HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Smart guns" sh...

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:53 PM

"Smart guns" show promise, but not readily available on U.S. market

http://news.yahoo.com/smart-guns-show-promise-not-readily-available-u-202657039.html

"The attitude is, ‘We understand this technology is coming down the track and we'll deal with it when we have to,'" he said. "They're concerned about the liability aspect. When you put it in one gun you'll have to put it in every gun."


the gun companies' argument is pretty lame. i'm sure the auto industry said the same thing about seatbeats, and the toaster industry about automatic shutoffs-

they are basically saying "we won't do it until it is law, because of our profits. sure, it is available, but it might make us lose money."

but if they had to put it in every gun, wouldn't they make money by charging a little more for the guns?
as if people won't pay an extra $50 for a gun?
obviously there is absolutely nothing that will stop people from buying them.

you'll pry my toaster from my cold dead hands? hello?

69 replies, 3373 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Smart guns" show promise, but not readily available on U.S. market (Original post)
farminator3000 Dec 2012 OP
Jamastiene Dec 2012 #1
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #18
CTyankee Dec 2012 #22
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #38
CTyankee Dec 2012 #40
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #44
CTyankee Dec 2012 #46
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #50
CTyankee Dec 2012 #53
shintao Dec 2012 #65
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #2
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #3
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #4
-..__... Dec 2012 #8
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #14
Matt_R Dec 2012 #66
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #69
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #23
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #10
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #5
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #34
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #41
-..__... Dec 2012 #6
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #11
Aerows Dec 2012 #7
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #13
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #9
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #12
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #15
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #16
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #24
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #30
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #49
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #51
Progressive dog Dec 2012 #26
Robb Dec 2012 #27
Progressive dog Dec 2012 #29
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #35
Matt_R Dec 2012 #67
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #31
Progressive dog Dec 2012 #61
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #63
rrneck Dec 2012 #17
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #37
rrneck Dec 2012 #55
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #56
rrneck Dec 2012 #57
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #59
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #19
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #20
Matt_R Dec 2012 #68
Glassunion Dec 2012 #21
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #32
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #33
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #43
Taitertots Dec 2012 #25
Robb Dec 2012 #28
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #36
Taitertots Dec 2012 #39
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #42
Taitertots Dec 2012 #45
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #48
Taitertots Dec 2012 #54
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #60
Xithras Dec 2012 #58
Initech Dec 2012 #47
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #52
CJCRANE Dec 2012 #62
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #64

Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:03 PM

1. I like that idea a lot. I like the other idea I have been mulling over too.

A smart gun that will lock up and will absolutely not fire within a mile of a school, mall, or other crowded place. Of course, not in government buildings either, but the police and military would have a specialized chip so that they could use their guns to defend the public in those areas. So, that would make the average gun owner unable to fire close to a school...if they had the new smart guns. I still don't see why old guns without the technology could not be altered to include the new technology as well. Make it mandatory or confiscate the gun if the owner is unwilling to make their guns safe. Use both of those concepts together, the chip that locks the guns within x distance o a school/mall/etc. AND the chip that only the owner can fire their gun at any other time would put a dent in any new guns bought being used for mass shootings. Of course, there are some flaws in the idea, but it is a new idea, to me, anyhow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:43 AM

18. also a good idea

i was thinking 1000 feet, probably a little low. but a mile might be high.

it would be more expensive than the wrist chip, cause its GPS based, i'm guessing.

the old guns are the biggest problem- and confiscating would be a serious mess,
but there could be an exchange- trade in the old one for the exact same new one with the chip, for free.

i think both upgrading all new guns and keeping the existing ones without chips away from criminals by requiring license, registration, insurance, testing, and insurance (like cars) would go together well.

and explain that guns aren't necessary and good for all people, they are a privilege and dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:20 AM

22. We've come to a pretty pass when we're talking about machinery to keep us from

slaughtering each other. Who are the people advocating taking personal responsibility, now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:07 PM

38. not the NRA?

i don't know. who are they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:23 PM

40. I suppose if one lives in a dystopian world, this seems reasonable.

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this line of "reasoning" is absurd...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #40)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:10 PM

44. do you have a question? or a statement?

reponsibility? who is it?

line of reasoning meaning what, exactly?

this is absurd?-

Company summary

TriggerSmart has patented the first viable, childproof, Smart Gun using RFID technology. We also have the ability to remotely enable and disable childproof guns in restricted zones such as school, airports, etc. This is a gun safety against intruders at home or accidental discharge especially with children. Our target market is women seeking childproof guns.

see how this would stop a psycho from shooting his mother and 20 children?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:18 PM

46. I see the absurdity in a society that feels it necessary to do this to restrain its lunatics.

But if this is what it takes, by all means do it.

But I wonder why, when there are examples of other countries who manage not to have this problem, countries that are constitutional democracies just like ours, but who can protect their children without having to worry about the insanity of having guns so readily available.

That's my position. I don't know why that is so difficult to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #46)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:36 PM

50. it's absurd that someone made a safe gun?

is a kid who shoots himself by accident a lunatic?

you wonder why other countries like us don't have this problem, countries who protect their children without having to worry about guns being everywhere....

and?
i can't understand it if you don't finish the sentence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #50)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:48 PM

53. I am talking about countries where kids don't regularly shoot themselves by accident

as well as those who don't have lunatics feeling empowered with a "gun right." Isn't there a reason that they don't have to resort to the idea of a "safe gun"? Maybe it is because they properly control the guns they do have? Have we even CONSIDERED that option?

Look, I'm not putting you and your idea down per se so please don't take this personally. What I am saying is "why do we put up with a situation where we need a 'safe gun' in the first place?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #50)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 03:05 PM

65. Now how do you get the looneys to buy that smart gun?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:21 PM

2. It not nearly as ready as the guy who is going to make money off it claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:07 PM

3. how could you possibly know that?

got any evidence?

probably, the article is right and it is ready like he says, and the gun companies don't want to do it.

it works, the gun companies have to change the machines around and charge people more for guns,
and they don't want to.

if it became law January 1st, they'd be in the stores by July 4th. that's a big gun buying day, i bet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:24 PM

4. Perhaps because I have been tracking it for some time

and because because I teach Computer Science and Electrical Engineering.

But if you want a basic test, see if the cops will use it. If it is good enough for law enforcement, then it would be good enough for the rest of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:32 PM

8. Funny... isn't it?

 

Aww fuck it... it's easier to cut and paste a previous post of mine on the subject rather than post a new one...

"Smart Gun" technology as originally proposed/initiated, was with LEO firearms in mind (it was realized that a significant number of LEO's were killed/wounded with their own duty weapons after being relived of said weapons while wrestling with suspects), yet... whenever this marvel of "technology" is brought up as a solution to reducing firearms related deaths, LEO organizations scream the loudest, and are the most vocal against it.

As a consequence, the usual outcome is an exemption for police officers and their issued firearms.

As an example... the failed N.J. "Smart Gun" legislation...

New Jersey on Monday became the first state to enact "smart gun" legislation that would eventually require new handguns to contain a mechanism that allows only their owners to fire them.

The law will not go into effect immediately because the technology is still under development and it could be years before it becomes a reality. But supporters hailed it as an important milestone in the campaign to reduce handgun deaths.

"This is common-sense legislation. There are safety regulations on cars, on toys. It's clearly time we have safety regulations on handguns," Gov. James E. McGreevey said at Monday's bill signing ceremony.

The New Jersey Institute of Technology is developing a smart gun prototype that would use sensors on the pistol grip to identify a user.

The owner would have his grip programmed at a gun shop or police range by practice-firing the weapon. A microchip in the weapon would remember the grip and determine in an instant whether the authorized user was holding the weapon. If not, the gun would not fire.

Under the New Jersey law, the technology will be required in all new handguns sold three years after the state attorney general determines a smart gun prototype is safe and commercially available. Weapons used by law enforcement officers would be exempt.

Supporters say the law will help prevent accidental gun deaths and suicides.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73763,00.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:43 PM

14. its easy to post a fox news article from 10 years ago

but hard to make a valid point when you do.

great, cops didn't like smart guns 10 years ago. so what?

plus, nobody even said anything about cops being forced to use them,

cops are trained not to murder or kill by accident with their guns,

there is NO REASON to make cops use them, we are talking about CITIZENS gun laws.

get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 06:50 AM

66. You are so right...

"cops are trained not to murder or kill by accident with their guns,"

LEO are trained to take down an individual by targeting the body mass. In effect they do NOT shoot the gun out of a hand or any other hollywood style, and are more prone to murder or kill on purpose, to stop the individual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matt_R (Reply #66)

Sun Dec 30, 2012, 10:59 AM

69. thanks!

anybody who wants a bigger gun than a cop, should have AT LEAST as much training. period.

did you ever hear about those guys in LA with flak jackets, ak-47s, and A TANK that robbed a bank? a fucking TANK???

they had to wait until the guy got it stuck on a jersey barrier, and then shot him thru the hatch.

wtf?

smart guns would stop lunatics like that, (smart tanks?) AND keep cops who get their guns grabbed in a fight safe...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:37 AM

23. How would identifying the user prevent accidents or is there more in the article.

Never mind. I think they are going for kids in house etc. It is way past my bedtime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:13 PM

10. i said do you have any evidence?

if you are such a fancypants, maybe you can read what i typed? or the article?

By contrast, the radio frequency identification technology proposed by McNamara, implanted in everything from key cards to house pets, is essentially instantaneous and virtually fail-safe, according to RFID Journal founding editor Mark Roberti.

"These systems are very reliable," said Roberti, adding his car has never failed to start as a result of a fault in chips now standard in car keys.


you do have a car? that starts?

and it's more than 'will the cops use it'

the article is unbiased- it says the thing works, the gun makers won't comment, the guy has spoken to them, they are scared to be the first.

why could this be? they are a business, they are afraid to lose money by pissing off their customers (like you)

could you find any actual information about cops trying this guy's gun out for instance?

maybe there should be A LAW they makes them try them out. in a range. to do testing. because if it did work, great.

so what if you say "i know for a fact that it does not work on this day today"

it will work at some point in the future. could be two weeks from now. who are you to set the date?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:26 PM

5. Ou know who else is opposed to them?

The NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:08 PM

34. that sounds interesting

what does it mean?

is there a gun law the NRA is NOT opposed to?

great! thanks!

move on, nothing to see here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:41 PM

41. I am all for it by the way

They are getting tested by a state police, right now.

It will increase officer safety, it also lessens to almost zero, the possibility of kids getting shot accidentally.

In this case, if Mary Lanza's guns were smart and only mated to her, Adam would have gotten lovely clubs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:27 PM

6. I like this part...

 

"These systems are very reliable," said Roberti, adding his car has never failed to start as a result of a fault in chips now standard in car keys.


Even if there was a small to miniscule failure rate, the ability to start ones car is not a matter of life or death.

And that's where the analogy fails.

I wonder if he'd be as confident if that same technology were paired with ones shoe/foot and gas pedal/brake pedal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:21 PM

11. everything in many cars is computerized

not just the key. the engine. the brakes. the mirrors. the transmission. the fuel injection. pretty much everything but the actual spark itself that makes the gas explode.

how often does your phone or coffee maker fail when you touch the button? also chips.

so chips make the entire world run every hour of every day, but they won't work for guns?

also from the article-
essentially instantaneous and virtually fail-safe

you might have missed that. that could be where you failed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:27 PM

7. I really like the idea

that only the owner of a gun can fire it. It would cut down on women who own guns and get gunned down by husbands and boyfriends by their own weapons. It would certainly have prevented this tragedy.

Also, while you can't do anything about the guns that are already floating around, it could help put a damper on illegal weapons trading in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:37 PM

13. the floaters are a problem.

you could have an exchange where registered owners have to turn in unchipped guns for chipped versions of the exact same gun for free. unless it was like an antique and impossible to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:33 PM

9. Doesn't sound very practical to me.

You have to have a 2nd part of a chip within an inch of the handle, in order for it fire? Like in a ring or bracelet?

People would be losing the ring/bracelet all the time. Also, your bracelet isn't that near a gun handle, even if you are wearing it.

It also wouldn't have stopped this tragedy, like the article claims it might have, because reports are that she and her son went target shooting together. So she gave him access. He would have had access to the ring/bracelet, as well. Or at the least, she probably would have kept them right next to the weapons.

A chip in the hand? That doesn't sound like a good idea. The hand is very complex, sensitive, delicate part of the body with lots of nerves and such. I can't imagine it's a good thing to start punching chips in the hand.

I don't see a law for that ever passing, or such a gun ever selling much. I also wonder if some couldn't figure out how to remove that chip in the handle, so that a black market would develop for unchipped guns (and it wouldn't be mom and pop who are buying those guns).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink