Posts: 7,734
Threads: 686
Joined: Jun 2011
"Blame the industry for not investing enough on R&D for advances such as biometric palm scanners and the like. We have the tech to make my weapons only respond to me, but nobody is making it (cost, schmost).
Time for the government to mandate safer firearms."
These arguments are common from people who have never actually used firearms. Guns jam, ammo misfires, magazines don't always seat right, a lot more than "non gun nut people" think. Adding layers of biometrics etc would only add layers of technological bloatware that would put people who need to use firearms at risk. At least 3 times out of 5, my iPhone doesn't recognize my fingerprints. How would you like to be the cop with that technology up against a criminal with a weapon with no technological hurdles on it's usage? THAT is why the "the industry" doesn't want to employ these measures. Nobody would ever buy their products.
When technology that actually works is available, the gun makers will be the first to adopt and promote it. After all, their profit margins are based on how much money they can get for their guns. There are 300 million guns already in existence in the USA. I don't know a single individual who wants to own the first model that won't shoot the first time their hand is sweaty (BTW, biometric readers don't work on damp subjects). If you're not nervous and sweaty while pointing a gun at somebody, you might be a psychopath.
ETA: dialed it down a bit (?)
Posts: 159
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2016
[quote]Originally posted by terracore
"Blame the industry for not investing enough on R&D for advances such as biometric palm scanners and the like. We have the tech to make my weapons only respond to me, but nobody is making it (cost, schmost).
Time for the government to mandate safer firearms."
These arguments are common from people who have never actually used firearms. Guns jam, ammo misfires, magazines don't always seat right, a lot more than "non gun nut people" think. Adding layers of biometrics etc would only add layers of technological bloatware that would put people who need to use firearms at risk. At least 3 times out of 5, my iPhone doesn't recognize my fingerprints. How would you like to be the cop with that technology up against a criminal with a weapon with no technological hurdles on it's usage? THAT is why the "the industry" doesn't want to employ these measures. Nobody would ever buy their products.
When technology that actually works is available, the gun makers will be the first to adopt and promote it. After all, their profit margins are based on how much money they can get for their guns. There are 300 million guns already in existence in the USA. I don't know a single individual who wants to own the first model that won't shoot the first time their hand is sweaty (BTW, biometric readers don't work on damp subjects). If you're not nervous and sweaty while pointing a gun at somebody, you might be a psychopath.
ETA: dialed it down a bit (?)
Once you make a weapon anything more than hammer to flint with electronics etc. The government and soon AI will have any easy stop to make that weapon worth no more than a stick.
Slow Walker
Posts: 1,074
Threads: 113
Joined: Sep 2008
It looks as if the courts only consider the technical aspects of crime. The antagonist gets a lesser bail amount because he only shot one person. And the person that was forced to defend himself gets double because shot 2 people. No consideration of the extent of the injuries or malice involved it seems. What gives? Are judges not paid to Judge? But to just impose the law. By the book. SMH
One Thing I can always be sure of is that things will never go as expected.
Posts: 145
Threads: 20
Joined: Feb 2017
Here is the thing with gun control, think if it like the North Korea problem. No real solution. They will never get the hundreds of millions of privately owned firearms from the citizens of this country. The numbers just won't let that happen. Kind of like how they will never be able to disarm North Korea. Just like the thousands of artillery guns North Korea has holding South Korea hostage. It's a problem that will never be solved. It just is what it is now. Pass laws like the gun control states, it means nothing. Take California when they passed the assault weapons ban, do you really think anyone just gave up the 1k+ ar15? Nope, they just kept them private. It's a conversation that has been plagued with no solution since 1776.
Posts: 3,202
Threads: 108
Joined: Jun 2010
The solution is better, cheaper, safer non-lethal weapons, with the death penalty for anyone that still uses a deadly weapon to commit a crime.
Posts: 159
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2016
[quote]Originally posted by randomq
The solution is better, cheaper, safer non-lethal weapons, with the death penalty for anyone that still uses a deadly weapon to commit a crime.
Lets see. Some thieves in Puna bust thru your locked front gate with a stolen vehicle. If I see it happening I'm to call the cops,who wont get there in time.
If I try to stop them myself I could be run over. So instead of something to protect myself with like a gun so the deadly vehicle does not run me over,I should shoot pepper spray on the windshield?
Slow Walker
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
How about you not try to stop them yourself, Tex?
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
"grabbed a gun that had fallen on the ground and returned fire"
Is it just me or does this sound exactly like the sort of story a defense lawyer would recommend to his client instead of just pleading guilty?
Hopefully the truth will come out.
Posts: 4,248
Threads: 96
Joined: Mar 2014
How about you not try to stop them yourself, Tex?
--------------
Sure. Invite them in with an offer of milk and cookies.
Posts: 3,202
Threads: 108
Joined: Jun 2010
I'm sure someone will be pono and step up to take ownership of the dropped gun they brought to Pohoiki. /s
Slow Walker, I'm thinking technology will provide something *better* than guns, not just pepper spray. Maybe something like a stun gun that can knock out people or car electronics at a distance. The point would be to make it easier and safer to commit most crimes with nonlethal means. Of course there will still be murders, but they will become even more abhorrent and uncommon.
