Sign in / up

back to article James Bond inspires US bill to require smart guns for all

American gun manufacturers will have to fit smart technology to their products if a new bill from US Representative John Tierney (D-MA) comes into force. The Personalized Handgun Safety Act of 2013 would give gun manufacturers two years to fit all guns with technology that would allow only the owner (or an authorized user) to …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    what cost?

    will it cost those few dozens (hundreds maybe) kids, to implement this technology?

    yes, I'm a heartless bastard (only two kids, still alive). It's just I can never get how irrational humans are (and spend similar amount of money on a technology that's (kind of) proven to save MORE lives.

    Like what?

    I don't know... some microwave explosion preventing technology? Toilet-toddler-gobbling-alarm? Anything to reduce the rate of car-related accidents? Basically ANYTHING that's proven to have cost more lives than mis-use of guns, and costs just a fraction of implementing gun-id (Ian Banks should claim copyright, by the way).

    p.s., I don't own a gun, and I'm not paid to defend them. I prefer blunt instruments when I need them.

    but hey, look on the bright side - manufacturers are going to be forced to develop a fairly mature system, which can then be implemented across the board, relatively cheaply. Think of all the control we can have... Take something like a humble door handle, we can link every one of them to the database of all the pedo-terrorist pirates and such scum, and then, when they want to open a door to enter our air-cond, pure interior - sorry, no, I'm afraid you can't do this Ibrahim. Or, say, the fridge. You haven't paid your due taxes - sorry, no beer for you Johny. Etc. Possibilities are truly endless.

    1 0
  2. ttkaminski

    Trigger Locks?

    In Canada, handguns need to be stored unloaded AND with a trigger lock AND in a locked cabinet (by law). In the US, they allow to keep a loaded gun under your pillow. In fact, when Washington DC tried to pass a law requiring trigger locks on guns within the home, the Supreme court overruled it. Go figure.

    4 2
    1. Austin Denyer
      Reply Icon
      FAIL

      Re: Trigger Locks?

      "In Canada, handguns need to be stored unloaded AND with a trigger lock AND in a locked cabinet (by law)."

      And in Canada, the armed burglars wait patiently for you to go to your cabinet, unlock it, retrieve your gun, unlock the trigger, load the gun...

      Fail.

      I carry a firearm at all times (where legal) except when in bed, where it is within arm's reach. Anything else is locked in a safe.

      2 0
  3. johnck

    Whats the problem with this again?

    To combine two things that some Americans seem passionate about guns and cars, isn’t this like adding electronic security, think immobilisers or alarms, tthat can be deactivated by a car keys.

    But all of these smart systems change the nature of a car key from being a purely mechanical device relying on the energy of the person turning the key to open the car/start the engine, into something which requires batteries.

    Based on his arguments does this mean that NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam is happy for his complicated electronically enhanced locks on his, no drought, expensive car to be replace with purely mechanical ones, that can be bypassed with a screw driver? No, thought not.

    Don’t even get me started on the "a luxury tax on self-defense," quote, guns and ammunition are a luxury in self defence as they are expensive. I'm expecting down votes for that last statement is nothing else

    2 4
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Whats the problem with this again?

      "Well, if it needs one of them batteries then that could run out, sir, and mean you can't fire the gun, and then that gun's not so smart, no siree."

      Taking that to the extreme, you shouldn't have to replace the bullets in a gun once you've used it. Fucktards. Put the batteries in the magazine, when when you put more bullets in you can check / replace the battery. Maybe even having a little beeping noise come out of it if the batter is low.

      I like guns, and I'm a pretty decent shot. I would love to own a gun and go hunting, but it's more difficult in the UK than the US. I have no concern what-so-ever that if I were to go get a gun that a system of gun-ID was implemented. I know the Dredd (and now Bond) system is cool, but I can't remember where I saw that the firer's DNA was imprinted on the bullet at the moment the trigger was pulled so that when the cops dug it out of someone's head they knew who had fired it. Where was that from?

      Oh my God I've just had a Revelation. Make a law that all gun owners need a chip installing in their hand that will biometrically charge the gun-ID system, making their weapon available to use (and then imprint their DNA on the bullet). Then we'll get a whole number-of-the-beast backlash - there hasn't been a massive one of those in a while, and always good to bait... er... I mean... initiate highly intellectual conversations.

      0 3
      1. Charles Manning
        Reply Icon

        Meh!

        "I like guns, and I'm a pretty decent shot. I would love to own a gun".

        Horseshit. If you don't even own a gun then you're deluded that you are a good shot.

        While the UK makes it hard to own guns, it isn't impossible. If you would really love to own a gun you could.

        There is a lot of BS about guns, mainly spouted by armchair experts that have no experience or knowledge beyond FPS gaming.

        People with real experience lack bravado, they know that using and carrying firearms is a huge responsibility and that things like identifying bad guy from good guy is never straight forward.

        0 0
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How about having some sort of mechanical lock on the gun, say for example on the grip of the gun, you have 4 individual pressure points(for each of your fingers). To activate the trigger a certain combination of these need to be held down (say the first, third and fourth - you would be able to set it). Anyone want to tell me why that wouldn't work? OK, it's not perfect but it would significantly reduce the chances that anyone who didn't know which pressure points to push down would be able to use the gun.

    The fact is I'm no genius but I thought that up in about a minute. There are plenty of sensible ways to lock a gun down mechanically, it's just that the second NRA types get a sniff of the US government trying to make gun laws somewhat sensible it's all DERYYYYYRRR'RE TTAAAKKKKINNN ARRRRR GUNNNZZZZ!!!!1

    I don't know why they just can't admit it's all about their penises?

    1 4
  5. james 68

    gets my goat

    second amendment rights?

    wonder how many downvotes ill get for this....

    but frankly - bollocks

    there is nothing in the US constitution or bill of rights that states that an "individual" has the right to keep or bear arms - nothing - not one word.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    the "people" referred to in that are those defined by "well regulated militia"

    hence:

    are you a legal member of a militia, funded, organised and operated by a state government?

    if the answer to that question is no, then hell no you aint got no "right" to keep or bear arms unless the state decides to license you to do so. that is called a privilege not a right.

    dont get me wrong, im all for guns, with proper and sane controls in place (background checks, mental health checks, mandatory gun safety courses prior to licensing, mandatory storage in a locked gun cabinet when not in use, safety lock to prevent discharge by children etc) but all this "second amendment rights" crap is nothing more than a load of twisted bull put forward by paranoid asshats.

    1 5
    1. Nameless Faceless Computer User
      Reply Icon
      FAIL

      Re: gets my goat

      I can see your frustration, as you are ignorant of the law, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. If you search Wikipedia for 'heller decision' you will educate yourself to the decision which the Supreme Court came to in 2008 which re-asserted that individuals have a right to bear arms, unrelated to the militia. English can be a rough language - oh, I forgot that you probably have difficulties with English as well.

      They ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

      This is not a privilege. This is a right. It is part of the Constitution of the United States which makes it a free country. There are plenty of other countries out there which do not have such rights. If that better suits you, feel free to live elsewhere.

      5 4
      1. james 68
        Reply Icon

        Re: gets my goat

        actually im rather well versed in english thanks since my lot invented it, i just dont waste time on capitalisation and punctuation in meaningless post threads

        the wording in the second amendment is quite clear given the language of the time - militias, not individuals

        that the NRA can buy a judge makes no difference to either the intent of said amendment or the morality of those who chose to twist it (consider that it took them till 2008 to do so, only 217 years after all)

        btw you made me giggle a little with your "free country" rant, i chose to believe that was an ironic statement because it would just be too sad otherwise

        here in the UK we have the magna carta and the bill of rights, so yeah, i dont need yer cheap knock offs thanks.

        2 5
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: gets my goat

          In 1689 the English Bill of Rights stated

          "Whereas the late King James the Second ... did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome....causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

          "Declare....that the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law".

          Notice how it's much less ambiguous it is, and makes reference to Law more than Right. You'd have thunk the writers of the Second Amendment had enough lawyers in their midst to make their meaning clear. I suppose they understood in context of the circumstances of the time; if they could have foreseen a future with a public police force to guard the citizens, they might have slipped a clause on at the end to allow for limitations.

          1 1
          1. 1Rafayal
            Reply Icon
            Childcatcher

            Re: gets my goat

            Or, maybe, people just dont need access to all these guns in the first place.

            You can downvote me for this, I am just an ignorant Brit.

            1 4
          2. david wilson
            Reply Icon

            Re: gets my goat

            >>"You'd have thunk the writers of the Second Amendment had enough lawyers in their midst to make their meaning clear."

            What makes you think that lawyers have any interest in making laws clear?

            0 0
        2. Charles 9
          Reply Icon

          Re: gets my goat

          Ever heard of a one-man army? How about a one-man militia? Entirely possible and within the law (by definition, militias are outside government control; the National Guard doesn't count). And regulated in this case means equipped (like the Regulars).

          0 0
          1. james 68
            Reply Icon

            Re: gets my goat

            "regulars" = full time soldiers

            "regulated" = under control of law

            both terms meant the same thing then as they do now

            regulated militia being controlled by state government to oppose any abuse by federal government or interference with the states right to establish its own rule of law and and to offset a standing regular army (which at the time was seen as a means to suppress the people and the various states)

            in fact to form an UNREGULATED militia would have been seen as treason and what we now call a terrorist action

            1 0
            1. Charles Manning
              Reply Icon

              Militia in context

              A "regulated militia" would not be under state control, but more likely organised at a village level.

              Remember that at the time communications were pretty limited and getting instructions to/from a state capilat was too slow to provide the responsiveness required of militia. The state could not fly in a chopper load of troops at a moment's notice.

              The militia were expected to form up and respond to threats at a village level to protect the village or whatever. To do that they needed to be able to act under their own authority until some higher authority arrived.

              A better modern day equivalent would be an armed neighbourhood watch where everyone gets called out to protect the neighbourhood against rioters etc until the real police/troops could take over.

              0 0
            2. Austin Denyer
              Reply Icon
              Black Helicopters

              Re: gets my goat

              "A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

              Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.

              The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

              Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

              Similarly the Second Amendment states, the people from whom a necessary and well-regulated militia will be composed, shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

              It was the Founders' desire "that every man be armed" such that from the "whole body of the people" (militia) a sufficient number would serve in the well-regulated militia.

              0 0
              1. Charles 9
                Reply Icon

                Re: gets my goat

                "Well-regulated" CANNOT mean "organized" in this case, as that implies rules, which implies government...and government is the intended adversary OF the militia in the worst case. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee the people (the militia is defined as the regular people--see the Federalist Papers) the last resort...and it must be against ANY government because what if ALL the government levels are in cahoots?

                0 1
                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Reply Icon
                  Anonymous Coward

                  @ Charles

                  You fail.

                  Go back and read the words above properly this time.

                  It seems you forget that in the US there is this separate concept of 'state' and 'federal'.

                  0 0
                  1. Charles 9
                    Reply Icon
                    FAIL

                    Re: @ Charles

                    You FAIL at FAILING.

                    I was taking ALL GOVERNMENT into consideration.

                    0 0
        3. Austin Denyer
          Reply Icon
          FAIL

          Re: gets my goat

          And look where your Magna Carta and Bill of Rights has got you. You can't even carry sharp pointy things. All the while the criminals strip people in the streets (during the Occupy BS) and home invasions are on the rise.

          I have experienced both systems. I was born and raised in the U.K. and lived there for 30 years before moving to the U.S.A. When the bad guy breaks into your house and grabs your daughter, you reach for your phone and call a cop. I'll reach for my gun...

          0 0
          1. Vic
            Reply Icon

            Re: gets my goat

            > home invasions are on the rise.

            [Citation needed]

            > you reach for your phone and call a cop.

            Nope. I'll reach for one of the many weapons that are to hand within my home. Weapons are trivially easy to come by or even fashion - they're just not firearms.

            > I'll reach for my gun...

            I'll be very much happier knowing that there is a *vanishingly* small probability that an intruder is anywhere near as well-armed as I...

            Vic.

            0 0
            1. Charles 9
              Reply Icon

              Re: gets my goat

              "I'll be very much happier knowing that there is a *vanishingly* small probability that an intruder is anywhere near as well-armed as I..."

              Doesn't matter. You have the knowledge of terrain. You can ambush. It's harder for the perp.

              0 0
        4. Dana W
          Reply Icon

          Re: gets my goat

          Read the actual writing if its framers. They DO make to very clear they meant individuals.

          1 0
    2. Austin Denyer
      Reply Icon
      FAIL

      Re: gets my goat

      Look up what the founding fathers said about what constitutes "the militia". It is The People.

      Plus, the militia part only states one reason for needing the right to bear arms, not the only reason.

      As I said elsewhere, try rephrasing it like this:

      "A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

      Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

      Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

      0 0
  6. BigFire
    FAIL

    More Gun Grabber Tactics

    Why would I trust my life in a hardware designed by my enemy? Why introduce another element that can screwed up when you actually need it?

    3 0
  7. John 90

    007's gun

    That gun did Bond no good at all. It was a goanna that saved his life.

    The right of the people ... to keep and bear lizards ... shall not be infringed.

    FTFY!

    1 0
  8. Ron B
    WTF?

    Another congressman publicly admits he can't distinguish between fantasy and reality.

    And he’s got a two year deadline. Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for the first flying car that everyone was supposed to be driving by 2000. It’s only taken 50 years for the Dick Tracy watch to go on the market. Getting a fingerprint scanner to 99.9% reliability on both accept and reject in a split second shouldn’t take more than twice that.

    And, he’s talking like the NRA is dragging its’ heels on gun safety. Doesn’t the NRA already outspend the feds when it comes to gun safety programs?

    3 0
    1. Tom 13
      Reply Icon

      Re: Doesn’t the NRA already outspend

      Never let a fact get in the way of a good two minute hate.

      Here are some more:

      From 2001 to 2010 (latest data publicly available from the CDC [http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal_injury_reports.html]) the mean number of unintentional gun deaths for children (18 years and younger) is 126.6 per year, with a minimum of 96 and a maximum of 154. Drop out those old enough to drive a car (that is, those we deem of sufficient age and responsibility to run an equivalently dangerous device on a routine basis) and those numbers fall to 74.9, 58, and 88. Look at the 6 and under crowd since that was the id ten T's talking point and the numbers are 22.9, 8, and 30.

      So I suppose he did get one thing inadvertently right; the actual numbers aren't as low as I expected, they are lower.

      0 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Doesn’t the NRA already outspend

        I think I must have parsed the numbers wrong when I tried it - I got 3,900 deaths from firearms for 0 to 14 years olds over the ten years. I allowed for all intents though - figuring an intentional death in that age group also ought to be preventable.

        0 0
    2. SYNTAX__ERROR
      Reply Icon
      Headmaster

      its'

      SYNTAX ERROR

      Interpreter aborted

      That is not a valid combination of characters.

      0 0
  9. William Boyle
    FAIL

    Wanna' bet?

    What do you want to bet that all of such firearms will have an "open" mode that allows anyone to use them, and that quickly will become the default setting? This is what happens when clueless legislators try to control peoples' actions. There are more ways around the barn than horses inside of it... :-)

    0 0
  10. Austin Denyer
    FAIL

    So many ignorant people

    It would appear that a great many people here have no idea about U.S. firearms laws, background checks, etc. The only way you can buy a gun at a gun show without a full NICS background check is if you buy from a private individual rather than a licensed dealer. That is no different to buying privately regardless of whether the transaction took place at a gun show or not.

    (Full disclosure: I am a state-certified firearms instructor)

    1 0
    1. david wilson
      Reply Icon

      Re: So many ignorant people

      Are private sales at gun shows a meaningful fraction of total private sales to strangers?

      Have many incidents been traced back to someone who would have failed a background check buying a gun in a private sale at a gun show?

      0 0
      1. Austin Denyer
        Reply Icon

        Re: So many ignorant people

        Hardly any criminals purchase their guns at gun shows. The FBI did a study on this a few years ago. The vast majority either get them from friends or family, or they steal them.

        0 0
  11. Austin Denyer
    Mushroom

    Need more reasons to carry?

    How did this happen in a country that bans guns and sharp pointy things? This is one of the reasons I carry...

    http://www.libertynews.com/2013/05/breaking-terrorists-scream-allahu-akbar-as-they-cut-a-british-soldiers-head-off-in-broad-daylight/

    0 0
    1. Charles Manning
      Reply Icon

      Re: Need more reasons to carry?

      I carried in the past - when I lived in a country where that was rather prudent.

      Carrying is a huge responsibility.

      It might be reasonably obvious who is the villain after the fact and you have watched it all on youtube, but things are seldom that clean in real time in real life.

      See a man throwing a woman to the ground... Perhaps he's robbing her.... or maybe she way mugging him and he acted in self defence... or maybe she shoplifted something and he's trying to arrest her.

      There is so often the argument that students carrying on campus would have been able to shut down a mass killer. Perhaps, but that would have to be weighed up against all the extra deaths caused when an argument gets elevated to a gunfight instead of just fisticuffs and a broken nose or two.

      Carrying is fine, so long as the carrier is well trained - mostly in how to avoid using their gun.

      1 0
      1. Austin Denyer
        Reply Icon

        Re: Need more reasons to carry?

        In Kentucky the law is subtly different between protecting yourself and protecting another.

        Protecting yourself, the standard is "the situation as it appeared to be".

        Protecting another, the standard is "the situation as it actually was".

        If a joker points a gun at me, says "I'm gonna shoot you" and I shoot him first, and it turns out his gun was empty, I'm in the clear. If under the same circumstances he pointed it at my wife and I shot him I'd go to jail.

        0 0
    2. Vic
      Reply Icon

      Re: Need more reasons to carry?

      > How did this happen in a country that bans guns and sharp pointy things?

      1) No guns were involved.

      2) Sharp pointy things are not banned.

      Easy when you apply a little thought rather than blind emotion, isn't it?

      Vic.

      0 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.