6 ms·

This article is an ignorant POS. The NRA hates smartguns for at least 3 reasons. First is the government is trying to force an unreliable and complex feature o

by vaadu 10y ago

This article is an ignorant POS. The NRA hates smartguns for at least 3 reasons. First is the government is trying to force an unreliable and complex feature onto a product that needs to work every time. Second is the government has no plans to use it themselves, which speaks volumes about what their LEOs and the US military thinks of the reliability this technology. Last is the government is trying to solve a people problem with technology. BTW, these people problems are the result of Democrat's policies in gun-free cities such as Chicago, St Louis, Oakland and Baltimore.

schismsubv 10y ago
While I agree with (and just stopped writing a long response about) the unreliable and complex feature argument - consider adding the necessary components to a semiautomatic handgun - I wouldn't call the article ignorant. There are many reasons the NRA and gun owners in general dislike "smart" guns, some of which include the soft, social reasoning the article outlines. Hard technical arguments of feasibility and reliability tend to have little effect on those that espouse this form of gun control. They'd typically prefer the guns not be there in the first place, and don't particularly care how feasible or reliable the result is. Social arguments, however, tend to affect them more, or at least can put the argument in a place they find harder to dismiss. We need both parts to make the strongest argument.
jonstokes 10y ago
Author here. I covered all three points you raised on my previous piece for TC this topic, so I didn't see the need to repeat myself here. That piece is linked in the opener of this article.
zardgiv 10y ago
Please elaborate on what these "people problems" are. I'm interested in what you think is common amongst the cities you've cited.
- ams6110 10y ago
  They are run by Democrats and have been for a long time.
  - zardgiv 10y ago
    Well, they claimed that the "people problems" were caused by Democrats' policies, so it'd be useful to have some clarification as to what that is before we identify root causes. Unless your implication is that Democrats are the "people problems?"
pazimzadeh 10y ago
Can you elaborate on why "Democrat's policies in gun-free cities" has led to "people problems?"
minimax 10y ago
BTW, these people problems are the result of Democrat's policies in gun-free cities such as Chicago, St Louis, Oakland and Baltimore. I don't know about the other three cities, but you can concealed carry in Chicago and that has been the case for almost three years now.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  Have you tried obtaining a CCW in Chicago? In order to get one you have to: -Take a 16 hour course. There are only a handful of companies that can offer the course and they're fully booked year-round -Pay $150, one of the highest CCW permit fees in the nation -Hope that you aren't one of the 800 applicants/year that are inexplicably denied (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-07-04/news/ct-concealed-carry-rejection-20140706_1_michael-thomas-application-illinois-state-police http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-07-04/news/ct-concea...) So yes, you can technically get a CCW in Illinois. It's also obvious that the state has thrown as many roadblocks as they legally could in the way, ironically bolstering the NRA's argument that any "common sense" requirements around gun ownership will be used as de facto restrictions
  - minimax 10y ago
    I haven't tried obtaining a CCW in Chicago because the idea of wandering around Chicago carrying a gun seems totally ridiculous to me.
    - MajorLOL 10y ago
      What a strange response to his post. Did some portion of your post get deleted/omitted?
fouric 10y ago
"...trying to force an unreliable and complex feature onto a product that needs to work every time." This. This is my biggest problem with smart-gun tech. We still haven't managed to figure out how to write software for hundred-million-dollar space projects that doesn't crash (the Japanese Hitomi satellite[2] being the latest of many); how on Earth are we going to implement smart gun technology correctly? (actually, I would argue that we still can't write durable software in general, and as such we should avoid integrating it into important things such as guns and cars until we can improve our development skills) [1]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2086422-japanese-satellites-death-spiral-linked-to-software-malfunction/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2086422-japanese-satell...
- tootie 10y ago
  The plan is not to ban non-smart guns next week. Obama is calling for a push to improve the technology until it becomes reliable. Despite the Hitomi failure, we have sent a few hundred things into space pretty successfully. Half the systems in your car are under computer control. Opposing technology that could save thousands of lives a year because it doesn't work perfectly yet is bullshit.
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    But opposing it because of the political ramifications isn't. See California's micro-stamping bill: politicians mandated a technology which was literally infeasible to implement.
  - schismsubv 10y ago
    I think what most opposition to smart guns centers on is the assertion that the technology could "save thousands of lives". It would be great to see hard numbers of exactly how many people are killed with immediately stolen guns, and I doubt it would be in the thousands. As the author's prior article in the series notes, such technology will almost invariably be easily bypassed. Criminals will, unfortunately, remain criminals, and will disable the technology or continue to buy guns underground. None of this even addresses the fact that many murders are perpetrated by legal owners of said guns, which this technology would do nothing about. As is usual with such things, if smart-gun technology were legislated its only measurable effect would be on law-abiding citizens, adding yet more potential felonies to the maze we traverse daily.
8note 10y ago
higher up in this thread, it is argued that the primary purpose of a gun is either punching holes in a piece of paper or a "tin can" or busting clay birds. those don't seem like times when it is critical to work every time.
- hga 10y ago
  No, the primary use of guns, and purpose of most guns in Americans' hands, although that's rapidly changing. And you have clearly never been in a marksmanship competition.

by vaadu 10y ago

schismsubv 10y ago

While I agree with (and just stopped writing a long response about) the unreliable and complex feature argument - consider adding the necessary components to a semiautomatic handgun - I wouldn't call the article ignorant. There are many reasons the NRA and gun owners in general dislike "smart" guns, some of which include the soft, social reasoning the article outlines. Hard technical arguments of feasibility and reliability tend to have little effect on those that espouse this form of gun control. They'd typically prefer the guns not be there in the first place, and don't particularly care how feasible or reliable the result is. Social arguments, however, tend to affect them more, or at least can put the argument in a place they find harder to dismiss. We need both parts to make the strongest argument.

jonstokes 10y ago

Author here. I covered all three points you raised on my previous piece for TC this topic, so I didn't see the need to repeat myself here. That piece is linked in the opener of this article.

zardgiv 10y ago

Please elaborate on what these "people problems" are. I'm interested in what you think is common amongst the cities you've cited.

ams6110 10y ago
They are run by Democrats and have been for a long time.
- zardgiv 10y ago
  Well, they claimed that the "people problems" were caused by Democrats' policies, so it'd be useful to have some clarification as to what that is before we identify root causes. Unless your implication is that Democrats are the "people problems?"

pazimzadeh 10y ago

Can you elaborate on why "Democrat's policies in gun-free cities" has led to "people problems?"

minimax 10y ago

BTW, these people problems are the result of Democrat's policies in gun-free cities such as Chicago, St Louis, Oakland and Baltimore. I don't know about the other three cities, but you can concealed carry in Chicago and that has been the case for almost three years now.

cloakandswagger 10y ago
Have you tried obtaining a CCW in Chicago? In order to get one you have to: -Take a 16 hour course. There are only a handful of companies that can offer the course and they're fully booked year-round -Pay $150, one of the highest CCW permit fees in the nation -Hope that you aren't one of the 800 applicants/year that are inexplicably denied (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-07-04/news/ct-concealed-carry-rejection-20140706_1_michael-thomas-application-illinois-state-police http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-07-04/news/ct-concea...) So yes, you can technically get a CCW in Illinois. It's also obvious that the state has thrown as many roadblocks as they legally could in the way, ironically bolstering the NRA's argument that any "common sense" requirements around gun ownership will be used as de facto restrictions
- minimax 10y ago
  I haven't tried obtaining a CCW in Chicago because the idea of wandering around Chicago carrying a gun seems totally ridiculous to me.
  - MajorLOL 10y ago
    What a strange response to his post. Did some portion of your post get deleted/omitted?

fouric 10y ago

"...trying to force an unreliable and complex feature onto a product that needs to work every time." This. This is my biggest problem with smart-gun tech. We still haven't managed to figure out how to write software for hundred-million-dollar space projects that doesn't crash (the Japanese Hitomi satellite[2] being the latest of many); how on Earth are we going to implement smart gun technology correctly? (actually, I would argue that we still can't write durable software in general, and as such we should avoid integrating it into important things such as guns and cars until we can improve our development skills) [1]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2086422-japanese-satellites-death-spiral-linked-to-software-malfunction/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2086422-japanese-satell...

tootie 10y ago
The plan is not to ban non-smart guns next week. Obama is calling for a push to improve the technology until it becomes reliable. Despite the Hitomi failure, we have sent a few hundred things into space pretty successfully. Half the systems in your car are under computer control. Opposing technology that could save thousands of lives a year because it doesn't work perfectly yet is bullshit.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  But opposing it because of the political ramifications isn't. See California's micro-stamping bill: politicians mandated a technology which was literally infeasible to implement.
- schismsubv 10y ago
  I think what most opposition to smart guns centers on is the assertion that the technology could "save thousands of lives". It would be great to see hard numbers of exactly how many people are killed with immediately stolen guns, and I doubt it would be in the thousands. As the author's prior article in the series notes, such technology will almost invariably be easily bypassed. Criminals will, unfortunately, remain criminals, and will disable the technology or continue to buy guns underground. None of this even addresses the fact that many murders are perpetrated by legal owners of said guns, which this technology would do nothing about. As is usual with such things, if smart-gun technology were legislated its only measurable effect would be on law-abiding citizens, adding yet more potential felonies to the maze we traverse daily.

8note 10y ago

higher up in this thread, it is argued that the primary purpose of a gun is either punching holes in a piece of paper or a "tin can" or busting clay birds. those don't seem like times when it is critical to work every time.

hga 10y ago
No, the primary use of guns, and purpose of most guns in Americans' hands, although that's rapidly changing. And you have clearly never been in a marksmanship competition.