U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Hobbies and Recreation > Guns and Hunting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-13-2014, 10:33 AM
 
25,631 posts, read 29,179,619 times
Reputation: 23049

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElkHunter View Post
Huh???? I don't live in New Jersey. Moving has what to do with this conversation? If one state adopts the law, it won't be long before California and other states pick up on it. I live in a pretty good state when it comes to gun laws. Well, as long as we can keep the feds at bay.
When it comes to gun laws it's not the Feds you really need to worry about over the long term. It's the changing demographics of your state.



To the OP again it's not about new gun technology my friend, it's about that technology being used against the gun owning public in the form of Anti-2nd ammendment laws.

This issue isn't about a John Moses Browning trying pushing the technology envelope.

This issue is about Anti-Gun RATS using technology to push their agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-13-2014, 10:51 AM
 
7,282 posts, read 8,409,535 times
Reputation: 11407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
When it comes to gun laws it's not the Feds you really need to worry about over the long term. It's the changing demographics of your state.



To the OP again it's not about new gun technology my friend, it's about that technology being used against the gun owning public in the form of Anti-2nd ammendment laws.

This issue isn't about a John Moses Browning trying pushing the technology envelope.

This issue is about Anti-Gun RATS using technology to push their agenda.
If you sit idly by and allow others to dictate what technology becomes and how it is used then you really can't complain about the outcome.

If the issue is about anti-gun people, then it is because gun owners as a group decided to sit things out and let it happen.

Two types, those that sit around and complain about what happens to them and those that realize that blaming what happens to them is always the fault of others.

Technology is technology, it doesn't matter if Browning or anyone else is developing it, living in the past and hoping it won't change only insures it will change without you. You can either be part of the change or have it imposed upon you. That technology will change is a certainty. Fight it all you want, it won't matter, in then end the change will come, the question will be, did you affect the change and make it what you wanted or did you just let it happen?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 12,550,311 times
Reputation: 7377
What I have not been able to understand is what is the logic behind threatening the man who planned to sell the 'Smart Guns" this seems to be counter productive as it can be used to show a need for such guns.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 12:46 PM
 
7,282 posts, read 8,409,535 times
Reputation: 11407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI View Post
What I have not been able to understand is what is the logic behind threatening the man who planned to sell the 'Smart Guns" this seems to be counter productive as it can be used to show a need for such guns.
In most of the news reports, being right or wrong, statements are made that gun owners were the ones making the threats because they fear this is a step toward another form of gun control. Perception means a lot when swaying public opinion.

The message would be that gun shop owners need guns to protect themselves from gun owners. A rather twisted idea but that is how the story gets portrayed.

Just opinion but somehow I don't think gun control people were the ones making the calls, if they really happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 12,550,311 times
Reputation: 7377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
In most of the news reports, being right or wrong, statements are made that gun owners were the ones making the threats because they fear this is a step toward another form of gun control. Perception means a lot when swaying public opinion.

The message would be that gun shop owners need guns to protect themselves from gun owners. A rather twisted idea but that is how the story gets portrayed.

Just opinion but somehow I don't think gun control people were the ones making the calls, if they really happened.
Wouldn't be the first time some malcontents made threats and claimed to from the group they are against.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 04:35 PM
Status: "King of the World" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: Itinerant
5,214 posts, read 3,761,111 times
Reputation: 4090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
You are making a lot of assumptions starting from the beginning. First, it seems the only technology you discuss is some kind of bracelet or dongle sort of thing. Really, that isn't the current state of sensor technology and wouldn't be the one to survive in the market. That sorts of makes all the other comparisons and scenarios in your comment rather outside of the technology that will eventually become part of firearm design.
I make no assumptions, I'm asking questions,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
Lets take your comments one by one but first let me repeat that the technology requires development in order to be effective and that sitting idly by by it is developed, perhaps by those with a different agenda and end game isn't very smart, the smart thing to do is get involved and insure the developed technology is the best, not worst it can be. Everyone wants to complain about laws but funny how so many that complain don't vote. I'm of the opinion that you can wait for someone to do something to you or be proactive and have a say in what happens. Isn't that one of the primary premise of gun ownership, being proactive? Why then only resist something that will happen and then rue the day that the opportunities to create a better solution was spent complaining about it.
Yup, heard that before, with the Vichy Government, how did that work out...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
Then to answering truthfully, sure, lets also ask some honest questions, what do you say? Given you needed to mention more than once the request to answer truthfully, I'll say in response that most of the questions are baseless, and that is truthful, nevertheless:
Sure, as long as they're reality, and not Star Trek...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
1."If you're sleeping, and have a smart gun, is it more or less likely to go off than if you have just a regular gun? (answer truthfully)"

That would depend wouldn't it? If the purpose of the smart technology is to prevent unauthorized people from firing the gun, then it would be less likely because if you are asleep and as happens often enough to be reported in the news, intruders manage to walk around the home without being discovered and even abduct children or murder people, of course, less likely to be fired. If the question deals only with the gun as an inert object or tool until used by the person owning it, then neither. Kind of simple I think.
fallacious analogy, the question does not involve an intruder. You can go off and create whatever fantasy scenario you'd like, but you don't answer the question truthfully. The answer is exactly the same chance if you answer the question posed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
2. "However if you're in a situation where you need to use your gun, is a smartgun less or more likely to work when you need it too? (answer truthfully)"

No one really knows since the technology isn't offered to the general public. The question itself is nonsense because it is the same as asking if a poorly designed and manufactured gun is less or more likely to work when you need it to work. Again, if the technology is properly developed and proved reliable, it will gain the "trust" as any other tool people use. There are guns I wouldn't trust to load much less depend on for self defense and they have no smart technology built into them. Would you trust every gun ever designed and manufactured to work when you need it? Answer using your own criteria for judging answers.


Sure we know, simple logic, is more complex more or less likely to fail? If it's more likely to fail, then it has a higher probability to fail at a crucial moment. Regardless of how well or poorly a gun is manufactured, adding a smart safety cut off will not improve it's reliability, it will only reduce it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
3. "Lets get specific, identifier bracelets, need an RF transceiver to ping for a responder chip and read the data back. So what's stopping someone creating a disabler? If you overload the receiver, the receiver cannot identify a response signal, and the gun fails to operate. Can you see any benefit for any segment of society to have these (I can think of several)."

I do not advocate identifier bracelets, RF transceivers so that really doesn't matter. The other part of the question, what stops someone from creating a disabler is on it's face poorly formulated. Disablers exist for everything know to human beings. Think about that. Now think about this: take your "disabler" idea (although that assumes limiting the technology to only what you happen to know about), first, someone would have to know exactly what gun you had down to the brand, model and so on. That is risky since they probably don't have a disabler for your knife, ball bat, taser or any other defensive tools you might have available including any security systems alerting you to their presence so that you aren't sleeping in bed as they break into your home.


Not remote disablers on ranged devices. How would you disable a groups firearms now remotely without any risk to those so disabling?

Let's talk these smart devices, there will only be a few manufacturers (how many people actually manufacture EMU's for cars and light trucks for example, it's more than two but less than 5), who will then supply the gun manufacturers, Smith and Wesson are not known for their Laptops, SmartPhones, or Tablets so they're not going to make their own.

There will be an approved list of devices, that meet the regulations, which means they will have sufficient commonality to permit a common means of disablement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
To the benefit to certain segments of society having a disabler, it isn't like cracking into a mobile phone, here, the individual with the disabler is praying it works and you gun does not or that you have only one gun vulnerable to that disabler or that you don't have a knife, machete, ball bat, tire iron or something else at the ready as you wait on the other side of the door they are about to open.


No they won't be praying, they'll know. Few manufacturers, common designs, if a new design comes out, the segments will either test them to confirm it still works then tinker if it doesn't, or will already know that they work, because they're part of the approval process.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
In order for your scenario to be valid, a lot of assumptions have to be true such as I've already pointed out. If all of those assumptions are valid, then no gun in the world is going to help you, the criminal has got you and you are toast.


Oh they're valid all right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
4. "Biometrics, need an optical reader to identify a fingerprint (most likely), which fingerprint? What if one arm is disabled when using the firearm and that arm happens to have that finger and fingerprint? What happens if the finger is shot off? Retinal scans, and even DNA have the similar issues. Even less serious, suppose you have mud, or dust, or oil on your fingers.

Is this the part where truthful answers come into play? Ok...if in the heat of the moment, your arm is disabled, use the other one? Hmmm, seems to be pretty understandable that if you were to be able to use one of your hands with a smartgun you'd insure you could use the other one too, just like any other gun.


How? If the Biometric is on fingerprints and the scanner is on one side, then how you going to safely change hands? What's the cut off time from scan to use? 1 round? 1 second? 1 Minute? Once unlocked it will fire at anytime until locked (which isn't going to happen since you can wander around with it entirely unlocked all the time)? If you lose the use of that finger print that unlocks the gun, you're SOL if it's one round no? All other 9 prints might as well be your uncle Bob's, are all gun owners going to have the presence of mind to register both your right and left trigger fingerprint.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
If your finger gets shots off? Really? Ok, see the above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post


If you happen to have mud, dust or oil on your fingers, I'd say you probably aren't at home sleeping but more to the point, there are sensors now that can account for mud, dust and oil. Back to development of the technology...again. Come on.


You've clearly never used commercial grade biometric sensors. Ever used a Laptop with a fingerprint scanner to login? Reason I ask is that all of the things I mentioned have caused my laptop fingerprint scanner to not be able to read my fingerprint, which is fine, when I want to use my laptop because someone isn't likely to be shooting at me, and if they were using my laptop would be counterproductive.

I mean sure, I've used biometric scanners that are really good, and this was years ago too, but they cost governments millions of dollars.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
Since when do biometrics need an optical reader? If you limit your knowledge to what you already know, not much I can say except learn more. There are biometric readers that do not need optical sensors and most in fact do not use optics to read biometrics. Rentinal scans? Surely that isn't a technology that would survive in the market so lets get back to reality.


Biometrics need an optical reader for retinal scans, and fingerprint scans fingerprints can be read by capacitance too, but oil/dust/mud changes the capacitances read, which makes them inaccurate in anything by pristine conditions. Do you know of any other current real time biometric identification (can't use DNA real time, take too long to do the analysis unless you're fine hanging around for a few hours)? Why won't retinal scans survive on the market? It's been around for decades in high security facilities, I'd say that kind of proves it has survived on the market.

I mean it's technically feasible to have a handgun that would identify someone's grip pattern and pressure, but that would take a lot of data, and would be very expensive, and would tie the firearm to one hand.

If you fly off into Star Trek land then one of two things will occur, you will get something that is not fit for purpose (because the tech cannot do what you're asking to with enough reliability), or just the reader will cost you tens of thousands of dollars. Having an open mind is all well and good, but don't have so open a mind that your brain falls on the floor in the process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
5. Then your combined questions about power and so on. You already rely on powered devices to protect your family and yourself don't you? Do you change the battery in your smoke alarm? I bet you do and I bet you trust your life to them as well. If you don't, I need to invoke that honesty clause in the discussion. Regardless, people fly in airplanes, drive cars and participate in many other activities that have powered components to the activity and trust with their lives that the powered components work.


Agreed, however here's the subtle difference you're missing.

If a smoke alarm battery dies, then it's only a risk if there is a fire when the smoke alarm battery is dead and I'm asleep, if my fire extinguisher had a device in it that would only allow discharge when it detected smoke that would be a better analogy, would you permit your fire extinguisher to have such a device?

If a car loses power what happens? It coasts to a stop, sure someone might rear end you, but that isn't necessarily a flaw in the car's fail safe, but in the following drivers skills. If an aircraft loses power, in general (a few unstable airframes excepted F16 springs to mind) they can at least attempt a crash landing, and they have multiple back up systems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
As to the "backdoor", did you read what I wrote? Specifically, I've stated several times that the technology should be developed by those with a vested interest in making the technology reliable, safe and to operate within the parameters best suited to gun owners that want such guns. Really though, if you have a phone, an Internet connected security system or camera, it can already be hacked into by the government. If they are that concerned about you, they will wait until you are in the toilet and then come to get you.


Yep the internet is indeed a great example, but not in the way you expect. Check out BSAFE Crypto, by RSA, indeed much of anything that's produced by RSA.

On the best interests to gun owners, well sure, it will be in their best interests, unless that interest conflicts with a more powerful interest, say the government, who can regulate that all of the devices that can be used have to include that backdoor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
Like I said, the means to improve the technology exist and there are passive technologies than can if developed, overcome the problems of self contained active power systems.


We have them they're called Keys, there are guns manufactured with internal locks that require a key to unlock. Would you use one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
Fail safe. The technology doesn't need to change any existing safety systems in the design. End of story.


So to me based on my statement
Quote:
Failing safe means that the firearm is in a safe state, you can haul on the trigger for all you're worth and it's at best going to push out a small red flag with the word "bang!" on it in a blocky font.


that means that if the smartgun will not fire, which is indeed changing safety systems in the design, it's adding one mechanism.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
Shooting at -60 degrees. I invoke the honesty clause. In a personal self defense situation, please cite how many times, if ever documented, a private citizen needed to use their gun in self defense. I'm calling you out on that question.


Call me out all you want, I live about between 60 and 100 miles from Prospect Creek in Alaska, do you know what Prospect Creek is famous for? It's the coldest point on the North American continent, record low is -80F. I actually enjoy shooting at really low temps -40F and below, the air density makes for nice air concussions which I enjoy especially in large calibers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
6. How would a smartgun prohibit someone removing the "smart" and render the firearm useless? Is that a design goal, if not, then how is a smartgun any "safer" than a gun?

There is no such thing as a "safe" gun, I learned that before I was ever allowed to handle a firearm, as taught by my Father when I was a little boy. Treat every gun as loaded. The design goal is determined by those developing the technology, like I said, you can complain about it or influence the design, yo have the choice. Sit around and wait long enough and you'll get what someone else decides you'll get.

The safe part comes from the link between the brain and the trigger finger. Who said a smart gun was safer than any other gun? I didn't.
Then what is the purpose of putting this technology in the weapon in the first place, if not to make it safer? Does it make it more accurate, cheaper, more reliable? None of those things, then what is it's purpose?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
7. The remainder of your questions:

You are asking the wrong person. I suggest you start learning more than you know about technology to find those answers because others are already doing so. In your questions, you've tried to imply I am an advocate for smart technology, good try but not accurate. I do not recommend nor advocate for smart technology in guns, I simply point out that the technology is being developed, it will find its way into the market, people will buy them if they want and some laws will be created addressing the use and that if all gun owners do it sit around and whine like babies about this and that and say it will never happen, good for them, it will with or without them. Gun owners have a choice, either individually or as part of groups or associations, to get involved and help insure the technology does what it should as opposed to waiting for those you disagree with to figure it out for you.
Learn something about technology? Well I'd recommend the same, but try to stay away from Heinlein Clarke, and Bradbury, because we're a long way off that yet.

I think the thing you don't realize is that the technology exists in other devices. It's just an adaptation of that technology, however if you can't open your door, or log on to your laptop it's not life critical which is a good thing, given their questionable reliability. If you need to use your gun in defense it very likely is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
It's your choice. Be someone who influences the technology development or be someone influenced. Complain and resist something that will happen or be part of the development. Buy it or not. It is all your choice.
Discussion on a message board is hardly influencing the technology. Buying one isn't influencing the technology. Whether you agree with these, or disagree with these, your influence on the design of them is zero. The only thing you can do is, if you think it makes the gun less fit for purpose, not buy one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
I do maintain that if gun owners think trying to limit choice is the way to go, that will be turned around on them because it goes against the very foundation of what this is all about, choice. You can't demand rights and choice on one hand and then turn around and deny it with the other. That is hypocrisy and there is plenty of that to go around.
I'm denying nothing, I'm all for innovation in firearms, as long as that innovation improves the reliability, accuracy, price, function, even form. What I'm not for is innovation that can turn my firearm into a lump of metal, plastic or ceramic at a time when I need it most. History is littered with innovation that turned out to be wasted effort. Remington made those electrically firing rifles, caseless ammo is currently waiting in the wings (it's a given it will occur, but the current technology isn't there and that's been going for near a century or more). Plus a million other things outside of firearms.
__________________
My mod posts will always be in red.
The Rules Infractions & Deletions Who's the moderator? FAQ What is a "Personal Attack" What is "Trolling" Guidelines for copyrighted material.

Last edited by Gungnir; 05-13-2014 at 04:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 07:04 PM
 
7,282 posts, read 8,409,535 times
Reputation: 11407
Your entire post was based on assumptions, not questions. You might want to go back and read your post just made and the one I responded to, almost entirely examples of assumptions.

The smoke alarm is the correct comparison because it is designed to protect, the car is designed to transport, quite a difference. The smoke detector doesn't have any other functions than to protect you from harm yet you have no qualms about trusting it to work and it runs on a 9 volt battery that you have to change or it stops working. You bet your life that it works every time you go to sleep. There are many examples of technologies you trust will work or risk injury or death should they cease to function properly.

You bet your life that the ammunition in your gun will fire yet you don't know for a fact it will. You play the odds it will because with everything in life, it is all a risk. You can't say with absolute certainty that the gun you reply upon to fire when you need it will actually do so. You think it will, you hope it will and from experience can reasonably say it will but until you fire it you can't prove it will and then unless you fire it again, can't prove it will fire more than once.

The point is that all technology, whether mechanical or electronic or anything else, carries a risk it will not work. Smart technology is guns is no different. Just because you don't like it or see a need for it changes nothing, it will exist all the same.

Sorry, it doesn't wash, you cite scenarios and then when those scenarios are shown to be assumptions you call them questions. Nope.

Lets take just one example, the -60 degree scenario. I asked a simple question about it, you danced around answering directly, instead asking another question. We weren't all born yesterday.

You then go onto create fantasies about government backdoors to the technology when they are a fact with every technology ever created, someone always knows how to access it. Just whom is dealing with fantasies here?

It goes on and on like that. Regardless, the technology will be developed further, it will be offered for commercial sale and someone will buy it and you know, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. It will simply run over you and when you complain about it, having decided that because you don't like it that means it shouldn't exist (that is what you're saying) nothing is going to make a difference because in the end, those who do develop it could care less, it can and will happen.

The real kicker is that it won't be some anti-gun person or company that figures out how to make the technology work, it is going to be someone or some company that likes guns and probably thinks the right to own them is absolute. Yes, some gun owner as an individual or in a position of authority within a company is going to do it.

Then, because it is easier to fight something than direct it, you have it imposed upon you in one form or another. Say otherwise, it will happen.

Last edited by Mack Knife; 05-13-2014 at 07:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
16,178 posts, read 27,498,181 times
Reputation: 11841
If you guys keep your posts short and to the point, they would be a lot more interesting. Not trying to offend anybody here, so I will say:

~Please?

But so far I agree with some of your points as follows:

-Technology is not the problem, but creating new laws that can only be imposed on law-abiding gun owners- is the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 09:53 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 12,550,311 times
Reputation: 7377
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
If you guys keep your posts short and to the point, they would be a lot more interesting. Not trying to offend anybody here, so I will say:

~Please?

But so far I agree with some of your points as follows:

-Technology is not the problem, but creating new laws that can only be imposed on law-abiding gun owners- is the problem.
Although I do not intend on ever owning another firearm. I am opposed to the gun control laws that have been passed so far. Good firearm safety education will serve much better than any law.

When I was a kid I did not know of a single household that did not have at least one firearm for each adult and at least 2 for the kids to share. Usually a .10 and a .22 the kids would take turns with.

Accidents were pretty much unheard of.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2014, 10:39 PM
 
7,282 posts, read 8,409,535 times
Reputation: 11407
Yes, technology usually outpaces our ability to understand and then address all of the consequences of it's use. If we fear the genie getting out of the bottle, it is too late. The thing to do now is make sure that the genie works for us. If we don't, we find someone else getting their three wishes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Hobbies and Recreation > Guns and Hunting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top