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

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Chairo
    Coat

    I see it coming

    The iGun's on the way!

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: I see it coming

      I wonder if it will have the 'Find My iGun' app pre installed? Maybe it'll even fire a round and let you know where it's at.

    2. Kevin 6

      Re: I see it coming

      Shotgun manufacturer Mossberg has had such a system via an RFID ring, dubbed iGun, for over a decade, and Colt tried a similar system using a bracelet before abandoning it.

      Already exists

      but hey that never stopped a certain manufacturer of expensive iCrap form patenting something, and infringing on a trademark owned by another company

  2. Dana W

    All this is is the "guns for rich people only" law. this will never pass, and it shouldn't.

    Bad tech and worse legislation. Seriously, I'm supposed to hang that mess on my target pistol?

  3. Dana W

    And background checks? I had to go through two of them. State and FBI. There are PLENTY of background checks.

    1. localzuk
      Thumb Down

      Really?

      There are no background checks if you buy from a gun show. There are places where background checks are weak. Don't take your personal experience to be gospel as to how it is done country-wide.

      1. Tom 13

        Re: There are no background checks if you buy from a gun show.

        That's a flat out lie from people who want to confiscate guns. If you deal in guns and are required to do a background check as a normal part of your business, you HAVE to perform them at gun shows too. It's part of your FFLC and there is no 'gun show exception.'

        The people who aren't required to run background checks at gun shows are the average Joe who carries a couple or one gun to the show that he wants to sell so he can get a different model. And guess what? He wouldn't have to run a background check if you did it at his house either.

      2. Rob 5

        Re: Really?

        "There are no background checks if you buy from a gun show. There are places where background checks are weak"

        Two problems here:

        First, your statement displays ignorance of the facts. Most vendors at gun shows these days hold FFLs (Federal Firearms Licenses) and are required to conduct NICS checks on buyers, even at gun shows. The only transactions in which background checks are not carried out are private sales between individuals, where state law permits such. In those cases it is the nature of the transaction that eliminates the NICS check, not the venue.

        Second, your implication that universal background checks, even for private party transactions, would be desirable displays ignorance of economics. Given that there is no practicable mechanism for an individual to obtain a NICS check on another individual (and, given privacy concerns, nor should there be) the imposition of such a rule would leverage existing gun dealers into the position of gatekeepers over all transactions. This would inevitably lead to rent seeking, with "transfer fees" increasing dramatically as happens whenever government grants one group a monopoly. This effective increase in the price of all used guns would, in turn, drive up the price of new guns, creating a spiral which would inevitably lead to the situation in which only the rich could afford guns, as mentioned above.

        1. david wilson

          Re: Really?

          >>"This would inevitably lead to rent seeking, with "transfer fees" increasing dramatically as happens whenever government grants one group a monopoly. This effective increase in the price of all used guns would, in turn, drive up the price of new guns, creating a spiral which would inevitably lead to the situation in which only the rich could afford guns, as mentioned above."

          While I don't doubt that some element of that could happen, and I guess it might depend on exactly what you call 'the rich', surely there aren't that many artificial monopolies which result in *most* of the potential customers being priced out of the market?

          Since the existing NICS checks (which appear to cover most commercial sales) don't appear to be onerously expensive, it would seem unlikely that the public would acquiesce for long with a system where the charges for selling firearms became clearly excessive, with people making lots of money for little work.

          Also, unless there was some strictly enforced cartel, in the situation you present as an *inevitable* consequence with huge dealer charges on sales but few sales happening, there would seem to be a fairly obvious market for an existing or new dealer to start imposing lower charges, gaining lots of business in the process.

          1. Charles Manning

            That's why I like what we have in New Zealand

            Here in NZ a firearms license is basically a safety course and a formalised background check.Criminal: fail. Drink/drug problem: fail. Don't have adequate security (safe etc): fail. etc etc. Once you have that, you can buy guns and ammo.

            It is illegal for anyone (including private individuals) to sell buy to someone without a firearms license.

            There is no ongoing cost (NICS) or delays when purchasing. Like that rifle over there? Show your card and buy it. Feel like owning some .50 BMG ammo? Same.

            Sure there will be a black market where crims can trade stolen/illegal weapons but at least the supply is limited without having to significantly impact on law abiding citizens.

            1. Tom 13

              Re: there will be a black market where crims can trade stolen/illegal weapons

              Why black market the weapons when it is probably easier and safer to black market in ID cards?

              Except of course for the weapons you couldn't buy with an ID card.

              1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

                Re: there will be a black market where crims can trade stolen/illegal weapons

                Why black market the weapons when it is probably easier and safer to black market in ID cards?

                I'd think there would be room for both markets. They have different security trade-offs.

                A black market in forged / stolen ID cards, as you suggest, is likely easier and safer. Cards are smaller and lighter, for example.

                On the other hand, if a record of the card is taken for (some or all) weapons sales, then even with a forged/stolen card the user is leaving a trail with correlations that might be useful to law enforcement. It's potentially more difficult for a buyer to "test" a card before purchasing it (for example, to verify that a stolen card hasn't already been flagged as such). And there's the extra step of purchasing the black-market card before purchasing the weapon on the legal market.

                So there are likely situations that make either approach optimal over the other.

                That said, this is certainly not my area of expertise, so I have no idea how the NZ card scheme performs relative to the US NICS background-check scheme, vis-a-vis either their explicit goal of restricting purchases to approved users, or undesirable side effects.

                (I've never purchased a gun myself, but I may do so in the future, since the wife is considering retiring to a remote area where we may occasionally need to deal with ornery wildlife. As far as I'm concerned, guns are tools; I haven't needed to perform the jobs they're good for yet, but I'm not ruling the possibility out. And I too would be very leery of electronic controls on firearms.)

  4. cirby

    One option was suggested...

    Make this law - but only after the police have successfully used it on 100% of their weapons for at least five years.

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: One option was suggested...

      Not just police and army too.

      After that we shall all applaud Lucifer delivering the signed bill on a snowplough for execution.

  5. Dazed and Confused

    Oh S*&t!

    I think I'm in danger of agreeing with something the NRA say!

    This is another case of politicians failing to understand anything at all to do with technology. Its like the UK lot wanting the magic fairies to filter out all the porn off the Interweb. Look everyone, we're politicians we cab write laws about anything, surely if we can write a law you can do the easy bit and invent the technology to make it work.

    1. frank ly

      Re: Oh S*&t!

      We need a bigger budget for the magic fairy development project. It's obvious.

  6. wim

    facial recognition

    Here is how to make sure it passes.

    require a facial recognition of the target and make sure if the target is a politician the gun will not fire.

    All politicians will vote for this.

    And then see how long it takes to hack it.

  7. John Savard Silver badge

    Back to the Drawing Board

    The six year old was the intended operator of the gun in question, so putting a chip in it so that only he could fire it would not have saved his four year old sister.

    However, keeping guns out of the hands of poor people, or people who have no officially declared taxable income (so if they're not poor, they must be dealing drugs or something) would indeed significantly reduce crime. So this isn't as utterly loony an idea as it may seem to some, even if it has potential problems - such as it not being impossible to remove the technology from stolen guns to let them fire again.

    1. Kevin 6
      Thumb Down

      Re: Back to the Drawing Board

      However, keeping guns out of the hands of poor people, or people who have no officially declared taxable income (so if they're not poor, they must be dealing drugs or something) would indeed significantly reduce crime.

      yes because all poor people use legally obtained, and traceable weapons to commit crimes...

      This stupid law still won't address 99.5% of gun crime(as reported by the FBI) as those are done with illegally obtained firearms.

      I'm curious if that .5% that is done with legally obtained guns is by poor people even I'm guessing its done by well off people in the heat of the moment

    2. Anonymous Coward
      WTF?

      Re: Back to the Drawing Board

      John Savard: "However, keeping guns out of the hands of poor people, or people who have no officially declared taxable income (so if they're not poor, they must be dealing drugs or something) would indeed significantly reduce crime" <---- What....The....Fuck?

      You're utterly clueless how crime works, and you also sit yourself too high. I can't tell you how much of an ass you are, but apparently you have forgotten how the U.S.A. was won from England, which was very much poor people with guns. BTW, since you have clearly never owned a weapon or have been poor, I have to believe that your particular point of view has been seeded in your mind. Do the yourself and the world a favor, start thinking on your own, learn some history, and have some sense of dignity. And for the love of something, don't be a tool which is bought and sold, it just makes you look stupid.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Back to the Drawing Board

        Dear My back door.

        Are you American? Your apparent ADHD and trigger happy reflexes would seem to indicate so. I know it's hard but try and get to the end of the other persons article before firing off a response.

        Oddly though your flame was just as long as the OP's original comment it could just be a total lack of ability to spot subtle humour which is troubling you.

        So perhaps I have a different solution to the problem... Keep guns out of the hands of people with short attention spans, aggressive response mechanisms and no sense of humour. That should fix it.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          short attention spans, aggressive response mechanisms and no sense of humour

          but they have a constitutional right to carry them

      3. Tom 38 Silver badge

        Re: Back to the Drawing Board

        you have forgotten how the U.S.A. was won from England, which was very much poor people with guns.

        Ahaha, no. The US revolution was run by a bunch of rich white slave owners who no longer wanted to pay their taxes. The rest is sentimental bullshit.

        1. Dazed and Confused

          Re: Back to the Drawing Board

          > The US revolution was run by a bunch of rich white slave owners

          Nah, it was worse than that, some of them were lawyers.

          1. david wilson

            Re: Back to the Drawing Board

            >>"Nah, it was worse than that, some of them were lawyers."

            Never mind the lawyers, I am led to believe that French helped as well, fighting nobly for liberty while in the service of their freedom-loving absolute monarch.

            Not that it did him much good in the long run.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Coat

              Re: Back to the Drawing Board

              david wilson: "Never mind the lawyers, I am led to believe that French helped as well...."

              They most certainly did. A very odd thing I saw back in ~2002 with the war over 911 was bumper stickers that said "Fuck France". It wasn't their view that struck me odd, what was odd was that sticker was apparently a misprint, or a joke no one understood. The "Fuck France" sticker had a picture of a Bald Eagle, the American Flag, and the Statue of Liberty!! I found someone one day getting into their car in a parking lot with the sticker on it, and commented that I like the humor. The conversation turned short for they didn't understand the irony behind it, nor knew where the statue came from. Truthfully, something inside me went from being very humorous, to very concerning. I never asked anyone about the sticker again, I just assumed they were all idiots.

          2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

            Re: Back to the Drawing Board

            Nah, it was worse than that, some of them were lawyers.

            More seriously, it's true that the cabal of US "founding fathers" was a group of plutocrats, and they were a combination of mostly-Southern agrarian landowners (typically slave owners) and mostly-Northern capitalists. Capitalists generally don't own slaves, because wage-slavery is considerably more economically efficient, as Eric Williams argued at length in Capitalism and Slavery.1

            In any event, while "poor people with guns" may have made up the bulk of the US Revolutionary Army's infantry, it was most assuredly the rising middle class that conceived, organized, and controlled the war and the development of the ensuing Union.

            Shay's Rebellion was a poor-people's revolutionary movement in the US. It did not go well for the rebels. Jefferson subsequently praised it, but more as an abstract concept - he felt that democracy periodically needed to be renewed with spilt blood, preferably that of poor folks. Jefferson was kind of a loon.

            1It's debatable how much of this was Williams' idea. C.L.R. James claimed he gave Williams the thesis when they were friends at Oxford; but this in an interview with James after the two had a bit of a falling out, with Williams putting James under house arrest and all. In any case, it's likely the general idea was in the air among the Black-Colonial expats at Oxford in that era - Williams, James, Nkrumah, etc.

    3. graeme leggett

      Re: Back to the Drawing Board

      can't find the 6 year old shooting a 4 year old in google.

      Can find cases of a 5-year-old shooting a 2-year-old (sister) and a 4-year-old shooting a 6-year old neighbour. Both weapons were .22 rifles.

      In the first instance it was his "birthday present" (though apparently it had a child lock but was left loaded in a safe place)

      In the latter the father left the gun out and about, and has since been arrested and charged for that.

      I think any comments by me on the subject are superfluous to just stating the reports.

    4. Richard Jones 1
      Unhappy

      Re: Back to the Drawing Board

      I assume that the (intended) ironic comment was not understood by most people?

      It is nothing to do with poor people but quite a lot to do with poor thinking people of all wealth ranges.

      The fact that so many people, or their close relations are killed by their 'self protection device' appears not to matter to the Numbskull Rabid Assembly.

      Just as the 'self protection knifes' are so useful for killing those who carry them in my country.

      Fact - all offensive weapons are passive objects that are used by people who kill,

      Fact it is people who kill, but the easier the access to such devices the greater the number of deaths from offensive action.

  8. Antti Roppola

    Mechnical systems and the criminally inclined

    So currently guns are fundamentally mechnical systems and have no need for biometrics or electronics to function. I can't see how you can rig up something that cannot be removed by someone with determination and time. The main instance where this might help seems to be snatch and grab situations like on the street (where I'd hope that most private owners aren't gadding about packing heat anyway).

    And we've not had a resounding success with DRM of fully electronic systems either.

    But like cars, we may see more electronically integrated firearms, maybe with electronic firing. As this becomes common, we might insist on such firearms being used in circumstances where snatch and grab might be an issue.

  9. Charles Manning

    Just political bullshit

    This is just public posturing. People see 007 movie, politicians want to appear to be doing something....

    Most gun "accidents" that this would prevent (eg. the 6year old shooting the 4 year old) could easily be achieved by what we have in our house: a gun safe.

    Any criminal getting hold of a Smart Gun could make it work within 10 minutes by using a file/screwdriver/whatever to bypass the smartness and convert it back to a "dumb gun".

    This tech will really achieve nothing except make the hand wringers feel like they did something.

    1. Turtle

      Re: Just political bullshit

      "Most gun "accidents" that this would prevent (eg. the 6year old shooting the 4 year old) could easily be achieved by what we have in our house: a gun safe."

      Trigger locks would probably work just as well and be less expensive.

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Just political bullshit

        Trigger locks would probably work just as well and be less expensive.

        Trigger locks are a good idea, but some kids are liable to just resort to banging cartridges with rocks to see what happens. Ultimately it's the ammunition you have to keep away from the little dears, if they display that sort of inclination.

    2. Rob 5

      Re: Just political bullshit

      Mr Manning has hit the nail on the head. For those less well versed in US Realpolitik, here's a brief explanation.

      Guns are what is known as a "wedge issue" (abortion is another). Both main parties, The Crips and The Bloods, use wedge issues to good effect.

      The process is as follows:

      1. Some incident leads to a wedge issue getting heavy rotation in the mainstream media.

      2. Congresscritter mouths some empty bollocks related to said wedge issue. It doesn't have to be practical, sensible or even desirable - just related, even tangentially.

      3. That portion of the electorate on one side of the issue puts what little critical thinking ability that it has on hold and unquestioningly supports said critter, regardless of any other evil that it may be doing. Simultaneously, said critter gets heavy rotation in the media on the back of the original incident.

      4. ?

      5. Profit!!!

      As I say, they all do it and the electorate rewards them for it - so there's not much hope of any change any time soon.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Just political bullshit

        I think I know 4.

        4. Congress sends people abroad with guns to help people without them. i.e. Jews in WWII.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sensible gun laws in the US?

    Pipedream.

    1. Dana W
      Meh

      Re: Sensible gun laws in the US?

      Depends on the state, The president lauded Minnesota's gun laws. Sober responsible honest people can have (and carry) guns here, drunks, fools and criminals need not apply. And yes your background is checked VERY thoroughly and you WILL be trained in safety and the law.

      Drunk drive? No gun for you. Ever involuntarily committed, no gun for you. Get charged for beating your wife or kids, no gun for you. Gun ownership is an ADULT responsibility. If you cannot behave as an adult, you don't get adult privileges.

      If it was like that in the red state pest holes everyone could be happy.

  11. Allan George Dyer Silver badge
    Holmes

    Good idea, but even better...

    Why don't we form an international police and diplomacy force by selecting children with weird mental powers, take them from their parents and train them to use glowing swords?

  12. JamieL
    Facepalm

    And of course nobody actually wants to use a gun for its intended purpose (say hunting) which requires you to be outdoors in the cold... and wearing gloves!

  13. jake Silver badge

    Want to "save the chilllllldddddrrren"?

    Ban schools in Tornado Alley[1].

    More pre-teen kids were killed or injured at school in a matter of minutes in Moore, OK than were killed or injured by guns fired by pre-teens in the last year here in the USofA. Will the parental units of the kids in Moore be prosecuted for child endangerment for putting them in an obviously unsafe environment? Why not? Will anyone (other than myself) have the balls to even broach the subject?

    Perspective. It's a lost art.

    [1] Yes, I know, the Kansas School Board is trying ...

    1. Stuart Elliott
      Facepalm

      Re: Want to "save the chilllllldddddrrren"?

      " than were killed or injured by guns fired by pre-teens in the last year "

      What has pre-teens got to do with it, other than allowing a lower number than the tornado killed ?

      1. jake Silver badge

        @Stuart Elliott (was: Re: Want to "save the chilllllldddddrrren"?)

        What has pre-teens got to do with it?

        Is that a serious question?

        "Last month, a 6-year old in New Jersey accidentally shot and killed a 4-year old child. Accidents like this are not as rare as we want to believe, and they are preventable," said Congressman Tierney

        This idiot congresscritter seems to think that "personalizing" guns will somehow stop kids from getting killed, despite the obvious fact that tools don't automagically kill people, even if they are capable of killing people.

        It wasn't an accident, either. Somewhere, there is an adult who is guilty of allowing a 6 year-old to access a firearm and kill a 4 year-old. The adult should be on trial for manslaughter, IMO ...

        1. Austin Denyer
          Thumb Up

          Re: @Stuart Elliott (was: Want to "save the chilllllldddddrrren"?)

          "Somewhere, there is an adult who is guilty of allowing a 6 year-old to access a firearm and kill a 4 year-old. The adult should be on trial for manslaughter, IMO"

          In the state where I live (Kentucky) they could be facing felony charges for it.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @Stuart Elliott (was: Want to "save the chilllllldddddrrren"?)

            In Kentucky they would surely be prosecuted for felony charges. In similar states like Kentucky, you have more rights with arms, but the consequences are much much higher. However, I'm still not sure about the right to carry an unconcealed side arm without any permit at all. The "Gold Star" states are just...different.

            1. Austin Denyer

              Re: @Stuart Elliott (was: Want to "save the chilllllldddddrrren"?)

              "I'm still not sure about the right to carry an unconcealed side arm without any permit at all."

              The "Bad Guys" tend not to open-carry. They don't like to draw attention to themselves.

              Personally I am not a fan of open-carry* (though I respect the right of others to do so if they wish) - it scares the sheeple and in the event of an attack the person open-carrying will be the first one shot. I like to keep the Bad Guys guessing. The fact that I'm covertly armed also protects those who aren't, as the Bad Guy has no way of knowing who is and who is not.

              In Vermont people can carry concealed firearms without a license at 16. They have the 2nd lowest gun crime in the country...

              * Full disclosure: I teach concealed carry classes.

  14. Neil Barnes Silver badge

    Anyone else reminded of

    A E van Vogt's 'Weapon Shops of Isher'?

    1. Stuart Elliott
      Trollface

      Re: Anyone else reminded of

      Everyone needs a bosom for a pillow ?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Anyone else reminded of

        I can't get my head on my bosom, not fair!

  15. hplasm Silver badge
    Devil

    Re:Hopefully no one's working on a Lawgiver like Judge Dredd's that explodes...

    Hopefully they are!

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

    1. Austin Denyer
      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.

  18. 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

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Charles Manning

        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.

  19. 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?

  20. 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. Nameless Faceless Computer User
      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.

      1. james 68

        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.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          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. 1Rafayal
            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.

          2. david wilson

            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?

        2. Charles 9 Silver badge

          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).

          1. james 68

            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. Charles Manning

              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.

            2. Austin Denyer
              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.

              1. Charles 9 Silver badge

                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?

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  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'.

                  1. Charles 9 Silver badge
                    FAIL

                    Re: @ Charles

                    You FAIL at FAILING.

                    I was taking ALL GOVERNMENT into consideration.

        3. Austin Denyer
          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...

          1. Vic

            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.

            1. Charles 9 Silver badge

              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.

        4. Dana W

          Re: gets my goat

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

    2. Austin Denyer
      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.

  21. 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?

  22. 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!

  23. 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?

    1. Tom 13

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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.

    2. SYNTAX__ERROR
      Headmaster

      its'

      SYNTAX ERROR

      Interpreter aborted

      That is not a valid combination of characters.

  24. 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... :-)

  25. 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. david wilson

      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?

      1. Austin Denyer

        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.

  26. 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/

    1. Charles Manning

      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. Austin Denyer

        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.

    2. Vic

      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.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019