Should smart guns be illegal?

No. Youu made a statement you knew was not true.
That is, you deliberately posted a falsehood.
This does not make - me - look like anything.

 

I questioned your maths. And found you hadn't done your homework you naughty boy.

 

LOL
No.
I said:
I'm sorry you do not like the established jurisprudence regarding the 2nd Amendment, but your opinion on it does not matter.
In response, you said:
Established by the NRA, not the people.

Thus:
You made a statement you knew was not true.
That is, you deliberately posted a falsehood.
This does not make - me - look like anything.

 

Awesome!

On straight statistics I would agree with you. The odds of even a cop using a gun “for real” in his/her entire career are low.

There are a couple reasons I can’t go on straight statistics though. The first has a solid basis in evidence. Many of the smart guns (including the iGun and FN prototype) us a mechanical grip “safety” as part of the authorization procedure. Another platform I use a lot is the 1911 which also uses a grip safety. It is possible to get a poor grip on such weapons and fail to deactivate that safety mechanism. It’s unlikely, but much more likely in stressful situations such as a self defense scenario. Many self defense trainers hate the 1911 platform and it’s complex safeties for this reason. In the old days when 1911’s were still popular in competition many competitors would drill and pin the grip safety in the off position or wrap rubber bands around the grip to keep it depressed. It’s why Glocks etc. (used by most law enforcement) have no manipulated safeties outside of the trigger itself. Now, I have issues personally with firearms without manual safeties for my use case, but for self defense only use cases the firearm without manual mechanical grip actuated safeties are certainly superior from a reliability standpoint.

Second, and of course it’s anecdotal, but the only times I’ve had firearms fail normal function that was not ammo related has been when the shot needed to count. But again, my use case is unique. Most people shoot 99.9% of rounds in practice and 0.1% (or less) in a situation where it matters. My shooting is probably 60% “needs to count” and 40% practice. I don’t log my shooting but that’s close. If we consider almost all “practice” with firearms occurs in near perfect condition (nice weather, indoor ranges, ability to clean and lubricate at leisure, low stress, etc.) but self defense and other practical uses occur in less favorable environments it makes sense that failures would occur more “when it matters”. Another classic example is the pretty common short stroking a pump shotgun under stress. Some of these technologies are subject to more failures in stressful situations.

My mobile phone does not have a lot of moving parts. It does not require lubrication and does not generate carbon deposits internally.

FN only ended up with a few prototypes. I don’t see anything about them on their website with their search function. FN’s bread and butter is law enforcement and military. Their smart gun was intended for law enforcement use but apparently cops are not too keen on less reliable weapons either. I believe the project is in the dust bin.

I can’t come up with the details of how the FN system was supposed to work. Supposedly the default position was ability to fire, but if someone not wearing a ring on their finger coded to the firearm depressed the grip safety the firearm would lock up. Apparently the authorization process doesn’t begin until the grip safety is depressed. Then it takes 0.6 seconds to authorize. I’m guessing if the trigger was pulled before the 0.6 second authorization was complete the firearm became erratic—either not firing at all or firing some time after the trigger was actually pulled. This would make it about as accurate as a flintlock you had to hold on target after pulling the trigger waiting for ignition.

A decent elapsed time from beginning of draw to shot on target is 0.7-0.8 seconds for self defense type scenario. If the grip safety on the FN was not fully depressed until the draw was say 60-70% complete it would be likely the smart component would be overrun.

What is really odd though about what they did release on testing was that the test protocol was specifically written to prohibit more than one round per second being fired during testing. This makes me think there was some component of the smart technology slowing down each shot. Because after first shot on target with modern semiautomatic handguns, split times between shots average around 0.6 seconds and can be as low as 0.2 seconds on double taps on close targets. For some reason the FN smart gun could not perform at this level.

Just out of curiosity, what specifically caught your eye? I prefer relatively simple but high quality weapons myself.

You certainly have a point. But there has never been any compromise offered. Offer me suppressors without tax stamps or country wide constitutional carry and you may see more interest. But what you propose and what always happens is not compromise. It’s one side doing all the giving and the other doing all the taking. That isn’t sustainable and is not compromise by definition.

Also, we would now have smart guns in gun stores and in people’s hands/homes if not for the authoritarian NJ law. It may have permanently destroyed earlier existing willingness to try them out. But as you will see below, we haven’t any real evidence laws on the books now are helping so it’s hard to get excited about another.

I’m probably not on the same wavelength—we would need blueprints we could both view to be on the same page, but a magnetic lock would either hold the trigger itself, in which case removing the power supply would deactivate the magnet and release the trigger. Or the trigger would need a mechanical block such as a sliding pin etc. that would be moved out of the way by the magnet. In this case, if exposed, it could be cut out with a Dremel tool or a chisel. If protected from tampering it couldn’t be cleaned. I’m probably not understanding your design though. Likewise for a magnetic key I would think tumblers able to be moved by magnets would bind up badly with any dirt or corrosion. I’m open to your ideas though. I know you have a lot of talent in this area.

 

Continued @Tigger2 :

I was incorrect. Today I ran across some funding handed out in the 2004-2008 time period I believe. Through the NIJ with congressional approval I think. Sorry. Until then all I had seen was private money.

If I built a reliable technology I would show people the data proving it’s capabilities. If some company could do that and show good reliability it would be a game changer. Unfortunately none has, and until they do the default is unreliability because that has been demonstrated repeatedly.

Yes, a very good example of government mandate making things worse. If not for that silly law we would have smart guns we could actually discuss beyond the abstract. I could throw it in the stock tank and see if it works after.

My point is that it’s silly to give booze a pass and focus on guns when alcohol is involved in orders of magnitude more death, destruction, and misery than firearms. In fact, much firearm violence would not occur if the perpetrator was not under the influence. Also, nobody has been able to show the benefits of alcohol to the individual or society. And we can see many benefits to firearms.

Agreed. It’s much worse than a dumb gun or a smart gun.

I do not appeal to authority. It’s not my job to supply evidence to support your claim of causation. I’ve already shown cases where there isn’t even correlation—Japan, Russia, and Mexico.


Unfortunately the authors (Hemingway) do not want just anyone reading much of this work cited in your link. I have requested access from the authors and will follow up if they see fit for us to see their actual huge capstone meta analysis in your link.


This study from your link is available.

Here is a pull quote from the conclusions.

So I asked for causation and I got correlation again which we both agree exists in certain cases (but not all cases incidentally).


Also of note is the fact regions are not homogeneous. They contain urban and rural areas and different race demographics that are perpetrating disproportionate shares of firearm homicide. For example, firearm ownership rates are above average in Louisiana as are their gun violence statistics. But the demographics that commit most of the crime in LA are the demographics with the lowest firearm ownership rates. If firearms are the causative factor why are the demographics with the highest ownership rates the ones with low firearm violence rates?

Quite the contrary. I actually read the studies (that the anti gun researchers give me access to) so I know they contain language that supports my position, not yours. You specifically linked me to studies when I asked for evidence of causation that themselves admit only address correlation. I let you pick your evidence and you chose studies that support my position.

Can you provide me with evidence of increased mask usage NOT leading to less social distancing? You couldn’t before. In contrast I can and have shown (and continue to show) cases where almost no guns exist yet suicides and homicides are (much) higher than places with lots of guns.


Furthermore, I can point you to meta-analysis and systematic review studies showing when we limit access to firearms, there is no measurable/quantifiable effect on violence or suicide. If guns are the causative factor we should see clear evidence, but this is not the case. From the CDC.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

And from the National Academy of Sciences.


https://www.nap.edu/cart/download.cgi?record_id=10881

So studies in existence at the same time period as the headlining systemic review from your link (that can’t be accessed by the public), when reviewed by unbiased third parties, show no evidence manipulation of access to firearms has any effect on total violence or suicide.


I believe our ideas of what science is are very different. I believe we have to look for solid evidence that can be collaborated. Stuff that is not just labeled science and pushed to to us by people with agendas. If I had given you a link to the pro gun guy who’s study showed 2-3 million defensive gun uses a year in the US you would have rightly questioned my source. I mentioned earlier I do not agree with those numbers. I do not base my beliefs on a 5 minute google search for confirmation bias. I read and study evidence from both sides, just like on any other issue. And I have to reject bogus evidence even from those I agree with when the evidence is not sound.


I go to your source that apparently you haven’t even tried to read because the capstone study of your link isn’t available without consent from the author and another study that is available says clearly causation can’t be established. Every study in your link is done in part or whole by a guy with a known anti gun bias. I specifically am avoiding the pro gun bias, but I am happy to deal with your anti gun bias links apparently you are not at all familiar with. But I’m not going to agree with them because…Harvard.


The other day I had a guy claim a certain Covid treatment was snake oil. Then he kept asking me what it was. It was snake oil to him, even though he knew nothing of the product, not even generally what it was.


I’m not sure you should base your opinion on studies you aren’t familiar with. I’m not trying to be rude.


In my CDC link above, the authors stress how biased data and studies are on both sides of the issue. And that’s of special note because the CDC itself has demonstrated bias by not publishing its own study on defensive gun use that collaborated more closely with pro gun researchers than anti gun researchers.

 

Sounds like people like yourself would need an exemption from the law, maybe through a licence.

Ah. I have the new mechanical mobile phone with lots of levers and pulley wheels.
No, seriously I am still talking about the sealed bit having no moving parts.

Yes that is very strange, I can't think of a legitimate reason for having that as a feature.

Perhaps a PM conversation about cool gun tech.

Sorry, you're speaking America. What are 'tax stamps' and 'country wide constitutional carry'?
Compromise as I have said before does not have to come from both sides to be compromise.
Analogy. you want to play golf and stop for a drink afterwards, your wife wants to go shopping with you. Compromise, you play golf but don't stop for a drink.

Yes, by not making them voluntary, but then making them voluntary would serve no purpose beyond gathering evidence they work. Further the law was scrapped in 2002 and 19 years later we still see no such weapons.

We certainly are off wave length. I long ago gave up on a safety that actioned every time you pulled the trigger.
In basic terms think of a padlock around the trigger that you unlock before you take your gun out. Only this padlock is built into the gun.
It either has an uncopiable mechanical key or an electronic one.
I appreciate that such a device is removeable (with some effort) and I would tackle this problem separately.
My first baby step in this is to give your gun a key to stop your child committing murder or suicide and to stop the casual burglar from easily acquiring a usable gun.
Incidentally there would be no moving tumblers, just a single moving part. And that only moves once when you first insert the key or rfid.

 

True.

I disagree. Cancer kills far more people than car crashes, but I don't think we should ignore car safety until we have cured cancer.
So we tackle alcohol abuse at the same time. And actually there are a plethora of alcohol free beers wines gins etc with tax incentives to buy them. Same for sugar free drinks (in the UK anyway) Perhaps that's the answer for guns. Stick a punitive tax on non smart guns, gives you freedom of choice while promoting the safer option. I can just see the reaction to that

Your investitive mind seems to have hit the stops.

here's another.
(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)
Basically the things tried so far have not worked, and looking at the reaction to gun shops trying to sell smart guns I'm not surprised.
The NRA and the 2nd amendment re-writers are too powerful for any meaningful chance of change.

Causation is obvious (Or it ought to be) Guns making killing people easy, people get angry, sad, greedy, mean etc.
Correlation supports causation in that America has lots of guns and lots of shootings.
Would America have lots of shootings if there were no guns?

So there are other factors that also effect outcomes.

You found nothing of the sort, you found no definitive answers. Again, would there be as many murders and suicides in the US if all the guns disappeared? What does your gut tell you?

I could probably find some obscure case if I wanted. Inuit nomadic tribes men who despite wearing masks did not increase their socialising.
Just like you can look at suicide rates in Japan, ignore the known reasons for them and use them as evidence that its not guns that increase suicide in the US that does not have Japanese culture.
But I would feel dishonest doing something I didn't really believe.

No you can't. No one in America has successfully limited fire arms for any reasonable period because of the second amendment. And certainly not for long enough to have any effect on the number of guns in circulation.

They show the exact opposite. That people buy guns specifically to commit suicide. So if they couldn't buy guns?

 

the problem with traffic laws and things concerning vehicles is there regulations of the roadway. You are permitted completely to operate a vehicle in public. There is no equivalent to this with guns. In this regard guns are far more restricted I'm not even allowed to take it out of the holster on a roadway.

 

Really, wow, where are you?

 

It doesn't matter where you are you're never allowed to take it cut out on the roadway unless you have a really good reason I can drive my car on it just because I feel like driving on it.

Traffic laws refer to the roadway not the vehicle.

 

I'm sorry to sound thick. Can you explain in simple terms? You seem to be saying that no one can get a gun out on the road?

 

Why? Why should I be trusted with a dumb gun when others can’t be?

Have you ever checked out the “original computer”? That’s what I thought of when you say phone with levers and wheels.

Then the unsealed part is easily accessible and can be disabled or replaced with an inert part at will. My 5.7 comes with a mag safety that will not allow the hammer to fall without a magazine inserted in the magwell. It’s so dumb or drunk people don’t shoot themselves or others when they think no mag equals no chambered round equals safe firearm. For practical use it can really muck things up so most people just remove the parts. Why wouldn’t people do the same with a smart gun? Steal it, modify it, sell it. I get that it would deter a young child. I just don’t think there are enough child accidents to achieve any kind of acceptance of the technology on that issue alone. Look at accidental drowning. It kills more kids under 5 years of age than any other accidental death. No anti pool lobby. I’ll bet 99% of anti gunners don’t even know about pool and toddler statistics Kids accidentally shooting themselves and others kills around 100 a year. I don’t think anyone but a rabid anti gunner is going to consider that as justification for a mandate.

I wish these companies would release more information.

To own a suppressor or short barreled rifle or shotgun you must apply for and buy a $200 tax stamp for that serialized item. Every time such an item changes ownership a new tax stamp must be acquired by the purchaser. Photo ID, fingerprinting, and in the past local law enforcement sign off are/were required. You send in the paperwork, fingerprints, ID photo, etc. to the ATF and wait a few months or up to a year and a half before they get around to processing and background checking. All this time your (paid for) gun muffler is locked away in the safe of a dealer with a special class 3 FFL. When your paperwork comes back from the ATF the dealer calls you up and you can go take possession of the hollow tube that decreases the decibels of a gunshot to hearing safe levels of about 130 db. Same goes for short barreled long guns on the wait, but they are louder not quieter. LOL

Hmmm. Firearm research clearly not your strong suit.

Implemented in 2003, amended in 2019. I used an anti gun source to avoid bias.
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/smart-guns-in-new-jersey/

If not for that law we would almost certainly have smart guns for sale in the US now.

I don’t think any designs are active after the initial pre firing authorization.

What kind of mechanical key does not require tumblers? I’m all for someone making one that works and is reliable outside a lab environment. You have my support.

 

Forget about that

The point I was making was that traffic laws like speeding apply to public roads.

There is no equivalent to roads with regard to guns.

 

Happens all the time. In the UK you are not allowed to own any gun unless you can justify it. I am farmer I need a shot gun. I am a hunter I need a rifle.
I see no reason why in the States you could not have exemptions to the smart gun law.

Better than that I have been to Bletchley park and seen it for myself.

And i took the back off my mobile and photo'd it for you.

Yes that's right, I gave up making it unbreakable and focused on making that process difficult. I would add to this legal penalties for carrying such a gun. And even harder ones for reverse engineering them.
So imagine to petty gang member facing ten years in prison, just for being caught carrying a drilled gun. But mostly imagine your desperate son dumped by his girlfriend and convinced his life is over, frantically looking for the smart key so he can use your gun to end his life.
I emphasise I am not here to solve all gun troubles in one foul swoop.

Wow. I feel like an ignoramus. I thought you had no restrictions on weapon ownership because of the 2nd amendment.

Ooops, I checked as well

I'll get onto the patent office. How do you feel about a key you insert to activate your gun? Some modern keys and locks are very hard to replicate or drill out. You need specialist equipment to do it.

The thing I was describing at the time was an RFID activated trigger release.
Forgive the poor drawing. As you can see the only moving part is outside the sealed unit.

 

To answer the main poll question, no they shouldn't be illegal.

 

That wouldn't be a smart gun because anybody with the RFID tag can use it. It's just an over complicated non smart safety.

 

Yep.

This subsidy? Or some other one?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...id-s-spread-by-subsidizing-diners-study-finds

My reaction? You made me laugh by approving of subsidizing alcohol free drinks but putting a punitive tax on non smart guns. Why not a punitive tax on alcohol and subsidize the cost of smart guns? Or subsidize the “safer” option in both cases? LOL. Made my day.

Nah, I’m the one looking at the broad brushstrokes and the details. From world history and the global proliferation of firearms to the demographic level including states, races, urban vs. rural, etc. If firearms caused even remotely similar behavior across the board the causation theory might be taken seriously. If you could show me 99% of humans could drink 3 beers and two shots of tequila in an hour and not blow intoxicated I would doubt the causative effect of consuming alcoholic beverages on blood alcohol concentrations. If you can show guns cause 99% of people in proximity to them to kill and maim things they wouldn’t otherwise wish to kill or maim I’ll take your argument seriously. But you can’t even show strong correlation unless you cherry pick data sets.

Well at least you read parts of the information I supplied as compared to none of the evidence you supplied. That’s something. But you completely misunderstood the NJ law, saying it was repealed in 2002. Again, I don’t mean to be rude but you are basing your opinions on things that are not true.

Remember we are looking for evidence to back your claim. Not a claim I haven’t made.

Have you ever stopped and considered history—that violent death globally has plunged precipitously as firearms proliferated? How can that be possible if “easy killing” guns are causative of violence? Please think about that.

Would children still drown in swimming pools if there were no swimming pools? I’m not sure why people say things like that. Ice cream causes shark attacks because shark attacks are most common at times the most ice cream is consumed. Yes, we certainly have differing views on what science is.

Great. You are on the path to discovery.

I clearly asked for evidence of causation and you posted a study (not even an active link) that clearly states it doesn’t provide evidence of causality. I let you choose your hill to die on. I quoted your study. You keep saying there is definitive causality. And based on your gut. Even Harvard can’t deliver what you want me to base on your gut?

Japan is an obscure case comparable to a made up small Inuit tribe? Seven hundred years of world history and modern Russia and Mexico are obscure? My examples of rural vs. urban and racial differences are obscure? And I’m not even getting started. There’s evidence on my side from heterogeneity in firearm usage in income demographics, sex demographics, political demographics, and on and on.

No. What is obscure is trying to extrapolate causation from correlation observed in far less than 1% of the population. And I’m not ignoring the “reasons” for suicide in Japan. I’m using them to show guns aren’t one of the “reasons”. Just so we are on the same page, the “reasons” for suicide in Japan are trees, rope, scenic cliffs on the ocean, and tall buildings, correct?

Hmmm. Is a century or more long enough? How about zero guns? Is that close to what you have in mind? In 2019 a place in the US with zero guns by mandate had a homicide rate of 76/100,000, nine times the US aggregate rate. With the 2A in place. But, but, ….

You should read the whole pull quote. LOL

They would live happily ever after just like the suicidal Japanese man that wanted to off himself at the base of Mt. Fuji but his rail pass expired before he got up his nerve.

 

Only because alcohol already has massive taxes in the UK. You can stop laughing now.
So tax dumb guns and subsidise smart ones. Make my day.

I think this sums you up on this subject. Dismiss correlation with an amusing line, but offer no other explanation. Simply hide behind "Its not for me to prove your claims" Is that how science works for you?
Well not all correlation is incorrect just because its correlation, indeed its most often correct.
And no other explanation has been shown which contradicts this particular correlation.

They effect the outcomes they are not the cause. If we melted all guns it would effect the outcome, but it would not change the cause.
Again I ask you. Would so many people be killed by guns in the US if didn't all have them?

So you hide behind, they can't prove it. Well I say the evidence is clear and overwhelming. You say they can't prove it beyond doubt.

Isn't it strange that your wide roaming search for the truth has not found a single piece of evidence demonstrating a link between mass guns and mass shootings.
I told you why suicides are higher in Japan https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-33362387
You talk of gun deaths in Russia being high. Well it was 7.9 per 100,000 in 2019. Compared to 84.6 per 100,000 in the US.
Your evidence is smoke and mirrors distraction. The idea my friend is not to win the argument, but to find the truth.

BTW: I do not believe to published numbers in Russia they are more likely 20-23 per 100,000, but its cause is lawlessness and corruption across much of the country.

As for demographics, ofcourse they effect outcomes. But the rest of the first world has these same demographics without the US murder and suicide rates.

"By mandate". You must cringe when you write this stuff. And these 76/100,000 deaths? were they carried out with guns?

There will always be suicides, we have our share, but ease to carry it out is a defining issue. Many would be suicides in the UK end with a call for help.

 

Russian smart shotgun, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity. Probably not what you were thinking of.

 

Can you fire it from Alexa?

 

I like how you think.

 

And to think that we don't have the right to a .22 rifle!