4087

Cite the sources behind your belief, then. The only smart gun near enough to market to use in an argument is the Armatix iP1. It’s only been range tested once, by writers from one of the NRA’s magazines, at the behest of Armatix. The test did not go well. Unless there are other tests or other smart guns out there of which I am unaware, you’re the one who’s not being factual here.

If the failure rate is exceptionally low, and yet is still used as any argument not only for not mandating the technology but for preventing anyone else from even using the technology? Via death threats to people who try and sell it? That’s totally irrational.

The reason the NRA is so strongly against smart guns is the New Jersey law that bans non-smart guns three years after smart guns go on the market. The pro-gun side didn’t start the poison-pilling on this issue.

4088

The reason the NRA is so strongly against smart guns is the New Jersey law that bans non-smart guns three years after smart guns go on the market. The pro-gun side didn’t start the poison-pilling on this issue.

I have to agree that such a law is terrible and a good reason why folks would be resistant to smart guns being sold.

4089

Thanks. Thats the type of info I was looking for.

4090

I think this study actually makes a much clearer case about suicide rates and firearms, as it studies the exact same region prior to introduction of strict gun control laws, and after it. It studies the suicide rates in Quebec before and after the introduction of new gun control legislation in 1992. And it’s from a respected, unbiased source.

The findings do not, at all, support the notion that gun control laws have any impact on suicide rates. When the laws went into effect, it resulted in a decrease in suicides involving firearms. But it also resulted in an increase of suicides by other methods such as hanging and poisoning, and the overall rate of successful suicides did not change at all.

4091

And while that’s an interesting study, Quebec, culturally, is not at all analogous to the United States. Culture plays a huge role in suicide rates and methods, which is why even in some societies with low gun ownership in Asia, you still have high suicide rates.

I agree with you that the best way to test the theory would be a controlled experiment – perhaps take somewhere in the U.S. with high suicide rates and high gun ownership and impound the weapons – but I suspect advocates of the Second Amendment might take issue with that approach, even if done in the name of science.

EDIT: I should probably also say that my guess is you would have variance even within the US, since our country varies culturally by region and has very different experiences with firearms by region – often within a single state (as is the case in PA, for example, where Philly and Pittsburgh have very different experiences with firearms than central PA).

4092

But the reason why that study is better than studies like ones comparing states, or countries, is exactly the reason you give… because different regions are different in any number of ways.

The fact that Quebec is different from some other region in terms of suicide rate ends up being immaterial, because the study eliminates everything BUT the change in legislation. Some cultural aspect of Quebec may have some impact on their suicide rate, but it doesn’t matter, because the study is merely measuring the suicide rate within that particular culture.

It provides strong evidence against the idea that removing guns will reduce suicide rates because other methods are somehow less effective. In that study, that was clearly not the case. People committing suicide simply chose other methods to do so, and their success rates were the same.

4093

During the debate, the President said that it would nice if people had the option to buy smart guns, I agree. I also think the NRA is being an asshole when they organize boycotts against companies that make them.

That said I read the article and I just shake my head what problem are we trying to solve. The statistics from the article 62 kids accidentally killed in 2010, and 33 cops killed over a ten year period with their own gun. Plus some small number of teen suicides that may be prevented. In a country, where 7,800 die each day, and drugs and alcohol kill 90,000 each year skewed toward young people these are tiny numbers. Kids being shot while playing with their parents guns is closer to deaths by lighting strikes (16 in 2015) than a serious problem.

Even if we ignore the problem, that making guns smart makes them less useful for self-defense, this is a crazy expensive way of saving lives. Let’s assume instead of the $1,800 for the smart gun, we can make add the feature to all new guns for only $50 (probably only possible if a majority of guns are sold are smart guns). In the US 16 million guns are sold each year so that is another $800 million we are asking gun buyers to spend to save a handful of lives. But of course, that does nothing to address the other 350 million guns still out there. Retrofitting existing guns would insanely expensive.

With very few exceptions, there is nobody more concerned with their kids safety than their parents. Which is why virtually all parents take measures to ensure that their guns are kept away from them. If parent would rather buy a smart gun, than a gun safe for keeping their guns away from their kids, I have no problems with this. But as the President himself acknowledged during the debate none of these proposals are really going to make a big difference.

During the debate Taya Kyle, widow of the American Sniper, asked the President probably the best question, she also published a very good OP Ed.

She pointed out that we have both a record number of guns in this country and record low levels of violent crime. She pointed out that probably none of the people in the room who were victims of gun violence would have stopped by background checks, or most of the other laws being discussed. The President acknowledged this and said that you probably wouldn’t know about lower levels of violence from watching TV. But she also alluded to loss a freedom, which I often forget about it.

Rightly or wrongly all this talk about new gun laws, creates a level of fear among a large segment of the population that government is going to come and take their guns away. I’m hard press to figure out which fear is more irrational, that your kid is going to be a victim of a mass murder with gun in their school or Obama is going to be sending in Federal agents to sieze your shotgun. As I’ve said many times the amount of energy devoted to gun control is far out of proportion to the problem.

4094

The most important thing for a gun is that it works when you pull the trigger. Adding a “feature” that introduces a chance for failure to fire is absurd. Even if it is just a .01% chance (which seems unlikely to me, my iphone fails to unlock using my fingerprint about 5% of the time by my unscientific estimation).

I watched some of the CNN town hall. I thought they did a good job of presenting both sides of the issue but Cooper did a terrible job of following up and pressing questions. Notably, Cooper mentioned Obama’s praise for Australia’s banning/confiscation and let him off the hook after his follow up. There was also an exchange where Obama mentioned that his wife thought she would want a rifle or shotgun if they lived on a farm because they were so far away from the police…no follow up. No mention of the fact that police almost never save people from attacks in progress. When seconds count the police are minutes away.

4095

The most important thing for a gun is that it works when you pull the trigger. Adding a “feature” that introduces a chance for failure to fire is absurd. Even if it is just a .01% chance (which seems unlikely to me, my iphone fails to unlock using my fingerprint about 5% of the time by my unscientific estimation).

So you don’t have a safety on your firearms? Because simply by virtue of it being another mechanical component, it automatically introduces an additional point of failure, and thus increases the likelihood of the firearm not functioning when you need it.

Please explain that, Olaf.

4096

Glock. That is what I carry, with a round in the chamber and a full mag.

edit: Glock came out of nowhere in the 80s and now dominates. Why? Because of reliability. It never fails to go bang when you pull the trigger. No traditional safety. Draw. Aim. Fire. Works every time. Adding an additional step to that process is a bad idea.

4097

So you actually do think that a safety is a bad idea.
Wow.

Hey, at least you get points for consistency.

However, I would point out that the trigger on your glock is actually unnecessarily complex, adding an additional chance of failure.

Why do you have that?

Also… You realize that the glock has a non zero failure rate, right?

4098

A mechanical safety is fine. All of my rifles and shotguns have one. An electronic safety that fails 1 times in a thousand? Not a good idea.

edit: Glocks definitely have a safety. It’s just not the traditional on/off safety located on the receiver/frame

4099

Lots of edits there. You are arguing about shit that you have literally no experience with.

4100

Do you believe that you do not introduce any additional chance of failure when you add additional mechanical components?

Edit: sorry didn’t see your first post, as you said I added a few different parts to that part as I thought to expand on it.

A mechanical safety is fine. All of my rifles and shotguns have one. An electronic safety that fails 1 times in a thousand? Not a good idea.

See, from a purely mechanical engineering perspective, that mechanical safety which you have on all your guns (which was my point when I first asked you) introduces an additional chance of failure. It’s small, of course. But by adding an additional component, you add another part where an error can occur, thus reducing the reliability of the firearm.

But of course you still have safety mechanisms on all of your firearms, because the added safety is worth the trivial increase in chance that something could break.

Now, your problem with an electronic safety is that you believe that it has a high failure rate. However, as we’ve now established, you are in fact willing to accept a reduction in reliability if it is small enough to justify the added safety. And that’s totally reasonable.

I believe that part of the problem here is that you are imagining something using a finger print reader like your iPhone. I would agree that such a system would be pretty poor.

But you could have a more reliable system using something like an RFID which would basically work every time.

4101

Keeping a round in the chamber sounds like a very bad idea.

4102

If I had kids in the house, I would want a smart gun. Other than that, or a mentally ill spouse, I would not be an early adopter of this tech.

4103

Is it really early adoption at this point? It’s been around for a while already.

4104

Agreed.

Some people are “locked, cocked and ready to rock” in their minds. It is so… manly.

4105

DC’s MPD is famous for the number of accidental discharges with the Glock. Granted, it’s a training issue, but it’s a training issue that many gun owners think “that’ll never happen to me” and then… Well, it does. Just google “glock accidental discharge” or “glock negligent discharge” for a few (not so) fun examples.

4106

Didn’t we just do this?

Is it really early adoption at this point? It’s been around for a while already.

Wha…?