She Didn’t Deserve To Die
- Thread starter sk8knight
- Start date
It’s not the industry that doesn’t want smart technology, it’s the consumer base. Guns need to work each and every single time that you pick them up and pull the trigger. Any technology that gets in the middle of that action is going to be looked at suspiciously by a good deal of gun owners.
But not necessarily in the US. And I’d argue that a good number of guns used in organized crime were never publicly legal because they were purchased through strawman purchases which are illegal acts themselves.
This is all total BS and you're the one drinking the NRA Kool Aid. I've had my hands directly involved in "smart" firearm development (I'm a mechanical engineer) working with a startup founded by LEO's. The only reason we haven't had them already for decades is politics. Full stop.
Guess what happens when a gun store in the US wants to sell a smart gun? They get death threats and boycotts. Guess what happens when an expert manufacturer decides to dive into smart guns development? Boycotts.
So the result is that no expert gun manufacturer even tries to develop smart tech. If the NRA even discovers a secret R&D effort, you'll get boycotted. So instead, we have a bunch of fledgling startups who - even with a functional product - have no distribution network because gun dealers can't sell them even if they want to.
But yea - when they finally hit the market they'll suck. They'll be easy to defeat and struggle with reliability. But they'll also rapidly improve. The problem is were' about 20 years behind on that development because of nonsensical perspectives perpetuated by the NRA that you've gobbled up.
Consumer surveys done by anyone except the gun lobby show a general openness to smart firearms. This 2016 survey by Johns Hopkins had 40% of current gun owners and over 50% of self identified conservatives say they would consider a smart gun if it were on the market. That's plenty good enough to fuel development of a premium product for a segment of the consumer base that would value those benefits over the potential drawbacks.
It is true that a highly vocal minority of gun enthusiasts do not want smart guns because of a slippery-slope argument. But they aren't scared of crappy smart guns that fail in a moment of crisis. They're scared that over time the technology will become cheap and highly reliable, at which point it might be regulated as mandatory.
I'll gladly admit that banning "dumb guns" is absolutely a risk when the technology matures. But that's a completely different issue to whether or not "smart guns" provide value to some segment of the market who would are willing to make some trade offs.
Could you imagine being stuck with carburetors because gearheads pressured the automotive industry to avoid fuel injection? It's crazy. Is there any other industry that is scared of innovation like this?
You do realize what the fear is, right? I know that you’re calling the NRA’s positions nonsensical but you’re also vastly understating the challenges of developing a zero-failure, ruggedized, critical biometric authz capability in a firearm with a lifetime of a century or more. BS has a wealth of experience in the sector and so do I and
Not to mention that it may not be a good thing to limit firearms to one person or even a couple. Let’s say there’s an active shooter event and the responding SRO is shot. Now, a retired officer provides aid and could take out the shooter but he can’t use the firearm because it’s keyed only to the officer. How many more people get killed?
But back to the NRA, you realize that they’re so aggressive because politicians will leap at any smart solution and will outlaw all but the smart weapons almost instantly. For that to happen, you’d better be damn sure that your solution works perfectly every single time. Forever. In every condition and every circumstance and with varying degrees of maintenance. I’m skeptical but I’d listen to a proposal. Regardless, agree or disagree, I’m sure that you can see the sense behind their actions.
Did they ask them how many would consider it for their primary defensive firearm? Because I’d love to have one and be the cool guy on the range but there’s no way in hell that I’m counting on it in a life or death situation.
Your car analogy is crap, you normally do better than that.
Which the manufacturers STILL profited from - right? The manufacturer made a legal sale to a dealer.
Hence my opioid analogy. The bigger the market for illegal guns, the more guns we have to legally manufacture to service that market. With no accountability on manufacturers, they have zero incentive to reduce the supply of illegal firearms on the streets.
Free markets work when incentives are aligned properly. If you don't want opioid manufacturers to cover their eyes when they ship enough drugs to a rural county to supply the medical needs of NYC, make those pills cost more than the profit they generate. Make them pay 10 or 100x the cost for every illegal pill you recover in a county and maybe they start vetting their pain clinics a bit better.
Yeah, we can build self-driving cars, billionaires can put themselves into outer space --- but alas --- we simply do not have the capability of developing a reliable smart gun.*
First, opioids are not a constitutional natural right. Secondly, there’s a threshold for legitimate use of opioids to treat pain and a duration that expires. Are you saying that we limit gun possession to one or two? On what grounds?
In any case, I don’t think that you’re seeing huge spikes of guns sales in Chicago or the suburbs.
You're imposing impossible design requirements. I remember reading (a while back) something on a 9mm failure rate - I think it was testing done by the US Army - and the mean failure rate was something like 1 in 500 rounds. I don't know the hard data - but it obviously varies from model to model, not to mention individual maintenance.
Realistically, you need to achieve failure rates on par with the existing mechanical failure rates. But there's possible benefits as well. If the safety features of the gun allow you to store it in a more accessible way, that could be a critical advantage in a self defense situation.
But again, you're stuck on a slippery slope argument. And I don't even necessarily disagree with you on the long term outcome. I just think it's a one of those arguments that always loses in the long run. You have to win the debate on mandatory smart technology on its own merits - not by delaying the inevitable introduction of the technology.
Yeah, sk8's got a point here: It's much simpler to change the culture of violence we've seen throughout Mankind's existence on Earth than to develop reliable smart gun technology.
It's not a perfect analogy, but it's hard to think of comparisons to firearms. Where I think it holds is that the bigger the black market demand for firearms, the more money manufacturers make legally. When a gun is stolen and goes on the black market, the owner needs to replace it. So the bottom line is that an expanding black market is good for manufacturers. That's my point and I don't think it's something that basic economics can let you argue with.
Should you do anything about that? That's the question I'm trying to get at. I like market-forces to help solve problems. When the people profiting off something do not bear the associated costs, it distorts the market. When the local factory poisons the river, that's a cost. Whatever it costs to (1) clean up the river and (2) stop polluting it going forward needs to be captured in the cost of the product they sell. The pricing mechanism was inefficient because the market didn't account for those costs at the beginning.
But instead, tax payers probably pay for the cleanup and the factory gets a subsidy not to move to another county...lol
Yea it is crap because I can't come up with a good one. I think that points more to the absurdity of an industry that boycotts at the sniff of safety innovation more than anything else. Can you think of a comprison?
Yeah, but you can quickly clear a mechanical fire failure in a pistol. Drop the mag, rack the slide, and reinsert and go. That is a non-catastrophic failure. When the electronics fail such that the weapon is inoperable, that is a catastrophic failure for which the result is grave bodily harm or death.
Also, in the military, the mitigation is that a soldier is not a lone participant in a firing action. So you can accept some higher level of malfunction because you have other people capable of completing the mission. When you're a lone home defender or other self-defense, you need a more reliable weapon.
The political argument is slippery slope, absolutely. But the safety aspect is certainly not.
Haha, that's fair. Rather than inserting a potential failure into the firing mechanism, why not institute something like a self-destruct mechanism where an owner could render the firearm useless if it is stolen.
Conceptually I like that idea because it goes to the other thing we are talking about, which would be an ability to go after the black market by eliminating at least part of the supply. This is the kind of thing that manufacturers would want to do if they wanted to disrupt the black market - like if they were being held liable when one of their devices was used in a crime.
Realistically though, I think we have a much better chance of implementing simpler systems to start. You could have biometrics or RFID tags that don't require wireless or bluetooth connectivity on board the device. If we have these things talking to wireless networks that will really fuel the "they're gonna take our guns!" narrative. Plus who wants their firearm to catch 5G COVID anyway?
I think the safety argument *could* be a completely valid one, but you have to frame it with data. The electronics is going to have one-off failures as well. If a 1 in 500 mechanical jam is not catastrophic, then neither would a 1-500 authentication failure rate. You'll be able to retry the authentication faster than you can clear the mechanical failure.
The real problem is that this is a hypothetical conversation instead of one based on actual data. I'm fairly confident that if we've been actively developing and selling smart firearms for the last 20 years these issues would be resolved. Of course, that means there would be real political motivation to mandate the tech.
But I think we just need to be honest. The tech is completely doable and it likely leads to regulation down the road.
TL;DR Version...
I've designed IoT that I refuse to use or out in my home, car or anywhere else. I've worked for banks and refuse to use their apps. And I'm NOT putting a 'digital control' on, what is essentially, a wrench. It's tech for tech's sake.
That should tell you everything.
People call me a 'tech phobe' and I own it, while having far more education and experience than them. So, you're the expert here, stop talking about the NRA (while ignoring the USCCA and NSSF) and educate me at the same level since we're peers ... how do they work?
I don't doubt you did. And how often did it need to be plugged in? How accurate was it based on placement of the grip?
Ever use a biometric safe? One that is not on external power? What is the error rate versus one on continuous power?
And of course 'civil rights' are political!
I setup some of the largest software defined storage in the US. Guess what it was for?! You guys wonder why I am so pro-civil liberties?!
(I'm also done quite a bit of biometrics, but I'll defer to you since you say you've done it on firearms, and I'll believe you)
This is what I have a problem with... using tech so the state can track and prevent people... and eventually just outlaw use.
Oh, not at first. They'll just mandate the digital lock. But then they'll mandate tracking. They've already done so in cars because, tada, the auto makers did it for them! Just like smart phones.
Heck, we're seeing the first bills drafted to outlaw older cars over alleged 'poor gas mileage,' but they are actually pre-controls systems.
But... you tell me what it will be used for. You tell me how it will stop crimes. Not just now, but, 30 years from now.
It will be great to take a $200-500 device and over quadruple it, at least, and make it not guaranteed to work if you haven't touched it in 3 months.
All while criminals know how to disable it. We tech people think things won't be used wrongly, or that if it stops good people, it will stop criminals.
Like seat belt laws.
What about USCCA? (the actual 'killer insurance' company and lobby that has had more laws passed than the NRA)
You lost me there when you only said NRA. That means you do NOT know the politics or the industry at all.
Are you against killer insurance too?
We're you happy when NY shut down NRA's underwriter?
What did that do to the USCCA?
It's a very small market. I'm a tech guy that has done a lot of embedded too, and I would NOT want them.
The firearm is a simple device, one of the most simple. I'm not making it complex. The issues with safety and security are well understood in US homes.
And yes, people CAN buy them if they want. But mandating them is a 'hell no' from me.
I've dealt with a lot of embedded, VoIP, control systems for vehicles, battlefield systems... introducing control to a simple device that reduces its reliability is not accepted.
In the '90s the US Navy stupidly put Windows NT into control of a ship and quickly realized you NEVER want to do that. There must be analog control, digital can only assist.
Digitally controlling a firearm is like digitally controlling a wrench. It's tech for tech's sake, like much of California's 'green' plan.
We're also starting to outlaw home gunsmithing too. That's been my wake up call.
This isn't about safety, it's about control. Cars are already been mandated. Guns are next.
But I am an USCCA member.
www.usconcealedcarry.com
Many USCCA members are techs too. We've talked about this at length. It's not going to save people, and it will do nothing to address the illegally acquired and owned firearms that cause 85-90% of deaths and injuries.
I haven't done embedded in firearms like you, no. But I've done a crap load of embedded and identified where 'smart' doesn't belong.
I have no smart fridge, no smart phone with biometric setup, no smart door, no smart video camera, no smart thermostat, I do not use bank apps or anything else on my phone, I turn off all tracking in my accounts (some cannot be disabled), refuse to have Facebook, and 100% of my IP-connected equipment is on a dedicated subnet with NO internet access.
Why? Because I KNOW what these things do! Why? Because I've designed them as well. So many IoT devices, especially as
I'm not dumb, and this very much is. It's ultimately about tracking, which has nothing to do with organized crime or saving police officers.
And it's not the NRA alone, far from it!!!
The NRA, like USCCA, is grass roots (and part of the reason the NRA leadership is under fire by its members). It's the consumers.
Only the NSSF is the gun manufacturer lobby. Please educate yourself on the industry and its organizations.
I'm shocked you didn't mention the NSSF. Only the US Media says NRA alone, or says the NRA is the manufacturer lobby.
www.nssf.org
Ever use a biometric safe? One that is not on external power? What is the error rate versus one on continuous power?
And of course 'civil rights' are political!
I setup some of the largest software defined storage in the US. Guess what it was for?! You guys wonder why I am so pro-civil liberties?!
(I'm also done quite a bit of biometrics, but I'll defer to you since you say you've done it on firearms, and I'll believe you)
This is what I have a problem with... using tech so the state can track and prevent people... and eventually just outlaw use.
Oh, not at first. They'll just mandate the digital lock. But then they'll mandate tracking. They've already done so in cars because, tada, the auto makers did it for them! Just like smart phones.
Heck, we're seeing the first bills drafted to outlaw older cars over alleged 'poor gas mileage,' but they are actually pre-controls systems.
But... you tell me what it will be used for. You tell me how it will stop crimes. Not just now, but, 30 years from now.
It will be great to take a $200-500 device and over quadruple it, at least, and make it not guaranteed to work if you haven't touched it in 3 months.
All while criminals know how to disable it. We tech people think things won't be used wrongly, or that if it stops good people, it will stop criminals.
Like seat belt laws.
What about NSSF? (the actual gun manufacturer lobby)
What about USCCA? (the actual 'killer insurance' company and lobby that has had more laws passed than the NRA)
You lost me there when you only said NRA. That means you do NOT know the politics or the industry at all.
Are you against killer insurance too?
We're you happy when NY shut down NRA's underwriter?
What did that do to the USCCA?
Because the consumer isn't going to accept them. The market doesn't want them.
It's a very small market. I'm a tech guy that has done a lot of embedded too, and I would NOT want them.
The firearm is a simple device, one of the most simple. I'm not making it complex. The issues with safety and security are well understood in US homes.
And yes, people CAN buy them if they want. But mandating them is a 'hell no' from me.
Exactly my point.
I've dealt with a lot of embedded, VoIP, control systems for vehicles, battlefield systems... introducing control to a simple device that reduces its reliability is not accepted.
In the '90s the US Navy stupidly put Windows NT into control of a ship and quickly realized you NEVER want to do that. There must be analog control, digital can only assist.
Digitally controlling a firearm is like digitally controlling a wrench. It's tech for tech's sake, like much of California's 'green' plan.
And if mandates, be sacked with crap.
We're also starting to outlaw home gunsmithing too. That's been my wake up call.
This isn't about safety, it's about control. Cars are already been mandated. Guns are next.
I'm not a NRA member and have been long critical.
But I am an USCCA member.
Conversations on Safe Guns and Gun Safeties | USCCA Blog
There are so many different kinds of accessories and “extras” you may find on guns nowadays. Any one of these items could be considered a safety feature.
www.usconcealedcarry.com
Many USCCA members are techs too. We've talked about this at length. It's not going to save people, and it will do nothing to address the illegally acquired and owned firearms that cause 85-90% of deaths and injuries.
I haven't done embedded in firearms like you, no. But I've done a crap load of embedded and identified where 'smart' doesn't belong.
I have no smart fridge, no smart phone with biometric setup, no smart door, no smart video camera, no smart thermostat, I do not use bank apps or anything else on my phone, I turn off all tracking in my accounts (some cannot be disabled), refuse to have Facebook, and 100% of my IP-connected equipment is on a dedicated subnet with NO internet access.
Why? Because I KNOW what these things do! Why? Because I've designed them as well. So many IoT devices, especially as
Red Hat Global Engineering Services (I didn't just work on servers or kiosks or thin clients, let alone desktops). I was working with Paul Cormier in 2012-2013 when GM was looking at RHEL for embedded to replace QNX after they were bought out (and Red Hat called me late last year before they finally launched auto).
I'm not dumb, and this very much is. It's ultimately about tracking, which has nothing to do with organized crime or saving police officers.
And it's not the NRA alone, far from it!!!
The NRA, like USCCA, is grass roots (and part of the reason the NRA leadership is under fire by its members). It's the consumers.
Only the NSSF is the gun manufacturer lobby. Please educate yourself on the industry and its organizations.
I'm shocked you didn't mention the NSSF. Only the US Media says NRA alone, or says the NRA is the manufacturer lobby.
Smart Guns? Dumb Policy.
President Biden claimed, “… we have the capacity now in a James Bond-style to make sure no one can pull a trigger unless their DNA and fingerprint is on it.”
www.nssf.org
Last edited:
I'm not trying to make an argument about the tech. I know it's hard. But hard things require investment and a path to market. How do you think the investment pitch goes when you have to acknowledge that no firearms dealer in the country will even consider stocking your product because they don't want death threats? That trade organizations and lobbyists are going to organize against your startup and run smear campaigns?TL;DR Version...
I've designed IoT that I refuse to use or out in my home, car or anywhere else. I've worked for banks and refuse to use their apps. And I'm NOT putting a 'digital control' on, what is essentially, a wrench. It's tech for tech's sake.
That should tell you everything.
People call me a 'tech phobe' and I own it, while having far more education and experience than them. So, you're the expert here, stop talking about the NRA (while ignoring the USCCA and NSSF) and educate me at the same level since we're peers ... how do they work?
I posted the article already about what happened Colt back in the early 2000's when they were actively working on developing this kind of tech. So that only leaves startups. Which means you have to both master the tech AND the firearm. Good luck designing a brand new firearm from scratch that competes with the reliability of firearms of decades old designs without access to the expertise internal to those manufacturing operations. So even if your tech is A+, it's probably going to be a pretty shit product when it comes to it's core function.
But don't mistake my argument here. I'm not saying "OMG WE NEED SMART GUNS!". I'm saying that industry power players are distorting market activity by promulgating information and organizing boycotts that are preventing these efforts from even getting a shot.
Eventually, someone will disrupt and break through, but the industry is doing all the gatekeeping they can to make that as hard as possible.
Consumers will NOT accept it.
Politicians mandating someone's 'expertise' - while they themselves, or their own security detail, don't use them - is the ultimate hypocrisy.
And that's what I'd say to Biden. If they are so good, mandate your own security, Capitol police and all federal law enforcement use them. And guess what?! They would balk, starting with his Secret Service!
That's hypocrisy in leadership, just like with SARS-CoV-2.
Some consumers don't like safeties for the same reason. And for competent shooters, they shouldn't want one.
I not only prefer trigger + traditional safety, I not only don't pre-load the chamber with a bullet, I don't pre-load a magazine. Why?
Because that's my level of comfort.
Politicians mandating someone's 'expertise' - while they themselves, or their own security detail, don't use them - is the ultimate hypocrisy.
And that's what I'd say to Biden. If they are so good, mandate your own security, Capitol police and all federal law enforcement use them. And guess what?! They would balk!
That's hypocrisy in leadership, just like with SARS-CoV-2.
Big tech is ready and willing to assist. I've done it myself! I've installed massive storage. I used to be Red Hat's primary, post sales storage guru who did implementations via partners (exabytes in total).
I know what is going on. Big tech is all involved too. It's mega profitable. Even the Linux Foundation has offered to coordinate interoperability between systems, and... bug tech (crickets) .
Why? Because it is NOT about safety. It's about money. It's about tracking. It's about control. Same with e-Voting before. NONE of these systems would survive scrutiny!
Unless it's mandated or there is large contract, they get out of the market. Colt has shutdown lots of their best products due to lack of big sales.
You ever study Kel-Tec and Knights Arms and other smaller, barely bigger than mom'n pop, gunsmiths? How about Mag-pul?
It had nothing to do with protests.
You know what DOES sell?! Biometric safes, biometric holsters - - especially desk and car (wired to power) - - all alerts biometric containers and holders. Especially reliable ones. That's what to target!
But politicians don't, because they are either ignorant, or catering to the ignorant gun lobby.
If you're interested, let's seriously do a market survey and consider going into a business together. But I want us to adopt a mission statement that we will not sell in states that mandate it.
Empower gun owners, NOT the state.
Colt had lost money for years on consumer products. They were getting killed by smaller companies. So they finally got out altogether in the last few years.
Or didn't you know that? I was looking at the LE901 myself, very accurate for a semi-auto modular system, and Colt just left the market.
Not because of protests. Because they are about big contracts. No one is into small arms to make money, and all major, foreign companies have gone belly up and had to be nationalized for a reason.
Small arms is penny ante in large contracts. Even small gunsmiths don't get into large contracts for a reason either.
Consumers won't accept it!
Not even the feds themselves!
If Biden mandated all ATF, FBI, DC law enforcement and others had to carry 'smart guns,' everyone from Smith & Wesson to Colt would be all over it.
And just like with the USAF getting the M-16 select fire version of the AR-15 semi-automatic standardized, and it becoming more and more modular by the '90s, it will bring the price down to 1/10th.
The tech in the M-16 had been around for 50+ years. But it wasn't commodity. Want to make it commodity? Volume. And that starts with the Federal gov't.
Ralph Nader said it bets during the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuits, the Federal gov't has more power as a consumer than a regulator, and it's too slow as a regulator, and far better as a consumer.
If Biden would mandate 'smart guns' for all federal law enforcement plus DC, it would get all the support required. But because the Secret Service would be the first to bark, among everyone else...
You have your answer.
And, again...
The NRA is grass roots (with leadership ousted in 1977 after writing most of the gun control, and now again, with their expenditure issues)
The USCCA is grass roots.
The NSSF is the the actual manufacturer lobby.
I not only prefer trigger + traditional safety, I not only don't pre-load the chamber with a bullet, I don't pre-load a magazine. Why?
Because that's my level of comfort.
Politicians mandating someone's 'expertise' - while they themselves, or their own security detail, don't use them - is the ultimate hypocrisy.
And that's what I'd say to Biden. If they are so good, mandate your own security, Capitol police and all federal law enforcement use them. And guess what?! They would balk!
That's hypocrisy in leadership, just like with SARS-CoV-2.
No, consumers will refuse to buy them, just like the Secret Service, FBI, Capitol Police, etc... would.
Again, stop with this. Really. It's just like the US Media narrative for the mRNA vaccines. They are NOT protesting vaccines, they are protecting control, passports and tracking!
Big tech is ready and willing to assist. I've done it myself! I've installed massive storage. I used to be Red Hat's primary, post sales storage guru who did implementations via partners (exabytes in total).
I know what is going on. Big tech is all involved too. It's mega profitable. Even the Linux Foundation has offered to coordinate interoperability between systems, and... bug tech (crickets) .
Why? Because it is NOT about safety. It's about money. It's about tracking. It's about control. Same with e-Voting before. NONE of these systems would survive scrutiny!
No, Colt pulled out because of lack of sales. Colt and large companies don't put R&D into such things when they lose money.
Unless it's mandated or there is large contract, they get out of the market. Colt has shutdown lots of their best products due to lack of big sales.
You ever study Kel-Tec and Knights Arms and other smaller, barely bigger than mom'n pop, gunsmiths? How about Mag-pul?
It had nothing to do with protests.
Which is stupid. It's digitizing a wrench.
You know what DOES sell?! Biometric safes, biometric holsters - - especially desk and car (wired to power) - - all alerts biometric containers and holders. Especially reliable ones. That's what to target!
But politicians don't, because they are either ignorant, or catering to the ignorant gun lobby.
If you're interested, let's seriously do a market survey and consider going into a business together. But I want us to adopt a mission statement that we will not sell in states that mandate it.
Empower gun owners, NOT the state.
Bingo! That's the problem! But not because of protests.
Colt had lost money for years on consumer products. They were getting killed by smaller companies. So they finally got out altogether in the last few years.
Or didn't you know that? I was looking at the LE901 myself, very accurate for a semi-auto modular system, and Colt just left the market.
Not because of protests. Because they are about big contracts. No one is into small arms to make money, and all major, foreign companies have gone belly up and had to be nationalized for a reason.
Small arms is penny ante in large contracts. Even small gunsmiths don't get into large contracts for a reason either.
Agreed!
Sigh... there is no money!
Consumers won't accept it!
Not even the feds themselves!
No, it's because the feds themselves won't.
If Biden mandated all ATF, FBI, DC law enforcement and others had to carry 'smart guns,' everyone from Smith & Wesson to Colt would be all over it.
And just like with the USAF getting the M-16 select fire version of the AR-15 semi-automatic standardized, and it becoming more and more modular by the '90s, it will bring the price down to 1/10th.
The tech in the M-16 had been around for 50+ years. But it wasn't commodity. Want to make it commodity? Volume. And that starts with the Federal gov't.
Ralph Nader said it bets during the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuits, the Federal gov't has more power as a consumer than a regulator, and it's too slow as a regulator, and far better as a consumer.
If Biden would mandate 'smart guns' for all federal law enforcement plus DC, it would get all the support required. But because the Secret Service would be the first to bark, among everyone else...
You have your answer.
And, again...
The NRA is grass roots (with leadership ousted in 1977 after writing most of the gun control, and now again, with their expenditure issues)
The USCCA is grass roots.
The NSSF is the the actual manufacturer lobby.
Last edited:
You are taking this discussion in 20 different directions.
Maybe smart firearms of any implementation are a terrible idea. Maybe the market will reject them all. Most likely it would carve out a small niche where tech early adopters and gun enthusiasts intersect. From there, who knows where or how it evolves.
So I believe it is totally rational to be "scared" that the tech would eventually reach a level of maturity that it a mandate is possible. That is why the industry itself takes a public stance of "yea we're cool with smart guns - let the market decide" while privately seeking to undermine it's development.
It's a simple political strategy - "Can't have a working mandate if we don't have working tech!" That's all I'm saying. If you agree with the strategy more power to you. I think it's been a really good strategy because the tech is probably 10-20 years behind where it could be if the industry had it embraced it.
I actually thought it was pretty good! Must have went way over your head.
Until them they'll just keep their guns locked in a safe that needs either a key (that you have to remember where you keep it, don't break it with all the adrenaline, etc) or a numerical combination (have to remember, hope it doesn't fail, etc).
of course, some don't use a safe or leave the key inserted.
The problem with smart weapons is how to keep them from being hacked.
This 13-year old was just going to school. Albuquerque had a good person taken from them by an evil murderous 13-year old fiend. Screw gun control, we need real change; change from a culture where violence is a way of life, right sk8?
Considering that it is already illegal for that 13 year old to hold a weapon, tell me what law you’re going to pass to stop that shooting.
What??!? This isn't about GUNS. This is all about changing the culture of violence, remember?
So you have no ideas. As usual. Just meaningless prattle from a worthless old man.
LMFAO. This gem from the OP who said it's all about "changing the culture of violence." Talk about meaningless prattle.
No, I nailed it ... utterly!
If the US Federal Gov't believes so much in 'smart guns,' mandate them for ALL federal law enforcement. As Ralph Nader said, the US Gov't is a far better consumer than regulator. They have the power to enact major change, major funding, as a result.
Because ... tada ... federal law enforcement, as a consumer, will NOT accept them. Gee ... I wonder why?! If they want them to improve, then force it. Maybe they will.
Can you at least meet me half-way on that?! Leadership by example, by adoption.
I already said I'd be all for 'smart holsters, safes, etc...'
We have some good ones already. The US Gov't, like the ATF and FBI, could even certify many, instead of the NSSF and 'gun manufacturer lobby.' The USCCA already does some good work in this area too.
That's why I read the USCCA publications the most, they are 'grass roots' Americans paying for that 'killer insurance.' I bought it without owning a gun, because it covers me for legal fees if I push a criminal into a wall, or cut them with a knife too.
Especially an intruder in my own home, as Home Owner's Insurance and even Umbrella Policies don't provide legal defense!
Again, the US Federal Gov't could mandate for itself first, providing a lot of R&D funding as well as 'sanity check.' But it won't. That's the problem.
Again, Ralph Nader said it best during the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuits.
And you're not listening to my simple answer ... the US Federal Gov't can go first.
You have lots of valuable information but I feel like you talk in circles and ignore the central point. You seem to think I'm arguing for a mandate of some sort. I'm not.
History doesn't tend to come down on the side of resisting technology just for the sake of resisting it, and that's exactly what's happening here. There's no world where soldiers are using "dumb" firearms 100 years from now. But I do agree with you that the market for this probably starts via government contracts.
This Reuters article pretty sums up my limited experience on the issue.
Gun with a chip: U.S. Army contracts may lead to a smarter firearm
A carbine that can call in an airstrike. A computer-aided scope on a machine gun that can turn just about anyone into a marksman.Even firearms that measure and record every movement, from the angle of the barrel to the precise moment of each shot fired, which could provide...
www.reuters.com
“Our team is composed of veterans, law enforcement officers, people that are pro-Second Amendment to begin with,” Smith said, referring to the amendment in the U.S. constitution that grants American citizens the right to bear arms.
“But we also have engaged with people in the weapons manufacturing industry. They actually love the technology. They’re worried about political backlash.”
I'm sure you can find lots of quotes, and lots of fears.You have lots of valuable information but I feel like you talk in circles and ignore the central point. You seem to think I'm arguing for a mandate of some sort. I'm not.
History doesn't tend to come down on the side of resisting technology just for the sake of resisting it, and that's exactly what's happening here. There's no world where soldiers are using "dumb" firearms 100 years from now. But I do agree with you that the market for this probably starts via government contracts.
This Reuters article pretty sums up my limited experience on the issue.
Gun with a chip: U.S. Army contracts may lead to a smarter firearm
A carbine that can call in an airstrike. A computer-aided scope on a machine gun that can turn just about anyone into a marksman.Even firearms that measure and record every movement, from the angle of the barrel to the precise moment of each shot fired, which could provide...
“Our team is composed of veterans, law enforcement officers, people that are pro-Second Amendment to begin with,” Smith said, referring to the amendment in the U.S. constitution that grants American citizens the right to bear arms.“But we also have engaged with people in the weapons manufacturing industry. They actually love the technology. They’re worried about political backlash.”
Again, gov't can go first if they believe in it. Until the gov't does, and prove it works for itself, no one will want it. If they prove it works, and bring the cost down in volume, then more civilians will be open to it.
As Dilbert says, "Change is good, you go first."
That's why people think the police shouldn't have selective fire M-16/4 weapons either. Heck, the Orlando Pulse Shooting brings into question if OPD didn't kill more people than the shooter.
Gov't should lead by example, instead of mandating exceptions for itself.
This is really a civics-tech case study of how people won't trust the government until the government itself does it. Adding features to a M-4 isn't the same as inhibiting the M-4 from working at its basic function as a rifle.
the only thing over anyones head is your strange pivot after being schooled on the net positive of guns.
That's like many diseases. Gun homicides aren't statistically significant in the grand scheme of things.
Unless the 70% of all gun deaths that are suicides are counted as a gun crime, of course. The US Media is the only one that doesn't point that out, unlike European media and statistics.
But yes, of the remaining 30%, most are organized crime homicides, over 85% of homicides and 90% of child deaths from guns, and police are caught up on those, like civilians too.
Latest posts
-
-
-
OT: I need your help 1/10/25. Yes it’s that day again.- Latest: ucfknight23
-
