Smart Guns?

[AresKrieger]

If you have the watch thing you have standard issues with companion devices, on top of all these things require a power source, thus you'll need to charge the damn things, thus leaving them out in the open since safes don't have outlets. Finger print and palm scanners won't work if you hands are remotely dirty and frankly none of this will help anyway, it's not hard to remove unessential garbage for a device that is basically a tube and a hammer at it's most basic form.

 

In short "smart" guns will not become common place, nor should they, just get a gun safe.

[dalekphalm]

That makes no sense.

Please elaborate. Cabin depressurization doesn't make the plane explode like in movies (At least, not without a massive decompression event, like a bomb going off), but it CAN still kill you in minutes, under the right conditions. You can suffocate, you can pass out from lack of oxygen, or more likely, you can literally freeze to death (air temps at 35,000 ft are below zero). It might not happen in seconds, but it depends on the damage done to the plane - and that assumes only a small bullet hole in the hull.

 

What if someone shoots out a passenger window? That will cause massively more damage than just a small finger sized hole in the hull, and is much more dangerous.

 

Not to mention, if I was on a plane, and it was hijacked, I'd rather have a trained law enforcement officer shooting at the hijacker than grandma whipping out her self-defense pistol and going nuts.

 

Some people might feel safer knowing they are around armed citizens - and in some circumstances, I wouldn't blame them.

 

On a commercial airline? Hells no. Keep your guns at home, and leave it to the professionals - if we're that worried about terrorists and hijackers, then put law enforcement agents on every flight, and thoroughly train the flightstaff as well.

[azurezeed]

That would only add another failure point to the gun, people don't want unreliable weapons... Sadly

[ionbasa]

That would only add another failure point to the gun, people don't want unreliable weapons... Sadly

Of course people don't want unreliable arms.

Would you want a car that didn't start every morning? An smartphone that couldn't place calls or texts reliably (I'm looking at you T Mobile)?

 

Basically, it boils down to this: Keep it simple stupid. 

The more complex and depended we build things the more issues that arise. This doesn't just apply to smart guns, but all tech, electronics, mechanics in general.

[dalekphalm]

Of course people don't want unreliable arms.

Would you want a car that didn't start every morning? An smartphone that couldn't place calls or texts reliably (I'm looking at you T Mobile)?

 

Basically, it boils down to this: Keep it simple stupid. 

The more complex and depended we build things the more issues that arise. This doesn't just apply to smart guns, but all tech, electronics, mechanics in general.

All this is true, but sooner or later, handheld weapons are going to become more complex. As efficient as firearms are, we may eventually miniaturize railgun/magnetic accelerator technology enough to have handheld railgun "rifles". Obviously this is probably decades or even hundreds of years away, but it's just an example. "Laser" or other energy based weapons may eventually become practical for handgun and rifle size as well (PPG plasma gun from Babylon 5, for example - a weapon specifically designed to be as deadly as a bullet, but unable to damage/breach the hull of a spaceship).

 

We can evolve technologies like Palm scanners enough so that they can be reliable for daily use, and can be accurate enough to work even with a dirty hand, or potentially even when wearing gloves (using ultrasonic or IR, perhaps, to see "through" the dirt and grime?)

 

Though for the majority of users, all-mechanical firearms are likely to be the norm for quite some time still.

 

But there is definitely a niche market that would desire these types of biometric enabled weapons voluntarily.

[GoldSrc]

This thing is not going to work, you could strap the watch to the gun on on the same arm lol.

 

*goes and looks for deaths by gun per country*...

Why doesn't surprise me to find the USA in the first place lol.

 

Also this lol.

 

 

Gun dealers who have considered selling such firearms have been boycotted too. One Maryland dealer even faced death threats when he attempted to offer smart guns. Currently, there are no US gun dealers who stock smart guns.

 

"You want to sell "safer" guns?, well, we might kill you so, don't sell those."

[cpyarger]

This thing is not going to work, you could strap the watch to the gun on on the same arm lol.

 

*goes and looks for deaths by gun per country*...

Why doesn't surprise me to find the USA in the first place lol.

 

Also this lol.

 

 

"You want to sell "safer" guns?, well, we might kill you so, don't sell those."

 

 

Take a look at the Intentional homicides per 100,000  data. 

 

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5

 

The US is no where near the top.

[Real_PhillBert]

This thing is not going to work, you could strap the watch to the gun on on the same arm lol.

 

*goes and looks for deaths by gun per country*...

Why doesn't surprise me to find the USA in the first place lol.

 

 

Umm not sure what stats you are looking at:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

Sorted by Homicide by gun the US is 17th and sorted by total the US comes up 12th.

 

Interestingly Russia is not included in these, I'm not sure why. 

 

Edit: Ninja'd 

[cpyarger]

You will notice that according to the section on firearms, specifically pages 45-46 homicide by firearm is proportional to overall homicide rate. in the americas at least, Homicide by other means is greater than homicide by firearms. 

 

 

 

https://www.unodc.org/documents/congress/background-information/Crime_Statistics/Global_Study_on_Homicide_2011.pdf

[GoldSrc]

Take a look at the Intentional homicides per 100,000  data. 

 

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5

 

The US is no where near the top.

 

 

Umm not sure what stats you are looking at:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

Sorted by Homicide by gun the US is 17th and sorted by total the US comes up 12th.

 

Interestingly Russia is not included in these, I'm not sure why. 

 

Edit: Ninja'd 

 

I never specified homicides I said deaths, pretty big difference, the USA is almost all the time number one in there, I wonder why?

I also wonder why on that Wikipedia list, Japan is pretty much at zero, interesting don't you think?

[heathd]

A subdermal implant that controlled minds would be much more effective. Someone needs to get to work on that right meow.

[HalGameGuru]

I never specified homicides I said deaths, pretty big difference, the USA is almost all the time number one in there, I wonder why?

I also wonder why on that Wikipedia list, Japan is pretty much at zero, interesting don't you think?

And the vast majority of gun deaths in america are suicide. You want to use the state's guns to enforce something you better be focusing on victimization. Most of America's gun homicides are gang related, and the accidental rate is dropping, it may never hit zero, which is not good, but that's also an area where government intervention will not provide much help. That requires education and personal responsibility.

 

America's gun owners are some of the statistically safest people on earth. You are in more danger riding a bicycle than partaking in, say, the shooting sports or hunting. And if you are going to go by deaths in general, not just victimization, you are in far more danger from, cars, falls, your DOCTOR, prescription drugs, the flu, cancer, or heart disease.

[heathd]

I never specified homicides I said deaths, pretty big difference, the USA is almost all the time number one in there, I wonder why?

I also wonder why on that Wikipedia list, Japan is pretty much at zero, interesting don't you think?

Lumping suicide by gun into the numbers is pretty stupid. Japan has plenty of suicides every year without guns. They may not be able to shoot themselves, but they can jump in front of a train!

[cpyarger]

I never specified homicides I said deaths, pretty big difference, the USA is almost all the time number one in there, I wonder why?

I also wonder why on that Wikipedia list, Japan is pretty much at zero, interesting don't you think?

 

US isn't even in the top ten for mortality rate

 

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CDRT.IN

[GoldSrc]

And the vast majority of gun deaths in america are suicide. You want to use the state's guns to enforce something you better be focusing on victimization. Most of America's gun homicides are gang related, and the accidental rate is dropping, it may never hit zero, which is not good, but that's also an area where government intervention will not provide much help. That requires education and personal responsibility.

 

America's gun owners are some of the statistically safest people on earth. You are in more danger riding a bicycle than partaking in, say, the shooting sports or hunting. And if you are going to go by deaths in general, not just victimization, you are in far more danger from, cars, falls, your DOCTOR, prescription drugs, the flu, cancer, or heart disease.

 

Does knowing that any idiot can carry a gun, make you feel safer?

Sure, education about guns may help, but that doesn't do much when anyone can pretty much get a gun at wallmart.

It is easier to kill someone (or a bunch of people) with a gun than any other thing nature has for us.

 

Lumping suicide by gun into the numbers is pretty stupid. Japan has plenty of suicides every year without guns. They may not be able to shoot themselves, but they can jump in front of a train!

 

At least jumping in front of a train doesn't kill more people like you know, when idiot humans carry guns, a train can't choose to kill someone, humans on the other hand can make some stupid choices and I'm sure you will agree on that.

 

US isn't even in the top ten for mortality rate

 

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CDRT.IN

 

That's sort of irrelevant, when guns are the ones taking lives most of the time.

People die all the time, and that has been happening since life became a thing, add guns to the mix and the number of deaths will increase.

 

I don't really care if you guys have guns, at least none of you have said that you would kill me if I were in front of any of you to prove how if "I had a gun I could have a chance".

[HalGameGuru]

-snip-

I feel no less safe knowing my fellow man continues to possess his inherent rights. ME being allowed or disallowed keeping a gun imparts NO change in YOUR safety. Except in those situations where someone who would victimize you can now do so undeterred by righteous defense.

 

A gun is no danger to anyone, it is an inanimate object, PEOPLE are the danger. And disarming those who would victimize no one does not protect them or make those who WOULD any less dangerous.

 

Guns take very few lives. In america you are more likely to be killed by medical malpractice, a car accident, or a disease than by a gun, as a victim or on purpose, to the tune of as much as a thousand times the likelihood depending on how you choose to parse the data.

 

The vast majority of gun owners are no threat to anyone. And your allowance for the use of violence against such people because you dislike guns is hypocritical.

 

[lkarej]

guns are meant to be used at times when they're unexpectedly needed.

What if the watch breaks?

 

"Well fuck me there goes my gun Dave!"

 

This is pretty stupid. Gun control policies (at least in Canada, are fine as they are, don't need some BS like this).

 

 

I want a smart hammer!

[SansVarnic]

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. 

 

<snip>

 

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/

 

Super Old News.

Waste of technology.

Will never be accepted as commonplace.

 

Nuff said about this topic as it was talked to death many moons ago in this forum.

 

 

 

<snip>

 

A gun is no danger to anyone, it is an inanimate object, PEOPLE are the danger. And disarming those who would victimize no one does not protect them or make those who WOULD any less dangerous.

 

Guns take very few lives. In america you are more likely to be killed by medical malpractice, a car accident, or a disease than by a gun, as a victim or on purpose, to the tune of as much as a thousand times the likelihood depending on how you choose to parse the data.

 

The vast majority of gun owners are no threat to anyone. And your allowance for the use of violence against such people because you dislike guns is hypocritical.

 

 

 

So very true.

[Real_PhillBert]

I never specified homicides I said deaths, pretty big difference, the USA is almost all the time number one in there, I wonder why?

I also wonder why on that Wikipedia list, Japan is pretty much at zero, interesting don't you think?

 

Um, deaths puts the US at 12th, Not first. 

[SansVarnic]

Does knowing that any idiot can carry a gun, make you feel safer? 

Sure, education about guns may help, but that doesn't do much when anyone can pretty much get a gun at wallmart. What make you think this is true? do you have proof because I can prove otherwise.

It is easier to kill someone (or a bunch of people) with a gun than any other thing nature has for us. Also not true, I can kill more with a nine inch blade than with gun, its quiet, fast, easier to hide. I can kill more faster using a pipe bomb.

 

 

At least jumping in front of a train doesn't kill more people like you know, when idiot humans carry guns, a train can't choose to kill someone, humans on the other hand can make some stupid choices and I'm sure you will agree on that.

Same thing with a gun, a gun cannot chose to kill on its own, it cannot eject a projectile without human interaction. Your point is flawed.

 

That's sort of irrelevant, when guns are the ones taking lives most of the time. Again not true, more people are killed hit by cars than killed with a gun per year.

People die all the time, and that has been happening since life became a thing, add guns to the mix and the number of deaths will increase. Again your point is flawed, spoons can be used as weapons just as easily.

 

I don't really care if you guys have guns, at least none of you have said that you would kill me if I were in front of any of you to prove how if "I had a gun I could have a chance". Why would anyone of sound mind make such a claim.

 

See my comments in RED.

 

Biggest load of BS. This is all opinion

Your arguement is full of misguided claims, non- factual opinions, and flawed theory.

 

Whether I am pro or anti gun your point is still flawed.

I have made my point many times here in several threads, you may search it on the forum and use it to see my position on this issue and how wrong you are.

 

(Disclaimer: I do no purport to having experience in killing others, my information is based on experience in the law enforcement arena, military experience, over all training to deal with the criminal element and personal research on the issue.)

[suicidalfranco]

You ever been to Germany or France lately?

live in italy, the fuck you talking aboot?

[ionbasa]

All this is true, but sooner or later, handheld weapons are going to become more complex. As efficient as firearms are, we may eventually miniaturize railgun/magnetic accelerator technology enough to have handheld railgun "rifles". Obviously this is probably decades or even hundreds of years away, but it's just an example. "Laser" or other energy based weapons may eventually become practical for handgun and rifle size as well (PPG plasma gun from Babylon 5, for example - a weapon specifically designed to be as deadly as a bullet, but unable to damage/breach the hull of a spaceship).

 

We can evolve technologies like Palm scanners enough so that they can be reliable for daily use, and can be accurate enough to work even with a dirty hand, or potentially even when wearing gloves (using ultrasonic or IR, perhaps, to see "through" the dirt and grime?)

 

Though for the majority of users, all-mechanical firearms are likely to be the norm for quite some time still.

 

But there is definitely a niche market that would desire these types of biometric enabled weapons voluntarily.

I  definitely agree with you. Modern arm technology has advanced rapidly and will most likely continue to. Eventually all of the fancy new weapons will trickle its way down to the consumers. I've personally help build  a miniature rail gun for university coursework and I do have to say that we are definitely going to be moving away from classical weapons that rely on gunpowder and explosives for projectile motion. 

 

The issue is that that for now, I don't think the technology is ready yet for application in the firearm industry. This is basically two factor authentication, but for guns. Which means that your pistol is bound to have an battery to enable it to communicate with the watch or keyfob or what have you. Can you imagine an instance where you forget to charge up your gun batteries and you can't use your weapon? 

 

For now, I don't think this should be something that the general public should be dealing with. I'd rather much have new technology pushed out to law enforcement officials first.  Maybe we can use some of that tech to keep them accountable for their actions. 

[NuclearPeace]

Guns take very few lives. In america you are more likely to be killed by medical malpractice, a car accident, or a disease than by a gun, as a victim or on purpose, to the tune of as much as a thousand times the likelihood depending on how you choose to parse the data.

 

 

But how is that information relevant to the discussion of gun control? How bad American healthcare is, poor driver education or epidemiology are totally different topics than gun violence.

 

If guns didn't make society any dangerous if they weren't around, then how come America has so much gun violence? A lot of places with restricted access to firearms also have far less gun violence than America. Is that a coincidence? Well, you kind of need a firearm to perform gun violence...

 

The method of how people kill others is pretty important. America doesn't have a monopoly on mentally ill people, but mentally ill people in other nations don't manage to shoot up schools.

[dalekphalm]

Take a look at the Intentional homicides per 100,000 data.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5

The US is no where near the top.

If you actually compare the US to other developed countries, you'll see that they are all pretty well below where the US is. The US only gets beaten by less developed nations with far more severe poverty. The US is still much higher than it should be.

Compare it to Canada or the UK or Germany or Poland or Sweden, etc.

I believe in gun ownership, but I don't feel that it's some fundamental right. There is a necessary balance between gun freedom and gun regulation. It's not black and white like many on both sides of the argument try to make it.

[Deli]

I love to see when a guy robs a convenient store. Everyone, housewife, student, construction worker, shop keeper just pull out their guns and start shooting, in the name of self-defence. Ballets flying in every possible directions. Lovely!

 

Not even a trained policeman can always handle unexpected circumstances calmly regarding of the use of deadly force. How can an average Joe and housewife do better?