Sign in to follow this  
Plenipotentiary Tom

Selling Smart Guns Is Bad

Recommended Posts

California gun shop drops the smart gun after furious backlash

 

Gun owners were really aggravated upon hearing that a store was offering the first "smart gun" that is designed to fire only in the hands of a person wearing an electronically-linked wristwatch.

 

Possibly because it's a really ugly $400 watch. Or because gun owners are Neanderthals who just dislike progress.

 

Or maybe because of something New Jersey did, and that some want the federal government to do...

 

 

 

New Jersey passed a law in 2002 mandating that “only smart guns be sold in the state within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country,” as another Rosenwald column recounts.

 

Once news of a smart gun for sale in California was reported last month, New Jersey state Senate Democratic Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, who sponsored the 2002 law, and who was allegedly recorded last year on a hot-mic advocating gun confiscation, lost no time in asking the Christie administration for action.

 

...

 

The New Jersey law, or a federal bill recently introduced by Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) requiring smart technology on future gun sales, effectively reduces the resale value of existing guns to zero.

 

I'd actually like to see smart guns. I think we will be able to make them, and we can do it without a wristwatch. I'd like it if a couple of our guns only fired in my hands or my wife's. I'd want the ability to disable that feature when friends come over to shoot, but that should be easy enough to accomplish. Of course, I would demand that it be at least as reliable as my revolver. I think we can do all that.

 

Unfortunately, as long as there are people around who want to mandate it, I'll have to oppose it. I think people should be able to choose it, not forced to adopt it. In addition to the second amendment problem with banning guns that are in common use, I see a fifth amendment problem with destroying the resale value of existing guns without just compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with that. I too hope the technology matures enough to make it a practical alternative. When that happens, it would be something to consider for a new gun sale mandate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with well developed technology, I would not support a mandate that all guns sold be smart guns. Exempting existing guns from that ban would get around the fifth amendment problem, but I think the decision on when it is well-developed enough and needed should be left to individuals.

 

For example, I can imagine an electronic device I would consider reliable enough for my revolver, as in not detracting at all from the reliability of the gun. Hard to do, probably impossible right now, but possible in the future.

 

But that gun lives in a safe in an air-conditioned house. Let's say I lost my mind and decided to move aboard a boat with no air conditioning. That's basically the same as dipping this hypothetical electronic device in salt water, since the salt is in the air and gets everywhere. It gets a lot harder to imagine an electronic device that would be as reliable as a revolver in that environment. If the marine industry ever comes up with one, I might support a mandate. I've seen no evidence that they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't criminals, or even non-criminals figure out a work around to disable the safety feature???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't criminals, or even non-criminals figure out a work around to disable the safety feature???

 

An effective design would make that impossible to do in a short period of time, but making it impossible for someone who has a stolen gun, time, tools, and knowledge is something I doubt we can ever achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with well developed technology, I would not support a mandate that all guns sold be smart guns. Exempting existing guns from that ban would get around the fifth amendment problem, but I think the decision on when it is well-developed enough and needed should be left to individuals.

 

For example, I can imagine an electronic device I would consider reliable enough for my revolver, as in not detracting at all from the reliability of the gun. Hard to do, probably impossible right now, but possible in the future.

 

But that gun lives in a safe in an air-conditioned house. Let's say I lost my mind and decided to move aboard a boat with no air conditioning. That's basically the same as dipping this hypothetical electronic device in salt water, since the salt is in the air and gets everywhere. It gets a lot harder to imagine an electronic device that would be as reliable as a revolver in that environment. If the marine industry ever comes up with one, I might support a mandate. I've seen no evidence that they can.

 

Has anyone seen evidence of watertight construction in the marine industry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Has anyone seen evidence of watertight construction in the marine industry?

I can't comment on the interlock in the gun, but about the rfid transmitter tag, those can be 100% dead nuts money waterproof. I had to take some apart years ago, even that old technology was fully encapsulated, no batteries, nothing exposed, impermeable to water, gas and all the (mild) solvents and strong acids I tried. I ended up hacking into the thing with a Dremel and a tiny grinding wheel, and even then, that plastic they used gummed up the wheel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Has anyone seen evidence of watertight construction in the marine industry?

I can't comment on the interlock in the gun, but about the rfid transmitter tag, those can be 100% dead nuts money waterproof. I had to take some apart years ago, even that old technology was fully encapsulated, no batteries, nothing exposed, impermeable to water, gas and all the (mild) solvents and strong acids I tried. I ended up hacking into the thing with a Dremel and a tiny grinding wheel, and even then, that plastic they used gummed up the wheel.

 

Our pets are all "tagged" with presumably waterproof implants, but it's the interlock I'd be worried about.

 

Can we build one that can survive the forces of firing, the solvents of gun cleaning, and the salt air? I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smart guns are just stupid. I don't know of a single serious firearms enuthusiast or gunsmith who believes the technology is viable on a widespread basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, it seems that you count amendments quite well, but not perforated human bodies for some reason.

 

Thanks for bringing up the subject of modern gun technology to enhance public safety.

How about just smart firing pins? They would add some culpability and responsibility to gun ownership.

 

I anticipate some defensive, over-stretched, pseudo-intellectual, gun mentality nonsense-logic in response.

Go for it, but hey, no actually "responsible" gun owner would fight such an idea, IMO.

 

HANDCUFFING LAW ENFORCEMENT

p12 EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY

 

Incomprehensible or not, the NRA strongly opposes

microstamping, and has used misinformation, political

expenditures, and every other trick in the book to block

adoption of the technology.

 

The NRA and other gun lobby groups have speciously

argued that microstamping would make guns prohibitively

expensive,78 but the micro-machining firm Laser Light

Technologies estimates that they can produce

microstamping components for between $1-$6 per gun.79

 

NRA leaders have also attacked microstamping technology

as unreliable,80 although studies have shown that all six

microstamped characters on a single expended shell casing

could be correctly identified 87 percent of the time.

(Footnote 81, LS Chumbley, et al, “Clarity of Microstamped Identifiers as

a Function of Primer Hardness and Type of Firearm Action,” Association of

Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners Journal 44, no. 2 2012).

 

The NRA has poured extensive resources into its fight

against microstamping. In 2010, it spent more than

$100,000 (Footnote 82 Staff Report, “NRA Flooding Albany With Cash

To Block Bullet Microstamping,” Gothamist, April 11, 2012, at http://bit.ly/1g9kbEz.

in New York State to defeat microstamping

legislation that was supported by law enforcement

agencies and over 100 mayors. (Footnote 83 New York Mayors Against Illegal Guns,

“100 New York Mayors Ask: Will Leaders in Albany Stand with Police?”

Stamp Out Gun Crime, at http://stampoutguncrime.com/index.php.

And New York is not alone: the NRA targeted microstamping legislation in

Maryland,84 Massachusetts,85 Oklahoma,86 Rhode Island87

and Wisconsin.88

 

It also opposed microstamping in California, but it was

unsuccessful: in 2007, Republican Governor Arnold

Schwarzenegger signed a microstamping bill into law.

(Footnote 89, See Cal. Penal Code § 31910( B)(7)(A).

 

Even then, NRA leadership tried to delay implementation.

Because the developer of microstamping technology held

patents that could have delayed its implementation, the

California law provided that it would not take effect until

gun manufacturers could use the technology without

interference from the patents. Seeking to delay their ability

to do so, a former board member of the NRA’s official

California affiliate personally paid the $555 fee to extend

the patents so as to delay manufacturers’ access to the

technology and put off the effective date of the law.

(Footnote 90, “Former Directors Who Want to Save CRPA,”

Save California Rifle and Pistol Association, at http://bit.ly/1nCKQv8.)

 

In 2013, with these delay tactics exhausted, the

California Attorney General certified that patents were

no longer a bar to implementing the microstamping

requirement. But even after the law took effect,

the NRA continued to resist its implementation.

The NRA’s attorney in California said the group

would seek to convince regulators to block the law

or legislators to overturn it.

(Footnote 91, See Phil Willon, “Smith & Wesson joins fight against

‘microstamping,’” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 23, 2013)

and the president of gun maker Smith & Wesson announced that it

“would continue to work with the NRA” to block

microstamping from taking effect.

(Footnote 92, Emily Miller, “Smith & Wesson to stop selling guns in

California due to microstamping law,” Washington Times, Jan. 22, 2014, at http://bit.)

http://everytown.org/article/not-your-grandparents-nra/

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were just 10% as stupid as you act here, you'd know that micro-stamping doesn't work......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, it seems that you count amendments quite well, but not perforated human bodies for some reason.

 

Thanks for bringing up the subject of modern gun technology to enhance public safety.

How about just smart firing pins? They would add some culpability and responsibility to gun ownership.

 

I anticipate some defensive, over-stretched, pseudo-intellectual, gun mentality nonsense-logic in response.

 

 

 

 

 

There's just no pleasing some people. I post example after example of perforated perpetrators of crime in the Gun Nutter thread and you don't like it, now you say I don't notice them.

 

I see no reason to blame anyone for exercising the right to own a gun, so adding culpability to gun ownership carries no appeal to me.

 

I doubt they could add much responsibility. In the case of the vast majority of gun owners, none seems to be needed, since we don't hurt anyone with our guns. In the case of criminals, we're going to need very strict file control. Not computer files, metal files. The kind used to rub off a microstamp in a few quick strokes. We'll probably have to have a registry. I may have to be held accountable for a handful of them that are spilled on the floor of my shop at this moment, instead of being securely locked away.

 

Hope that met your expectations!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/2014/Rockville-Gun-Store-Owner-Pushes-Back-Against-Smart-Gun-Protests/

Rockville Gun Store Owner Pushes Back Against Smart Gun Protests

The owner decided not to sell the gun after receiving death threats, but stands by his belief that smart guns could be a good thing.

 

 

Then there's this:

http://www.msnbc.com/all/democrat-we-will-reverse-smart-gun-law

 

N.J. Democrat: We will reverse smart gun law if NRA plays ball

05/02/14 07:58 PM—UPDATED 05/02/14 08:14 PM

By Brian Montopoli

New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg said in an exclusive interview Friday with msnbc that she will introduce a bill to reverse a 2002 New Jersey “smart gun” law if the National Rifle Association will agree not to stand in the way of smart gun technology.

 

The New Jersey law mandates that once guns that are personalized to the user – commonly known as “smart guns” – go on the market anywhere in the country, New Jersey gun sellers have to stop selling traditional guns within three years and shift exclusively to smart guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last sentence in that first article is not quite accurate. Here's the original with corrections for accuracy.

 

The idea of a “smart gun” caused an uproar among gun advocates who fear know the technology will be has been mandated by the government.

 

Loretta Weinberg did not seem to need any prior commitment from the NRA to pass her stupid law, which caused the problem she now decries. She doesn't need a commitment to repeal it either. I don't speak for the NRA (lost my pointy hat) but said at the top of this thread that I support smart gun technology, just not mandated smart gun technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last sentence in that first article is not quite accurate. Here's the original with corrections for accuracy.

 

 

The idea of a “smart gun” caused an uproar among gun advocates who fear know the technology will be has been mandated by the government.

Loretta Weinberg did not seem to need any prior commitment from the NRA to pass her stupid law, which caused the problem she now decries. She doesn't need a commitment to repeal it either. I don't speak for the NRA (lost my pointy hat) but said at the top of this thread that I support smart gun technology, just not mandated smart gun technology.

Another rare instance where I agree (mostly) with you. The NJ law is stupid. How could they have not known it would be counter productive?

That said, I see no reason why the NRA shouldn't come out with a conditional support of smart gun technology. The tactics employed by the gun nutters is disgusting in this case. Death threats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't criminals, or even non-criminals figure out a work around to disable the safety feature???

Of course.

Kinda like how criminals usurp the current laws to get guns in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The last sentence in that first article is not quite accurate. Here's the original with corrections for accuracy.

 

The idea of a “smart gun” caused an uproar among gun advocates who fear know the technology will be has been mandated by the government.

Loretta Weinberg did not seem to need any prior commitment from the NRA to pass her stupid law, which caused the problem she now decries. She doesn't need a commitment to repeal it either. I don't speak for the NRA (lost my pointy hat) but said at the top of this thread that I support smart gun technology, just not mandated smart gun technology.

Another rare instance where I agree (mostly) with you. The NJ law is stupid. How could they have not known it would be counter productive?

That said, I see no reason why the NRA shouldn't come out with a conditional support of smart gun technology. The tactics employed by the gun nutters is disgusting in this case. Death threats?

 

I see no reason at all for the NRA to support any existing technology, nor any good reason for them to support some hypothetical technology that may one day exist. Two bad reasons to support it:

 

1. To make noted gun confiscation advocate Loretta Weinberg feel a bit less stupid repealing her law. Too bad.

 

2. To provide political cover for another such law. ("Hey, the NRA even supports it!")

 

Death threats are indeed disgusting. Maybe you can answer my question to Mark on that subject, since he could not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The last sentence in that first article is not quite accurate. Here's the original with corrections for accuracy.

 

The idea of a “smart gun” caused an uproar among gun advocates who fear know the technology will be has been mandated by the government.

Loretta Weinberg did not seem to need any prior commitment from the NRA to pass her stupid law, which caused the problem she now decries. She doesn't need a commitment to repeal it either. I don't speak for the NRA (lost my pointy hat) but said at the top of this thread that I support smart gun technology, just not mandated smart gun technology.

Another rare instance where I agree (mostly) with you. The NJ law is stupid. How could they have not known it would be counter productive?

That said, I see no reason why the NRA shouldn't come out with a conditional support of smart gun technology. The tactics employed by the gun nutters is disgusting in this case. Death threats?

 

The guy was an attention whore. He did this because he wanted to be on TV and in the newspapers and to feel important. He got the attention, a lot of it bad. I don't think threatening violence is an appropriate way to express disagreement, and I sincerely hope that people who make such threats are investigated and prosecuted, that does for the folks in this case as well as the ones threatening WLP, the NRA, and people like me who are members of the NRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need the iPhone of guns?


A dream of gun-control advocates for decades, the Armatix iP1 is the country’s first smart gun....

 

...

 

The implications of the iP1’s introduction are potentially enormous, both politically and economically. (And culturally — the gun that reads James Bond’s palm print in “Skyfall ” is no longer a futuristic plot twist.)

 

Lawmakers around the country have been intrigued by the possibilities. New Jersey passed a hotly contested law in 2002 requiring that only smart guns be sold in the state within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. A similar measure made it through the California Senate last year, and at the federal level, Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Mass.) also has introduced a mandate.

 

Although National Rifle Association officials did not respond to requests for comment about smart-gun technology, the group fiercely opposes “government mandates that require the use of expensive, unreliable features, such as grips that would read your fingerprints before the gun will fire,” according to the Web site of its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. “And NRA recognizes that the ‘smart guns’ issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology.”

 

Even so, smart guns are potentially more palatable than other technological mandates, such as placing GPS tracking chips in guns, a controversial concept floated this session in the Maryland General Assembly.

 

...

 

A variety of approaches are in development. Armatix, the German company behind the iP1, uses RFID chips, which can be found on anti-theft tags attached to expensive clothing. Trigger­Smart, an Irish company, also uses RFID chips, though with a ring instead of a watch. The company also has technology that would render guns inoperable if they approached electronic markers — for instance, near a school.

 

The New Jersey Institute of Technology is using sensors to recognize users’ grips and grasping behaviors. Kodiak Arms, a Utah company, is taking ­pre-orders for its Intelligun, which is unlocked with fingerprints. Other companies are using voice recognition. Yardarm, a California start-up, uses a smartphone app to notify gun owners of a weapon’s movement. Users can even remotely disable their weapons.

 

...

 

some of the sharpest criticism comes from an unlikely corner — the Violence Policy Center, a staunch advocate of reducing gun violence.

 

Policy Center officials argue that the new technology is unlikely to stem gun homicides, which often occur between people who know each other, and that personalization will have no effect on the more than 300 million guns in circulation. The organization also questions whether the technology would deter the nearly 350,000 incidents of firearm theft per year, though some of the proposed technologies are add-ons that can be installed on existing guns.

 

And perhaps most important, the Violence Policy Center worries that smart guns will increase the number of firearm owners, because marketing that touts safety could sway those previously opposed to guns to make their first purchase.

 

“We are very skeptical of what this technology can accomplish,” said Josh Sugarmann, the organization’s executive director. “You’re really affecting a very small portion of the gun-buying public.”

 

...

 

The cost is high. Amatrix’s iP1, a .22-caliber pistol, is priced at $1,399 — plus $399 for the watch. A .40-caliber Glock handgun can be had for about $600

 

...

 

Some gun rights champions are in surprising agreement with gun-control advocates on the technology’s future.

 

“We think the market should decide,” said Lawrence G. Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation....

 

I don't want a gun that can be disabled by electronic "markers" because I don't know who might have those markers.

 

Sean, do you see any reason why the Violence Policy Center should not come out in conditional support of this technology? Looks to me like the NRA and NSSF don't oppose the technology, just the mandates that anti-gun politicians want to attach to the technology.

 

An $1,800 pistol chambered in .22 and requiring a watch to activate is going to have some trouble competing in the marketplace, but it might be the only handgun on the market in New Jersey before too long. Their law says a three year clock started ticking when that Armatix gun went on store shelves. The gun is no longer on shelves, but did the clock stop ticking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said before, I think the mandate policy is a mistake. I say put it on the shelves and see what the market does with them, and wether attitudes toward them change once (if) they become common place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, this a great fuking branch of technology that will save millions of lives a year here.

 

Well, except for one little problem-----our current stock of the 400 million 'stupid' guns that we already own. Oh well, as long as a few Democrats experienced some temporary orgasmic bliss over this new technology, then I guess this story had a happy ending after all. .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, I see no reason why the NRA shouldn't come out with a conditional support of smart gun technology.

Do you see a reason the Violence Policy Center shouldn't come out with a conditional support of this technology?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the mandate, I can't imagine why ANYONE would oppose smart gun technology. If you want one, you should be able to buy one. No doubt in my mind they would save life and limb to some extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the mandate, I can't imagine why ANYONE would oppose smart gun technology. If you want one, you should be able to buy one. No doubt in my mind they would save life and limb to some extent.

 

In the short term, I could see them doing the opposite, and predict that lawsuits would follow shortly after. Guns now nearly always operate exactly as designed. Adding electronics to them will substantially increase the failure rate. When the features they are marketed as adding are safety oriented, it will attract owners with kids who are trying to make sure that the kids don't use the gun. So you have two ways the gun could fail, it could fail to shoot when you want it to (meaning potential lawsuit when someone tries to use it to defend themselves and it fails), or it could fail to prevent firing when a kid picks up the "safe" or "smart" gun when it is stored less securely since, hey it is a safe and smart gun, and the electronics fail in some way to prevent the kid from firing it. The most foolproof way to prevent unauthorized usage today will still be the most foolproof way when the "smart" guns are introduced, that being to lock up your guns when not in use. If someone is determined enough to break into a safe, then they will find a way to circumvent the electronics. Nearly all safeties can be rendered inoperable, and in the permanent "off" position, I see no reason to believe that these will be any different. This is just an electronic safety linked to some type of radio device or fingerprint reader. The complexity it adds makes it less safe, lawsuits will follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see it already-----someone will come up with an On Star system for these guns when they fail. Can you just imagine the phone calls?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with well developed technology, I would not support a mandate that all guns sold be smart guns. Exempting existing guns from that ban would get around the fifth amendment problem, but I think the decision on when it is well-developed enough and needed should be left to individuals.

 

For example, I can imagine an electronic device I would consider reliable enough for my revolver, as in not detracting at all from the reliability of the gun. Hard to do, probably impossible right now, but possible in the future.

 

But that gun lives in a safe in an air-conditioned house. Let's say I lost my mind and decided to move aboard a boat with no air conditioning. That's basically the same as dipping this hypothetical electronic device in salt water, since the salt is in the air and gets everywhere. It gets a lot harder to imagine an electronic device that would be as reliable as a revolver in that environment. If the marine industry ever comes up with one, I might support a mandate. I've seen no evidence that they can.

There are many guns that I can't see this working for. Muzzle Loaders for starters. Mixing electronics and hunting conditions may not be good either. Cold, wet and sometimes freezing temps would not mix well with electronics.

 

Not to mention, once electronics are part of the trigger group rapid fire is a real possibility. 2-3 rounds per second would be easy with a 556 timer circuit. I was very close to building one some time back. My thought was to replace the trigger with a very light microswitch and actuating the sear with a small solenoid. I thought better of the idea before I built it, but I still have some sketches. The timer circuit would make tuning pretty simple. A couple 20 tun pots would control the length of time the sol was energized and the time between shots. Pretty basic electronics. The gun work would be a bit more detailed.

 

My daughters 10/.22 now has a left handed safety. Anyone not familiar with that particular rife would not likely get a round off. She shoots left handed, so I modified her rifle quite a bit. I could not change the receiver so it still ejects to the right. The stock, safety and a few other things make it hers. Swapping to a carbon fiber bbl dropped the weight a good bit. She likes the pinkish stock too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than the mandate, I can't imagine why ANYONE would oppose smart gun technology. If you want one, you should be able to buy one. No doubt in my mind they would save life and limb to some extent.

It is cool tech, but my biggest question is why? Why would you need something like that to begin with. It will not prevent stupid. If it works off of RF it can be hacked. In someone hasn't done it already it will not take long before someone does. I'm willing to bet the manufacturer already has a master key. Adding electronics to the firing mech in a gun is a fun idea full of possibilities. Armed drones for the common man sounds like loads of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, this a great fuking branch of technology that will save millions of lives a year here.

 

Well, except for one little problem-----our current stock of the 400 million 'stupid' guns that we already own. Oh well, as long as a few Democrats experienced some temporary orgasmic bliss over this new technology, then I guess this story had a happy ending after all. .....

Let them have the fun. No sooner than those things hit the market people like me will be playing with them. I'll bet a Glock 17 would be lots of fun. After all the safety is in the trigger. Yes sir that would be loads of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather we invest in smarter gun owners than in smarter guns......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather we invest in smarter gun owners than in smarter guns......

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Other than the mandate, I can't imagine why ANYONE would oppose smart gun technology. If you want one, you should be able to buy one. No doubt in my mind they would save life and limb to some extent.

It is cool tech, but my biggest question is why? Why would you need something like that to begin with. It will not prevent stupid. If it works off of RF it can be hacked. In someone hasn't done it already it will not take long before someone does. I'm willing to bet the manufacturer already has a master key. Adding electronics to the firing mech in a gun is a fun idea full of possibilities. Armed drones for the common man sounds like loads of fun.

Maybe over time it will have an impact on this problem:

 

ABOUT 1.4 MILLION GUNS STOLEN DURING HOUSEHOLD BURGLARIES

AND OTHER PROPERTY CRIMES FROM 2005 THROUGH 2010

 

WASHINGTON – About 1.4 million firearms were stolen during household burglaries and other property crimes over the six-year period from 2005 through 2010, according to a report released today by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). This number represents an estimated average of 232,400 firearms stolen each year— about 172,000 stolen during burglaries and 60,300 stolen during other property crimes.

 

These estimates are based on data from the annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) which has collected information from victims of crime since 1973. Of the guns stolen each year during burglaries and other property crimes, at least 80 percent, or an annual average of 186,800 firearms, had not been recovered up to six months after being stolen.

 

From 2005 through 2010, firearms were stolen in about four percent of the 2.4 million household burglaries and in less than one percent of the 13.6 million other property crimes involving a completed theft that occurred during the period. Longer trends from 1994 to 2010 show a 49 percent decline in the total number of victimizations involving the theft of at least one firearm, from about 283,600 victimizations in 1994 to about 145,300 in 2010.

 

Handguns were the most commonly stolen firearm from 2005 through 2010. At least one handgun was stolen in 63 percent of household burglaries and 68 percent of other property crimes involving firearm theft. More than one gun was stolen in 39 percent of burglaries and 15 percent of other property crimes involving gun theft.

 

Maybe over time it will have an impact on this problem:

 

ABOUT 1.4 MILLION GUNS STOLEN DURING HOUSEHOLD BURGLARIES

AND OTHER PROPERTY CRIMES FROM 2005 THROUGH 2010

 

WASHINGTON – About 1.4 million firearms were stolen during household burglaries and other property crimes over the six-year period from 2005 through 2010, according to a report released today by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). This number represents an estimated average of 232,400 firearms stolen each year— about 172,000 stolen during burglaries and 60,300 stolen during other property crimes.

 

These estimates are based on data from the annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) which has collected information from victims of crime since 1973. Of the guns stolen each year during burglaries and other property crimes, at least 80 percent, or an annual average of 186,800 firearms, had not been recovered up to six months after being stolen.

 

From 2005 through 2010, firearms were stolen in about four percent of the 2.4 million household burglaries and in less than one percent of the 13.6 million other property crimes involving a completed theft that occurred during the period. Longer trends from 1994 to 2010 show a 49 percent decline in the total number of victimizations involving the theft of at least one firearm, from about 283,600 victimizations in 1994 to about 145,300 in 2010.

 

Handguns were the most commonly stolen firearm from 2005 through 2010. At least one handgun was stolen in 63 percent of household burglaries and 68 percent of other property crimes involving firearm theft. More than one gun was stolen in 39 percent of burglaries and 15 percent of other property crimes involving gun theft.

 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fshbopc0510pr.cfm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the ez solution here is to make theft & burglery felony crimes.

 

What say you, Sean?......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the ez solution here is to make theft & burglery felony crimes.

 

What say you, Sean?......

Oh, sorry, I forgot it was a crime. Never mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the ez solution here is to make theft & burglery felony crimes.

What say you, Sean?......

Oh, sorry, I forgot it was a crime. Never mind.

 

Yeah, weird, innit? Criminals thieves breaking the law? What should we do about them? Make some more laws?............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think the ez solution here is to make theft & burglery felony crimes.

What say you, Sean?......

Oh, sorry, I forgot it was a crime. Never mind.

Yeah, weird, innit? Criminals thieves breaking the law? What should we do about them? Make some more laws?............

Had you read my posts on the topic, you would know that I oppose the mandate. Let the market do it's thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention, once electronics are part of the trigger group rapid fire is a real possibility. 2-3 rounds per second would be easy with a 556 timer circuit. I was very close to building one some time back. My thought was to replace the trigger with a very light microswitch and actuating the sear with a small solenoid. I thought better of the idea before I built it, but I still have some sketches. The timer circuit would make tuning pretty simple. A couple 20 tun pots would control the length of time the sol was energized and the time between shots. Pretty basic electronics. The gun work would be a bit more detailed.

 

Sounds like it would fire more than one round per trigger pull. That's an NFA weapon and affects interstate commerce even if home built for personal use. US v Stewart.

 

Not a good idea.

 

Sean, an $1800 "smart" gun is a theft target, not a theft prevention device. A really heavy safe bolted to the floor is a theft deterrent, but pros will cut them up or cart them off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

If you were just 10% as stupid as you act here, you'd know that micro-stamping doesn't work......

why do you bother to read the Pink Unicorn lover's posts? He's not even amusing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not to mention, once electronics are part of the trigger group rapid fire is a real possibility. 2-3 rounds per second would be easy with a 556 timer circuit. I was very close to building one some time back. My thought was to replace the trigger with a very light microswitch and actuating the sear with a small solenoid. I thought better of the idea before I built it, but I still have some sketches. The timer circuit would make tuning pretty simple. A couple 20 tun pots would control the length of time the sol was energized and the time between shots. Pretty basic electronics. The gun work would be a bit more detailed.

 

Sounds like it would fire more than one round per trigger pull. That's an NFA weapon and affects interstate commerce even if home built for personal use. US v Stewart.

Not a good idea.

Sean, an $1800 "smart" gun is a theft target, not a theft prevention device. A really heavy safe bolted to the floor is a theft deterrent, but pros will cut them up or cart them off.

That theft stat is ridiculous. Hard to believe so many people leave guns lying around the house for thieves to steal. Good point about the smart gun/watch being a target if they are both available to steal, not so much if a good biometric lock model comes to market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That theft stat is ridiculous. Hard to believe so many people leave guns lying around the house for thieves to steal. Good point about the smart gun/watch being a target if they are both available to steal, not so much if a good biometric lock model comes to market.

 

 

I used to leave guns lying around for thieves to steal. Growing up, the family guns were in a closet, not a safe, and when I moved out here I just continued the tradition. They're locked up now, but that's really more about kids than thieves.

 

A biometric lock is no match for a biometric locksmith. Suppose my wife bought one of those, keyed it to her fingerprint or whatever, then got on a Malaysian jetliner and disappeared forever. Do I have a really expensive paperweight, or do I go to a gunsmith to get it changed?

 

I'd hope for the sake of marketability that the latter answer applies. That means I can defeat the biometric lock. Which means a thief can too, just like he can cut into my best safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then there's this:

http://www.msnbc.com/all/democrat-we-will-reverse-smart-gun-law

 

N.J. Democrat: We will reverse smart gun law if NRA plays ball

05/02/14 07:58 PM—UPDATED 05/02/14 08:14 PM

By Brian Montopoli

New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg said in an exclusive interview Friday with msnbc that she will introduce a bill to reverse a 2002 New Jersey “smart gun” law if the National Rifle Association will agree not to stand in the way of smart gun technology.

 

The New Jersey law mandates that once guns that are personalized to the user – commonly known as “smart guns” – go on the market anywhere in the country, New Jersey gun sellers have to stop selling traditional guns within three years and shift exclusively to smart guns.

 

 

I know what "repeal" means but I'm a bit confused by the difference between "reverse" and "defang"

 

After the events in Maryland, New Jersey state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, the sponsor of the gun bill, said she’d work to defang that law if the NRA stops fighting “smart gun” technology. According to Fox News, the NRA’s legislative director, Chris Cox, said the organization will only be happy with a “full repeal.”

 

Whatever the difference may be, it seems to explain NRA resistance.

 

A bill that mandates all guns sold come with a new technology that the market is not demanding is pretty stupid.

 

One that is "defanged" seems even more stupid. If I'm guessing right about what "defanged" means. But we might have to wait until a defanged law is passed to find out what's in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A biometric lock is no match for a biometric locksmith. Suppose my wife bought one of those, keyed it to her fingerprint or whatever, then got on a Malaysian jetliner and disappeared forever. Do I have a really expensive paperweight, or do I go to a gunsmith to get it changed?

Think of the gun like you would a wedding ring. Once you give it to her, you basically will bury her with it.

In the case she does disappear leaving only the gun behind, you could have it mounted on a plaque and placed above the mantle to serve as a memorial to her. Touching, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not certain, but I believe the term"defang" was not a quote but rather a term of art used by the article's author.

Regardless, unless Bloomberg opens a firearms shop, I don't see any retailer selling smart guns until the NJ law is repealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Selling smart guns is still bad, but telling Eric Holder to go fuck himself is, as usual, good.


...“I then had the biggest development in smart-gun technology coming together at my facility in Utah — the Intelligun” says W. P. Gentry, president of Kodiak Arms. The Intelligun uses scanners on a pistol’s grips. If a person’s biometrics — essentially, the patterns of his fingerprints — have been added to the gun’s software, the pistol will activate within one second of being touched.

 

“This interested Eric Holder,” Gentry says. “He wondered how we might be able to control who was or wasn’t authorized. I stopped him right there. I looked right across a table at Eric Holder — yeah, the attorney general of the United States — and told him, ‘If you try to mandate my smart-gun technology, I’ll burn it down.’ The Intelligun is designed to save lives, not restrict freedom.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Design faults in that they should have designed in readily available safety features.

 

Sound familiar?

 

Had Mommy Lanza bio-coded the weapon, Kiddy Lanza would have not been able to use it.

 

 

 

Yes, you mentioned it previously in that other thread and I tried to expain to you why selling smart guns is still bad. Take it up with the gungrabby elk who created this problem. When they quit trying to use smart guns as a lever with which to ban the kinds of guns most of us own from the market, I will support smart guns. Not before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I can still buy an old car without seat belts, even though seat belts are required on new cars...

 

You're absolutely right in that it does nothing for the installed base of weapons in circulation.

 

but 10-15 years from now - it would make a significant difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe I can still buy an old car without seat belts, even though seat belts are required on new cars...

 

...

 

The big difference, and the point of contention, mentioned in post 1:

 

The New Jersey law, or a federal bill recently introduced by Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) requiring smart technology on future gun sales, effectively reduces the resale value of existing guns to zero.

 

Read carefully. It says future gun sales. Not future NEW gun sales. Future gun sales. Yes, they mean all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I wonder how that's going? And I wonder whether these people realize the problem?

 

What could gun manufacturers do to protect the public?

They could distribute their guns exclusively through dealers that sell guns responsibly, and end their relationships with the small percentage of bad-apple dealers that sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in crimes. They could produce “smart guns” that can be fired only by authorized users, and that therefore are far less likely to be used in accidental or intentional shootings. These measures, over time, would prevent many thousands of deaths.

 

...

 

Third, rescue the federal government’s smart-gun research efforts from oblivion. Tens of millions of research dollars are needed to help get promising safety technologies to market.

 

 

 

All dealers do the same background checks and high-volume dealerships are not "bad apples" for selling lots of guns.

 

I said above that I'd like to see smart guns. Maybe even 3D printed ones. But not if that means we can no longer buy other kinds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Some NJ Pols Begin to Grasp Unintended Consequences

 

They're beginning to understand that the NJ law mandating "smart" gun sales is the main thing stopping the development of the technology and they're starting to talk about amending or just scrapping the law.

 

And months later, the beginning is beginning again.

 

...So why can't you buy a smart gun in the United States today? One reason is gun-shop owners won't sell them. When one Maryland dealer announced he would try to sell one smart gun he was immediately attacked with email and phone call threats by people who believed that he could have triggered a New Jersey ban on regular handguns that don't possess smart-gun technology.

 

Turns out that the sale of smart guns could actually restrict gun sales, at least in New Jersey, where a 13-year-old law mandates all regular handguns sold in the state be smart guns if and when they become available for sale anywhere else in the country. Acknowledging how this law has actually inadvertently impeded smart guns from coming onto the marketplace, New Jersey State Senator Loretta Weinberg, who sponsored the original mandate, tells 60 Minutes that as early as next week, she will ask her state's legislature to repeal the law and replace it with one mandating at least one smart gun be for sale wherever weapons are sold in her state....

 

 

If they make a good "smart" gun then consumers like me will mandate that retailers carry it or they will lose the sale to someone who will carry it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they hold you responsible for your toys, you might decide it's smart to get a smart gun....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they hold you responsible for your toys, you might decide it's smart to get a smart gun....

Smart guns make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

if they hold you responsible for your toys, you might decide it's smart to get a smart gun....

 

Smart guns make sense.

Do they also make sense for the weapeons you supply AQ to overthrow foreign governments that are no threat to you but that your leaders don't like and then used to attack your own embassy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

if they hold you responsible for your toys, you might decide it's smart to get a smart gun....

Smart guns make sense.

Do they also make sense for the weapeons you supply AQ to overthrow foreign governments that are no threat to you but that your leaders don't like and then used to attack your own embassy?

 

It would be cool if they had kill switches we could disable remotely, wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Design faults in that they should have designed in readily available safety features.

 

Sound familiar?

 

Had Mommy Lanza bio-coded the weapon, Kiddy Lanza would have not been able to use it.

 

Yes, you mentioned it previously in that other thread and I tried to expain to you why selling smart guns is still bad. Take it up with the gungrabby elk who created this problem. When they quit trying to use smart guns as a lever with which to ban the kinds of guns most of us own from the market, I will support smart guns. Not before.

 

 

There are damn good reasons why we hear loud calls for better gun restrictions.

You need to deal with those issues, because they are the cause of the "gungrabby elk" behavior.

 

You are blaming others for a problem which is caused by gun extremism.

It is a problem you, Tom Ray, never come close to dealing with.

If your elk won't deal with it, my elk will.

 

 

 

Repeatedly, gun extremists have prevented retailers from presenting smart guns.

Many researchers have hopes that smart guns can alleviate the problem.

Chanting "no retreat, so surrender" (ahem, for thirty years) hasn't worked.

You need to do much better than Molon Labe, IMO.

Please proceed.

 

 

 

Smart’ Firearm Draws Wrath of the Gun Lobby

Mr. Keane (former NRA chief exec) said the industry did not oppose developing the technology. But, he added, “No. 1, the technology is not ready. No. 2, we believe the market ought to work.”

Of the Armatix episode in California, he said, “They tried to put the product on the market, and the market reacted.”

Armatix said it had an agreement with the Oak Tree Gun Club, a large gun range and retailer about 20 minutes north of Los Angeles, to sell its iP1 pistol, which can be fired only after the owner enters a five-digit PIN into a watch that transmits a signal to the gun. The gun, which retails for about $1,800, disables itself if it is more than 10 inches from the watch.

But once Oak Tree’s owner, James Mitchell, went public in The Washington Post saying the iP1 “could revolutionize the gun industry,” Second Amendment activists went into overdrive, flooding social media with threats to boycott the club. They took to Calguns.net, a forum for gun owners, and called for vigilante-style investigations of Ms. Padilla and Armatix. They seized on her appearance before a United Nations panel to testify on gun safety and her purported association with a group once led by a protégé of George Soros.

“I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans,” one commenter wrote.

Ms. Padilla found that any trace of her involvement with Oak Tree had vanished. Signs outside the club advertising Armatix had been taken down. Her branded merchandise — hooded sweatshirts, down jackets (camouflage for men, hot pink for women) — was gone. Her stall at the shooting range where she had shown prospective

customers how the iP1 worked, once painted in her company’s signature blue, had a fresh coat of green paint over it. “Honestly, I was in disbelief,” she said. “It’s like I never existed.”

Mr. Mitchell disavowed his relationship with Armatix and denied ever selling the gun.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/us/politics/smart-firearm-draws-wrath-of-the-gun-lobby.html?hp&_r=1>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they hold you responsible for your toys, you might decide it's smart to get a smart gun....

 

I already reached that conclusion without any "help" from government. I just don't think it's smart to ban all other guns. It's another way we should treat them like cars: the development of new tech doesn't mean we can no longer buy and sell old cars.

 

As soon as NJ quits yapping and starts repealing or amending their law, opposition to smart guns will vanish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

if they hold you responsible for your toys, you might decide it's smart to get a smart gun....

 

I already reached that conclusion without any "help" from government. I just don't think it's smart to ban all other guns. It's another way we should treat them like cars: the development of new tech doesn't mean we can no longer buy and sell old cars.

 

As soon as NJ quits yapping and starts repealing or amending their law, opposition to smart guns will vanish.

 

 

Nope. LMFAO.

You guys have challenged every good idea.

You have challenged every proposal, without providing leadership towards public safety.

I would like to know the Tom Ray road map out of this gun mess. Seriously.

Type away, without changing the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "gun mess" under discussion in this thread is the fact that NJ laws have forced people like me, who would like to see "smart" gun technologies developed, must oppose them or face gun bans.

 

The solution to that kind of gun mess, as I said, would be if NJ quits yapping and starts repealing or amending their law to get rid of the ban on previously-legal guns.

 

Even the author of the law now admits I'm right and her gun ban needs to go for the reason I named. If she can agree that the gun ban needs to go away because its unintended consequences are counterproductive, why can't you, jocal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "gun mess" under discussion in this thread is the fact that NJ laws have forced people like me, who would like to see "smart" gun technologies developed, must oppose them or face gun bans.

 

The solution to that kind of gun mess, as I said, would be if NJ quits yapping and starts repealing or amending their law to get rid of the ban on previously-legal guns.

 

Even the author of the law now admits I'm right and her gun ban needs to go for the reason I named. If she can agree that the gun ban needs to go away because its unintended consequences are counterproductive, why can't you, jocal?

 

The gun mess is a sea change made of human tragedy. It is much broader than your fear of smart gun technology.

 

What you are suggesting is that if gun safety laws scare gun extremists, no such laws should be presented.

That gun wanker fears are the highest common denominator, an acceptable new normal.

That brick doesn't fly.

 

 

(Jocal) I would like to know the Tom Ray road map out of this gun mess. Seriously.

Type away, without changing the subject.

 

And Tom Ray, you have failed to outline your gun safety policy for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which crimes do smart guns eliminate and what percentage of overall crimes in which guns were used is it?

 

How many of the mass murders publicized on the in the past five years would smart guns have eliminated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which crimes do smart guns eliminate and what percentage of overall crimes in which guns were used is it?

 

How many of the mass murders publicized on the in the past five years would smart guns have eliminated?

 

Your post asks three questions, Crockdog.

1.Smart guns would eliminate all shootings by children, and many crimes from stolen guns. Other crimes, too.

2. What percentage of crimes would be eliminated? That is unknown at present: smart guns haven't hit the market.

3. How many publicized mass murders would be eliminated is a straw man sort of question. But as another poster suggested, Adam Lanza's mass murder certainly comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The "gun mess" under discussion in this thread is the fact that NJ laws have forced people like me, who would like to see "smart" gun technologies developed, must oppose them or face gun bans.

 

The solution to that kind of gun mess, as I said, would be if NJ quits yapping and starts repealing or amending their law to get rid of the ban on previously-legal guns.

 

Even the author of the law now admits I'm right and her gun ban needs to go for the reason I named. If she can agree that the gun ban needs to go away because its unintended consequences are counterproductive, why can't you, jocal?

 

The gun mess is a sea change made of human tragedy. It is much broader than your fear of smart gun technology.

 

What you are suggesting is that if gun safety laws scare gun extremists, no such laws should be presented.

That gun wanker fears are the highest common denominator, an acceptable new normal.

That brick doesn't fly.

 

 

(Jocal) I would like to know the Tom Ray road map out of this gun mess. Seriously.

Type away, without changing the subject.

 

And Tom Ray, you have failed to outline your gun safety policy for the future.

 

 

 

Same as the past.

 

 

10eace53ac719c93793bf3e22b5d456e.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60 Minutes will be doing a segment on "smart guns" tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look forward to the development of smart guns as soon as we can get the stupid gun-banning politician to do what she says she will and reverse her ban.

 

But not before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Which crimes do smart guns eliminate and what percentage of overall crimes in which guns were used is it?

 

How many of the mass murders publicized on the in the past five years would smart guns have eliminated?

Your post asks three questions, Crockdog.

1.Smart guns would eliminate all shootings by children, and many crimes from stolen guns. Other crimes, too.

2. What percentage of crimes would be eliminated? That is unknown at present: smart guns haven't hit the market.

3. How many publicized mass murders would be eliminated is a straw man sort of question. But as another poster suggested, Adam Lanza's mass murder certainly comes to mind.

1. I can see how it would solve the issue of accidental shootings by anyone who doesn't know the code. Based on the FBIs published data stolen gun issue is relatively small (most repeat offending criminals who use guns get them from others in a manner other than theft). What 'other crimes, too' are you talking about?

 

2. If we don't know how many crimes would be eliminated why do it at all? Why waste resources on something in which we have no idea what will happen?

 

3. How would Adam lanza have been kept from doing what he did? His mother bought him the guns and gave him access to them. Are you suggesting she would not have provided the 'code'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Which crimes do smart guns eliminate and what percentage of overall crimes in which guns were used is it?

 

How many of the mass murders publicized on the in the past five years would smart guns have eliminated?

Your post asks three questions, Crockdog.

1.Smart guns would eliminate all shootings by children, and many crimes from stolen guns. Other crimes, too.

2. What percentage of crimes would be eliminated? That is unknown at present: smart guns haven't hit the market.

3. How many publicized mass murders would be eliminated is a straw man sort of question. But as another poster suggested, Adam Lanza's mass murder certainly comes to mind.

1. I can see how it would solve the issue of accidental shootings by anyone who doesn't know the code. Based on the FBIs published data stolen gun issue is relatively small (most repeat offending criminals who use guns get them from others in a manner other than theft). What 'other crimes, too' are you talking about?

 

2. If we don't know how many crimes would be eliminated why do it at all? Why waste resources on something in which we have no idea what will happen?

 

3. How would Adam lanza have been kept from doing what he did? His mother bought him the guns and gave him access to them. Are you suggesting she would not have provided the 'code'?

 

 

1. The problem of stolen guns is accelerating.

 

ATF: Nearly 20,000 firearms lost or stolen last year from FFL holders

http://www.guns.com/2014/04/15/atf-nearly-20000-firearms-lost-stolen-last-year-ffl-holders/>

GUNS STOLEN FROM VEHICLES INCREASINGLY USED IN VIOLENT CRIME

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_STOLEN_GUNS_VIOLENCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>

 

2. Is the research on this subject (smart guns) or any gun safety subject adequate and forthcoming?

No, public research is currently blocked by the gun lobby. Given that, the benefit of the doubt supports smart guns. Remember that researchers expect not sweeping progress, but merely progress "in the margins."

 

More Guns, Less Money: Harvard’s High-Profile, Cash-Strapped Firearm Research Center

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/harvard-david-hemenway-gun-research-underfunding/>

 

3. On a sane playing field, Adam Lanza would not have had the code to his mother's assault weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

(Jocal) I would like to know the Tom Ray road map out of this gun mess. Seriously.

Type away, without changing the subject.

 

And Tom Ray, you have failed to outline your gun safety policy for the future.

 

 

 

Same as the past.

 

 

10eace53ac719c93793bf3e22b5d456e.jpg

 

 

"Same as the past"...which isn't good enough.

 

Saorsa, this is a bullshit post. It is not a worthy answer from a dedicated, informed, pro-gun advocate.

These basics have not prevented the gun problem which is sweeping our beautiful country.

By default, let's use Shannon Watts' road map in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Which crimes do smart guns eliminate and what percentage of overall crimes in which guns were used is it?

 

How many of the mass murders publicized on the in the past five years would smart guns have eliminated?

Your post asks three questions, Crockdog.

1.Smart guns would eliminate all shootings by children, and many crimes from stolen guns. Other crimes, too.

2. What percentage of crimes would be eliminated? That is unknown at present: smart guns haven't hit the market.

3. How many publicized mass murders would be eliminated is a straw man sort of question. But as another poster suggested, Adam Lanza's mass murder certainly comes to mind.

1. I can see how it would solve the issue of accidental shootings by anyone who doesn't know the code. Based on the FBIs published data stolen gun issue is relatively small (most repeat offending criminals who use guns get them from others in a manner other than theft). What 'other crimes, too' are you talking about?

 

2. If we don't know how many crimes would be eliminated why do it at all? Why waste resources on something in which we have no idea what will happen?

 

3. How would Adam lanza have been kept from doing what he did? His mother bought him the guns and gave him access to them. Are you suggesting she would not have provided the 'code'?

 

1. The problem of stolen guns is accelerating.

 

ATF: Nearly 20,000 firearms lost or stolen last year from FFL holders

http://www.guns.com/2014/04/15/atf-nearly-20000-firearms-lost-stolen-last-year-ffl-holders/>

GUNS STOLEN FROM VEHICLES INCREASINGLY USED IN VIOLENT CRIME

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_STOLEN_GUNS_VIOLENCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>

 

2. Is the research on this subject (smart guns) or any gun safety subject adequate and forthcoming?

No, public research is currently blocked by the gun lobby. Given that, the benefit of the doubt supports smart guns. Remember that researchers expect not sweeping progress, but merely progress "in the margins."

 

More Guns, Less Money: Harvards High-Profile, Cash-Strapped Firearm Research Center

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/harvard-david-hemenway-gun-research-underfunding/>

 

3. On a sane playing field, Adam Lanza would not have had the code to his mother's assault weapon.

 

So to summarize:

 

1. No idea how many crimes involving illegal use of gun would be eliminated.

 

2. Benefit of the doubt is not what I base my spending decisions on. I need something more concrete to make me want to spend more money and go through even more effort than I already go through to keep my out of the hands of anyone I don't want.

 

Why can't anyone in the private sector study gun violence? No one trying to or no one donating the resources?

 

3. In a sane world? Lanzas mother is proof there is little difference between sanity and the inability to think reasonably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. All the recent mass murders bought their guns legally and passed a BGC. The would have had the code to their own guns. So you can eliminate them from the list of things that the "smart gun" would address.
  2. All the domestic murders that joke-al rails against also presumably own their own guns legally and would have access to the code as well. So we can scratch them off the list.
  3. All the guns that are bought and sold on the secondary market or on the black market would also presumably have access to to code or be able to reset the biometrics to the new owner.
  4. All the people who joke-al say would be saved from suicides would also have access to their own guns to kill themselves - so there's another whole group who "smart guns" would have zero effect on.

So that leaves stolen guns and accidents with firearms by people picking up a loaded gun who didn't have access to the code.

 

Let's dissect that a bit....

 

Stolen guns: Any one here think that this tech can't be hacked and then used once the code has been broken? We have anti-theft devices in cars - yet new cars get stolen all the time. Thieves just pull up with a flatbed truck, load the car, take it to the chop shop and with enough time and expertise - that car can be running again back out on the street in no time. Not to mention, a lot of the so-called "smart devices" come with a ring or bracelet that enables the gun through RFID. If a gun is stolen from a house or car - what are the chances they won't also steal the bracelet? Problem SOLved.

 

And then that leaves us with accidents. Yes, smart gun tech can potentially reduce accidental shootings - especially with Children. But is gov't mandates of smart guns REALLY the answer to a total of 500 accidental shootings a year (and falling) and a fucking grand total of 94 children accidentally killed with a gun (in 2013)??? Run the numbers yourself.

 

So 500 accidental shootings is something like 1.5% of the total number of gun deaths. And the accidental children deaths that smart guns might help are even lower at 0.3% of the total.

 

I'm with Tom on this one. Let the market decide if "smart guns" are worthwhile. A gov't mandate to address a tiny fraction of the total is again a pointless exercise in control. Because at the end of the day - its all about control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look forward to the development of smart guns as soon as we can get the stupid gun-banning politician to do what she says she will and reverse her ban.

 

But not before.

Maybe smart guns should programmed to only fire at selected targets. When you fill in the order form you could nominate 3 names.

Like registering an EPIRB. Or maybe 3 ethnic groups. Or maybe democrats and government officers. This is how the technology can be used to stop accidental shootings.

It will only fire at targets you want to kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be an new interesting society rule..... Let's say everyone got to nominate 1 other person that they were legally allowed to kill, But it could be only 1 person ever in your lifetime and you could exercise it anytime before you die. And you could only ever change your choice if someone else killed them first. Otherwise you're locked in to your choice. You could decide not to kill them afterall, but you could not nominate anyone else ever to replace them. So you'd really really have to think hard about your choice. You might go your whole life before making a choice.

 

It would certainly make society interesting. And I think it would make us a fuck-load more polite if you knew being a dick to someone could put you on their kill list. On the other side of the coin - there would be some really bad people who would likely end up on many people's list. But then all those people might hold off killing that person wanting to save their choice hoping that others will step up and do it.

 

It could be fun. There are just some people that need "killin'" ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be an new interesting society rule..... Let's say everyone got to nominate 1 other person that they were legally allowed to kill, But it could be only 1 person ever in your lifetime and you could exercise it anytime before you die. And you could only ever change your choice if someone else killed them first. Otherwise you're locked in to your choice. You could decide not to kill them afterall, but you could not nominate anyone else ever to replace them. So you'd really really have to think hard about your choice. You might go your whole life before making a choice.

 

It would certainly make society interesting. And I think it would make us a fuck-load more polite if you knew being a dick to someone could put you on their kill list. On the other side of the coin - there would be some really bad people who would likely end up on many people's list. But then all those people might hold off killing that person wanting to save their choice hoping that others will step up and do it.

 

It could be fun. There are just some people that need "killin'" ;)

 

We would need to hold new elections every month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That would be an new interesting society rule..... Let's say everyone got to nominate 1 other person that they were legally allowed to kill, But it could be only 1 person ever in your lifetime and you could exercise it anytime before you die. And you could only ever change your choice if someone else killed them first. Otherwise you're locked in to your choice. You could decide not to kill them afterall, but you could not nominate anyone else ever to replace them. So you'd really really have to think hard about your choice. You might go your whole life before making a choice.

 

It would certainly make society interesting. And I think it would make us a fuck-load more polite if you knew being a dick to someone could put you on their kill list. On the other side of the coin - there would be some really bad people who would likely end up on many people's list. But then all those people might hold off killing that person wanting to save their choice hoping that others will step up and do it.

 

It could be fun. There are just some people that need "killin'" ;)

 

We would need to hold new elections every month.

 

 

True. I hadn't thought of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That would be an new interesting society rule..... Let's say everyone got to nominate 1 other person that they were legally allowed to kill, But it could be only 1 person ever in your lifetime and you could exercise it anytime before you die. And you could only ever change your choice if someone else killed them first. Otherwise you're locked in to your choice. You could decide not to kill them afterall, but you could not nominate anyone else ever to replace them. So you'd really really have to think hard about your choice. You might go your whole life before making a choice.

 

It would certainly make society interesting. And I think it would make us a fuck-load more polite if you knew being a dick to someone could put you on their kill list. On the other side of the coin - there would be some really bad people who would likely end up on many people's list. But then all those people might hold off killing that person wanting to save their choice hoping that others will step up and do it.

 

It could be fun. There are just some people that need "killin'" ;)

 

We would need to hold new elections every month.

 

 

True. I hadn't thought of that.

 

 

Not saying it is a bad thing. Would certainly send a message to DC :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

That would be an new interesting society rule..... Let's say everyone got to nominate 1 other person that they were legally allowed to kill, But it could be only 1 person ever in your lifetime and you could exercise it anytime before you die. And you could only ever change your choice if someone else killed them first. Otherwise you're locked in to your choice. You could decide not to kill them afterall, but you could not nominate anyone else ever to replace them. So you'd really really have to think hard about your choice. You might go your whole life before making a choice.

 

It would certainly make society interesting. And I think it would make us a fuck-load more polite if you knew being a dick to someone could put you on their kill list. On the other side of the coin - there would be some really bad people who would likely end up on many people's list. But then all those people might hold off killing that person wanting to save their choice hoping that others will step up and do it.

 

It could be fun. There are just some people that need "killin'" ;)

 

We would need to hold new elections every month.

 

 

True. I hadn't thought of that.

 

 

Not saying it is a bad thing. Would certainly send a message to DC :D

 

 

A 5.56 round is a lot cheaper than a recall election....... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

having a Smart Gun gets you a "get out of jail free" card from the coming Personal Responsibility regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

having a Smart Gun gets you a "get out of jail free" card from the coming Personal Responsibility regulations.

 

I want one more for the practical than legal benefits. Those may materialize or may remain in your fantasies, but I want one anyway.

 

I just don't think we should react to their development by banning previously-legal guns from the market. I'm glad to see that the politician who wrote that ban now agrees with me and hope she follows through with her proposed repeal of her ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

news flash, not all politicians write effective laws/regulations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her gun ban, unlike pretty much all others, actually has been effective.

 

But it has been effective at preventing the very thing she wanted to mandate. That's why she now wants to mandate it a different way, by forcing dealers to keep a product she likes in inventory. That will be ineffective at making people actually buy them. If the designers do a good enough job, no inventory requirement will be needed. If they don't, no such requirement will cause sales to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

news flash, not all politicians write effective laws/regulations

 

I didn't know this was another obamacare thread???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trying to write laws for the future....bad idea. personally I have no problem with "smart guns". wouldn't ever support them because of the legislation that will inevitably follow(although it preceeded in this case). If someone thinks it is the right tool for them then right on, I hope someday it will be available for you. but I don't get along well with technology, and noone will convince me that anything electronic will survive in the type of salty, wet, and frozen environments I subject myself and my gear to. not to mention I take issue with the "it takes one second" part of the equaion of actually using one. presumably it took one second in a controlled environment. I am sure it was clean, dry, and brand new. believe it or not, one second can make the difference. Never had to shoot at a person, nor do I want to, but if my gun took "one second" to decide if I was allowed to fire it, I would not be here writing this, I would be a pile of bear shit in the backcountry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to sell really badly made smart guns is foolish. Trying to mandate them is doubly so.

Does the Armatix operate perfectly? Well, no; we found it to be troubling at best. NRA’s tests, conducted with staffers trained by Armatix, found a number of very serious problems:

  • The Armatix pistol initially required a full 20 minutes to pair with the watch, even with the aid of an IT pro trained in its use. Without pairing, the Armatix functions like any other handgun, capable of being fired by anyone.
  • Once paired, a “cold start” still requires a minimum of seven push-button commands and a duration of 12 seconds before the gun can be fired.
  • While the gun holds a maximum of 11 rounds (10+1), the best our experts could manage was nine consecutive rounds without a failure to fire (and that only once). Three or four misfires per magazine were common, despite using various brands of ammunition.
  • Although the Armatix has a decent single-action trigger, it has the worst double-action trigger we’ve ever tested, requiring more force than any other pistol we’ve fired.
  • The pistol must be within 10 inches of the watch during “start up.” This slows and complicates the use of the pistol if one hand is injured or otherwise unavailable.
  • The design of the Armatix’s hammer prevents it from being safely thumbed forward.
  • All this malfunction comes at a high price: At $1,798 ($1,399 for the base pistol and another $399 for the enabling watch), the Armatix is a more than five times the cost of other common .22s, like Walther’s excellent P22 ($319) or Browning’s tried-and-true Buckmark ($349), and four and a half times that of Smith & Wesson’s M&P22 polymer semi-auto ($379) or Ruger’s SR22 ($379). It’s also more than three times the cost of pistols like Glocks and Smith & Wesson M&Ps made in true self-defense calibers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like more product development is needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like rejecting any and all gun safety measures is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites