Dems push smart tech handgun rules

[Electric Monk]

(cross-posting from LBN)
Source: The Hill

Democrats are looking to place new restrictions on who can use handguns.

The Handgun Trigger Safety Act introduced Tuesday by Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) aims to block criminals and children from using guns that do not belong to them.

Gun dealers would be required to install smart gun technology that fires only if it recognizes the shooter, such as the person who purchased the gun or someone they designate as an authorized user.

Some smart gun technologies use fingerprints, while others require the shooter to wear a bluetooth bracelet or receive a microchip implant that unlocks the gun.

The lawmakers also introduced a second bill that would provide $10 million annually in funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to research gun violence prevention and firearms safety.

The gun safety bills come on National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/243756-dems-pushing-new-handgun-restrictions


Sounds like a good idea to me, but of course the gun nuts will fight it tooth and nail.

[Warpy]

1. Yeah, the nut wants that thing out on his nightstand, safety off, loaded and ready to shoot

without having to put his fingers into slots, a bracelet on, or having his precious hide pierced by a microchip.

He wants the kind of low tech his kids will find and create more tragedy with.

[Electric Monk]

14. See reply #12. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. "...or having his precious hide pierced by a microchip."

What the hell?

Since actual self-defense is the last consideration just mandate women have their precious hide pierced with Depo Provera to prevent pregnancy from a rape.

Your whole post is "his...his...he...his." Women are gun owners too, you know.

[NYC_SKP]

2. That's going to fail, and it should fail.

It's a nonsense law proposed by people who just don't know any better.

Like any other technological "solution", there will be ways to defeat it, and ways that the technology will fail on its own.

Not going to pass, and it wouldn't work if it did ever pass.

[sarisataka]

3. It isn't a bad idea but

it won't pass.
First- there is no law enforcement exception. People will not accept such technology until it is proven, such as being used by police. My money says police will scream as they did when the NY SAFE Act overlooked exempting police from loading their magazines to more than the law allowed.

Second- it act prohibits manufacture of non-personalized handguns 5 years and sale of such ten years after the act is adopted. It does not ever require such technology to be available within that time frame.


$10 million to the CDC-

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996, Kleck 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun use by victims is at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010).
***
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,”

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
That CDC?

[Duckhunter935]

4. Not too worried

more showboating legislation that will never pass. As long as the police are required to use it first. I have my safe weapons right now. Secured when not in use and finger off the trigger until I have to shoot something.

[sarisataka]

9. The LBN thread is interesting

Where normal, non-gun-obsessed DUers are dismissing this bill as empty and impractical.

[Duckhunter935]

10. The truth is the truth

except for some I guess

[gejohnston]

5. Is Q selling it to the public?

I think it would be cool to have a Lotus Espirt that turns into a submarine too. if it existed I would buy one, and every new Walther and German made SIG would have it per German law. Truth is, the nearest thing to James Bond's custom Walther P99 is made by a company who not only couldn't sell their overpriced POS in the US, but not able to sell to any market in Europe, is now tens of millions Euros in debt and just filed for the German equivalent to Chapter 11.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Maybe Bloomie can buy the IP from the trustee and make a go of it

[krispos42]

7. Get the cops the guns first.

After all, the reason they keep shooting minorities is that they "reached for their gun".

So, if the cops have absolutely nothing to fear from losing their gun...

[Duckhunter935]

8. Totally agree with that nt

[NightRainFalls]

32. This technology has some real flaws

I had the opportunity to test drive a mock up of one of these smart guns about six years ago. It was clearly aimed at law enforcement. The company had two products they where very proud of. On was a wall of guns for police departments. The wall consisted of several dozen rods each equipped with three hydraulically actuated carbide spikes that gripped the inside of the barrel of a gun. The spikes could only be retracted when a police officer ran his finger over a finger print sensor. The idea was simple. At the end of a shift the officer would take his loaded gun out of his holster and slide the gun barrel onto the rod. The spikes would punch out into the barrel and securely hold the gun until the officer decided to retrieve it. Any one who knows anything about guns should realize that this was a terrible idea for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately the smart gun was designed with the same level of intellect that produced the spikes through the barrel system. The engineer was demonstrating the gun to about twenty high ranking law enforcement representatives. He would draw and fire the mock up of the gun, then put the gun down on a table and ask the various chiefs to pick up the gun and try to fire it. When it didn't work, he proudly announced that the gun was linked to his watch and wouldn't fire unless it was within ten inches of the watch At this point, I stepped forward, picked up the gun, put him in a thumb lock, held the gun against his wrist and proceeded to pull the trigger twenty times. He turned white, the various police chiefs chuckled and walked away. The manufacturer has never gone back to that particular industry show.

[krispos42]

34. Obviously it isn't perfect

The system as described would only prevent the cop's gun from being stolen and used later... Assuming the mechanical lockout wasn't over-ridden whenever the thief had the time and tools to do so.

Violent encounters often occur at very intimate distances.


Really, in order to be fairly effective, the system would have to do away with the mechanical detonation system altogether. Electrically-fired primers, like on the Remington Electron-X system, would need to be used so the mechanical system couldn't be bypassed. No working circuitry, no bang.

[GGJohn]

11. I'll accept it when it's proven reliable by police depts.

Until then, I'll stick with my standard firearms.
And as far as the CDC, as long as they're doing non biased research, without an agenda, fine, no problem.

[ileus]

12. Imagine hoping your gun isn't locked out out of saving/protecting lives.

Last edited Wed Jun 3, 2015, 06:47 AM - Edit history (1)

It's already a crap shoot with powder, primers, feed issues, springs, firing pins that all can fail when you need the life saving device the most.

Then add 3 more layers of fail prone technology to that.


It's almost like the folks that propose this kind of stuff wants innocent folks to die.

[Electric Monk]

13. Imagine a thief not being able to use your gun after they stole it

Imagine a child living because your gun didn't go off when they picked it up after you'd forgotten to store it properly.


It's almost like the folks that oppose this kind of stuff want innocent folks to die.

[Duckhunter935]

15. Imagine if "gun safety" organizations

actually taught gun safety. Imagine if Bloomberg bought locks and safes for the poor so they could safely store weapons instead of funding astroturf groups.

[GGJohn]

16. Imagine if cops were the first to use this technology?

Last edited Tue Jun 2, 2015, 11:32 PM - Edit history (1)

If it works for the cops without any failures, then I would have no problem with it being an OPTION for those that want that technology, myself, I'm old school, I don't want, nor trust that technology, I'll stick with my good old fashioned mechanically operated firearms, and before you post something inane about not caring about the children, all our kids are grown and out, when our grandkids come over, unless we're out plinking targets with them, the firearms stay locked up in the safes.

[Duckhunter935]

18. yep some do not want us to have choice

kind of ironic in my opinion. I am all for safe gun technology. let people have the choice. I do the the police should be required the safe guns so they are not afraid of someone taking their gun. It would take that excuse away from them shooting people.

[oneshooter]

17. Do you leave your keys in your vehicle with the doors unlocked? n/t

[gejohnston]

19. there is an existing and proven off the shelf solution for that

the technology is available in Wal Mart today and Amazon today.
http://www.amazon.com/Gunvault-MV500-STD-Microvault-Pistol-Safe/sim/B000TG9RCC/2

this was actually invented by a former or inactive DUer
http://www.thepistolpad.com/

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. Imagine not having a childlike belief in the perfectability of technology

Imagine not forgetting that we live in a nation of tinkerers, makers, and MacGuyvers where BoingBoing
and many other sites post hacks damn near everyday. A nation where car and truck owners
regularly modify automotive electronic controls that are far more complicated that what
could possibly fit into a gun, and know how to restore the factory settings come inspection time:

https://www.google.com/search?q=reflash+ecu&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=reflash+ecu+inspection



Imagine not forgetting (or eliding) that Americans really, really don't
like being locked out of things they own:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Keurig+2.0+failure&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=Keurig+2.0+failure&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Keurig+2.0+failure&tbm=nws

http://consumerist.com/2015/05/20/gm-that-car-you-bought-were-really-the-ones-who-own-it/

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/automakers-say-you-dont-really-own-your-car

[Straw Man]

21. Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

Last edited Wed Jun 3, 2015, 03:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Imagine a thief not being able to use your gun after they stole it

Unless they also stole the little bracelet thingie that makes it work, and/or figured out how to defeat the technology, which will be a slam-dunk for the tech-savvy thieves of tomorrow.

Fingerprint ID is a non-starter, BTW. It is rife with technological problems, like not working well when the user is sweaty -- you know, like how you might be in crisis situation ...

http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/12/smart-gun-explainer/

Imagine a child living because your gun didn't go off when they picked it up after you'd forgotten to store it properly.

Better yet, imagine storing your gun properly: low-tech and foolproof, really. The kind of person who doesn't store guns properly is the kind of person who will leave the little bracelet thingie lying around.

It's almost like the folks that oppose this kind of stuff want innocent folks to die.

Disingenuous much? It's a back-door ban, and you know it. The fact that the law doesn't contain an "if and when" clause is the tell. "Make this technology work or give up your guns" is the kind of mantra that gives gun controllers that special little frisson.

Why wouldn't gun owners want something that makes guns much more expensive and failure-prone? Gee, I don't know. What do you think?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. This may stop some shootings

Would not have stopped Lanza, he shot with his mom at the range, the guns would work for him.

Unless the firing interlock is part of the receiver, this won't work for any stolen weapons since all other gun parts are available by mail order. The average time from loss/theft to recovery by LE after criminal use is years rather than days. That's more than enough time to remove the safeties and interlocks. With many weapons, only common hand tools are required.

With the advent of cheaper 3D printing, well, you get the idea.

My chief concern is that some folks may become overly reliant on that technology (should it become reliable) and engage in other negligent behavior with their guns.

[Eleanors38]

25. It would be easy to defeat the mechanism on a pump shotgun, used in the Navy Yard shooting.

[benEzra]

23. Are they *trying* to keep all electronically-locked guns off the market?

They aren't thinking this through. Last time I checked, the gun control lobby in New Jersey is talking about *repealing* NJ's "smart gun" law, which in large measure is responsible for the demise of several electronically-locked guns such as the Armatix .22.

Thing is, electronically-locked guns are very much a niche item, aimed at those who don't care much about reliability and are interested in the technology from either a safety or cool-factor standpoint. For a range toy (particularly a .22) that won't see hard use and won't serve in the defensive role, it is certainly a viable option, and there is a small but viable market for it, just like there is for autonomous cars.

However, mandating them across the board, and banning all guns not so equipped, is as ridiculous as outlawing all cars and trucks not capable of autonomous operation, and passing a law that mandates them will do nothing except make it much harder to bring electronically-locked guns to market.

In the case of Armatix, they didn't help matters by touting their product's ability to be remotely disabled or blocked from firing at "unauthorized" targets, either. And in a defensive role, the reliability and usability issues and the ability to be remotely disabled are dealbreakers, which is why law enforcement have flatly rejected "smart guns" even though they are the ones who would theoretically benefit most from their use. Keeping a gun in a safe when appropriate is more secure and doesn't wreck the gun's reliability and utility as a defensive weapon.

[Eleanors38]

24. This is Gyro Gearloose technology. If it was that great, some manufacturer would be a billionaire.

One can't rely on the "electronic spark control" of many GM cars, Adnoid cell phones, or the herky-jerky system in my tablet.

You know, autoloading guns were a new technology over a century ago, and for decades afterwards frowned on by many gun enthusiasts because of jams, stove piping, failure to cycles, etc. Now, a century later, those concerns are allayed. Lots of refinements, stemming from competition and innovation, since then.

Many gun banners have never seen a restriction, regulation, or techology they didn't like. I'm afraid this is another one of them.

[Shamash]

26. This is a retread

Apparently Markey has pushed this legislation in 2014 (link) and similarly by John Tierney in 2013 (link). In both cases it got read into the record, referred into committee and was never heard from again. Anyone want to place bets that this zombie fares any better this time around?

I guess the plural "Dems push smart tech handgun rules" is technically accurate, since the bill did have a co-sponsor. More support than that, not so much.

[pablo_marmol]

28. "Dems push SMART tech handgun rules."

Well......only because Dems are too STUPID to prevent political losses via dishonest culture war.

[kudzu22]

29. I have a fingerprint reader on my iPhone

Most of the time it works pretty well. Sometimes it just doesn't recognize me no matter where I put my thumb. I'd hate for that to happen while some guy is stabbing me.

[oneshooter]

30. You have to understand, it doesn't matter to them.

If it fails then you have to take one for the team.

Simple isn't it.

[virginia mountainman]

31. And the NRA fundraising *REALLY* gets into high gear!!! nt

[hack89]

33. Who figured a backdoor ban would appeal to a controller?

I am shocked.