Smart Guns?

[Memories4K]

Ding, ding ding! We have a winner!

My fellow Muricans seem to not be able to see the bigger picture, but you give me hope. Deal with the poverty issue, which by the way is ridiculous for a country that claims to be developed, and the reason to carry a gun for self defense disappears. People just seem to prefer to propose short term "solutions" instead of tackling the root of the problem. I also dont know whether to laugh or cry when people advocate for censorship whenever there is a mass shooting, and dont want news outlets to give out the naames of the perpetrators because they think it encourages copycats. Its amazing how backwards we have our priorities here.

Our nation still has a homeless and hunger problem.

Just because we're developed, doesn't mean we don't suffer from 3rd world problems (sadly enough)

You're right. We do have our priorities backwards.

Instead of demolishing the short-term solution with more useless gun control, we should prioritize actually dealing with homelessness, underfunded rehabilitation centers, archaic education system, poor infrastructure, and poverty. The real root of the problem.

[Memories4K]

I can't think of a single place I've been in Europe where I think "I need a gun."

You ever been to Germany or France lately?

[ShadowCaptain]

the problem is, these make guns LESS safe, since they can no longer be 100% relied upon, if the watch fails or maybe falls off in a scuffle

[TopDollar]

The last thing that is needed on a mechanical system is an electronic device that has a higher probability of failing when you need it the most.

[MourningSouls]

Sounds like it would fairly easy to jam the signal.

[HalGameGuru]

On the airplane issue, Frangible bullets.

 

On guns in general, the recent new years fracas in Europe lends some credence to gun supporters. Even cops were being assaulted, and there was more than one instance of one of the few licensed carriers defending themselves from attack. 

 

I've gotta second DalekPhalm on this. These types of gun techs, especially integral biometrics are a good idea for a market based option, but should not be mandated across the board. ME owning a gun puts no one else in any danger, blanketing the population with a gun ban puts everyone in danger and makes non-violent people who own something certain people don't like criminals. A la marijuana. The vast majority of gun violence and victimization in america is gang related. Which we can attribute directly to the war on drugs. There is a reason things were less violent when people were freer, and the wild west was not nearly as wild as people think. There are some good historical texts on the issue, I think Mises.org has a few of them.

[KirbyTech]

This is a bad idea, what happens if the watch battery dies, the watch break, or you just want to carry a different gun or maybe just don't want to wear a watch so you can protect yourself. No matter how many of these are out there, there will be issues that result in someone needlessly dying. Smart guns are a good idea for say a gun range to rent out, have it so they only fire when pointed down range or something like that but smart guns are not a smart nor safe thing for general cc.

[Snadzies]

I'd swear I saw this exact device back in the 90s on the Discovery Channel.

There were a few variations, one was a watch, one was a ring.

[KirbyTech]

Please show me some evidence for this.

 

I'm not an expert, so I won't claim what will/will not cause depressurization in an airplane - but I'd be worried as fuck if I knew most passengers were carrying. I don't trust them with my safety - with a Marshal, at least I know he's been well trained.

Okay so it comes down to training, why not have a tiered cc system where you have general and "all access" where they are trained more and have to prove they can shoot good on a quarterly basis. 

[ICantThinkOfAnyGoodName]

You ever been to Germany or France lately?

I LIVE in Germany and I see no need to own a gun for self-defense purposes.

[popman]

Just caught this on CNet. Makes me wonder if this is actually useful. Honestly a gun that has to be close to a watch before it can be fired? I know we have seen something similar using smartphones and bluetooth for your computer, Reliable it was not. 

 

The Intelligent Pistol, from Armatix, can fire only when it's within ten inches of a synchronized watch.

 

Image from cnet

http://www.cnet.com/news/smart-guns-not-at-these-big-tech-and-gun-shows/

 

That article doesn't seem to be about the firearm (and the technology used) itself, but rather the lack of other such devices, and some mention about the politics involved.

Most of the arguing about its existence can be explained by its performance, and this law ftp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/20022003/A1000/700_S1.PDF (reply if you want me to attempt to translate it out of legalese)

 

It has existed and been available for sale since 2014.

[dalekphalm]

Okay so it comes down to training, why not have a tiered cc system where you have general and "all access" where they are trained more and have to prove they can shoot good on a quarterly basis. 

I would still not be comfortable with civilian passengers carrying firearms. The TSA and other similar bodies have started to integrate trained agents on board flights for anti-terrorist and anti-hijacking measures, and in some cases, talk of equipping and training the flightstaff with firearms - that should be enough. I don't want a yahoo with an itchy trigger finger thinking he can take on a hijacker (Or worse, what he thinks is a hijacker, yet is something innocent), when there is a person trained for this situation already on board.

[cpyarger]

I would still not be comfortable with civilian passengers carrying firearms. The TSA and other similar bodies have started to integrate trained agents on board flights for anti-terrorist and anti-hijacking measures, and in some cases, talk of equipping and training the flightstaff with firearms - that should be enough. I don't want a yahoo with an itchy trigger finger thinking he can take on a hijacker (Or worse, what he thinks is a hijacker, yet is something innocent), when there is a person trained for this situation already on board.

 

Vigilante Justice CAN do more harm than good at times. 

[Memories4K]

I LIVE in Germany and I see no need to own a gun for self-defense purposes.

Oh i'm sorry i didn't realize you spoke for all Germans and that you living in Germany actually makes your view on not needing a firearm for self-defense more valid.

I live in the U.S. and i see no need for encryption to be legal and no need for government internal spying to be illegal because i have nothing to hide.

 

No, but on the real and attitude aside.

 

I was referring to the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and the large spike in a combination of thievery/sexual assault/rape in Cologne that have occurred as of late.

I wouldn't be surprised if people who have actually experienced such acts of violence would now be considering their own forms of self-defense due to the stress and trauma that came with those experiences.

[KirbyTech]

I would still not be comfortable with civilian passengers carrying firearms. The TSA and other similar bodies have started to integrate trained agents on board flights for anti-terrorist and anti-hijacking measures, and in some cases, talk of equipping and training the flightstaff with firearms - that should be enough. I don't want a yahoo with an itchy trigger finger thinking he can take on a hijacker (Or worse, what he thinks is a hijacker, yet is something innocent), when there is a person trained for this situation already on board.

That makes no sense.

[ICantThinkOfAnyGoodName]

Oh i'm sorry i didn't realize you spoke for all Germans and that you living in Germany actually makes your view on not needing a firearm for self-defense more valid.

I live in the U.S. and i see no need for encryption to be legal and no need for government internal spying to be illegal because i have nothing to hide.

No, but on the real and attitude aside.

I was referring to the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and the large spike in a combination of thievery/sexual assault/rape in Cologne that have occurred as of late.

I wouldn't be surprised if people who have actually experienced such acts of violence would now be considering their own forms of self-defense due to the stress and trauma that came with those experiences.

I am aware that you were referencing those events, but I think it's safer for no civilians to carry guns in public than for all of them to carry guns in public. And it seems to me that the majority of the population living here thinks the same way. Although admittedly the sales of pepper spray have been skyrocketing here after the stuff in cologne happened from what I've read.

[SImoHayha]

A person murders someone with a knife no bats an eye.

 

A person murders someone with a bat no one bats an eye.

 

A person murders someone with a gun everyone freaks out.

[ionbasa]

10in? I wear watches on my left wrist and I shoot right handed. 

Assuming I shoot without my left hand for support, then I'm screwed.

[MrRavens]

*JB Snip*

 

Man that gif never gets old haha

[SImoHayha]

I am aware that you were referencing those events, but I think it's safer for no civilians to carry guns in public than for all of them to carry guns in public. And it seems to me that the majority of the population living here thinks the same way. Although admittedly the sales of pepper spray have been skyrocketing here after the stuff in cologne happened from what I've read.

Problem is with gun laws is that there isn't a precise right or wrong.

 

No guns for Civs = No protection against other people who use a gun. Lack of self-defense in case of an emergency sometimes being up close and personal isn't always the best options

 

Guns for civs = people that may go crazy could use guns and kill people and sane people who use a firearm can deal with them. Of course the police are going to be called however sometimes they won't  make it in time and this means more death.

[GeekJump]

 

Ahh, such a beautiful gif :3

___

I understand better gun control but that shit is stupid. So many possible flaws and issues with that design. I think it would result in more failed self defense attempts than actually preventing misuse. 

 

Mugger: "I'm a mugger! I'm going to mug you punk bitch"

Me (with my 'smart' gun): "Not today SUCKA!"

*whips out gun but it can't pair with watch*

Mugger: "Ahh shooting blanks? Who a sucka now foo"

*stabs me 23 times in the chest*

*As I bleed out, watch and gun finally sync up*

[PCBjon]

10in? I wear watches on my left wrist and I shoot right handed. 

Assuming I shoot without my left hand for support, then I'm screwed.

 

Isnt shooting with one hand considered bad practice?

[Sauron]

Makes sense, but the problem are not weapons that get taken from the owner's hands.

[xgn]

This is how the goverment is going to dominate you and ultimate kill 2/3 of the world population and inplant the rest with microchips.

[ionbasa]

Isnt shooting with one hand considered bad practice?

Yes, but in an life or death situation, the quicker you get a shot off, the better you are. 

 

Eg: It may not necessarily be against another person, burglar, robber, etc. But I do camp and hike a lot. Some of my hiking trips puts me in 'backcountry' territory where running into bears and mountain lions are fairly common. Usually wildlife tends to stay out of your way so long as you stay out of their way, but there has been occasions where angry, hungry, wildlife have attacked humans.

 

If you have an angry animal running towards you or near you and you need to get a shot off as fast as possible, my first shot probably would be without my supporting hand. Assuming I need to get a shot off as fast as possible.