteries to replace. You're in the middle of defending your family, and oops, the battery dies in your "smart" gun.

"Pardon me fellas, but I need to go recharge my battery. Can we pick this up in an hour?"

And if an EMP goes off, how much are you willing to bet that your so-called "smart" gun is inoperable?


If the state mandates that EVERY vehicle driven has to have a breathalyzer, and that you need to breathe into it every time you want to drive, is that the same as your current car?


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

As we have discussed in the past, speech is limited. I can be prosecuted by the govt for yelling "fire" in a crowded building. Constitutional rights are not absolute. I'm lost, though. How did we get here?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:It's not the same gun ... plus they will never be ever close to 100%. You have batteries to charge, batteries to replace. You're in the middle of defending your family, and oops, the battery dies in your "smart" gun.

"Pardon me fellas, but I need to go recharge my battery. Can we pick this up in an hour?"

And if an EMP goes off, how much are you willing to bet that your so-called "smart" gun is inoperable?


If the state mandates that EVERY vehicle driven has to have a breathalyzer, and that you need to breathe into it every time you want to drive, is that the same as your current car?



If every NEW VEHICLE had to have it then basically yeah. I'm not talking retrofit. I'm talking NEW, in which case nothing changes. Not caliber, not capacity, nothing. It just had a new feature. Like, oh, catalytic converters, unleaded gas, seatbelts...

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)