Safer gun technology

[Blind groper]

Reference : New Scientist, 12 September 2015, page 25

Interview with Margot Hirsch, president of Smart Tech Challenges Foundation.

Work is underway to make guns safer. Mentioned are two initiatives.

1. Biometric identification of owner, such as fingerprint. These operate essentially instantaneously and prevent people other than the owner of a gun firing it.

2. Radio frequency identification. The gun owner carries a token on a ring, bracelet or similar. The gun will only fire when close to that token, meaning that a stolen gun is useless.

These developments are slowed by American gun policy, since they cannot obtain government funding , and even crowdfunding bans finance for anything to do with weapons. However, they have potential.

Of course, they will only cut the death toll a little bit. Of the 100,000 people shot in the USA each year, only a small number are shot accidentally or with a stolen gun. But any reduction in the slaughter is welcome.

[Tero]

Since the Founding Fathers gave the "militias" muskets, we have to give them muskets.

However, you need to have a license to drive and insurance. We do the same thing for guns. The victims divide up the money awarded to shooting events documented.

So, then we get these FANCY GUNS and give the owners a 50% discount on the insurance premium compared to regular guns.

But I would just give Seth the musket and light field cannon. That is what the founding fathers wanted. Maybe one bayonet as long as he does not stab anybody for 5 years.

[JimC]

Those 2 at least Seth should not have any serious problems with. Unlike the idea in BG's other thread, entering a PIN (highly unrealistic), neither of these technologies slows down one's ability to fill a miscreant with hot lead...

[NineBerry]

This would totally kill the plot of all Zombie movies and television series.

[Seth]

Reference : New Scientist, 12 September 2015, page 25

Interview with Margot Hirsch, president of Smart Tech Challenges Foundation.

Work is underway to make guns safer. Mentioned are two initiatives.

1. Biometric identification of owner, such as fingerprint. These operate essentially instantaneously and prevent people other than the owner of a gun firing it.

Except when they don't because you're...oh, let's say, wearing GLOVES because it's winter. Or in the rain and snow. Or when your hands are covered with blood. Or any of a hundred other things that interfere with "biometrics" all the time even today, with things as simple as your cell phone. And, electronics don't work without electricity, and they are easy to break.

2. Radio frequency identification. The gun owner carries a token on a ring, bracelet or similar. The gun will only fire when close to that token, meaning that a stolen gun is useless.

Just as it is useless if the token fails or the link fails or there's radio frequency interference.

These developments are slowed by American gun policy, since they cannot obtain government funding , and even crowdfunding bans finance for anything to do with weapons. However, they have potential.

Damned right they are slowed. In fact they are dead and buried. One company actually produced such a gun and sold approximately zero of them because gun owners are not stupid enough to buy them and never will be.

Of course, they will only cut the death toll a little bit. Of the 100,000 people shot in the USA each year, only a small number are shot accidentally or with a stolen gun. But any reduction in the slaughter is welcome.

Wouldn't reduce anything, it would increase deaths of victims who aren't able to make their guns fire in the split seconds they need them to fire because of this sort of technology. Rings get stolen and lost, tokens don't work all the time and can be lost, biometrics are slow and unreliable.

I recall a scene in the sci-fi movie version of "Lost in Space" where William Hurt and his on-screen family are about to be destroyed by their gone-rogue robot that had been tampered with by Dr. Smith. Hurt grabs a handgun with which to presumably disable the robot. He raises the gun to his mouth, waving the muzzle all over the place and says, in the middle of a chaos of explosions, "Deactivate safety," and then tries to use the gun...and fails.

In reality he'd have gotten to "deac..." and the robot would have blown his head off.

When you need a gun, you need it right this very second and anything that interferes with that instant deployment increases the chances that your defensive response will be too little, too late.

That's why, for example, training with semi-automatic weapons that have safeties require additional training so that the safety is disengaged in the same motion as presenting the weapon, so that no time is wasted. It has to be practiced till it's muscle-memory habit. Gun comes out, safety goes off, finger off the trigger until the weapon is aimed at the target, which occurs during the draw stroke by presenting the muzzle directly in line with the target as it comes from vertical to horizontal.

The only "biometric identification safety" that is required is proper suspect identification and gun-handling techniques. When I need my gun to go "BANG" I need it to go "BANG" right now, every time, without fail. Modern handguns are some of the most reliable and safe mechanical technologies in existence, and any quality firearm doesn't go "BANG" unless a human being deliberately commands it to do so. Whether their decision to do so is proper or improper is a matter of training, which militates for firearms safety and marksmanship training beginning in the first grade and continuing every year in school until high school graduation, so that every person of the new generation knows how, why and when it is okay to make a gun go "BANG."

Your idea is idiocy.

[Seth]

Those 2 at least Seth should not have any serious problems with. Unlike the idea in BG's other thread, entering a PIN (highly unrealistic), neither of these technologies slows down one's ability to fill a miscreant with hot lead...

...if they work, which no one can guarantee. And suppose I'm out with my girl, and my gun, and I get shot before I can respond and so my girl picks up my gun so as to protect the both of us? She can't fire my weapon even though she has every legal right and need to do so. Sorry, no sale.

Gun manufacturers have spent centuries figuring out how to make guns go "BANG" with utter and complete reliability when commanded to do so. Electronics merely slow things down and introduce more failure points...failure points that can be fatal to those who need their gun to go "BANG" right this instant.

[Seth]

Since the Founding Fathers gave the "militias" muskets, we have to give them muskets.

The Founding Fathers didn't give either the citizenry or the militias anything. What the Founding Fathers did was to forbid the government from interfering with the citizenry's right and ability to buy, obtain, manufacture, keep and bear "arms." Not "muskets," "arms," which means all arms and also means contemporary state-of-the-art arms technology. Thus, as the state of the art improves and new designs of "arms" are created, so does the right to keep and bear those new designs.

However, you need to have a license to drive and insurance. We do the same thing for guns. The victims divide up the money awarded to shooting events documented.

Driving a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a right. Keeping and bearing arms is a right, furthermore it's a right that government is prohibited from infringing upon. The power to license is the power to deny, and since the RKBA cannot be denied, the government has no power to license that right.

So, then we get these FANCY GUNS and give the owners a 50% discount on the insurance premium compared to regular guns.

Good luck getting anyone to buy insurance to insure other people. If you think you're at risk from guns, then YOU buy insurance to cover that peril.

But I would just give Seth the musket and light field cannon. That is what the founding fathers wanted. Maybe one bayonet as long as he does not stab anybody for 5 years.

Fortunately I don't have to worry a bit about you "giving" me anything.

[Seth]

This would totally kill the plot of all Zombie movies and television series.

Only if you require biometric identification for the zombie's teeth before they can bite someone.

Otherwise, any biometric identification technology that someone can put into a firearm can be removed from that firearm much more easily because all a firearm does is strike a pin against a primer to ignite the powder and direct the projectile in a specific direction. That's something that teenagers in the 1950s managed to do all on their lonesome with commonly-available items.

They called them "zip-guns," and they were made of metal tubing, nails, wood and rubber bands.

Today there's a machine tool for sale for about a thousand bucks that will autonomously manufacture a complete AR-15 receiver. It's a miniature CNC machine tool that's pre-programmed to produce as many unmarked, unserialized AR-15 receivers as you have the aluminum to produce. It all fits in a box about a foot square.

That technology can be expanded to manufacture the critical parts of ANY firearm at all, from a flintlock to a Minigun. And like Pandora's Box, the technology is already out there and anyone with sufficient knowledge can manufacture not just any firearm they wish, but can manufacture the manufacturing tool itself.

And yes, this means that criminals can freely manufacture AR-15s without telling the government...but so can law abiding citizens. I've got a few 80% blanks stored away that I can LEGALLY turn into un-registered, un-serialized rifles whenever I please with nothing more than a power drill and some electricity.

In the same way, I can take any "smart gun" you care to come up with and remove the "biometric identification" components and make it operate like any other gun with at most a few hours work. And if I can do it, so can a criminal, which makes the whole biometric identification plan just so much wasted effort because criminals will STILL (and always) be able to get firearms with which to victimize people, no matter how much you try to keep them from doing so by restricting the arms available to law abiding citizens.

Of course I know that you cannot understand this simple concept, but I say it again and again for the benefit of any lurkers who might be credulous enough to believe your lies.

[Blind groper]

Seth

You are simply opposed to any change whatever in gun policy. A real gun caveman.

Fortunately, governments of all western nations except the USA are sensible and restrict gun availability, saving tens of thousands of lives each year as a result.

[Seth]

Seth

You are simply opposed to any change whatever in gun policy. A real gun caveman.

No, I'm just opposed to changes in gun policy that further, and uselessly restrict the rights of law abiding persons to keep and bear arms for their lawful personal defense.

Fortunately, governments of all western nations except the USA are sensible and restrict gun availability, saving tens of thousands of lives each year as a result.

Yeah, those governments don't kill them one at a time, year by year, they kill them by the tens of millions, wholesale, precisely because their victims have first been disarmed and are therefore helpless to oppose their extermination.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...Or when your hands are covered with blood....

Seth wrote:

And suppose I'm out with my girl, and my gun, and I get shot before I can respond and so my girl picks up my gun so as to protect the both of us? She can't fire my weapon even though she has every legal right and need to do so.

Biometrics and/or radio tag rings can be set up for more than one...

[Blind groper]

Yeah, those governments don't kill them one at a time, year by year, they kill them by the tens of millions, wholesale, precisely because their victims have first been disarmed and are therefore helpless to oppose their extermination.

Another of Seth's fallacies. People are killed off by tens of thousands during war, like the USA invading Iraq. People are killed off in large numbers when they are kept in ignorance of what is going on, like during the Holocaust. But any time guns are needed to protect, or when a group of people mistakenly think they need them, they will be available, like in Ireland during the Troubles. The IRA were banned from weapons but ended up with major arsenals including machine guns, mines and other devastating weapons.

Of course, when that happens, the death toll normally goes up, not down. Just like having guns in the USA pushes the death toll up, not down.

[Tero]

Driving a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a right. Keeping and bearing arms is a right, furthermore it's a right that government is prohibited from infringing upon. The power to license is the power to deny, and since the RKBA cannot be denied, the government has no power to license that right.

Rights can be withheld. Prisoners do not vote, etc.
"For example, the right to bear arms allows you to use a gun to go hunting, but that doesn't mean you can hunt anytime and anywhere you like. You have to abide by your state's laws regarding hunting seasons and approved hunting areas. You must also follow your state's gun control laws. State laws include waiting periods and other requirements before you can legally purchase a gun, as well as firearm registration requirements."
Etc.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...Or when your hands are covered with blood....

Well, suppose I get shot from ambush and I'm bleeding, but not dead yet (since only 15 percent of those persons actually shot by criminals actually die), and my hands are covered in blood because I'm trying to staunch my wound while attempting to return fire. See how difficult it can be to make rational decisions about denying people instant access to their firearms?

Seth wrote:

And suppose I'm out with my girl, and my gun, and I get shot before I can respond and so my girl picks up my gun so as to protect the both of us? She can't fire my weapon even though she has every legal right and need to do so.

Biometrics and/or radio tag rings can be set up for more than one...

And if the cop with the biometric weapon gets shot and I, a courageous bystander pick up his gun to protect him, and myself...what then?

See how this works? You can't predict who might need to use a firearm at zero notice to protect someone's life and so you can't bind all firearms to only one person (or two) and make them inoperable to anyone else without risking unnecessary additional deaths and injury because someone intent on protecting life cannot do so because the gun won't fire. Evidently you think that such situations represent acceptable collateral damage. I don't.

[Seth]

Driving a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a right. Keeping and bearing arms is a right, furthermore it's a right that government is prohibited from infringing upon. The power to license is the power to deny, and since the RKBA cannot be denied, the government has no power to license that right.

Rights can be withheld. Prisoners do not vote, etc.

No, rights can be forfeited due to bad behavior.

"For example, the right to bear arms allows you to use a gun to go hunting, but that doesn't mean you can hunt anytime and anywhere you like. You have to abide by your state's laws regarding hunting seasons and approved hunting areas.

The operative word there is "hunt." If I'm not "hunting" I still cannot be denied my right to keep and bear arms, I just can't hunt with them at that time or place. That's the point. Keeping and bearing a firearm is distinguishable from OPERATING that firearm by discharging a bullet from it.

You must also follow your state's gun control laws. State laws include waiting periods and other requirements before you can legally purchase a gun, as well as firearm registration requirements."
Etc.

Well, that's a matter of some contention and is the next thing to be challenged. You see, prior to Heller and McDonald the RKBA for handguns in some places was prohibited or strictly licensed. But both Heller and McDonald stand for the constitutional requirement that ALL law abiding citizens, no matter where they live, in Chicago or DC or LA, have a constitutional right protected by the 2nd Amendment to keep and bear handguns in their homes, at a minimum, for the purposes of self-defense. These cases make such gun ownership a protected civil right which places and extraordinary hurdle before any government entity that tries to infringe on that right. Therefore, gun licensing and registration laws are now subject to the "strict scrutiny" test of constitutionality, whereas before they were only subject to a "rational basis" test that gave government far too much power to deny the right to keep and bear, specifically, handguns.

So, every gun licensing and registration law in the US is now subject to legal challenge and in order not to be ruled unconstitutional must pass the strict scrutiny test, which is a high hurdle indeed. The strict scrutiny test requires that the government, in regulating a fundamental right must a) demonstrate that it has a compelling need to regulate in the first place; and b) that the proposed regulation constitutes the minimum possible degree of infringement or regulation of the right involved that is necessary for the government to achieve a legitimate governmental objective; and c) that the proposed regulation must in fact achieve the legitimate governmental purpose intended.

And this test is applied prospectively, by which I mean that it is the government's burden to prove all the above to the satisfaction of the court, it is not the duty of the citizens to prove anything at all. If the government, when challenged, cannot meet this burden of proof, then the regulation is null and void.

So, as it happens, we're engaged in an ongoing nationwide effort to challenge unconstitutionally restrictive gun licensing and registration laws, and we're winning rather a lot actually. And many states are voluntarily repealing such laws because they see the handwriting on the wall and they understand that the People aren't going to let them get away with violating their civil rights with respect to guns any longer.

So, you're partly right, but you're also still very wrong. The government doesn't get to do whatever it wants...like it does in the UK, where the Prime Minister can simple enact laws banning guns at his whim and caprice. We do things differently here and we gun owners are winning, to the point that Obama is desperately searching for unlawful "executive actions" he can take to ban guns during the remainder of his term...regulations that are unconstitutional and will be challenged and stayed until the court cases are completed and therefore will be meaningless because they will be ruled to be unconstitutional and unlawful executive acts.

Things have not been this bright for the RKBA in many, many years, and things keep looking up because the more Obama abuses his power, the more people buy guns and join us in fighting government violations of our rights.

Obama is without a doubt the best gun salesman on earth in all of history. He has personally caused more guns to be purchased by citizens than any other person ever, and I hope he goes to his grave understanding this fact.