Recap of a post in GD

[AndyS]

I started this post in GD because Guns are a top issue in the news right now. I want to critique it and am posting this in both Gun groups to be fair and give all an opportunity to consider it without violating the GD rules.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215274087#post40

There were just over 50 responses by about 21 respondents. Of those four from the positive gun point of view, 14 from the other and two mostly neutral.

I asked two questions: If a gun is good for self protection and the US has 325M people and 395M guns, why are more people shot in the US than in any other developed country?
and
If more cars on freeways means more car accidents and more swimming pools in a community mean more drownings, what exempts guns from the same correlation?

I got two answers to the first, gangs and a more thoughtful reply that took into account societal ills but it total explained that we really don't have a problem.

Another respondent, also thoughtful, simply said there are a lot of factors and it's too complicated to solve.

What struck me was the methodology of one of the gun supporters. The key to that argument was to break gun victims into sub groups and minimize each group; suicides don't count as violence, domestic violence is only 12% so it's too small a subset to worry about, gangs don't count, mass shootings are a tiny subset of shootings so not worthy of consideration etc. A second method was to simply deflect; this thread isn't about this or that so your post is off topic.

I got no answers whatsoever to the second.

So all in all a post with two simple questions that went unanswered in a satisfactory way, at least for me. YMMV

[TheRealNorth]

1. Here is my question...

Are you arguing that there should be a prohibition on all guns?

Because while some of us agree with no loopholes in back ground checks, limits on clip sizes, and maybe some limitations on the caliber or types of guns, I know outlawing hunting weapons will be a great way for Democrats to lose in the upper Midwest in 2022.

[AndyS]

2. No, I'm not.

It was intended to be a discussion starter. I asked two questions and really didn't get much of an answer although two respondents obviously put some thought into it.

Elsewhere I have and still do wish to prohibit all semi auto weapons (long and short) with interchangeable magazines. I am realistic in expectations about stopping ALL death and injury from ANY source but I think reducing the lethality of firearms will be a meaningful move in reducing the gun toll.

That's a whole different conversation.

[Dial H For Hero]

3. Did you not recently say you were open to prohibiting ownership of revolvers, pumps, and lever

actions as well if, after semis are outlawed, mass shootings continue to occur? If I'm incorrect, I apologize in advance.

[AndyS]

4. Only if after time, statistics and evaluation they

prove problematic. Australia implemented a very effective plan. My initial thought is to reduce lethality and see how that goes.

I'm not anti gun, I'm anti lethality for the sake of lethality. I'm against putting rounds down range at 400 rounds per minute. There's no rational reason these things should be on our streets.

I'm not afraid of guns, I'm afraid of people too paranoid to leave home without one.

[Dial H For Hero]

5. Thank you for the clarification.

As I believe we discussed in an earlier thread, prohibiting ownership of all semis with detachable magazines would result in a quarter to half of all firearms in the US being outlawed. Add revolvers, pumps, and lever actions, and you've talking about
trying to consfiscate around 80 to 90 percent of all guns in the US.

While it's interesting to ponder such draconian laws, there isn't the slightest chance of the first part becoming law in the US, let alone the second.

Yes, I know...people point to Japan, the UK, and Australia. Those aren't the US, and anyone who thinks we could get similar levels of disarmament for the foreseaable future is just fooling themselves.

[AndyS]

6. Okay, H. Sleep tight.

[yagotme]

7. You're missing the part about the breakdown...

in the total deaths in relation to suicides. A single shot weapon is sufficient for suicide, magazine capacity and action type have no bearing on this subset. That is approximately 2/3 of the total. So, to reduce deaths from firearms related to suicides, you would therefore have to ban ALL weapons. And, if someone is really set on ending their life, ending the access to a firearm won't stop them.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. Unsatisfactory

If a gun is good for self protection and the US has 325M people and 395M guns, why are more people shot in the US than in any other developed country?

We have, as you point out, more people and more guns than other countries. It is an apples and oranges type comparison of one country with another.

If more cars on freeways means more car accidents and more swimming pools in a community mean more drownings, what exempts guns from the same correlation?

Probably nothing. Would you have a solution for those three unfortunate statistics?

[yagotme]

9. I think a better question would be,

since we DO have so many people, and SO many guns, why isn't every street a battleground, with blood in the gutters? Guns are evil, after all, and with so much evil present (with guns) in our country, there should be few of us left alive. MAYYYbe, it is the trigger puller that is evil, not the trigger. Lock guns away, crime will still persist. Crime existed pre-gun, so guns disappearing will not solve that. It is our own inner selves that channel evil, not inanimate objects. Padded rooms are used for extreme mental patients, as a paper clip or a large chip of paint will do for self-hurt.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Andy hasn't replied to one of my posts in years.

Draw your own conclusions.

[yagotme]

12. Seems like I'm on ignore, also. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. It's a bit of club

I'm not quite sure why and I don't really remember the details but I've been banned or blocked (terminology??) twice from the whine cellar: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262

[yagotme]

14. I was blocked some time ago, for asking a question.

As I recall, a poster brought up some figure, and I asked if it was something like an annual or monthly number, just to clarify, and BOOM.

[Dial H For Hero]

15. I wrote a reply detailing the problems with somoone's prposed draconian gun control proposal.

Instaban.

[yagotme]

17. Well, you disagreed with someone...

I was just trying to clarify a statement.

[EX500rider]

10. "gangs don't count" Please show me where I said that

In fact my point was since gang/drug related shootings are around 80% of gun homicides, restricting guns won't budge that much as the majority of those shootings are committed by people already prohibited from owning guns and restricting the law abiding won't help a bit.

[krispos42]

16. I don't exempt guns from the second point

But car-related deaths and pool-related deaths are almost always unintentional, that is, accidents or negligence. Yeah, we put people in prison for vehicular homicide, and of course a few people are murdered by drowning in a given year. But by and large it's a deaths-per-unit measure feature.

The average person drive 15,000 miles per year and there are... 200? million cars driven on the road.

So in the 3,000,000,000,000 car-miles driven per year, we know that 30,000 people will die, so that's one person per 100,000,000 car-miles.

We also know that vehicular traffic density has something to do with it, but so does vehicular safety features. Density makes the rate go up, safety features (airbags, crumple zones, lane-keeping, etc) makes them go down. The number of people killed per year on the highways has been relatvely steady for decades, despite increases in population and traffic density and distractions, so the rate has been dimishing steadily.

Gun owners can own a quite a few guns, but can only really use one at a time. So individuals owning more guns doesn't really increase the risk dying from guns. If I'm going to commit suicide or kill my cheating spouse, a dozen handguns and two dozen AR-15s doesn't make my suicide or homicide more likely than if I have one handgun.

[yagotme]

18. "(C)an only really use one at a time."

You haven't watched Silverado or John Wick much, have you.

[krispos42]

19. I've seen plenty of dual-wield movies

And.. they're movies. They also feature 20-shot revolvers that can knock a grown man back 10 feet through a wall and Glocks that make manual-safety clicking noises whenever anybody draws and points one.

The only reason I could see where dual-wielding handguns could be useful is if you are on the defensive and have two widely-spaces doorways to cover, so you point one gun at each. Whichever one gets the first flicker of activity, all you have to do now is turn your head to the appropriate pistol.

[yagotme]

20. Have shot at SASS cowboy shoots, in Duelist category,

Pistol in each hand, engage targets l-r-l-r, etc. Can be done, like piano playing, practice required. Helps to be ambidextrous, too.

[krispos42]

22. That's one way to do it with single-action revolvers

But with a semi-auto? Probably faster to shoot one pistol with two hands, then drop it and draw the second one. Your recovery time shot-to-shot, and your accuracy, will be better.

Haven't tried that yet at the range, though...

[yagotme]

33. If one is a good shot, and practices,

it would probably be quicker to hold both at the same time, but fire one 'til empty, then move to the other, or drop empty and move other pistol to strong hand/double hold. Drawing can be problematic, under stress, therefore the 2d pistol is ready to go if held in other hand.

[Straw Man]

36. Right.

That's one way to do it with single-action revolvers

But with a semi-auto? Probably faster to shoot one pistol with two hands, then drop it and draw the second one. Your recovery time shot-to-shot, and your accuracy, will be better.

Mythbusters tested that one out and proved you right. Fastest and most accurate was one pistol at a time. Second was a pistol in each hand, fired alternately. Last was a pistol in each hand, fired simultaneously.

[AndyS]

21. Thank you again for the thoughtful reply.

Your reply begs more questions than it attempts to answer.

The original query(more emphatically stated)was, 'If more of one thing results in more injuries from it, why do gun rights advocates steadfastly refuse to see (or admit) that more guns in circulation results in more injuries from guns?'

Why go through the mental exercise of figuring passenger miles vs guns per owner? It's really not germane. It is, in fact, a red herring intentional or not. The same with the diminishing of suicide as a violent death imposed on loved one who must clean up the mess. Repeat it all you wish, it doesn't make it so. It's just more deflection. SQUIRREL!

But you bring up another interesting question; if improvements in car safety have reduced the injury/death rate per passenger mile why has the gun industry so steadfastly refused to embrace new technoloty or even the development of new technology for gun safety?

[krispos42]

23. Yeah, I got interrupted

The original query(more emphatically stated)was, 'If more of one thing results in more injuries from it, why do gun rights advocates steadfastly refuse to see (or admit) that more guns in circulation results in more injuries from guns?'

Because it doesn't. Remember how from about 1992 to 2004 the violent crime rate plummeted by nearly half? Well, gun sales were doing pretty well during that time. There certainly wasn't any mass confiscation or anything of guns during that era, and guns are durable goods. So the number of guns in circulation per capita probably went UP over the last couple of decades.







Why go through the mental exercise of figuring passenger miles vs guns per owner? It's really not germane. It is, in fact, a red herring intentional or not. The same with the diminishing of suicide as a violent death imposed on loved one who must clean up the mess. Repeat it all you wish, it doesn't make it so. It's just more deflection. SQUIRREL!

My point was that the number of households with guns is relatively steady, probably somewhere in the 40% range for a nationwide average. Yet the homicide rate can drop over 40% in a ten-year span. So, guns-per-capita is steady, households-with-guns is steady, but we have a 40% drop in homicides, aggravated assaults, and forcible rape.



Obviously, what dropped was people motivated and willing to commit violent crimes.

And suicide is not a violent crime. It's a suicide. It's a violent death when committed with a handgun. It has different causes and solutions than homicides, aggravated assaults, and forcible rape, and the person committing the act does so on himself or herself not on others. I'm not saying that a suicide isn't a tragic thing to deal with for the person's family and friends, but it is different from using a gun to commit crime.

But you bring up another interesting question; if improvements in car safety have reduced the injury/death rate per passenger mile why has the gun industry so steadfastly refused to embrace new technology or even the development of new technology for gun safety?

Because the 30,000 or so dead people annually on our highways are nearly all accidents or negligence. Weather, road debris, inattention, DUI, mechanical failure, sun glare, etc. Some are violent assaults such as road rage, some are negligent homicides such as DUI.

There are very few truly "accidental" gun deaths in America. Guns are built tough and catastrophic mechanical failure leading to death is virtually unheard of. Nearly all deaths are either suicide or homicide, with a smattering of negligent and accidental deaths thrown in for variety. So, for the 18,000 gun-related suicides and 12,000 gun-related homicides, the gun worked as intended: squeeze the trigger and the gun goes off, launching a bullet or wad of shot out of the barrel. There's nothing to fix in that regard.

You're probably thinking "well, what about smart guns?"

I did a post on that about 5 years ago.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172185776

[AndyS]

24. I remember that post. I pretty much beat you to death with your own talking points.

Cut and paste from that post.

Star Member flamin lib (10,408 posts)

9. Let me know when you get to the serious part . . .

Response to flamin lib (Reply #9)Wed Feb 3, 2016, 02:48 PM
Star Member krispos42 (48,952 posts)

11. Would you trust skydiving with a parachute as reliable as your smartphone's fingerprint scanner?

Yes or no?

Would you want a loved one, working as a police officer, to have a gun as reliable as your smartphone's fingerprint scanner?


Response to krispos42 (Reply #11)Wed Feb 3, 2016, 03:35 PM
Star Member flamin lib (10,408 posts)

12. you guys sound just like Lee Iocacca when seat belts were suggested for

cars. People don't want them, they won't help and you're better off being thrown clear of the crash (paraphrasing).

You do realize how wrong he was, don't you?

Now, let me know when you get to the serious part.

Response to flamin lib (Reply #12)Wed Feb 3, 2016, 08:28 PM
Star Member krispos42 (48,952 posts)

17. You're avoiding the question, which means you don't like the answer.

Speaking of car safety then, would you buy a car with airbags that had a 10% chance of not discharging when the crash sensors triggered them?

Response to krispos42 (Reply #17)Wed Feb 3, 2016, 10:08 PM
Star Member flamin lib (10,408 posts)

19. Show me a car like that.

Response to flamin lib (Reply #19)Wed Feb 3, 2016, 10:34 PM
Star Member krispos42 (48,952 posts)

20. My point exactly. It doesn't exist because nobody would buy it.

The unlocking mechanism for "smart guns" is inherently unreliable. If that's not "serious" enough for you, then perhaps you could tell me what is.


Response to krispos42 (Reply #20)Thu Feb 4, 2016, 09:12 AM
Star Member flamin lib (10,408 posts)

25. The car doesn't exist because

THE TECHNOLOGY WORKS.

You found one example of a fingerprint reader that's slow and cling to it like a life raft in a storm.

Reliable technology does exist and some 'dumb guns' can even be refitted to it. The military doesn't use it because it doesn't fit the mission. The police don't use it because it because there aren't commercially available models. There aren't commercially available models because the gun manufacturers don't want to change their manufacturing floor which is basically the same as it was in 1840. Shit, they don't even want to include a mechanical safety devices on popular products like Glock and Keltek.

Meanwhile every commercial airliner and every automobile currently made in this country is fly/drive by wire, the same type of technology used in the talisman technology for guns. As a result cars have become safe to the point that they kill fewer people each year than guns.

Thanks to the talking points sent out by the gun industry spokes people in the NRA, NSSF and GOA and repeated word for word here the technology is killed in it's infancy. The one instance of a gun store offering a smart gun was met with death threats and a boycott. DEATH THREATS because the owner offered ONE model as a choice to his customers.

So, when you get to the serious part, let me know.

Response to flamin lib (Reply #25)Thu Feb 4, 2016, 12:14 PM
Star Member krispos42 (48,952 posts)

27. We're not talking about "fly by wire". We're talking about biometric identification.

The fly-by-wire system is very reliable, especially when it's triple or quadruple redundant. But that's not analogous to this situation. After all, the mechanicals of a gun are very reliable too. And I have no doubt that, once a smart gun's system was unlocked it would shoot reliably.

The issue is UNLOCKING the system.

Would you fly in a plane where the yoke wouldn't budge unless it recognized the pilot's biometrics? Where the computer will not respond to ANY control input unless it recognized the biometrics of the pilot or co-pilot? How about a car? Would you drive a car where changing the throttle, applying the brake, or turning the steering wheel was dependent on the car's computer recognizing the biometrics of the driver as the car was being driven?


So we're back to square one. Biometrics are being used on gun-storage devices such as gun safes. That's all well and good. But those are obviously much larger than a handgun and have much more room for electronics and batteries.


And the transponder issue still hasn't been addressed by you either. I'd personally rather deal with a transponder than a biometric reader of some sort as I see it as more trustworthy, even if it has other disadvantages.

Response to krispos42 (Reply #27)Thu Feb 4, 2016, 12:54 PM
Star Member flamin lib (10,408 posts)

28. The title of the OP is " Let's seriously discuss smart guns"

The fact that you now want to move the goal posts with techno-bable about biometrics is a red herring. Like I said, when you get serious let me know.

So you say even that isn't reliable enough, huh?

No standards body, like Underwriters Lab, certifies the reliability of civilian guns. California and Massachusetts do require that a firearm, to be sold there, pass a shooting test. But they ask only that it fire 600 rounds with no more than six failures.

Mauch says the de facto industry norm for civilian handguns is around 5,000 rounds with no more than 50 failures. But at H&K and Armatix, he claims, he has hewed to a higher standard: no more than 10 failures in 10,000 firings. “We tested the iP1 with more than a quarter million rounds,” he says. “You can use it in rain, dust, and mud.”

The iP1 takes two AAA batteries, which will power about 5,000 firings, according to Armatix. An indicator light begins flashing when the batteries still have one-third of their life remaining — i.e., more than 1,000 shots. The watch takes a common button battery, and a watch-face icon monitors its depletion. If the battery is allowed to run out, the gun will not operate.

http://fortune.com/2015/04/22/smart-guns-theyre-ready-are-we/

Yeah, it's only a .22 and it's $1,700. My first calculator was more than $100 and now they give away a better one with AARP dues. There's a 9mm in the works for the police market and with reliability 50 times the "industry standard" it shouldn't meet much resistance on that issue.

This guy Mauch is just another gun grabbing prohibitionist, right? No, he was the chief designer at H&K for 30 years and is credited with designing the most reliable assault weapon ever made.

Oh my! If the batteries run down it won't fire! Well my new $28,000 truck won't start if the battery runs down either but I've been driving for 52 years and the number of times that has happened can be counted on the fingers of one hand. If that concerns you use Lithium Ion batteries with a 10 year shelf life or just change them out when you change the smoke detector batteries.

The technology is here, it is reliable and getting more reliable and smaller every year. I just purchased a Windows 10 computer that measures 1.24 inches by 3 inches by .25 inches with 128 gigs storage upgrade-able to another 128 gig for $250. The price and size of biometrics will come down and even the Ludites among us will adopt.

Welcome to the 21st century. Stop living in the 17th.

Response to krispos42 (Reply #27)Thu Feb 4, 2016, 02:15 PM
Star Member flamin lib (10,408 posts)

31. Here's another that is tested, proven and being looked at by police.

http://www.iguntechnology.com/

[krispos42]

25. You think you did. You didn't.

You decided that discussing the mechanism to quickly and reliably unlock the gun was "techno-babble" and then accused me of moving the goalposts.

So, since you're not willing to discuss the issue, it was dropped

[AndyS]

26. Yes, I pretty much did.

You kept clinging to biometrics when the technology that works is RFI. Your continued deflection away from the topic of 'smart guns' to iPhone biometrics was nothing more than a red herring.

My last entry was documented proof of reliability to a level 10x the industry standard. The Armatix iP1 works. Period. You had no response to the likes of Herr Mauch, the chief designer at H&K for 30 years, who designed and tested the iP1 or to the Mossberg company that developed a shotgun to similar standards.

There was no suitable response to that last entry that supported your premise that smart guns don't work so the issue was dropped.

[krispos42]

28. Oh, I missed your devestating "own"

It was written in white ink in on Casper the friendly ghost in a blizzard, that's why I didn't see it.



I pointed out the issues with RFID, namely that the fob/ring/bracelet can be stolen along with the gun. I also pointed out that your gun can still be used against you if the perp is close enough. Biometrics is more secure in that there is no RDID device that can be stolen and a grabbed gun can't be used against you, but rapid, reliable, and accurate detection of biometric information is problematic.



Whatever.

It's not a bad idea. I'm not against the technology emerging into the marketplace but at this point I am against it being mandated. Once the cops start using it, you'll see it trickling into the marketplace.

What's probably going to happen is one of the big gun makers will buy up some smart-gun startup company for their technology and then develop and market a smart gun for police use. One ongoing point of concern that cops have is their guns being taken from them and used against them. I understand that the police spend a decent amount of time on weapon retention in hand-to-hand combat, and that they use holsters that lock their handguns in unless drawn in a specific way to help prevent an attacker from yanking the gun out during a struggle.

So, you make a pistol that has the ergonomics, simplicity, reliability, and accuracy of a Glock, but with biometric or RFID smart technology, and get a major police department to buy it. I'm not a Glock fanboy but I think they have the largest share of the police market as well as a substantial civilian following. Other guns are equally as ergonomic, simple, reliable, and accurate, but Glock has a lot of inertia behind it.

Yeah, it will cost more but the police can make the argument it that it will pay for itself by avoiding the legal, financial, and medical costs of having their officers safer.

A big gun company will have the resources to fill large orders, provide long-term support, and also supply civilian demand. Heck, a big company can even sell the guns at or below cost for the purposes of getting a foothold in the market.

A big gun company can also sponsor a professional shooting team. If this RFID/biometric gun can compete sucessfully against "dumb guns" in IDPA competitions, for example, that's proof of viability.

But if the smart gun can't compete, if the technology causes delays or failures that prevent the shooting team from winning, then this is an opportunity for the gun maker to work with the shooting team to resolve problems. The stakes are high in competition but lives are not on the line.

Many of the gun makers have professional shooting teams, and lessons learned in competition flow down to regular production guns. Get the smart guns working in competition, and they will make waves and drive interest from many directions.

Get Armatix into the IDPA or other, similar pistol-shooting competitions if they want to get market share.

[AndyS]

29. It's okay if you missed my points, it's a gun related affliction.

There's a awful lot of willful blindness when it comes the World's Great Religions the greatest of which in America seems to be GUNZ!

That aside I enjoy these exchanges. Don't agree, won't change your mind but at least you put thought into them unlike some others who simply vomit talking points and introduce so may red herrings that they can't all be addressed--a popular tactic on the far right.

I pointed out the issues with RFID, namely that the fob/ring/bracelet can be stolen along with the gun. I also pointed out that your gun can still be used against you if the perp is close enough. Biometrics is more secure in that there is no RDID device that can be stolen and a grabbed gun can't be used against you, but rapid, reliable, and accurate detection of biometric information is problematic.

So, let me get this straight: you object to RF technology because a 'bad guy' would have to steal TWO devices to use the gun against you. Really? WTF kind of reasoning is that? Oh well at least we're past the 'it doesn't work' bullshit argument.

It's not a bad idea. I'm not against the technology emerging into the marketplace but at this point I am against it being mandated. Once the cops start using it, you'll see it trickling into the marketplace.

There is sooooo much wrong with that approach. How many safety features on any product are adopted voluntarily? Uh, none. If all of the innovations that make cars so much safer then they were is '60s were strictly voluntary how many would car makers build into their production? NONE. Everything that makes our lives safer is the result of government FORCING business to adopt them. Child proof caps on medication? Air bags? Driver's education? Not a single one and we have hindsight to rely on. If you're concerned about reliability keep in mind that the same agencies that mandate adoption also mandate reliability standards. That whole 'mandate' fear is just a red herring.

But since you brought up the reliability thing let's talk about that, shall we? There are no standards for firearm reliability. None, nada, zip, zilch and any other name you can give to less than none. However the accepted 'goal' or 'aspiration' is to fire 5000 rounds with no more than 20 misfires (aka failure). The Armitix iP1 was tested to 10,000 rounds with less than 10 failures. (This 'standard' is from comments made by the chief design engineer for H&K for over 30 years.)

Given that background would you fly in a commercial airliner if every 250 landings the wheels didn't come down? Or if it were an Armitix plane one of every 1000 landings? Yet you're perfectly ok with something that you believe you need to protect your life that operates at that reliability level? What the hell's wrong with you?

When there's a problem with a mandated safety feature a recall of the product is issued and the manufacturer will repair/replace the product. Like what happened with airbags recently. Except for GUNZ! No agency can force the recall of a defective firearm. Guns are exempt from oversight. The Remington model 700 is the poster child for that very special status of GUNZ. It had a safety defect that caused it to discharge when engaging or disengaging the 'safety' (safety? Hell, guns ain't safe!) mechanism. Killed a half dozen people. A production line fix would have cost .17 cents.

If that's not insulting enough only a gun manufacturer can define a defect. If a gun discharges 'accidentally' because the trigger creep is short and pull is light, just call it a design feature!

Finally to address all the hoops and exercises you think a smart gun has to go through to maybe sorta possibly have a chance to be accepted I call bullshit. That's not the issue. The issue is the gun industry that doesn't want to change from the 1840s technology. The NRA (soon to be RIP), NSSF, GOA and individual manufactures have created an atmosphere of fear among gunners such that no new technology will ever go into production. In 2014 Andy Raymond put the Armitix iP1 in his gun store because he thought there might be a market for it. He got so many DEATH THREATS that he sent the inventory back. Death threats? Yeah, that's the way gunners react to anything they don't like. The NRA and many gun owners say it’s a government Trojan horse intended to open the door for laws that will mandate “smart” technology in new guns in order to identify gun owners – a notion that’s widely seen by gun owners as a threat to Second Amendment rights.

So if you sometimes think there's a culture war against gun owners remember DEATH THREATS every time gunners get upset. I personally think that's a culture worth going to war against.

[krispos42]

30. Hmmm... making it personal now. I must be hitting a nerve.

So, let me get this straight: you object to RF technology because a 'bad guy' would have to steal TWO devices to use the gun against you. Really? WTF kind of reasoning is that? Oh well at least we're past the 'it doesn't work' bullshit argument.

I didn't object, I pointed out that, UNLIKE biometrics an RFID device can be taken along with the gun. For example, I break into a house while the owners are away, and in nightstand drawer there's the gun and the ring/fob/bracelet. Now I have both and can use the gun. The point is, the gun is tied to the RFID chip, not my distinct person.

RFID is pretty reliable; in fact many gun saves use them in lieu of a combination or keyed mechanical lock.

If all of the innovations that make cars so much safer then they were is '60s were strictly voluntary how many would car makers build into their production? NONE. Everything that makes our lives safer is the result of government FORCING business to adopt them. Child proof caps on medication? Air bags? Driver's education? Not a single one and we have hindsight to rely on. If you're concerned about reliability keep in mind that the same agencies that mandate adoption also mandate reliability standards. That whole 'mandate' fear is just a red herring.

Most of the technologies you mention were already in existence, they simply were not standard. Nobody had to "invent" seatbelt technology, foil-sealing technology, or plastic-molding technology. Even airbags were not initially mandated; the Federal reg simply said that cars had to have an automatic restraint system after a certain date. Most car makers satisfied that requirement with the "mad mouse" automated shoulder seatbelt. The technology to make airbags work properly took a few years to develop and incorporate into cars.

And in fact, about 30 years ago safety became a big factor in a lot of products and manufacturers routinely exceed federal standards and even add new safety features to cars of their own initiative.

When there's a problem with a mandated safety feature a recall of the product is issued and the manufacturer will repair/replace the product. Like what happened with airbags recently. Except for GUNZ! No agency can force the recall of a defective firearm. Guns are exempt from oversight. The Remington model 700 is the poster child for that very special status of GUNZ. It had a safety defect that caused it to discharge when engaging or disengaging the 'safety' (safety? Hell, guns ain't safe!) mechanism. Killed a half dozen people. A production line fix would have cost .17 cents

Except that several states have safety standards for guns. Also, gun makers routinely if rarely recall firearms because of design or manufacturing errors, and of course are liable in civil court. In fact, if you scroll down the Gungeon page (it might be on page 2 now) there's a post from me noting safety recall for a S&W handgun.


Damn, lunch break is over. Well, I'll pick this up tonight probably.

[AndyS]

31. I'll wait for your complete response.

I wasn't aware that I was making this personal unless my compliment on your having more that 2 functioning brain cells constitutes being personal

[krispos42]

32. Continued!

But since you brought up the reliability thing let's talk about that, shall we? There are no standards for firearm reliability. None, nada, zip, zilch and any other name you can give to less than none. However the accepted 'goal' or 'aspiration' is to fire 5000 rounds with no more than 20 misfires (aka failure). The Armitix iP1 was tested to 10,000 rounds with less than 10 failures. (This 'standard' is from comments made by the chief design engineer for H&K for over 30 years.)

Given that background would you fly in a commercial airliner if every 250 landings the wheels didn't come down? Or if it were an Armitix plane one of every 1000 landings? Yet you're perfectly ok with something that you believe you need to protect your life that operates at that reliability level? What the hell's wrong with you?

Reliability is of course subjective. I have a .22 revolver that is reliable, but after about a hundred rounds there is enough soot around the cylinder that it starts to affect the force required to fire the gun. There's no way I can fire 5,000 rounds without cleaning the gun, even though if there's a failure to fire it will be because of ammunition flaws, not gun flaws. So when they say they fired 10,000 round through it with less than ten failures, I'm going to guess that it was over the course of several days, with at least a quick cleaning at regular intervals. Nothing wrong with that; gunpowder soot will build up and make the mechanicals sticky. I'm sure that when H&K or Walther do their reliability tests, they just don't shoot the gun until something breaks or the barrel melts. It's almost certainly broken up into sessions, with the testers keeping track of the running totals.

It's a complicated issue. The Armitix pistol is a .22, which has a very mild recoil. Pistols that are useful for self-defense generally are at least three times as powerful as a .22, and can go as much as six times as powerful. Obviously this generates far more velocities and thus energies on the mechanical parts, as well as burning more gunpowder. This increases the chances of mechanical failure (broken spring, broken extractor, etc.) as well as residue-induced jams. And springs in handguns do have to be replaced periodically because they do weaken through use.

But many, perhaps most failures, in a semiauto pistol are from magazine issues. A magazine with a weak spring can easily cause jams, as can a magazine with feed lips bent out of position. Other have to do with poor extraction. Neither are due to the firing mechanism working or not. So the firing mechanism itself may be very good but crappy magazines or a weak/worn extractor can make the gun as a whole unreliable.

And real world reliability is different. Cops carry (based on observation) 3 magazines for their handguns: one in the gun and two on the belt. At most, that's about 52 rounds before they're empty (17 rounds per magazine, plus one in the chamber). So to the cop, their priority is that the gun can shoot those 52 rounds with zero failures because, god forbid, they get caught up in something terrible. They probably won't care that much if, after 300 rounds, their pistol starts having the occasional hiccup and needs a quick cleaning or oiling.

He got so many DEATH THREATS that he sent the inventory back. Death threats? Yeah, that's the way gunners react to anything they don't like. The NRA and many gun owners say it’s a government Trojan horse intended to open the door for laws that will mandate “smart” technology in new guns in order to identify gun owners – a notion that’s widely seen by gun owners as a threat to Second Amendment rights.

So if you sometimes think there's a culture war against gun owners remember DEATH THREATS every time gunners get upset. I personally think that's a culture worth going to war against.

Well I certainly don't endorse death threats. But here's the thing... your "culture war" is doing the opposite of what you want. Your side's signature legislation is pandering pablum that won't stop AR-15 or AK-47 sales, but does increase gun sales while reinforcing that, yes, Democrats are coming for your guns.








I mean, your side is REALLY GOOD at getting new firearms made and sold! Handgun and rifle sales under Obama DOUBLED! That's impressive, but probably the opposite of what you wanted to accomplish. It's almost like blaming all gun owners for the actions of a few is counter-productive or something.

Anyway, I checked out the Armatix website. They haven't expanded their pistol line, and there hasn't been any news there for about 5 years. Nice website, though. I'll stand by my statement I made upthread. If they want to prove their guns in the real world, they have to get publicity, and the best way to do that that I can think of it with competitive shooting.

Make a 9mm version, put together a squad of about 3-4 guys, and have them start shooting competitively. Take lots of pictures and videos, post them on YouTube and other social media sites. Wear flashy team apparel. Show that in the real world they can shoot just as fast and accurately as with regular guns, and that the "smart" part doesn't interfere with with shooting at all.

Oh, and this 9mm needs to be drastically upgraded to be competitive with dumb guns. The sights need to be replaceable, there needs to be an accessory rail option, and there needs to be a way to mount a pistol-sized red-dot scope. At a minimum. All the big boys are doing it.

I did a quick Google search of Armatix videos, thinking I could see the pistol in action, and noticed that there are reports of the smart system being bypassed with strategically-placed magnets.

[AndyS]

34. Yeah, right, all the car safety stuff was available just waiting to be voluntarily adopted . . .

Nice try but both seat belts and airbags are both federally mandated and neither one became 'standard' until federally mandated.

Title 49 of the United States Code, Chapter 301, Motor Safety Standard, which took effect on January 1, 1968, that required all vehicles (except buses) to be fitted with seat belts in all designated seating positions

On September 1, 1998, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 finally goes into effect. The law required that all cars and light trucks sold in the United States have air bags on both sides of the front seat.

You said you didn't object to RF smart guns when actually you did in this excerpt from the 2016 post.

“The unlocking mechanism for "smart guns" is inherently unreliable. If that's not "serious" enough for you, then perhaps you could tell me what is. “

This is where the goal posts got moved. The original stance was that ALL smart guns are unreliable. Now it's shifted to Biometric smart guns are unreliable. RF guns are reliable but still not good because a 'bad guy' could steal both gun and activator which is somehow worse than stealing just a dumb gun??

You tell me that 'several states' have reliability standards for guns. I hate to ask this 'cause it is so close to the 'link please' crap we both run into in these exchanges. It's usually nothing more than a diversion and a veiled slight at the integrity of the poster. However I am genuinely interested in this and would like to see what states have done to impose any standard on guns. Wikipedia lists regulations by state but not a single one applies to the gun itself. So, if you could help me out with at least one state setting standards for reliability or safety I'd appreciate it. I'm not being snide, I'm genuinely interested in all aspects of this topic.

As to reliability. I appreciate your dissertation on the topic but have to disagree. Reliability is NOT subjective. CAFE standards are not subjective. Feces content of ground beef is not subjective. NONE of the things we measure are subjective. It's NOT complicated, we measure and test reliability of all sorts of things every day. 'Real world' reliability is NOT different, otherwise why bother to test at all if it doesn't apply outside the lab? That whole 'semi autos are reliable except for the magazines' thing! That's like saying the electric car is reliable except that every 250th battery explodes and burns the whole thing down.

So I ask again, if every 250th time you touched an electric appliance you were shocked would you find that acceptable? Particularly when you apparently believe that this thing is vital to your survival? Is failing every 250 times you need it acceptable?

I saw the Armitix magnet video too. Guy holding the gun in his right hand, left hand crossed over to the right side of the gun holding the magnet near it. Yeah, that's a scary thought! You'll encounter someone strong enough to take the gun away from you and he has the right size magnet and knows where to place it while in a fight or flight conflict!!!! You stay up late at night over that scenario? This is somehow worse than having your dumb gun taken and pointed at you without a magnet held awkwardly near it?

And lastly: “I mean, your side is REALLY GOOD at getting new firearms made and sold!” It's not 'my side' (I had thought we were both on the side of reducing violent death but maybe not?) that sells guns. It is the gun industry that stokes fear and angst in, I guess, 'your side'? Fear sells guns. Fear of other people with guns, fear of 'the other', fear that the boogy man will take them away, fear the Government will be tyrannical, fear of change and fear of Democrats. FEAR that for some reason people who want guns are particularly susceptible to.

I don't care if having a Democrat in office scares gunners. They're not going to vote D anyway, so fuck 'em. Stop coddling the silly bastards. They're afraid I'll take their guns away? So be it, they will vote that way be it true or not so just YEAH take the damn things away.

The gun industry has left reasonable people no choice.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. Excuse the intrusion

I have a few basic questions and thoughts.
Which problems is the smart technology planned/supposed to address?


on
As I see it the only kind of smart technology we really need is the ability to make weapons that can think for themselves and disable themselves when immoral/evil actions are being attempted. Maybe they be AI enabled with CPUs that can learn and eventually become self-aware.
off

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. Some counter babble

https://iotsecuritywatch.com/en/2018/07/10/iot-threat-analysis-armatix-ip1-when-your-gun-does-whatever-he-wants/
For the vulnerability involving the spreading of relay antennas
– Access vector: network
– Access complexity: medium
– Authentication: none
– Confidentiality: none
– Integrity: none
– Availability: complete

For the vulnerability allowing to carry out a denial of service
on the gun
– Access vector: network
– Access complexity: medium
– Authentication: none
– Confidentiality: none
– Integrity: none
– Availability: complete

For the vulnerability allowing to operate the gun with an
electromagnet
– Access vector: local
– Access complexity: low
– Authentication: none
– Confidentiality: none
– Integrity: none
– Availability: complete